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

[1168]

A 75gr GD 5.56 from Black Hills would be great!

Indeed. Put me down for a K in the group buy.


On M193, as Vicious CB said, most on the market…. Isn’t. At all. I find it silly that people even call commercial products “M193” as if they got it from the ASP on Ft Jaggoff. The commercial market products not only have varying jacket thickness, but some even have visible differences in bullet shape, and the chrono reveals varying velocities, some having spreads that would never meet any standard. Which is why in threads about “my rifle won’t run” or “my rifle won’t shoot straight”, when asked about the ammo, people should say what commercial product they are having trouble with, rather than “M193”, which they almost never have.

Of course, its still a rifle round, so if it runs, sure, whatever.

On Euro ammo not fragging: I’ve been told that some Euro countries use bullets designed specifically to resist fragmentation in their 55 and 62gr cartridges in order to comply with the spirit of Hague. Could well be an urban legend.

[turnburglar]

I have always thought that with rifles wounding and lethality comes from 2 different mechanisms. First being velocity. Many hunters and ER types have noted that no matter what when a projectile gets above a certain velocity, hydrostatic shock occurs and it is a significant wounding mechanism to any organs or tissue that is not directly inside of the bullets wound track. Then there is the wound track itself which is cause by fragmentation, yaw, expansion, or whatever "trick" each bullet design does. Lastly it doesn't matter what 'tricks' an ammo can do if it doesn't get put into the A zone. Period. If we accept that all 223/556 loads make hydrostatic shock it only leaves accuracy, and "tricks" on the table.

Put me on team mk262.

I can mass produce it in my office from (partially) available commercial components.

It bucks the wind better than anything 62gr.

Maintains supersonic velocity further than anything 62gr.

Is no slouch at terminal performance at any distance.

[okie]

I have always thought that with rifles wounding and lethality comes from 2 different mechanisms. First being velocity. Many hunters and ER types have noted that no matter what when a projectile gets above a certain velocity, hydrostatic shock occurs and it is a significant wounding mechanism to any organs or tissue that is not directly inside of the bullets wound track. Then there is the wound track itself which is cause by fragmentation, yaw, expansion, or whatever "trick" each bullet design does. Lastly it doesn't matter what 'tricks' an ammo can do if it doesn't get put into the A zone. Period. If we accept that all 223/556 loads make hydrostatic shock it only leaves accuracy, and "tricks" on the table.

Put me on team mk262.

I can mass produce it in my office from (partially) available commercial components.

It bucks the wind better than anything 62gr.

Maintains supersonic velocity further than anything 62gr.

Is no slouch at terminal performance at any distance.

I've not been able to find any evidence supporting the hydrostatic shock hypothesis. Take .22 WMR or .17 HMR for example. Well in excess of 2k fps. Or 5.7mm, which can reach velocities upwards of 2,500 fps. And despite those velocities, we of course know that there's nothing special about them in terms of bringing people down.

By the same token, there are numerous examples of people being shot by centerfire rifles, where the bullet passed within fractions of an inch of super important neurons, like in the heart, and had zero outward effect on the person's ability to aim and return fire.

Obviously the effect is real, and be observed scientifically, it's just not going to bring somebody down at the energy levels we're able to harness in a man portable gun.

You could also make the argument that anything big enough to incapacitate someone via hydrostatic shock is by definition also big enough to just kill them outright from actual direct tissue damage. Like a 20mm or something like that.

[Disciple]

On M193, as Vicious CB said, most on the market…. Isn’t. At all. I find it silly that people even call commercial products “M193” as if they got it from the ASP on Ft Jaggoff. The commercial market products not only have varying jacket thickness, but some even have visible differences in bullet shape, and the chrono reveals varying velocities, some having spreads that would never meet any standard.

I know it does not have the same QC but isn't the Federal Lake City XM193 reasonably similar in terminal performance? It still uses the same bullet at about the same speed?

[vicious_cb]

I have always thought that with rifles wounding and lethality comes from 2 different mechanisms. First being velocity. Many hunters and ER types have noted that no matter what when a projectile gets above a certain velocity, hydrostatic shock occurs and it is a significant wounding mechanism to any organs or tissue that is not directly inside of the bullets wound track. Then there is the wound track itself which is cause by fragmentation, yaw, expansion, or whatever "trick" each bullet design does. Lastly it doesn't matter what 'tricks' an ammo can do if it doesn't get put into the A zone. Period. If we accept that all 223/556 loads make hydrostatic shock it only leaves accuracy, and "tricks" on the table.

Put me on team mk262.

I can mass produce it in my office from (partially) available commercial components.

It bucks the wind better than anything 62gr.

Maintains supersonic velocity further than anything 62gr.

Is no slouch at terminal performance at any distance.

Velocity as a wounding mechanism is false and has been disproven in tests. An .60 cal lead cylinder at 1500 fps will create more temporary stretch and produce far greater wounds than a steel .177 BB at 4000 fps.

Im still curious why this obsession with Mk262, is it because of all the propaganda from the GWOT like dozen of articles in Guns and Ammo I read in the 2000's about its fabled performance?

62gr? You mean the SS109 bullet? Just because Mk262 performs better than Green Tip(which isnt saying alot) doesnt make it best or optimal choice.

[1168]

I know it does not have the same QC but isn't the Federal Lake City XM193 reasonably similar in terminal performance? It still uses the same bullet at about the same speed?

Its the closest that I have messed with in velocity, consistency of velocity, and general quality. In practical accuracy, its the least shitty M193 clone I’ve shot, but I have no experience with the MEN that everyone raves about, and my sampling is somewhat limited because I don’t much like 55gr.

So, yes, I’d consider it to be a reasonable analogue.

[Ron3]

Maybe if a guy wants to stack cheaper ammo for his SHTF rifle scenario he should consider 7.62 145-150 gr fmj?

[C-grunt]

I've not been able to find any evidence supporting the hydrostatic shock hypothesis. Take .22 WMR or .17 HMR for example. Well in excess of 2k fps. Or 5.7mm, which can reach velocities upwards of 2,500 fps. And despite those velocities, we of course know that there's nothing special about them in terms of bringing people down.

By the same token, there are numerous examples of people being shot by centerfire rifles, where the bullet passed within fractions of an inch of super important neurons, like in the heart, and had zero outward effect on the person's ability to aim and return fire.

Obviously the effect is real, and be observed scientifically, it's just not going to bring somebody down at the energy levels we're able to harness in a man portable gun.

You could also make the argument that anything big enough to incapacitate someone via hydrostatic shock is by definition also big enough to just kill them outright from actual direct tissue damage. Like a 20mm or something like that.

I think he is referring to temporary cavitation as hydrostatic shock. I dont believe he is talking about the theory of pressure waves traveling through the arteries and damaging other organs. Ive heard many people refer to cavitation as hydrostatic shock. Hell, that's what I thought it was called until about 10 or 15 years ago.

[C-grunt]

Maybe if a guy wants to stack cheaper ammo for his SHTF rifle scenario he should consider 7.62 145-150 gr fmj?

You'll definitely have an effective round. Im personally sticking with 5.56 because Im a believer in the advantages of the intermediate cartridges over the battle rifle cartridges.

[Todd.K]

Terms you ball ammo fans should look up:
Fleet yaw and AOA

It’s just not very consistent. Some commercial ball uses a thicker jacket, it’s consistent but consistently bad at fragmenting.

You are much more likely to need a couple mags of the best ammo than a couple cases of inconsistent ammo. That doesn’t meat it’s a bad idea to stack a few cases for emergency, I just prioritize getting a few mags of the better stuff.