Winchester Ranger Bonded (RA556B) and Black Hills 62gr 5.56---Evaluation

I will preface this by saying I used an Aimpoint and a magnifier, and fired from a bench while seated, using my magazine as a monopod. The rifle used was my Daniel Defense 16.1" DDM4 equipped with a CHF chrome-lined barrel of government profile, utilizing a mid-length gas system, a Surefire 212a muzzle-device, and with a Surefire 556-212 suppressor in place for all testing. I feel that with a quality stainless barrel and a precision optic of more than 3.25X magnification, better groups are very attainable. However, I’m no Molon, so you get what you get, which is a CHF .gov barreled carbine sighted with a magnified aimpoint, lol!

Accuracy evaluation was conducted at 50, and 100 yards. PMC XTAC M193 is included at 50 yards, as it is my training round, and I wish to show the POI shift between training, and HD/Duty type ammunition. I shot a group at 100 yards with the XTAC, as well, but did not picture it. It wasn’t pretty. However, the center of it was exponentially as close to the RA556B and Black Hills as it was at 50 yards, which, as you will see, is close enough that your ammunition’s accuracy would be more likely to cause you a missed training opportunity than would any POI shift between duty and training ammunition, IN THIS circumstance (my rifle, my can, my ammo, etc.)

“Terminal performance” was tested using milk jugs full of water, shot at 15 yards. Both bullets “exploded” the first 2 jugs in line, and they were both recovered in the 4th jug. The Barnes, however, split the 3rd jug slightly inside the handle area, and managed to puncture the 5th jug. I believe it may have exited the 4th, compromised the 5th, and “bounced back into” the 4th jug. That’s what it looks like to me, anyway. The RA556B simply dented the living hell out of the 4th jug’s opposing side, and maybe have made it spring a tiny leak there. The jugs were placed in a line, touching. There was so much water it was hard to be sure. Regardless, the Barnes seemed more “violent”, and penetrated ever so slightly more. These are unscientific observations in unscientific mediums.

The recovered Barnes bullet had a largest and smallest diameter of 0.490" and 0.330", respectively, for an average diameter of 0.410". Its recovered length was 0.510".
The recovered RA556B bullet had a largest and smallest diameter of 0.454" and 0.420", respectively, for an average diameter of 0.437". Its recovered length was 0.40".
Both bullets appear to have retained 100% of their weight, however, I do not have a scale to verify this with.

Both rounds are sealed at the case necks (Black Hills uses a sealant with a slight reddish hue that is mostly clear, or maybe it’s clear and the copper of the projectile gives it a hue? It can barely be seen in the photographs.). RA556B uses Black Lucas/tar.

The Black Hills felt to me like it was loaded JUST A TOUCH hotter, but with no chronograph, that’s mere supposition.






Where did you get the water resistant ammo? Is that a special run or are they all like that now?

It is a rolling change. All TSX/GMX ammo from Black Hills will feature it.

Outstanding post. Thank you for sharing.

Water jugs…how many must we go over the fact that water tests are completely and totally useless?

I dunno. Reading helps.
“These are unscientific observations in unscientific mediums.”

Deleted

Yeah, saw that. Thanks, ass.
My post still stands. Water jug tests are useless.

Please feel free to post your own tests, purely scientific or otherwise.

OP, thank you for the info.

Well, do something useful, then, and post it up.

Water jugs at least show how the bullet is supposed to expand and at minimum provide a positive test case for expansion of bullet fired at specified range.

Enough of the personal jabs… only warning

I think that is an incorrect assessment. Water has some validity as a test media with regards to bullet expansion, and in some cases rough estimates of bullet penetration. Water in most cases represents a best case scenario regarding expansion and can be used for comparison purposes to determine the expansion potential of a given projectile. In fact Dr. Fackler describes using water box testing as an alternative to ballistic gelatin. Penetration in water should be 1.6-2 times that of ballistic gelatin when using expanding projectiles.

I’ve found that water can amount to a torture test for over expansion of rifle rounds. Lots of soft points don’t hold together in water at close distances. See federal fusion, et al.

So, despite it not being an analog for any individual aspect of real world performance, it is an indicator of expanding projectile ruggedness.

The human body is more than 60 percent water. Blood is 92 percent water, the brain and muscles are 75 percent water…

is it an over simplified conclusion to say that solids and soft points are just an different means to the same end?

both appear to have the same outcome, a mushroomed bullet that doesnt need fragmentation to do its job.

when shooting through walls or cars, with they behave about the same?