The 64gr Gold Dot 24448.
Other than structured ballistic testing from experts in the field?
Why is there a need to personally evaluate it? The milk jug tests are intresting as a novelty, but they are no where close structured tests.
I was referring to XM223SP1 not doing so well through barriers.
The winchester load may perform well on game 2 or 4 legged. The reason i said it was not impressed is, because the bullet did not perform in the way that it should.
Plenty of other bullets will go through the milk jugs while performing how they are designed. If a bullet does not make it through a jug how do you expect it to make it through bone.
People on this forum have learned far more from trident’s informal testing than anything offered by the two of you (bp/snake).
Trident thanks for all the informational threads you start. The offer still stands for the Barnes ttsx.
When has someone been attacked in a laboratory by a block of jello hiding behind a 45* flat wind-screen covered in 4 layers of denim?
Those are COMPARATIVE tests. Useful for comparing one round to another, and giving a general idea of what you can expect in the field.
Field testing is far less precise, but the more things (living and inanimate) that you shoot, the better your understanding grows. Every situation outside of a lab is dynamic and unique. If someone wants to present ONE such situation…why not? Lets not pretend that this is an “end-all, be-all” type submission by Trident, but simply a “I shot this, and this is what happened” type report.
That said, look at the bullet that was fired into the deer I posted. Now look at what ATK says the round does on bare gel. Totally different results. But…but…but.
Dynamic situations. Life happens.
http://m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1491332&postcount=6
vs.
http://le.atk.com/downloads/catalogs/223RifleDataBook.pdf
TOTALLY different performance on-game vs. in either bare, or clothed gel.
WTF???
I’m sorry, but that has to be the most flat out goofy thing I’ve ever read on this site.
When has someone been attacked in a laboratory by a block of jello hiding behind a 45* flat wind-screen covered in 4 layers of denim?
When has someone been attacked by milk jugs EVER?
People on this forum have learned far more from trident’s informal testing than anything offered by the two of you (bp/snake).
Who are these people?
I don’t even know how to respond to this. This thread has gotten that absurd. The “tests” done by some non-experts are so far gone from anything scientific I’m at a complete loss as to how anyone would view them beyond what they are. A novelty.
I would MUCH rather take the words of an EXPERT in the field, and dare I go so far as to mention Doc…
For LE Patrol use, where there is a high incidence of potential engagements around or involving vehicles, ammunition that is able to effectively penetrate intermediate barriers, particularly vehicle glass is critical. The best LE 5.56 mm/.223 loads for intermediate barrier penetration using 1/9 and faster twist barrels are the 5.56 mm Federal 62 gr Trophy Bonded Bear Claw (TBBC) bonded JSP (XM556FBIT3) and 5.56 mm Winchester 64 gr solid base bonded JSP (Q3313/RA556B) developed for the FBI, along with the outstanding new Black Hills 5.56 mm 50 gr TSX loading. Note that these are all true 5.56 mm loads that require a real milspec 5.56 mm chamber, not a SAAMI .223 chamber–be sure to check with an appropriate gauge or reamer. Most other acceptable LE barrier blind loadings are at .223 pressures, including the .223 55 & 62 gr Federal bonded JSP Tactical loads (LE223T1 & LE223T3), along with loads using Nosler 60 gr Partition JSP, Remington 62 gr Core-Lokt Ultra Bonded JSP (PRC223R4), .223 Federal 55 gr TSX (T223S), and the .223 Speer 55 & 64 gr Gold Dot JSP’s (and identically constructed Federal 62 gr Fusion JSP and Federal XM223SP1 62gr Bonded JSP). The Swift 75 gr Scirocco bonded PT is also good choice, but usually requires a 1/7 twist. Note that the Barnes all copper TSX bullets are great projectiles and offer good penetration through barriers, however, when first hitting a laminated automobile windshield intermediate barrier, most TSX bullets exhibit less expansion than bonded JSP’s, as the Barnes jacket either collapses at the nose, the jacket “petals” fold back against the core, or the “petals” are torn off; this results in a caliber size projectile configured a lot like a full wadcutter, leading to deep penetration. If running 1/12 twist barrels, stick with the BH 50 gr TSX, Fed 55 gr TBBC, Speer 55 gr Gold Dot, or Fed 55 gr TSX. NONE of the fragmenting 5.56 mm OTM bullets, even the heavy 75 - 100 gr loads, offer acceptable performance through automobile windshield glass. Contrary to what many believe, M193 & M855 FMJ are not very good against glass; the best military 5.56 mm load against glass is 52 gr M995 AP, followed by the 62 gr Mk318 Mod0 OTM and 70 gr Optimal “brown tip” OTM.
I’m mean really. This is a guy who has acess to many different rounds, and has actually tested them IN A CONTROLLED MANNER and written about it and even took the time to write said material here for people to read and learn from…But we’re going with milk jugs and white tail? WTF???
Where did you see anyone saying that these lab tests should be ignored?
Nobody said anything about them being ignored. Bp is just feeling inadequate.
We all have read docs info in the stickies. Catching bullets in water just give an informal way of seeing expansion. There is even a formula that converts inches of water penetrated into how many inches of tissue penetrated. The milk jugs throw off the numbers, but water can be used. The human body is roughly 70% water, ballistic gelatin is roughly 90% water. Is water the best medium? No.
What have you added? Nothing but regurgitating DOCGKR’s work. Trident’s testing has always been well received by everyone that take part in this section. We all understand the differences in the good DOC’s work, and Tridents. All of the participants of this section appreciate all the time, and money involved in trying to add to the info we all have. It is rare to have contributors like Trident. When i think of Trident Im reminded of Molon.
There are others that do the same thing nowhere so they try to say there testing is equal to fbi protocol. The more times we see the same type of bullet penetrate different objects the more we know. Seeing that the new winchester bullet in Trident’s thread was broken to pieces by milk jugs. You have some info that shows it is probably not a barrier blind load. With more testing we will okow for sure. If we took winchester’s description to be true, and used it in a home invasion to shoot through a barrier. It could cost one of us our life, because we did know how ot performed.
Exactly. Trident himself never billed his tests as a substitute to Md Roberts work. Just another data-point.
Thanks gentlemen for expressing my opinion exactly, and the last thing on earth I meant to do was to portray any testing or evaluations I conducted to be related, or supplemental to Docs body of work in regards to ballistic testing.
It shouldn’t have to be said on M4C especially that Doc is without question the definitive source on scientific testing with regards to terminal or wounding ballistics. Nobody can touch the amount of money, time, and ultimately research that has gone into Docs stickies in this subforum. Everything that I believe in, and hold “holy” with terminal ballistics comes from Doc first and foremost.
Two last points,
Firstly, in the thread that got linked of mine above, I continually point readers to Doc’s 5.56 Duty load sticky by either quoting whole portions, or linking directly to the thread. I thought it would be clear that I’m no expert on anything, and especially terminal ballistics after citing Docs work numerous times…apparently I was wrong.
Secondly, I’ve never once posted a thread within this sub forum…or the one that is specifically for terminal ballistic discussions. This most certainly isn’t my lane, and I’ve never tried to get in it.
I posted that thread in the NFA sub forum over the terminal or ammo sub forums for a reason, which was because I didn’t want my non-scientific evaluations and such to be misconstrued.
Got some 64gr to play with. This, the 24447 ICE load. Off to find combinations of jello, chronos, and venison. I’ll run the standard 16" and 11.5". Any other special requests?
A few hundred of the Federal Fusion 62gr for comparison shouldn’t be too far behind.
Did you just purchase this ammo? If so where did you get it? I got 400rds of it from Streichers but they are out know
Isn’t the ICE load 5.56 pressure?
.223. No 5.56 right now. People kept shooting it in good-as guns, and complained to ATK about the ammo.
Yet XM193 is still on the market. I’m just not 100% on this unless it has been officially stated by the company.
I think DocGKR has made mention of this.Not just individuals using the 5.56 in 223 chambers,but departments too.
It’s a context and level of liability. When a combination of chamber and round fail with XM193, it occurs in the recreational or training environment and is mostly just inconvenient. Popped primers prevail. When a combination of chamber and duty round are bad, it may be in a shooting and have much more serious consequences.
I’m just not 100% on this unless it has been officially stated by the company.
If you call in to Federal/ATK that is the explanation they are offering.
It’s also a discontinue with little effect. The standard .223 loads are so good that losing the 5.56 has little effect. Most buyers are satisfied with those skus remaining.
You’ll see more 5.56 Gold Dots at some point, but in restricted availability and probably from an overrun.
My angle was a curiosity regarding projectile performance. The Gold Dot is a bit “softer” than other bonded rounds, and I feel that it might do its best work moving a little slower. Anyway, regardless, it is what it is, and it works just fine.
Shot some 24447 yesterday afternoon to compare some loads, and check function. Guns used were a Colt 6720 and BCM 11.5" SBR. Measuring velocity was also a goal, but after setting up the chrono I found only a dead battery, with no spare. “One is none” is truth, and nothing else in the ride takes a 9v to borrow from. FAIL. No velocity data for now.
6720, T1 RDS (3 MOA), 5 Rounds @ 50yds, Monopod
Speer 24447, ~1.5" max spread, +.7" U, +.4" R of POA
Corbon 55 FMJ, ~2" max spread, -.6 D, -.1 L of POA
XM193, 55 FMJ, ~1.3" max spread, -1.5 D, +.9 R of POA
AE223AF, 55 FMJ, ~2.5" max spread, -1.2 D, +.8 R of POA, vertical string
BCM 11.5", Iron Sights, 5 Rounds @ 50yds, Monopod
Speer 24447, ~1.8" max spread, +1.5" U, -.2 L of POA
Corbon 55 FMJ, ~1.6" max spread, -.6" D, O l/r of POA
AE223AF, ~3" max spread, -.2 D, +.5 R of POA, vertical string
These weren’t the only groups shot, just the ones imaged and measured. Other runs were consistent with the above.
The 24447 consistently shot higher than the others at this distance. Best pairing so far in the 6720 was with the Corbon 55 FMJ, which was not expected. The groups with the AE were strung vertically and I don’t assign them a great deal of value.
Cold, windy, and distance limited to 50yds, but a starting point. I suspect things will tighten up a bit on a better day. The 62gr Fusion is still AWOL, it and various other 60-somethings are on the list for comparison.
Function was 100%. Zeros were tweaked and these rounds are on the road.
Lucky Gunner has it in stock, A little pricey but in stock nonetheless.
http://www.luckygunner.com/223-rem-64-gr-sp-speer-gold-dot-20-rounds