List of "ill-advised" SD ammo

[_LJ_]

Hello all,

I've read the "Thoughts on service pistol..." thread and the larger posting on TOS that includes rifle calibers. Is there a consolidated listing of ammo that didn't make the cut due to penetration, expansion, etc.? I tried doing a search on the forum and didn't find anything.

[sammage]

If it's not recommended in the following stickies, it didn't make the cut.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=99583

[BuckskinJoe]

As an analogy, most folks are more interested in who went to the Olympics and those who medaled than in a list of all the people who failed at the Olympic trials and why they failed.

[S. Galbraith]

Hello all,

I've read the "Thoughts on service pistol..." thread and the larger posting on TOS that includes rifle calibers. Is there a consolidated listing of ammo that didn't make the cut due to penetration, expansion, etc.? I tried doing a search on the forum and didn't find anything.

No FMJ.

[moonshot]

If it's not recommended in the following stickies, it didn't make the cut.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=99583

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was possible for a round to not make the "list" simply because it hasen't been tested yet.

With that said, DocGKR and others have provided a wealth of information on ammo selection. Stick with what's on the list and you should be fine.

[kh86]

As an analogy, most folks are more interested in who went to the Olympics and those who medaled than in a list of all the people who failed at the Olympic trials and why they failed.

True, but threre are some of us that would still like to know.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was possible for a round to not make the "list" simply because it hasen't been tested yet.

You are correct.

[BuckskinJoe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckskinJoe
As an analogy, most folks are more interested in who went to the Olympics and those who medaled than in a list of all the people who failed at the Olympic trials and why they failed.

True, but threre are some of us that would still like to know.

Can you articulate a reason for wanting that information and why someone with the data should take the time and expense to compile such a list?

[kh86]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckskinJoe
As an analogy, most folks are more interested in who went to the Olympics and those who medaled than in a list of all the people who failed at the Olympic trials and why they failed.



Can you articulate a reason for wanting that information and why someone with the data should take the time and expense to compile such a list?

To give people knowledgeable info. (quality and reliablity) to cut through manufactures/dealers hype and ultimately drive the industry forward.

[bzdog]

IIRC, Dr. Roberts states that he only tests candidate ammunition. As a result, you can break the results down into three categories: tested and found GTG, tested and found lacking, untested.

If you search the forum, you can figure out at least a partial list of those found lacking and untested as he often responds to queries about specific rounds.

That said, picking between an unproven round and one that is found lacking seems to be a toss up and I'm not sure it is worth the effort.

-john

[BuckskinJoe]

Can you articulate a reason for wanting that information and why someone with the data should take the time and expense to compile such a list?

To give people knowledgeable info. (quality and reliablity) to cut through manufactures/dealers hype and ultimately drive the industry forward.

That "knowledgeable information" is already posted by Doc Roberts, right here on this forum.

A list of losers and why they are losers adds no value.