Ammo Ban Update

View Latest Activity

  • This topic has 24 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 11 months ago by dnb. This post has been viewed 125 times
Viewing 24 reply threads
  • Author
    • #108532

        Posting from the Texas ranges. Will be adding XM 193 to the list of banned ammo for class. Just bring 55 grain standard ball. We just pitted the crap out of 4 ground and pound targets.

        XM193 is a bi-metal bullet that has heavy carbons in it that is going to put some pits in the steel.

        I will update class packets. Also, if you are at the patrol class next week, I will be emailing you. No XM193.

        Also, I am going to be posting a coupon code on the alumni forum for CITTAC steel. Students are loving the steel and they are very affordable.

      • #108533

          P.S. XM193 is known by steel armor makers as an issue with steel at close range. I recall discussing this elsewhere. It is the high velocity at close range that is the issue.

        • #108534

            Asking from a position of ignorance. Just to be clear are we talking “Federal”? XM193? or brands like Privi that lists it as M193.

          • #108535

              Long day on the ranges. M193 or XM193 are basically the same thing. One is MILSPEC amd the other is ‘off brand’ for a better word.

              Can anyone here spend the time to do research on standard brands of 55 grain 5.56/223 ammo that is not XM/M193.

              The 193 is notorious for being dangerous to steel at close ranges.

            • #108536

                Gotcha thanks. That makes it more clear.

              • #108537
                • #108538

                    PMC .223 55 GR ammo is what you want. It has slower velocities than the milspec M193.

                    Most of the commercial .223 is slower. Commercial 5.56 is supposed to be hotter like the M193 but a lot of times it is just .223 ammo marketed as 5.56. Here is a link to ammo I use for training which is what Max, I think, wants us to use.


                    HEAT 1(CTT) X 3
                    HEAT 2 (CP) X1
                    FOF X3
                    OPFOR X2
                    CLC X2

                  • #108539

                      Velocity is the critical factor in preventing damage to steel targets.

                      I totally agree with hellokitty re: PMC .223 Bronze being much slower than M193 and most commercial .223.

                      Buffman has many well-done velocity tests on Youtube, one of which shows PMC 223A Bronze at 2,775 fps through a 16″ barrel.

                      I believe M193 velocity spec is roughly 3100 fps from a 16″. In Buffman’s video tests, M193 clones typically chrono around 3100 fps or slightly faster. PMC XP193 (5.56) is again slower than its peers, at less than 3,000 fps.

                      PMC 223A Bronze will have more drop than faster .223 or 5.56 of course at a given distance, but it shoots noticeably softer. I believe it is fine training ammo, easier on targets and weapons.

                      I have had zero failures in 5,000-6,000 rounds of PMC 223A. It has been a good value for training ammo.

                      Geco 55 gr .223, which I have found to be accurate and fine shooting, chrono’d at 2850 fps.

                      Wolf Gold 55 gr .223 chrono’d 2989 fps.

                      I think any of these 3 would be good options that would cause less, if any, pitting to steel at closer ranges.

                    • #108540
                      First Sergeant

                        I just sent Max an e-mail referencing what norman said above.

                        M193 is closer to 3200fps, same for standard .223.

                        You are going to have to test the PMC stuff.

                        Signal Out, Can You Identify
                        Je ne regrette rien
                        In Orbe Terrum Non Visi

                      • #108541

                          I need more info on what exactly it is that makes the M/XM 193 so much more damaging to steel. Because it is. This is known to steel targets and armor guys. I remember Chad from Infidel commenting last year in Texas about this.

                          This was no surprise to us today. We knew it was going to happen, and rather than have me pull the steel the 4 M193 guys agreed to simply buy more after we had ruined it! The pitting is visibility worse than anything that was done on the last class with standard 5.56 / .223.

                          I know 193 is faster than 855. But not really faster than other 55 grain? So perhaps it is a function of both velocity and bullet construction? i understand it is a bi-metal bullet. Anyone got more real info on this?

                          i need to know the whole truth, and also some good training ammo to recommend.

                        • #108543


                            Bottom Line Up Front. Rationale Follows.

                            If I had people shooting my steel, at close range, my recommendation for commonly available ammo, in order of preference, would be:
                            1. PMC 55gr 223A Bronze – 2,775 fps. Quite slow.
                            2. Geco Target 55gr .223 – 2,850 fps
                            3. Wolf Gold 55gr .223 – 2,990 fps

                            Those velocities (from a 16″ barrel at 10 feet) were one set of tests at 850′ elevation and 44-48F. Changes in temperature, elevation, humidity, and pressure would alter these values slightly.

                            I am not an ammo expert, but I have studied up on this stuff quite a bit, and shot a fair amount of steel with various varieties of .223 and 5.56.

                            This link describes M193 specs, with velocity spec from a 20″ barrel of 3165 fps at 78 feet from muzzle, or 3270 fps muzzle velocity. This would be about 3200 fps muzzle velocity from a 16″ barrel, as First Sergeant suggested. No mention of bullet construction in the official specs.

                            “Molon”, a well-respected ammo author describes M193 bullet construction at the top of this link, He decribes a thinner jacket requirement in M193, to increase fragmentation, and thus, wounding potential. He also mentions, but without specific details, requirements for the copper jacket alloys and lead slugs. Perhaps the M193 jacket and/or slug are higher density.

                            In my searching, I have not found documentation of any penetrating or other specific characteristic of the M193 bullet, other than velocity, that would cause unexpected damage to steel targets. A “bi-metal” bullet would likely be magnetic due to an element of steel in the jacket, or a steel penetrator inside the lead core (as is the case with 62 gr M855 “Green Tip”). M193 is typically non-magnetic.

                            I propose that the unexpected target damage you are observing from M193 is largely a direct consequence of impact velocity, which is directly related to target range. I believe bullet construction would have a distant secondary, if any, effect on target damage.

                          • #108544

                              M193 doesn’t have a bi metal jacket. The Ex combloc’s use bi metal jacket wolf,Tula etc.

                              In my experience with my AR500 targets is that the bi metal jacket is harder on the steel then M193 even though there is less velocity. I don’t shoot my steel any closer then 50 yards any closer then that and it pits the target pretty bad. Anything closer and you should look at AR550 steel and a good degree of deflection.

                              I’ve shot my steel targets 1000’s of times and 50 yards and out they will last years.

                            • #108545

                                I get some pitting on our AR500 steel targets and they have gotten very little .223 shot at them over the years.

                                I do remember someone shooting what was sold as a “pistol only” plate with a .223 and it pitted like crazy. The rifle hardness steel definitely hold up better. IDK what the hell the difference is other than perhaps thickness?

                              • #108546

                                  We are drifting off point. The point is that due to velocity/composition/ both the 193 round is known to be harder on steel plate. At close range it is more of a threat than 855.

                                  We know the deal with shooting steel close. We have made a deliberate decision to do so, shooting the ground and poind targets up to 20 yards with a 30 degree deflection. No damage from normal 556. Pitting from 193, as expected. Luckily, we only have ARs in the class, which is how I like it.

                                  So I don’t want opinion on steel. I want facts on 193 so I can explain it to people better. Todd at CITTAC thinks is is bullet composition, considering it a hardened round with more carbons in it. I am guessing ot is a combination of velocity and bullet composition. The velocity does not appear to be that much greater than other non-193 556/223 at these rnages, so there must be another factor.

                                  Facts kids, facts.

                                  Thank you.

                                • #108547

                                    I’m about to restrict classes to 5.56/.223 rifles only. At least mobile classes. It would make me happy. I just want to make that leap.


                                    Anything else and you support terrorism.


                                  • #108548
                                    Brian from Georgia

                                      Why the heck can’t I copy-paste or link?

                                      MIL-C-9963F specifies the M193 cartridge. That spec lists drawing D10523632 which will define the bullet. I can’t get the drawing. You would probably have to get Army drawing access and then it could be restricted.

                                      Research shows that the M193 bullet is just copper jacketed lead and not hardened. I’m not sure what Todd means by “more carbons”.

                                      It’s a velocity thing, and velocities remain high at close distances. CITTAC’s website mentions potential damage inside 100 yards from rifle rounds. They mention starting at 200 yards out to evaluate damage for any centerfire over 2900 ft/sec MV. Most of your regular ol’ .223 will approach or exceed 2900 ft/sec.

                                      Many of your .223 loads can actually approach M193 velocities (3270 ft/sec MV). Molon found that Wolf Gold .223 hits 3213 ft/sec. Federal American Eagle .223 is only 100 fps slower.

                                      Norman and hellokitty are right: PMC Bronze is slower and comes in around 2800 ft/sec. Even that may damage your targets at close range. Like First Sergeant says, you will need to test.

                                    • #108549

                                        Thanks for the info, but re: steel at closer ranges: no shit. We know that. We are using the CITTAC steel at 30 degrees and we know the deal. How many times do I reiterate?

                                        I want scientific info on why 193 damages more than other 5.56, and good trainibg ammo to recommend. The PMC may be it.

                                        Because 193 does do more damage. We knew that before we started, and we know more now.

                                      • #108550

                                          I am probably going to adjust the website / class packets to recommend PMC .223 Remington Ammunition 1000 Rounds, FMJBT, 55 Grain as training ammo for classes. $335 per 1000 on Cheaperthandirt with a quick search. 2900 fps from a 16″ barrel – for the training we do that is fine.

                                          That will take care of those with 5.56 rifles. It is clear that we run AR-centric classes. People bring random shit for some reason, loke the Tavor. .308 is discouraged for these classes, not least for cost.

                                          We still do not have data on the AK. Personally I wish people would just give it up already. Robert will be upset. We already ban bi metal rounds and all that. We need data on how ball AK ammo will do against steel at close ranges.

                                          This is of course primarily for mobile classes where we use a lot of steel. At the VTC we use the pop-ups in target pits. Still, cheaper PMC Bronze ammo is a good way to go.

                                        • #108551
                                          The Librarian

                                            I’m wondering if the issue is the lack of expansion of M855. The lead core in XM193 expands upon impact, thus increasing the diameter of the projectile and transferring more energy from the projectile to the target. The more energy that is transferred, the larger the wound in the target.

                                            I will try and locate the technical data.

                                          • #108552


                                              Below is a link that covers pitting of AR500 steel targets. They state that pitting of the ar500 steel is mostly caused by higher velocities. This seems to be why the m/xm193 are pitting the steel. The muzzle velocities of these rounds are 3200 fps and above. It states that anything above 3000 seemed to pit the ar500’s more than the lower velocities. I hope this helps.


                                            • #108553
                                              The Prof

                                                PMC Bronze .223 55 grain is only $309.50 plus shipping, here–about $25 less than Cheaper Than Dirt (and I don’t think SGAmmo gouged in the ammo panic like CTD did).


                                              • #108554

                                                  Here’s a pic from today’s range session after about 60rnds of freedom munitions 223 reman. I was too close.

                                                • #108555

                                                    I’m about to restrict classes to 5.56/.223 rifles only. At least mobile classes. It would make me happy. I just want to make that leap.


                                                    Anything else and you support terrorism.


                                                    Has this decision been made, or are we good at least for the upcoming Idaho mobile classes?

                                                    I am asking because I only own a .308 Sig 716 and 7.62×39 AKs, and no budget at the moment for a new AR.

                                                  • #108556
                                                    Yankee Terrier

                                                      There are many choices of .223 that keep the velocities below the steel “destructive range” those .223 rounds are priced resonably. Max is right, I am president of a large range in the pacific northwest and the damage to steel is notable when the velocities are above 3000 fps…buy training ammo accordingly.

                                                    • #108557

                                                        How about hang or tack weld a sacrificial buffer steel target onto the front of the steel target? Idpa ar 500 targets are pretty cheap. Wear out the buffer target, replace as needed. Job done.

                                               steel targets&dpPl=1&dpID=41Ov5WhLKML&ref=plSrch

                                                    Viewing 24 reply threads
                                                    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.