I agree with you. Some people are hard headed and prideful. The SOST Mod 1 has a better BC as well as being non lead. Him saying it’s an abortion with no actual experience says it all. He doesn’t know what he is talking about. A bonded bullet non boatail that is made to hold together is completely different then an OTM boatail bullet that is made to frag. I’ve seen the gel tests and actually used the SOST in Iraq. God could come down and tell the guy and he would call God himself wrong.
Sorry but when someone claims someone else is “passing disinformation” yet provides no other evidence other than what is basically “trust me bro, I worked at Federal once” then exclaims their *opinion * is somehow more valid because of that; you’ll have to understand why someone would be skeptical. Or just admit we are all just speculating here based on what little information we have, atleast when I post my opinion on something Im not using the appeal to authority fallacy to somehow make my arguments seem more valid over someone elses. Im just some random ammo nerd on the internet speculating on inconsequential historical minutia. But hey if you want to go down the route of “I used ___ in Iraq and it worked fine” as the basis of your argument then go right ahead. Its not like we’ve heard the justification of guys jamming their HD mags full of ‘green tip’ because it ‘stacked bodies’ in Iraq over the years more times than I can count or anything.
Really strange that Im the prideful one when the whole point of this thread was me speculating on what this ammo was and you telling me that Im wrong and spreading disinformation. Isnt that just the pot calling the kettle black? Maybe look in the mirror when you try to pass your own opinions as fact. I go through the effort to make things abundantly clear when its my opinion or speculation so its confuses me when someone says Im spreading disinformation. Well my retort to that accusation is: PROVE IT. Which so far you havent, an appeal to your own authority isnt evidence.
Thats what I just said…
Just because there arent any reports about it online doesnt mean there isnt a problem because A: Mod 1 hasnt been out that long and B: its being ditched for M855A1, by all means if you are willing to shoot hundreds of rounds of nickel plated bullets down your personal barrel thats all you. Im not going risk it, because I dont know if it causes extra wear or what solvents and clean out nickel. Clearly the nickel plating was not at all meant to improve performance:
This from Sal Fanelli himself who stated: “Since we were worried about confusion with the Mk262, we had to take another look at the color of the tip. Every color was taken except for solid silver so we decided to nickel plate the entire projectile. As we now jokingly say, “All Marines will have silver bullets.” That round hasn’t been fielded yet, and a potential production contract is in the future. I can just see the Marines out there polishing bullets.”
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/02/sal-fanelli-on-mk-318-m855-and/
Lets introduce an unknown variable of nickel plated bullets because we wanted a different color what wasnt taken? OK. Good to know.
I never ‘assumed’ it was an abortion, thats my personal opinion which I stand by since it seems the lead free aspect is almost always a political decision. Again restating: why am I going to pay extra for a lead free bullet with unknown effects of fouling or wear in my barrels when we already know Mod 0 is a great performer, and exactly how much less drop this “improved BC” on the mod 1 going to net me? Id doubt its significant considering all of the above potential issues.
If you love Mod 1, great I never said don’t buy it. Im just stating the reasons why I won’t be buying any of this stuff for personal use. On that note Im hoping AAC will start producing their Mod 0 clone soon.
Deleted
Since some people seem to have a problem with my opinion on mk318 mod 1 being an abortion of a round that never should have been adopted, lets add some data to qualify my opinion.
Buffman Range just dropped a mk318 mod 1 video shooting into gel with 3 different barrel lengths, whats interesting is the 7.5" test where at 2300 fps the bullet completely fails to fragment:
https://youtu.be/pMcpwCLi6SI?t=200
Remember when I said mod 0 being a known performer being ditched for mod 1 with some concerning unknown variables is a bad idea, looks like that was not an unfounded opinion. Here we have ARFCOMs Andrew doing a reduced velocity test of mod 0, showing it to have excellent performance down to 1990 fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2y3C98Fio
So for those saying the mod 1 so gud because of improved BC, does that really matter when the previous iteration is performing better while going over 300 fps slower translating in more effective range? Not to mention the increased cost of going lead free, unknown barrel wear characteristics of nickle plated jackets. Just a random ammo nerd on the internet’s opinion that mod 0 is still the superior bullet design while being cheaper. But dont take my word for it, considering the above what would you rather spend your hard earned money on?
XF556T64X… Here is another version of the T4 bullet ?
To my feeble mind, it kind of looks like the Gold Dot 62/64gr ogive being used on a TBBC.
T3 is the flat based TBBC… T4 is the boat tail version of the 64gr TBBC.
I would repost all the info in a new thread… but M4Carbine doesn’t want to play well with my computer… photos not posting, comments disappearing, etc.
1 Like
Its the new T4 bullet.
64gr, TBBC structural profile +2gr for the boat tail.
205AR match primers.
Velocity for my 11.5 was 2673fps.
G1 actual was doped at 0.225.
Performance is very similar to xm556fbit3, terminally. Intermediate ballistics are far superior, with my chromelined 11.5 averagjng 1.3-1.8moa if I take my time on 10 shot groups. I am still assessing minimal velocity for performance as designed.
2 Likes
So your comment is based on the XF556T64X…what about the ND55664?
BTW, I did notice that the ND55664 looks a lot like the Fusion round.
I dont mess with reject ammo from federal, just duty packaged. There is no multiple variant of this round in duty packaging. Every time I buy castoffs from federal, its a clown show with 3+moa groups and each round looking different as you state. My data is as regarding LE556T4 only. I cannot vouch for the other stuff.
LE556T4 is $2 per round. If I wanted 500 well there’s a grand right there. Believe me, I mulled it over, and it’s not like I haven’t spent beaucoup bucks on pricey ammo before (Mk318, XM556SBCT3, and M855A1 come to mind). Just didn’t feel like doing it again at that price.
The ND55664 I got I removed from the boxes and into a gallon ziplock, then into an ammo can. I did notice that the tips were very neatly done, not that “sloppy” spilled-over lead look like the 62gr FBI loads I have. Like I said, looked very similar to Fusion. Also, didn’t notice any tarnish as I dumped them out of the boxes, although I didn’t inspect every single one. Accuracy and velocity are the odd men out at this point as I haven’t shot it yet. I guess we’ll see…
I tested some of the white box stuff and it averaged groups 200% larger than the duty issue versions. Velocity and cleanliness of appearance did not statistically differ.
1 Like
200% larger? So maybe 3-4 MOA for the white box? I’d guess the LE556T4 is around 1.5 MOA?
Yeah, I wouldn’t be thrilled with 3-4 MOA (if that’s what it was) when you could cut it in half, but damn that price! Six one, half dozen the other.
Yes, I averaged around 3moa with the white box stuff and 1.3-1.6moa with duty ammo. 10 shot groups at 100 via my 11.5 with an nx8.
1 Like
Molon tested some MK318 a few years back and got just a hair under 3MOA. I guess 3MOA for the ND55664 isn’t too awfully bad; I can live with it.
That said, I wish the LE556T4 would come down a little in price.