“MATCH GRADE”

[Molon]

“MATCH GRADE”


Unlike caliber .30 and caliber 7.62mm ammunition, there has never been a National Match standard for caliber 5.56mm/223 Remington ammunition.

In 1965, the caliber 7.62mm Match ammunition was standardized as M118. The 1965 lot of 7.62mm M118 National Match ammunition had an acceptance testing mean radius of 1.9” for 10-shot groups fired at 600 yards. At that time, this was the smallest acceptance mean radius ever achieved for National Match ammunition since records were kept, starting in the year 1919. Naturally, the ammunition was tested from machine-rested, bolt-actioned, heavy test barrels.

The composite target pictured below shows the twenty-seven, 10-shot acceptance groups (that’s 270 rounds!) of the 1965, M118 National Match ammunition fired from the test barrels at 600 yards. The small circle has a diameter of 6” and the large circle has a diameter of 12”.





From American Rifleman, September 1965





From American Rifleman, August 1962





Everything else being equal, (which of course, it seldom is) a mean radius of 1.9” at 600 yards would have a mathematical equivalent of 0.32” at 100 yards. Now, 100 yards is not 600 yards, but then, a semi-automatic AR-15 is not a machine-rested, bolt-actioned, heavy test barrel either. For those reasons, I like to use the mean radius of 0.32” for three 10-shot groups fired in a row (30-shot composite group) at 100 yards as the benchmark for 5.56mm/223 Remington match-grade ammunition, when fired from a semi-automatic AR-15.

The pic below demonstrates jut how far the AR-15 and its ammunition have come since their introduction. On the left side of the pic is a 30-shot composite group obtained from over-laying three 10-shot groups that were fired in a row off my bench-rest set-up from an AR-15 with a free-floated 20” Colt M16A1 barrel (chrome-lined, 5.56mm chamber, 1:12” twist) using IMI M193 ammunition. The 30-shot composite group has a mean radius of 1.09”.

The 30-shot composite group pictured on the right was obtained from over-laying three 10-shot groups that were fired in a row off my bench-rest set-up from an AR-15 with a free-floated 20” Lothar-Walther barrel (stainless steel, 223 Wylde chamber, 1:8” twist) using factory loaded Barnes Precision Match 5.56mm 85 grain OTM ammunition (magazine length). That 30-shot composite group has a mean radius of 0.22”.








….

[T2C]

Thanks for the data Molon. This is the sort of thing I like to see when I log onto a firearm website. I shot .30 caliber service rifles in the late 1970s through mid 1980s and thought a rifle/ammunition combination that would hold under 2MOA was competitive. In this day and age it is not uncommon to see someone at our gun club shoot 1/2 MOA at 300 yards with a match AR-15 and good ammunition.

Once the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit pushed the AR-15 for competition, progress in ammunition and barrel development was impressive. Your test results support that opinion.

I think .30 caliber ammunition has seen a great deal of improvement, but the M1A/M-14 platform cannot exploit the advantages of the latest advances in match ammunition like the AR-15 can. I am going to catch hell from some people for saying so, but the modern AR-15 will shoot circles around the M-14.

[MistWolf]

Thanks for the data Molon. This is the sort of thing I like to see when I log onto a firearm website. I shot .30 caliber service rifles in the late 1970s through mid 1980s and thought a rifle/ammunition combination that would hold under 2MOA was competitive. In this day and age it is not uncommon to see someone at our gun club shoot 1/2 MOA at 300 yards with a match AR-15 and good ammunition.

Once the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit pushed the AR-15 for competition, progress in ammunition and barrel development was impressive. Your test results support that opinion.

I think .30 caliber ammunition has seen a great deal of improvement, but the M1A/M-14 platform cannot exploit the advantages of the latest advances in match ammunition like the AR-15 can. I am going to catch hell from some people for saying so, but the modern AR-15 will shoot circles around the M-14.

As much as I love the M14, I have to agree that the AR FoW is a better design. A competitor with an AR will spend less time tuning and more time shooting

[ABNAK]

I admit to having an M14 fetish (see avatar) and have since I was a kid. That said, I have a rifle (not carbine) built off of a McKay Enterprises 20", A1 profile, 1:7 twist, chrome lined Colt barrel. These were speculated to be IDF contract overruns. Nonetheless, I have it surrounded by a PRI rifle-length carbon fiber FF tube and a 2 MOA Aimpoint Pro as the optic. With the IMI 77gr Razor loads I have I fully expect it to easily match the M14 out to maybe 600 or 700 meters, the Aimpoint being the Achilles Heel unless I use hold-overs. Given the BC of the 77gr Sierra that the Razor uses and the fact that it's coming from a 20" barrel (for full velocity) I'd also wager that terminal ballistics without cover in the equation should be similar.

[tom12.7]

It's great to see the gains that the system is capable of achieving. Within its limitations, the system itself of the M16 FOW has issues that could be better addressed. I wasn't so much ever over concerned with the base issues than the reluctance of a newer generation with preferable result? The concept that addresses some of these has been ignored. The thought process that has been ignored parts is that they may not fit like Lego parts for the existing system is short sighted to the one that may be the new Lego standard. A general change is long overdue, none of that info is new or not known..
Sure manufacturer sales is about making profit. What about a better product? When will consumers demand it?

[ABNAK]

It's great to see the gains that the system is capable of achieving. Within its limitations, the system itself of the M16 FOW has issues that could be better addressed. I wasn't so much ever over concerned with the base issues than the reluctance of a newer generation with preferable result? The concept that addresses some of these has been ignored. The thought process that has been ignored parts is that they may not fit like Lego parts for the existing system is short sighted to the one that may be the new Lego standard. A general change is long overdue, none of that info is new or not known..
Sure manufacturer sales is about making profit. What about a better product? When will consumers demand it?

Curious.....what is a "better product"? The weapon system itself, and if so how would you change it? Or are you talking about the caliber and it's loadings?

[.46caliber]

Excellent post Molon. I always enjoy the wealth of information in your posts. The added history flavor of this one was particularly enjoyable.

The side by side of the Colt barrel with M193 and Lothar-Walther with match is quite telling.

[tom12.7]

That was caliber specific to 5.56, other loadings may follow similar traits.
How comfortable would you be with a base receiver set that was closer to M110 lengths than the current system?

[ABNAK]

That was caliber specific to 5.56, other loadings may follow similar traits.
How comfortable would you be with a base receiver set that was closer to M110 lengths than the current system?

The 75-77gr loadings appear to be the best all-around load for the 5.56mm. Sure heavier ones exist but are they compatible with mag lengths? I was just commenting that the 20" barrel should wring the most out of the Razor loads I have for optimal performance in that platform.

[tom12.7]

How comfortable could you be with a non standard receiver set? One that did not fit the M16 FOW, but operates similar?