Which would you choose given the parameters.....

[ABNAK]

My choice would probably be M262 because of availability. The other rounds are great too but much harder to find and probably more expensive.

I agree with Yoni and not worrying much about ammo in my defensive rifles. I have a couple magazines loaded up with Federal TRU 223E (55 grain Gameking) because I've used it as a duty round for nearly 15 years. It shoots pretty much identically with Federal 55 grain ball out to at least 200 yards.

If i run through a few mags of that ammo, I'm running 55 grain ball after that. And I have no qualms with that.

Let me start by saying I am not being critical at all. On both this site and Barfcom I see a LOT of people advocating for M193-ish loads for their SHTF "stash". I have never understood this. Again, not knocking you but hasn't nearly 60 years of bullet development yielded something better than the original? Sure, I remember when the original Coke recipe was altered to make "New Coke", and it flopped.....back to the original it went. But as far as bullets and terminal performance is concerned certainly what we have available now is better than 1967.

I have seen this line of thinking quite often, so you're certainly not alone. Just wonder "why"? Cheaper? Yep. More accurate? Questionable. Better terminal ballistics? Nope (wouldn't want to be shot with one mind you!).

[ABNAK]

I agree that for a general purpose CONUS civilian/LE load where longer distance shots are rare and where shooting in and around cars is prevalent, a good bonded SP is ideal. But if given the OP's constraints with the only SP option being FBIT3 which both has pretty bad accuracy and garbage BC since its basically a flat point hog hammer bullet then I don't think it meets the OP's needs for a good distance bullet. There's a reason I chose 75gr Gold Dot as my general purpose load since it alleviates the two main issues I have with FBIT3.

Yes, for an overall "rating" of the ones I have the FBI load would be about near the bottom, for the reasons you mention. It has awesome terminal ballistics but accuracy isn't what it's famous for. Considering that jumping from one round to another depending on range is obviously unwise (unless it's been fully zeroed), I would stick to one round until depleted and then re-zero for the next in line. In fact, the order I have them listed in in the OP is probably how I'd rank them choice-wise (not to mention that #1 and #2 I have the same amount and most of, and #3 and #4 I have less of).

[okie]

Let me start by saying I am not being critical at all. On both this site and Barfcom I see a LOT of people advocating for M193-ish loads for their SHTF "stash". I have never understood this. Again, not knocking you but hasn't nearly 60 years of bullet development yielded something better than the original? Sure, I remember when the original Coke recipe was altered to make "New Coke", and it flopped.....back to the original it went. But as far as bullets and terminal performance is concerned certainly what we have available now is better than 1967.

I have seen this line of thinking quite often, so you're certainly not alone. Just wonder "why"? Cheaper? Yep. More accurate? Questionable. Better terminal ballistics? Nope (wouldn't want to be shot with one mind you!).

Not really. I would no more rather get shot by M193 from an M16A1 than any other flavor of 223 or AR15 out there. Pretty much any of them are going to suck equally hard for the target, and all have more or less the same potential for stopping said target. Shots placed in the A zone are highly likely to succeed, and shots outside the A zone are highly likely to fail.

[ABNAK]

Not really. I would no more rather get shot by M193 from an M16A1 than any other flavor of 223 or AR15 out there. Pretty much any of them are going to suck equally hard for the target, and all have more or less the same potential for stopping said target. Shots placed in the A zone are highly likely to succeed, and shots outside the A zone are highly likely to fail.

I'd rather not even get shot by a .22LR if given my druthers. Yep, shot placement is key no doubt. That said, there are considerably better rounds in 2022 than M193. It isn't a slouch mind you, but I would stop shy of saying it's "up there" performance-wise (i.e. in-flight and terminal ballistics-wise) with the best we have available today.

[okie]

I'd rather not even get shot by a .22LR if given my druthers. Yep, shot placement is key no doubt. That said, there are considerably better rounds in 2022 than M193. It isn't a slouch mind you, but I would stop shy of saying it's "up there" performance-wise (i.e. in-flight and terminal ballistics-wise) with the best we have available today.

There's been very marginal improvements in powder and bullet manufacturing, from a consistency standpoint, but everything is a give and take. For example, M855A1 can punch through steel plates, but it's made from a less dense material. M955 is as dense as lead and can punch through stuff, but it's a buck a round. Mk262 can go further than M193, but M193 has a much flatter trajectory. Nothing has changed, it's all just give and take.

[vicious_cb]

There's been very marginal improvements in powder and bullet manufacturing, from a consistency standpoint, but everything is a give and take. For example, M855A1 can punch through steel plates, but it's made from a less dense material. M955 is as dense as lead and can punch through stuff, but it's a buck a round. Mk262 can go further than M193, but M193 has a much flatter trajectory. Nothing has changed, it's all just give and take.

What? Is this a troll post or something? Modern bullet designs are FAR more capable what came before. The M855A1 projectile design has some complex fluid dynamics aspects that allow it to have the terminal ballistics it has not to mention the more complex construction. Saying modern bullet designs are no different from old designs is an incredibly ignorant statement to make. Do you really understand what modern computing allows us to in the areas of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics or why we can invent ever increasing BC on match bullets? Or why we have bonded SP and copper solids that can expand at extremely low velocities?

[1168]

Since your question was specifically about long range shots, limited ammo is as good as unavailable ammo. You need to practice with the ammo you plan on using at those longer ranges so you instinctually know where your holds are. A1 for example is going to be like a foot higher than something else you might practice with. Like I said before, the small gains in accuracy you'll get from using expensive ammo aren't worth the loss in consistency from training to real world use. Like if you ever had to grab it for real and had the A1 loaded after doing most of your practicing with M855 you would at best be taking too long and having to do too much conscious thinking to compensate. Like you would constantly have to be reminding yourself to use a hold you rarely used, vs. the one you used on a regular basis, and you would constantly be having to remind yourself which stadia to use. Or more likely you would just revert to using the ones you had practiced with and have all your shots go over their head. That's the major downside of any shooting past 200 meters. You have to train with the ammo you would actually use, or at least something so close that it has almost exactly the same trajectory.

You’re not entirely wrong, but its not apples and orange cones. It is possible, although I can’t guarantee it will absolutely work out in 100 of 100 rifles, to zero with something like 855a1 and practice with something else. M855a1 has neither an exceptional velocity nor an exceptional BC. It is more accurate than M855, but not exceptionally so. A handloader can easily duplicate its trajectory nearly to the minute, certainly within expected mean dispersion out to at least 600m. Someone that doesn’t handload can find factory 55-62gr ammo that is close enough to practice with potentially out to 400m. ASSuming the zero is close enough, which is why I say this isn’t guaranteed, and it might work better for dudes that have an identical practice gun. But this is what I do in my personal guns. I usually zero with 68/69 gr 5.56 (because thats what I shoot matches that have distance with), then I have a variety of other rounds follow that zero far enough out to their intended uses.

If one wishes to duplicate M855a1’s trajectory, they can easily do so with CFE223 and Hornady 62gr FMJ without exceeding Hornady’s published data. M855a1’s BC is slightly less than other 62gr projectiles. So if you target an average velocity thats just under (think overlapping velocity extreme spreads) you’ll be extremely close, and go from there to see how it follows your zero. You can google “Hornady 5.56 62 data” and their supplement page is available for free. I think their .223 62gr supplement page is, also.

How far are you guys trying to shoot to?

The load I chose is not barrier blind, nor does it fly and hit the hardest at 700 yds, but it's fragmentation is impressive, though just short of the magical FBI minimum. The load I chose was the Hornady 5.56 NATO 68 gr BTHP Match Frontier (Item #FR310).

A word of caution. I’ve shot quite a bit of that, and I’ve found that when I chrono it, I occasionally have an outlier that is 200fps hotter than the others. They exceed M855 and M855a1 while having 10% more mass. At first I thought it was a fluke, but its happened a few times, so I no longer buy it.

[Straight Shooter]

Im very comfortable with GOOD M193, not steel cased or cheaply XM193. Ive shot MEN M193 for years now, with Lake City also being stocked, and thats it.
Why?
1 Availability
2. Price
3. I know the round out to 500 yards, been shooting it since 1983, which REALISTICALLY is fine for SD/SHTF, ect.
4 Ive seen enough interviews from people like Clint Smith, and others, who have shot others with the round and saw only good after effects. { now come the naysayers "I saw this or that, or..I HEARD..or I saw a skinny take 9 hits and still not go down..blah blah}
AINT A ROUND OUT THERE that is 100% one shot drop, 100% of the time.
5 Im in Tennessee..NOT Somolia, Iraq. Afghanistan, ect. In MY AO good 500 yard + or - hits will suffice.
6 NOBODY Im aware of has body armor, except local LE.
7 Good M193 is NOT a shit round, nowhere near the "best", but Im more than confident itll do for around here should a dust up happen.
Sorry OP...for venturing outside your parameters. Ill never see those rounds much less shoot them enough nor have an adequate supply to ever know enough about them.

[BobinNC]

Y
A word of caution. I’ve shot quite a bit of that, and I’ve found that when I chrono it, I occasionally have an outlier that is 200fps hotter than the others. They exceed M855 and M855a1 while having 10% more mass. At first I thought it was a fluke, but its happened a few times, so I no longer buy it.

Thanks for the word of caution. I've only shot enough of the Hornady FR310 to confirm zero and velocity. I use my reloads mostly, that mimic FR310 and save the Factory ammo. I'll be more diligent now that you've mentioned a problem.

[okie]

What? Is this a troll post or something? Modern bullet designs are FAR more capable what came before. The M855A1 projectile design has some complex fluid dynamics aspects that allow it to have the terminal ballistics it has not to mention the more complex construction. Saying modern bullet designs are no different from old designs is an incredibly ignorant statement to make. Do you really understand what modern computing allows us to in the areas of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics or why we can invent ever increasing BC on match bullets? Or why we have bonded SP and copper solids that can expand at extremely low velocities?

If we're talking about hair splitting trying to win matches, okay maybe that would come into play. I don't know how much fluid analysis has revolutionized that particular niche.

As far as combat accuracy and bullets cheap enough to mass produce for general issue, though, basically nothing has changed. The biggest thing is consistency from bullet to bullet. Every single one is the same weight, the jacket is the same thickness all around, etc. That's where M855A1 shines. They found ways to manufacture a markedly more consistent bullet relatively inexpensively.

But again, that all comes at a price. The materials are less dense, and the bullet is heavier, meaning you need higher pressures to achieve the same trajectory you could get with a comparable match bullet with lead and copper. Also note that M855A1 is nothing to write home about compared to actual match bullets. It's remarkable because it's an improvement over others in its class, namely M855.

Lastly, we're moving the goal post here. My comments were specifically regarding terminal performance.