M193 worked in Vietnam because the engagement distances were usually very short, and within the fragmentation rage of the round being used.
In places like Iraq, and specifically Afghanistan the ranges are much longer so that “effect” isn’t the same, and we are now using a round with a steel core.
You are right. LE and civi’s are not limited to the rounds we use, and we have much better offerings than what mil has in general issue. My HD/SD ammo is MK262mod1 which is is a mil round which has generated very positive reports in both lethality and accuracy.
I am also interested in the 70GR Barnes TSX loading SSA has out which is a copper solid. Its a successful round in the hunting community which means it will work on two legged animals well. I have not gotten the chance to get any yet but will shortly.
Very good point bud. I am interested as well in the Barnes load. My home defense ammo now is hornady t.a.p. in 75 grain with a DD 1/7 barrel. I’ve just always been curious in the difference in projectile stability between 1/7 and 1/9.
Me too Belmont I use bullets ranging between 55-75 grain as well. One thing else to remember is that when I use the longer/heavier rounds I run into the problem of a failure to feed in a barrel not equipped with an M4 feedramp. Just something else to consider in choosing a twist rate. There are a lot more companys out there offering M4 feedramps with a 1/7 twist as opposed to a 1/9. Just something else to consider.
First OR Last AR… there’s no reason for a piston AR…
A piston also brings a number of negatives into play such as more weight, more complicated moving parts, proprietary parts, and a decline in accuracy.
It’s ironic that people think by introducing a bunch of extra moving parts that they’re getting more reliability… not to mention all of the design flaws in all of these systems…
My idea is to replace all those fucked up parts with a Stainless steel gas tube that won’t break or seize up. :eek:
I just don’t buy into “margins of lethality” and 77>62>55 + 14.5">12.5">11.5">10.5"…
As I’ve said before there are a lot of factors at play when a bullet enters soft tissue, you’re not going to convince me that the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of solid hits in the primary lethal zone rests on whether the bullet is 55 or 77 grains.
For the OP’s specifications, primary use-range, primary ammo 55gr, my recommendation remains 1/9.
Not sure about the twist of the Vietnam A1, but if the engagements were in heavy jungle (before the Agent Orange had fried much of the vegetation) simply hitting branches between the target and the muzzle could be a reason for bullets tumbling as much as anything else. Just speculating.
It depends on the barrel length and bullets you prefer.
It is all about rotational velocity. 1:9 in a 20 inch barrel is not as bad as in a 7.5 inch barrel.
I would want 1:6 for a barrel under 9 inches, 1:7 for a barrel 9-20 inches, and 1:8 for a barrel over 20 inches.
Even for a long barrel length, I would consider 69 grain to be the max for a 1:9. If you want the capability to shoot 75 and 77 at sea level or in cold weather, then you need 1:7.
Is 1:7 significantly worse for 55 grain bullets? I doubt it. I have not seen anyone do a proper comparison test. You could order 10 barrels of 1:7 and 10 in 1:9 have have them made at the same time on the same cut-rifle machine and then compare them with 30 shot groups. That is under 1000 rounds of ammo.
i think that’s why the 5.56 round got such a bad reputation in vietnam. the whole “i shot him 10 times and it didn’t do anything to him” thing… bullets hitting little branches and tumbling off target. our guys in the desert seem to have much less issue with the round. the long reach and light, easy to carry ammo really helps out there.
I prefer 1:7 no doubt and that is what I mostly buy.
Having said that, some of the most accurate carbine barrels I have come across are the 1:9 Colt HBar’s shooting 55gr. Even my 1:9 Hbar does well with 75gr TAP.
Since we are mandated to using 55gr as duty issue (as of right now), I opt for my 16", 1:9 HBAR 6721, which loves that ammo, over our issued M4A1’s. Yes, I even like the weight of the fully dressed Hbar.
If you really want to step up to the plate you’d be slinging 115gr. 6.8x43mm… or even 7.62x39, or possibly 7.62x51mm.
.50 Beowolf will probably knock 'em deader than dead… or at least by all Interweb accountz.
We understand your position by now… lethality and ninja flips above all else, but for a primary use range gun w/ primary fodder of M193, the situation calls for a 1/9. I’d also recommend the OP check out some of the other options available as far as soft points and ballistic tips to enhance the lethality in the home defense role without increasing penetration.
It’s completely absurd to call a 1/9 barrel a “dealbreaker.”
