Question re: accuracy with my BCM and LPVO

[markm]

Not as much nonsense, as nuanced.

Nuancense, if you will. I remember on the other site, the apes used to say X ammo was "floor sweepings".

[pinzgauer]

Not as much nonsense, as nuanced.

Way back Federal actually had a blurb on their website indicating that the XM ammo was made on the same line and was quality ammo but did not meet the specs required of the NATO ammo. And thus could not be labeled as m193. This was primarily variations of FPS which is pretty tight on the M193 type spec.

There are some old threads where I posted that blurb.

So yes this is nuance. Clearly not floor sweepings, but also clearly not exactly the same as m193. Most people's results bear that out.

[ST911]

Way back Federal actually had a blurb on their website indicating that the XM ammo was made on the same line and was quality ammo but did not meet the specs required of the NATO ammo. And thus could not be labeled as m193. This was primarily variations of FPS which is pretty tight on the M193 type spec.

There are some old threads where I posted that blurb.

So yes this is nuance. Clearly not floor sweepings, but also clearly not exactly the same as m193. Most people's results bear that out.

Yes, this. Sometimes it's discernable, sometimes not. May not pass lot, batch, temp, or function testing. Something that won't be noticed unless you're in those conditions. There are examples in other loads/manufacturers that don't meet a given contract spec for one reason or another, but are within a combination of safe, commercial, SAAMI spec to repackage and sell. Point is, if it was first-quality meeting spec, it would leave the factory as such.

[1168]

Spring ‘20, Federal XM193:
11.5” Sig MCX
Av 2802 fps
Es 98
Sd 34.3

Fall ‘21, Winchester XM193:
12.3” Hanson / Turbo K
2828 av
176 es
58.7 sd

Via Labradar. 80-90F for both. Both purchased within a month of testing.

Edit:
I get 15- 25 SD with green tip, brown tip, A1, and Frontier 68gr. I have no real M193 to test.

[mRad]

Yes, this. Sometimes it's discernable, sometimes not. May not pass lot, batch, temp, or function testing. Something that won't be noticed unless you're in those conditions. There are examples in other loads/manufacturers that don't meet a given contract spec for one reason or another, but are within a combination of safe, commercial, SAAMI spec to repackage and sell. Point is, if it was first-quality meeting spec, it would leave the factory as such.

It’s not reject ammo. It was ammo loaded with the intention of commercial sales and is typically lower velocity as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pinzgauer]

It’s not reject ammo. It was ammo loaded with the intention of commercial sales and is typically lower velocity as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't know what to say, Federal themselves posted on their site that XM did not meet NATO variability spec but did meet commercial spec. And as such was sold as *commercial* ammunition.

Commercial ammunition only has a pressure spec, nominal avg velocity, and no variability spec. Note that the XM ammo could have an average velocity the same as NATO, but vary +- 25fps

[mRad]

Don't know what to say, Federal themselves posted on their site that XM did not meet NATO variability spec but did meet commercial spec. And as such was sold as *commercial* ammunition.

Commercial ammunition only has a pressure spec, nominal avg velocity, and no variability spec. Note that the XM ammo could have an average velocity the same as NATO, but vary +- 25fps

Did they say it was reject or failed QC? No, they did not. As I said before, straight from one of the ballistic engineers at Lake City during the Federal years, it is ammo loaded with the INTENTION of being sold commercially. Federal isn’t so bad at making ammo that they unknowingly make lots of hundreds of thousands rounds that are “rejected”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grizzlyblake]

I decided to go ahead and shift away from the XM193 anyway so it doesn't really matter. I'm selling the couple cases I had and will be buying some better loads since I don't do any running plate blasting or anything like that.

I've traditionally had good luck with 62gr Gold Dots and for my pseudo "ranch rifle" use it's a great fit.

I'm going to try to find out if my accuracy expectations can be met with this BCM upper, so I went ahead and ordered a Centurion AST trigger. It's tracking to be here Tuesday, so assuming I can install it Tuesday night I'll hit the range Wednesday as planned.

Molon's tests of 62gr Gold Dot show it as a 1.3MOA cartridge out of his match barrel, so I'll be content if I can get consistent 1" 5-shot groups at 50yds. I also have a few 20rd OKAY mags en route thinking it'll help my bench positioning.

[1168]

. Note that the XM ammo could have an average velocity the same as NATO, but vary +- 25fps

Its more than +\- 25.

[pinzgauer]

Its more than +\- 25.

Read the spec last night, it's plus or minus 45 FPS.

I did find one of the old federal XM pages but they gave the same exact velocity and variance as the spec.

But the M193 spec also has a bunch of other performance specs, the primary one being temperature variability, etc. None of which commercial ammunition would have.

While I agree with people who say federal's not going to produce a bunch of out of spec ammunition, I could certainly see them selling lots that failed mil-spec M193 but was perfectly reasonable commercial ammunition.

For what it's worth the spec had 4" diam (2 radius) at 200 yards. 2 moa. In all the various forum tests over the years with target barrels and such XM193 has never approached that. More like 3 moa.