FYI and yes, I own one. Warning, some foul language.

web page

Interesting article - in my experience he's right and he's wrong. I carried a CAR-15 to work every night for a year, and cleaned it pretty much as described every freakin' night. It always fired and fired well. The M-2 carbine I carried for the year or so before that, which I could disassemble and clean blindfolded (no kidding), was so wimpy I thought the 5.56 was great. The Kalashnikov and Mini-14 theory of loose tolerances and simple construction makes for greater reliability but lesser accuracy. Ya pays your money and ya takes your choice. I would love to have an M-4, just for old times sake, but I'm about to buy another gun for "repelling boarders" and it will be a Ruger Mini-14.

On that mini--just don't pinch the forestock too tight. Our game wardens have jams with them often enough and find its due to a tight grip under stress that rubs and slows the op rod enough to continually jam.
Have never seen my AK jam. Its MOH at 100 yards.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff, that's a great tip. Now you've got me wondering if anybody makes a sturdier handguard for the Mini - I know there's about a million accessories available. Oh, darn I'll have to do some more gun shopping ....

What's MOH?

Phil

I'd be more concerned about hi cap mags. I don't know if Ruger is back in the business of making Mini 14 hi caps, but the only ones that work in mine are Rugers, of which I bought 5 when new in the 80's, or PMI. Every other aftermarket hi cap I tried was junk.

Mike, good point. From what I've read on some other boards Ruger is only selling 20s, and their older 30s are getting hard to find and expensive. Last Mini-14 I owned was maybe 15 years ago and I had only Ruger mags for it. Everybody I talked to back then was saying the same thing as you - couldn't find a decent reliable aftermarket mag at all. Seems weird to me, there ought to be a market for quality, people paying five or six hundred or more for a gun would demand decent functional magazines.

Phil

MOH = my own definition/term Minute of Human The AK isnt' much more accurate than to say it'll keep all rounds in an 18 inch circle at 200 yards offhand. And thats not saying much. Sks are more accurate.

Jeff

Phil, FWIW, another trick to getting better than MOH from the mini, is to buy a "clamp-on" bipod adapter from Harris or B-Square for like $30.00. I read this tip, tried it and shrunk my groups considerably. Also there is a new devise in the gun mags designed to do this, it's round & slips over the muzzle onto the barrel (can't remember what it's called & have no experience with it)
Good luck,
Mark

... The AR was designed back in the 1960s, when people smoked a lot of pot...
--------------------------------

THAT got me laughing out loud!

I always wondered what that little trap door in the butt stock was for! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

That guy had no valid points.

An AR is not that sensitive to dirt, and they are easy to clean. All you need is a can of brake cleaner with the straw and blast the carrier/bolt and the carbon comes right off. Maybe back when he was using them they did not have chrome lined carriers, but the ones of today don't take much work.

And, I have fired probably 500 rounds through one of mine since the last cleaning and it is still running smooth.

Also, the gas tube is protected and made of stainless steel. And his rant about the charging handle???? How the hell are you going to break that other than taking it out and stepping on it on uneven ground?

Not to mention the whole design is wide open so any water/dirt etc can fall out of the bottom.

Several thousand dead Jihadi's can't be wrong!!!!!!

The M-16/M4/AR absolutely SUCKS!

Mind the older, and more dead witnesses from the 60's. 70's, and 80's.
They are constantly bitching about the thing.

The M16 when combined with disciplined troops is what it is.

This guy is sniveling, and needs to display his "Time out" card.

Possibly he dosn't understand that the E-tool comes shortly after the rifle fails.

Given proper attention, the thing works.
And works better than anything else available these days.

If all else fails, God gave us us all incisors!!!!!!!!!

I grow weary of folks that continue to debate small details, when the largest issue is framiliarity, and skill.

The M-16/M4 is the same as a Brown Bess, just 200+ years late for the dance.

This guy likely molests livestock in the wee hours of the night, when his neighbors are asleep!

E4E

E4E, LOL!

Another thing he didn't mention is the fact that we are not allowed to use a 308 bullet that uses and expanding design like hunting bullets. So, full metal jacket 308 doesn't do that much more damage than a FMJ 223 anyway.

And if the push for smaller ammo didn't work, then why did Russia quickly follow in our foot steps and come up with their own version of the 223? Not to mention you can carry more ammo with the 223 vs 308.

Can use ballistic hollow points(IE sierra boattail match HPs) in both 308 and 223.

E4E and Dogcatcher223; with the respective replys did not mention actual combat experience with their beloved "Matty Matel" black rifles. I never needed to smoke the "wacky weed" the "peace-love-antiwar" generation was noted in doing, nor did I see any "Tookers" in the Vietnam theater. I did have first-hand knowledge of the effectiveness of the M-16A1 and M16 family of battlerifles. The rifle stocks were made for 100 pound wimps that carried another 100 pounds on their backs day in day out. They were too small and broke-cracked often. It was a "Pray and Spray" rifle as the sights were mediocre on a good day and pathetic on a bad as they were not repeatable! My M-14 had much better battle sights. As far as lethality, I was called to battalion headquarters, one morning, to provide medical assistance for an enemy North Vietnamese officer. A ROC(Republic of Korea)interrogater was beating the hell out of prisoner for information. They wanted him alive enough to give information. He was shot four times in the chest and abdomen. None of the four rounds had exited and this enemy was SPITTING at us! At 600 yards my M1A will do anything the AR15 will do! Regards

Fireball

Respect your opinions from actual use. Of course you may have had the same experience had you used the very first M14s. I've had my elevation drum come down a few times on my M14s. Have never seen it on an AR.

What I'm saying, is that since the days of nam, the AR family has changed a bit and is much more reliable. Add to that the family of projectiles have changed and spec ops have very few complaints of how they impact and reliability these days.

For the longest time I had my doubts, but two things converted me, my Ranger friend who survived Vietnam, and he liked it, secondly that terminal ballistic info linked to AR15.com on how the the old 55 milspec tumnbles/shatters at over 2800 fps after striking. (do I got those numbers right XM193?)

fwiw,
You sure as hell nailed that one...

Regards, Matt.

Fireball,

Was issued both. Long after the M-14 was Mothballed.

The current M16A2 is a completely different critter than it was back when you were betrayed by it's issue, in a form that was outside of the disigners concept and without the support and training our guys now have.

The M14 is a Goddess.
We agree on that.

In the current war, things are going from wide open to small closet.

The M-16/M4 is holding it's own.

The old M14 is also holding it's own as they are rapidly being reconfigured for the role of DM work by both the Army and the Corp's, and sadly thanks to Klinton there aren't enough M-14's around.

The Old Gal is what she is, and dearly loved.

The M4 is what it is, and works.

There is nothing out there as accurate and reliable in 5.56.

NATO and the UN need an enema!

Our guys need something new that falls between the 16 and the 14.

Dadgum politics are in the way.

Have run ballistic testing with both the M80 ball and theM193/M855.

I would call it a wash at short range.

Real rifles are no longer issued.
I reckon both of us have issues with that.

As a Vet I thank you for your time in hell.

Semper Fi!
E4E

E4E: You were there and you knew how it was! The M4 has it's place. In urban areas, it makes it's bones but only IF it puts 'em down. Hoorah AND Semper Fi!

I used both an M16A1 and an M14 in Vietnam and preferred the M14. The 16 was a lot more maintenance intensive and there were days when the festivities didn't give much time for a cleaning. The real advantage I'd give the M14 is that it doesn't require trick ammo to hit a scumbag. I could shoot a guy through a tree with it and if I needed more better I'd cozy up to a tanker and have him souvenier me some of his co-ax ammo. Blacktip. Oddly enough I found that 7.62 Nato AP is a pretty decent sub for match ammo. Surprisingly accurate and already in the pipeline. I can't profess experience in a desert environ but jungle conditions make the gas blowing into the receiver a real mess that needed to be cleaned as fast as one could get it done. Maybe the humidity was the culprit to making the M16 a bit cranky.

Fireball,

The guys I hear from and hear reports from ain't having problems.

Must be that thing, about using those funny bumps on the top half of the thing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Then again, those guys wouldn't complain if they were given a Hatchett and a loin cloth.

Mind the media and the marketing garbage.

It's still the same.

Semper Fi!
E4E

I have a M1A and a couple of AR's and they are both fine weapons for what they were designed for. I have a lot of experience with M16/AR rifles, military and civilian. These rifles have a good proven record since the the Vietnam war, I would not hesitate to defend myself and loved ones with my AR's. Why does this man have such a chip on his shoulder? I also laughed out loud about they smoked a lot of pot back in the 60's. Development for these rifle began in the 50's, not 60's. Anyone whom thinks Mini 14's are better than Ar's is seriously deluded.

It's a mistake to compare .308 to .223 round for round in efectiveness. Instead compare an M14 with a certain number of rounds with an M16 and the number of rounds that WEIGHS THE SAME. You will end up with far more .223 rounds carried than .308 rounds. Collectively, they will be more effective.

Vietnam vets should know that the current M16 is highly modified from the old rifles issued in the 1960s. In many ways these modifications are as significant as the difference between an M1 Garand from the 1930s and an M14. The M14, after all, is nothing more than an M1 adapted to use a box magazine and a shorter operating rod.

The current M16, BTW, is far more tolerant of differences in powder burning rates, pressures, and bullet weights than the M14.

I currently have a Bushmaster loweer with about 7000 rounds through it. My oldest upper has 5500. I have NEVER had a jam. Yes I know I'm only paper punching, but all that "carbon" (wish it would turn to diamonds like the man said) still ends up in the action. I only disassemble the bolt assembly every 200 or so rounds and clean it with a dry patch. I never clean some of the other things the man said and specifically have been told to NEVER clean the gas tube with a pipecleaner or anything else.

45Govt: The shortcomings of the M16/AR platform is well documented and unfortunately, lives were lost because of it. True, the design for the AR was designed by Stoner in the fifties. Pot was, is smoked by bored, counterculture misfits. So Sir, I think your response is mixed up with another forum. Nobody has a chip on their shoulders. Have a good day and thanks for your input.

Fireball, my response is not mixed up with another forum, I believe my response was right on the money, in regards to the author of why the rifle sucks in his opinion. The M16/AR15 rifles are fine weapons. I have used the M16 in the Southern hemisphere in jungle type environments and in Alaska while serving in the Army. All these weapons were M16A1's, I can truly say that I like the little rifle. It performed well in both locations, and I'm talking lots of field duty(Infantry). I also use two Bushmaster AR's now and I really like them. I certainly do not feel under gunned with them. I also was a rifle instructor at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. In those basic trainees hands I saw every make of M16 the Army had in it's inventory. The amount of rounds fired in these weapons over the many years through so many trainees hands would boggle the mind, yet they just kept on shooting. After seeing the abuse these rifles took, I knew that a brand new AR would last most people a life time of trouble free service. That M16A1 is a lot better rifle than the M16, that was first issued in Vietnam. There was not enough R&D work on the M16 before being dubbed ready for field use, if the M16A1 had been issued first, there would not have been so many problems. The M16A2/M4/ARA2's is a lot better weapon than the old M16. All that being said, I have to say I prefer the M14/M1A, but only for it's down range performance and power. By the way, I do not believe I was infering that you have a chip on your shoulder. Have a good day yourself.

I served in Afghanistan and I did see problems with the M4, pretty consistent with what Ive seen thruout my military service (24 years in two Armies..). During Operation Anaconda, the first 2 guys on the ground were immediately engaged with the enemey and both immediately had FTF failures with their M4 carbines. The gun's rep in the US and foreign Special Ops communities is less than sterling. It is a workable weapons platform and some of its benefits do weigh against its shortcomings. Typical US Army inertia keeps it in service (how long did we hang on to the 1873 Trapdoor?). I served 2 tours with Bundeswehr FJ troops, including Afghanistan. They do not seem to have issues with the HK G36 and I cannot recall an instance of one jamming. Not that Im a major fan of plastic rifles. I mean, after using a G3 and then picking up a new G36 for the first time..I thought, "You've got to be kidding!" The other weapon system Ive used is the AUG, its wierd looking but it is extremely reliable and accurate and I like the trigger controlled selector.

Nothing like experience. The M16/AR rifles have their good points and bad points. I have used one so long, and trained at immediate action drills so much that the weapon feels like a part of me. Up until I got the internet, and read about various opinions about this rifle, I thought, who would'nt want one of these rifles? Oh well, to each his own.

Montana Steve,

Grunts know what they want, and know what works.


It's a universal, and Damn shame, all of those Mothers sons have a voice smaller, than those who's kids are being protected.

The M16/M4 platform is what we got for now.
They took the FAL, the G3 and the M-14 from us.

A universal wish is now being heard, or the 6.8SPC would not have happened.

Obviously, the grunts have a voice, and things are changing slowly in their favor.

Us old farts would be happy with the M-14 or a FAL. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I am heartened by the efforts currently underway.
Even if I likely will HATE whatever it is produced.

Momentum is finally here.
It's been too damn LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The M4 as is, ain't bad.
But it's no better than what Grandpa fought with back in the 70's, when cloning sheep was science fiction.

Our grunts deserve better.
And it's about Damn time things were shifting towards their interest!



Per mare Per Terrum, and
Semper FI!!!!!!!
E4E

Another old Fart's opinion born of 2.5 years in Nam, the -16 of the iteration used at the time was a rugged reliable weapon. So too the CAR-15, its wee brother. The -14, a clunky heavy thing I gladly left in Basic. First tour unit sniper ditched the -14 ASAP, turning to a bolt gun, Wincherter maybe, not sure...really tired of lugging that heavy -14 thing around.

Problems that made the -16 notorious in early days were logistical, not a design fault of the weapon. No cleaning kits, no lube, and a change over to ball powder for which the gun was never tested. Clogged up the gas tube something fierce. OTOH, I toted the -16/CAR around for all that time, and fired it more than most of you would believe...never had a single malfunction, and frankly know nobody that did. My thoughts are moot on the newer versions and their ammo as I have no experience with them. I don't know how much of the chatter in internet legend or how much is real...do know that I never saw anybody survive a torso hit from the Black Rifle back in those days...the bullets did indeed tumble, they left vicious wounds. I do recall one fella taking a full zip from a minigun, 19 hits as I recall....he made it to the evac hospital still kicking, not much further though. My time was May '69 thru Dec. '72, your mileage may have varied. Gimme that gun and I'll go back to war, gimme a -14 or some other heavy clunky piece of white collar design work...likely to shoot you first, but let's not find out, hey?

Dan:

I've never been shot at, nor have I ever shot at anybody else. I'm not an expert on anything, much, except I know from heavy and clunky.

However, I've owned an M-1 Garand. Handled and shot the M-1-A or whatever the civilian version of the M-14 is called. Handled and shot an FAL. All three are pretty heavy, but for clunkiness, or just plain awkwardness, the M-14 would have to be the champ, in my opinion.

I can see putting a bipod on it and using it as a light-weight BAR, (which I have also handled and shot) but, damn, except for the extra rounds, it's nowhere near as handy as a Garand.

- TJM

If you've handled them all enough, they all become second nature and clunky will not fit anymore. Of course I'm biased as the only one of the bunch that feels right to me is the 14. I'll shoot the garand but am never impressed. I win everything with an AR and carry versions of the AR for hunting where legal because I almost sleep with ARs and am familiar to all ends with them. Yet when the 14s come out of the safe, I feel like I'm holding THE gun.

Of course its only an opinion, mine at that, and worth whatever ya'll pay for it.

Jeff

Just a guess.

Was issued the M-16A2 before the Army ever recognized the need.

Was previously comfy as a bumpkin running around with a 10-22 and an 870.

At first the M16A2 was heavy.

Some 400 hours of COD later, the thing was weightless, and calluses had formed for a lifetime.

I cannot accept that the same did not happen with previous shoulder arms, and the Garand being the revelation, I accept that it started there that Grunts began to love a rifle.

It's a matter of time and exposure.

The crusty old Salt up the road, handles an '03 like it was a pocket knife.

He thinks the Garand wasn't needed on Guadal canal.

Framiliarity.

Todays M4 ain't no different.

E4E

I've owned, been signed for, or was issued nearly every version of the M16, M-14 and the AK series of rifle. M16 series is pure operator friendly. M14 looks cool and appears to have punch, but it and the AK are seriously not operator friendly. Changing a mag in the M14 and AKs, especially under duress is NOT an easy proposition.

On reliability, I've seen more major malfunctions on AKs than on M16s. Nearly EVERY M16 malfunction I've ever seen was operator error, or easily fixed using SPORTS. On the other hand, I've seen AKs blow up, trunnions break, gas pistons freeze and/or just freakin' fall apart. I've set the forward handgrip on fire with both Aks and M-14s when shooting a lot of rounds at one time.

As far as m16 long range lethality, that's what your M240/M249 and even M2 is for. Just like the Romans took over the world with a weapon as pathetic (for it's time) as the spatha, in reality, it is the SYSTEM of warfare that wins the battle, not an individual weapon.

That got me laughing!

I was issued various M-14's, I was OK with them but I didn't shoot especially accurately with them. Two failed in fairly odd ways (extractor and ejector). I was issued one M-16: I liked it a lot: it stayed zeroed and I shot well with it; it was 100% reliable with only basic cleaning and maintenance. If I knew I was going to be in a fire fight I would take an M-60 with plenty of ammo over any rifle or submachinegun. Ammo was the main advantage of the M-16 for an infantryman; you can carry a LOT more 5.56 compared to 7.62 ammo.

the internet is a wonderful thing anybody can say anything and claim anything. Funny how the civilian rifles just seem to work and work...guess they just don't see the abuse.. A bonded 75 grain bullet with BC .41 started at 2600 FPS would be your huckleberry on out there. I bet it might even raise a welt on you.

This author isn't prone to exaggeration. Nope. Not at all.

So if I shoot fast enough my AR will make diamonds?!?!?

Anyone notice this was a 7 year old post????

Uh oh. A Zombie thread!

I read that one simple solution to dust and sand getting into rifle. The just carry a roll of black electricians tape. Tape up the crack between the upper and lower. Tape over the muzzle and keep the dust cover closed. This was in Iraq. After a firefight or so, just clean and retape. Something to think about for preppers with AR-15's. I always clean every weapon I shoot afterwards. Never had a problem with jambs, except occational bad ammo.

I reload now and have had no problems. I've had Mini's, AK's, SKS's, and AR's. Also have a FAL. I kept the AR's, SKS's and FAL. Mini's and AK's were awful on accuracy. I hunt with mine and don't like to wound or miss because of inaccuracy. FAL isn't too accurate, but is rugged and reliable. I like the adjustable gas system. Only 308 platform I have except a bolt gun in 308. I don't like the C3 or HK-91 platforms because of damage to the brass. I would like an AR-10 platform when my ship comes in, or an M1A. The AR platforms are more modular and easier to accessorize.

Allow me to off this as a counter to this debate: http://shootersjournal.net/the-great-ar15-vs-ak47-debate/

Some people read too much and actually do too little.

Not directed at you Kevin.

All semi-auto rifle require maintenance to keep working , some just require it more often than others

...get both if your inclined to argue with yourself.

Agree 100%. This platform has been working for years and has only gotten better with time. With the rifles coming out now, I would not feel handicapped at all. The AR can take a beaten and run dirty and they are much more accurate than most other options.

I've been throwing away a lot of money. Wish someone would have made me aware of this sooner.

I'm no combat veteran and I have never shot at or been shot at. I see the only issues with the M-4 as losing velocity because of the shorter barrel, especially if you are shooting longer range. As I recall the M-4 has a 14.5 inch barrel and the carbine (short) gas system. The other issue is the lack of cross section of a .22 bullet.

I think the 6x45 would have been a better option and I don't see it as a huge impediment to the military to make the switch.

My evaluation is for a full 16 inch barrel and a mid length gas recycling system to regain velocity and a larger cross section bullet. Very little additional weight and more knock down capability. That's the "in between" an M-14 and the M-4 that was previously mentioned in this thread.

Just my opinion, yes I see it's a 7 year old thread that keeps popping back up. kwg

6x45 wouldn't have been a bad idea at all. But 5.56mm still gets it done.

But, does it get it done at more than across the width of a room? Or 100 yards? 200 yards?

The M-4 makes for a nice compact shooter and kept cleaned and serviced it's completely dependable, but there is a price to be paid for that short barrel and skinny bullet. JMHO kwg

Yes. It gets it done. At well more than "across the room." Take a look at the ranges we qualify at. Even back in the early 90s when I was in, it "got it done."

Old, silly argument.

Personally I like the Ruger mini 14 ranch rifle in stainless steel. More accurate, more durable, cleaner, and easier to carry.

opinions are like butt holes. Everyone has one. Most stink.

I have yet to see a mini that will out shoot an AR-15.

They've been tested more than once against the AR and have never proven more durable or accurate but people still want to believe its a plastic mouse gun.

I had a SS ranch rifle 4-5moa was the best it was capable of. The first carbine class I attended had a father/son in attendance. Dad had an M1 carbine and the son had a Mini. They worked about half the time.

Pretty much has been my experience.

I happen to like and own both. I've had a very innaccurate Mini 14 and I've owned a couple of very innaccurate AR-15's. I've shot thousands of rounds through both platforms and found both to be reasonably reliable under real world (non-Ninja school) conditions.

My current Mini-14 (custom) will out shoot my current most accurate AR-15 (also custom.) That said, there is no doubt the AR-15 is a more inherently accurate platform.

I don't believe the Mini-14 is a better platform nor do I believe the majority of the internet B/S horror stories associated with it. The new 580+ series rifles are not 5 MOA guns.

I can understand why some people would feel more comfortable carrying a Mini-14 over an AR-15 and why others wouldn't. While the Mini-14 has never been a military weapon, it has successfully served many police and prison institutions for many years.

Don't get me wrong, over all I think the AR-15 is a lot better weapon by far but, I do understand why some would prefer and are more comfortable with a Mini-14.

Just a few random thoughts here.

The AR15 or M-16 was originally designed with a 1 in 14" twist firing a 55 grain bullet at 3200 or 3250 fps, using stick powder - IMR4198 or a factory equivalent.

That slow twist stabilized the bullet enough in air to keep it accurate to useful battlefield ranges but that marginal stabilization is what caused it to tumble so much when it hit a denser medium, such as flesh. The extremely high velocity and propensity for the bullet to tumble in flesh is what gave the "black rifle" its original reputation for ferocious wounding power in Viet Nam. The stick powder did not foul the gas tube and the rifle was very reliable.

Then the Army decided that the 1 in 14 twist did not keep the bullet accurate enough for 600 yard shooting in denser Arctic air, so it was tightened to 1 in 12, which is/was the factory standard for the .223 up until just the past few years. As noted above, when it was actually deployed they changed to ball powder, IIRC something like Win 748 or H335 which is extremely dirty. That fouled the gas tube and bolt carrier area something fierce. Plus the fact that they did not issue proper cleaning gear and basically told the troops that the rifle "cleaned itself". It wasn't until later, late 60's or early 70's that they started issuing the little comic books with the big titted chick (Connie?) explaining how to maintain the thing.

Then later on after VN the Army decided that the M16 needed to be able to penetrate a battle helmet at 600 yards, so they made the bullet heavier, added a steel penetrator to it and tightened the twist to handle the heavier, longer bullet.

That slower MV and tighter twist made it a penetrator but not a tumbler. They also issued the M4 with the shorter barrel which further reduced muzzle velocity.

After that I lost interest and haven't kept up with the latest and greatest but that's how I remember the development.

This is all just from memory so if I've made some factual errors I will certainly not mind them being corrected.

I have a mini 14 and its had at least a million rounds through it and the barrel shoots as good as the day I bought it, never misfires, produces 1/4 inch groups, and has tremendous knock down power

My Mini-14 shoots minute of barn at 100 yards. My SKS is better at 6 moa. The AR is more accurate than either.

Marines in Iraq were reportedly investigated for all the dead bad guys that had head shots. Someone thought they were executing them. The Marines, with their AR platforms, were just good shots.

Marines in Iraq

Not Found

The requested URL /Interviews/Hate_the_AR15.htm was not found on this server.

The OP was 8 years ago and that link is no longer valid.

I have one friend who killed a Mujahideen at 600 yards with an M4 and another who has killed several out to at least 900 yards with a Mk12. Both prefer 5.56mm to 7.62. The latter leaves him M110 and Mk13 in their case.

Most of the rest of your post was spot on but this is wrong. The military did extensive studies and was never able to find any evidence that twist rate had any effect on lethality.

Tests that I've personally observed always showed a bullet path directly in line with the flight path. 55gr was/is a killer because it always broke at the cannelure and fragmented. M855(green-tip) does the same, usually, but requires more velocity. This is where the problem arises with that ammo and a short M4 barrel.

XM193 55grain nato... only reliably shatters out to 125 yards or so...

Is that what you found in your tests?

The 77grain/smk's upset quickly in flesh due to long length from what I read. They seem to be the answer to all the AR15's historical short comings.

Maybe a little further back, out of an M4. M855 only under a 100yd.

77's I've never tested but I've been told by a reliable source that the cannelure on the Black Hills load does nothing. It fragments reliably without it. I can't vouch for it personally but anecdotal evidence from the wars put that load head and shoulders above anything else out of an AR.

I just bought 1K Nosler Custom Comps and I hope to try a few out on some hogs.

Nosler Custom Comps

????

Have to look that up.

Nosler's cheaper bulk HP accuracy bullet comparable to Sierras.

I bought a thousand of the NCC 77's too, Sierras are impossible to get and the Hornady 75's aren't near as accurate.

Anyway I loaded the NCC's a few years ago and noticed they hit pressure before the Sierras but nothing serious, they just won't take the same max loads. I don't recall if I ever killed anything with the first box I tried but I know the Sierras kill coyotes very well. My guns liked the Sierras better but less than a 1/4" better.

I haven't loaded anything else in several years, I like the 77's.

I will add that ballistic gelatin tests show the Noslers to be slightly more frangible than the Sierras.

Thanks, I appreciate the updated info.

so XM193 out of a 16 inch barrel only shatters at 125 yards or so?

That's what I read in the funny papers...

I have never shot a critter with xm193 so I am not eye witness.

That is real real interesting. If you have some time would you elaborate more on that? I am assuming it is toting the weight day in and day out?

must be the Atlanta Journal funny papers...

You are saying it fragments further out? How far you sayin?

I'd say M4 at that range, more or less, a little farther back with a 16in barrel. I haven't done this enough times to state categorically.

Yes and the ability to carry enough ammunition to last in a firefight with a team of 4-12.

True but it's unrelated to twist rates. Velocity is lost going to a 62 and that causes it's own issues.

The SAW should have had a 6mm cartridge, and M193 should have remained in service.

I am saying nothing just as you are saying nothing. I have never shot any type of live animal with M193 either, I have killed with the barnes bullets and the swifts but those are hunting bullets.

I just bought some Sierra 77 grain match bullets, I am going to try them on a deer this year.

Thanks for the feedback. I swear... I used to detest AR's. An old friend of mine who had been a Ranger in Vietnam talked me into buying one several years ago. The thing that converted me was his explanation of being able to run like lightning with the lighter load. And a LOT mo ammo all things being equal. The recent advent of the 77smk's and 1/7 twist has made me a total believer in this little plastic toy that poops where it eats.

Guys in Vietnam learned really quick the value of carrying 600 rounds on their person!