TexasCHLforum.com

TAM why would you even consider the m193? I would get the M855 if you can pick between the two.


If I had a rifle that cannot stabilize the heavier round I would be replacing the barrel with a 1:7 but that is just me.

SNIP

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Another question for you guys...........If you had to choose between M193 ball and M855 ball and could only have one, which would you pick? I ask because I'm about to pick up another 1,000 rounds in the next few days.

If you have a 1-in-9 twist rifle, M193 for the reasons I posted above. Higher velocity, better fragmentation. The work it was designed to do. Plus, M193 tends to be a bit cheaper per round.

Annoyed Man, I am an aviod hunter. I shoot a Remington 700 in .270 w/a Federal Premium 130grn billistic tip bullit. I am a good shot and 98% of what I pull the trigger on falls right there. My wife shoots a Remington 700 in 25-06. When she wanted to hunt a bobcat I decided on a Remington mod. 7 in .223. I presonally like the round and it is accurate with a short barrel to a longer barrel. I think the M-15 platform in any brand is an exellent choice and will preform well. The reason I picked the mod 7 for her is it has a shorter barrel and would be easier to handle in a high rack on a PU.

Personally, I find that the advantages of light weight, accuracy, and capacity offset the possibility of reduced firepower...

This.

From my experience, remember I was there when the transition was started, Mr. Average Soldier or Marine doesn't have the skill to make proper use of the long range potential of a 7.62 NATO round.

And this...

MoJo wrote:This is not new news. When the M16 was first issued to combat troops in Vietnam in the early '60s the ammunition was "too lightly powered and would never gain wide spread acceptance." Well folks, it is 2012 almost 50 years since that first deployment. The 5.56 is still a good viable round for 300 meters and in. In trained hands kill shots out to 700 have been made. For ranges beyond 300 meters yes, an M-14 would be a better choice. From my experience, remember I was there when the transition was started, Mr. Average Soldier or Marine doesn't have the skill to make proper use of the long range potential of a 7.62 NATO round. Another thing to consider is the average range of most fire fights - - - they occur at less than 300 meters. There are exceptions, especially in Afghanistan. Remember, the 7.62X39 is a 300 meter round too.

I would have to dispute that as a former Marine.

Marines train and qualify up to 500 yards on a regular basis....office pogues, cooks, clerks and even Grunts. All done with the venerable M-16 and its descendants.

Heartland Patriot wrote:SNIP

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Another question for you guys...........If you had to choose between M193 ball and M855 ball and could only have one, which would you pick? I ask because I'm about to pick up another 1,000 rounds in the next few days.

If you have a 1-in-9 twist rifle, M193 for the reasons I posted above. Higher velocity, better fragmentation. The work it was designed to do. Plus, M193 tends to be a bit cheaper per round.

Both my wife's carbine and mine have 1:9 barrels. I've got about 440 rounds on hand of M855, about another 400 rounds of M193, and then maybe 150-200 rounds of assorted other ammo like 68 and 69 grain match and 55 grain soft points on hand. So far, I can't tell any significant difference in accuracy between the M193 and the M855, and both zero to the same point at 50 yards. The only notable difference seems to be the cost, and that's not a large difference. I don't really need a penetrator round........I don't think. I only bought the M855 because I wanted to try it out. My son and I bought and split 1,000 rounds of it.

JeepGuy79 wrote:TAM why would you even consider the m193? I would get the M855 if you can pick between the two.


If I had a rifle that cannot stabilize the heavier round I would be replacing the barrel with a 1:7 but that is just me.

As to swapping out the barrel for a 1:8 or 1:7, I've thought about it, but the 55 and 62 grain bullets both perform well in 1:9 barrels, so I don't really see the need to do so. Also, that's money that could go toward a 6.5 or 6.8mm upper.....

....or maybe a 300 blackout.

With a 16+ inch barrel I have not seen 1:9 keyhole targets with 62gr bullets myself. I think the shorter barrels are more effected. But I am not an AR expert by any means. If you can spit out the 62gr right now with no accuracy issues I do not see why you would not want to get the m855 (assuming they are the same price)

I had a guy with a Barrett REC7 in 6.8 that had feed issues and I had to buy ammo for it to test it. The only ammo sold locally was Academy and they only carried the remington brand and it was $20 a box of 20 after tax. Funny thing is that that round is called 6.8 remington spc. that the rifle was chambered for and Barrett specifically told me that the remington ammo does not run well in their rifle and they do not recommend it. I was like What the heck? I had to order some ammo from the net. Anyway, point of all that was that I guess I am too used to surplus ammo prices cause it was just too expensive for me.

One day when I decide I can buy expensive AR ammo I would personally like a 300blk with a 9" barrel and a nice AAC 762N6 can mostly covered by a rail forearm with just a few inches of can poking out to give it the mp5sd look kinda. That one is on my bucket list. Its a ways down the list though because I am poor and it is expensive! hah

I have never shot a 6.5

2004 is outdated info. The Marines are now using a 77 grain open tipped round and the Army is keeping their penetrator round with some tweaks. the new Army round has a steel tip, lead middle so it can still mushroom. followed by a solid copper tail. The M855 didn't work because it just went through people, it didn't mushroom.

remington79 wrote:2004 is outdated info. The Marines are now using a 77 grain open tipped round and the Army is keeping their penetrator round with some tweaks. the new Army round has a steel tip, lead middle so it can still mushroom. followed by a solid copper tail. The M855 didn't work because it just went through people, it didn't mushroom.

Have the army started using the m855A1 round in combat yet? I thought it was still in testing? Also I didn't think that the 77gr mk262 was going to be standard issue for grunts? All Marines are using it now?

The Annoyed Man wrote:http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/ ... am_ki.html

I ran across the above link while researching for another post. it is dated (August 2004), but it talks about 5.56 ammo in current use by deployed troops, and it raises questions because so many of us (myself included) have invested considerable time, money, and effort in procuring weapons chambered in this caliber. Personally, I find that the advantages of light weight, accuracy, and capacity offset the possibility of reduced firepower, but I also have two other rifles in .308 if a heavier caliber were called for, so I am comfortable with it.

What do you guys think?


....edited to correct date typo...

Body armor made the current 5.56 rd obsolete, unless you used hardened steel-core rds. We need the rail gun for GI application.

remington79 wrote:2004 is outdated info. The Marines are now using a 77 grain open tipped round and the Army is keeping their penetrator round with some tweaks. the new Army round has a steel tip, lead middle so it can still mushroom. followed by a solid copper tail. The M855 didn't work because it just went through people, it didn't mushroom.

The new Army round has lead in it? I guess they changed it again. Last I heard, they were going to some all-copper, costs 2X as much per, we're-going-to go-"green"-when-we-shoot-bad-guys round...if you have a link to a good site for us to read up on it, that would be excellent. Thanks.

I forget the designation but there was a round like the 855 but was just loaded hotter. People didn't like it because of the higher pressure adn the added wear adn tear.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/files/2012/0 ... -chart.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I'm having a hard time finding the article on the open tipped rounds right now but I did find a picture comparing the 855 and the new round.

Edit: link to new round added. http://www.aschq.army.mil/ac/aais/ioc/L ... 343750.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is an article on the Marines. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... o_021510w/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

edit: noticed one of the links has a lead free round. I can't find the link but I was reading about a bronze tipped round that did have lead on M4carbine.net.

remington79 wrote:Here is an article on the Marines. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... o_021510w/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I saw an article about that SOST ammo yesterday. I'd be interested in trying some. I wonder how long before it hits the consumer market.....

Thank you for posting the links. The M855A1 is a lead-free round, however, the slideshow highlights its specifications as being better than plain old M855. The first time I saw the new round mentioned the only thing the author of the article gushed about was how "green" it was and eco-friendly, as if those are the most important items to winning combat engagements. Glad to see the Army has something more important in mind. I'll have to do more reading on the SOST, I haven't heard much about those.