AR Sponsor
100 gr 5.56mm ammo? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 9/14/2014 12:14:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Combat_Diver][Edited]
|
Anyone know about this BH 100gr ammo?
Attached File Attached File CD |
De Oppresso Liber
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09'
Afganistan: 09,10,11',&14'
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09'
Afganistan: 09,10,11',&14'
|
Not tungsten, lead cored and copper jacketed. Looked like someone taped two M193s together. The last I saw of it, the bullets were being sold as pulls or blems on Midway.
Here is a little test on it. 100gr OTM Test |
Fear is the foundation of most governments.
Joined:
Nov 2009
Posts:
9400
EE: 100% (350)
TN, USA
|
I've got some 103 gr bullets that aren't any bigger than 75 gr Berger VLDs. I believe that's what that ammo was loaded with.
I believe they were made by Powell River Labs, but Sinister knows waaaayyyy more about them than anyone else here. 
|
"Hope is not a policy, and, at present, there is no realistic path to a world free of nuclear weapons."
- John Deutch
- John Deutch
|
Originally Posted By Morbidbattlecry:
I remember a while back when Doc Roberts posted here that you needed like a 1/6 twist rate to run it. Otherwise you got a rainbow trajectory. I believe most ballistic trajecories at sufficient angle resemble a rainbow or arc. |
"Hope is not a policy, and, at present, there is no realistic path to a world free of nuclear weapons."
- John Deutch
- John Deutch
It's time for a Soul based economy
Joined:
Jul 2011
Posts:
923
EE: 100% (37)
NM, USA
|
Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
I believe most ballistic trajecories at sufficient angle resemble a rainbow or arc. Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
Originally Posted By Morbidbattlecry:
I remember a while back when Doc Roberts posted here that you needed like a 1/6 twist rate to run it. Otherwise you got a rainbow trajectory. I believe most ballistic trajecories at sufficient angle resemble a rainbow or arc. And twist rate has nothing to do with trajectory. |
Will work for TAC.
MOA All Day
MOA All Day
|
Originally Posted By ControlledChaos999:
Would be a great SBR round... No, we had a hard enough time pushing the 100gr bullet to about 2400fps out of a 16" barrel. I can't imagine how slow it would be if you drop down to 10" or so. IIRC, we also had stabilization issues at that velocity. |
"B" of B&T Ammolabs
've ≠ of
than ≠ then
've ≠ of
than ≠ then
|
Originally Posted By Eric802:
And twist rate has nothing to do with trajectory. Originally Posted By Eric802:
Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
Originally Posted By Morbidbattlecry:
I remember a while back when Doc Roberts posted here that you needed like a 1/6 twist rate to run it. Otherwise you got a rainbow trajectory. I believe most ballistic trajecories at sufficient angle resemble a rainbow or arc. And twist rate has nothing to do with trajectory. I'm just quoting what he posted. |
|
Are those yours? Can you pull some? |
"Hope is not a policy, and, at present, there is no realistic path to a world free of nuclear weapons."
- John Deutch
- John Deutch
|
Originally Posted By Combat_Diver:
Don't have my bullet puller with me but do have a Gerber so I'll try and pull a bullet. No scale or chronograph at location however. CD Did you get issued that? A friend of mine was telling me about some new type of ammo that he was trying out in his mk18 a few months ago while he was over ther. I wonder if this was it? |
The things that kill me, make me feel alive!
The Fappening 8/31/14 -History was made!
The Fappening 8/31/14 -History was made!
|
Originally Posted By Eric802:
And twist rate has nothing to do with trajectory. Originally Posted By Eric802:
Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
Originally Posted By Morbidbattlecry:
I remember a while back when Doc Roberts posted here that you needed like a 1/6 twist rate to run it. Otherwise you got a rainbow trajectory. I believe most ballistic trajecories at sufficient angle resemble a rainbow or arc. And twist rate has nothing to do with trajectory. Well, in all honesty if your slug is tumbling end over end because of insufficient stability it's not going to fly for shit.
But I get where you're coming from. |
If you're good at something, never do it for free.
|
Originally Posted By ziarifleman: I've got some 103 gr bullets that aren't any bigger than 75 gr Berger VLDs. I believe that's what that ammo was loaded with. I believe they were made by Powell River Labs, but Sinister knows waaaayyyy more about them than anyone else here. PRL did the 87gr sintered stuff, but the 100gr was a conventional bullet design. |
Daddy loves you. Now go away.
|
Originally Posted By Eric802:
And twist rate has nothing to do with trajectory. Originally Posted By Eric802:
Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
Originally Posted By Morbidbattlecry:
I remember a while back when Doc Roberts posted here that you needed like a 1/6 twist rate to run it. Otherwise you got a rainbow trajectory. I believe most ballistic trajecories at sufficient angle resemble a rainbow or arc. And twist rate has nothing to do with trajectory. I believe this to be correct, a heavy ass round out of too slow of a twist barrel would cause the round to yaw correct? Not sure where he got rainbow trajectory from |
In the absence of a plan, move toward the sound of gunfire and kill everything.
Moons out Goons out time to smash some Punes out. -OAF
Moons out Goons out time to smash some Punes out. -OAF
|
Originally Posted By Zhukov:
PRL did the 87gr sintered stuff, but the 100gr was a conventional bullet design. Originally Posted By Zhukov:
Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
I've got some 103 gr bullets that aren't any bigger than 75 gr Berger VLDs. I believe that's what that ammo was loaded with. I believe they were made by Powell River Labs, but Sinister knows waaaayyyy more about them than anyone else here. PRL did the 87gr sintered stuff, but the 100gr was a conventional bullet design. The history of my bullets is obscure and difficult to research. |
"Hope is not a policy, and, at present, there is no realistic path to a world free of nuclear weapons."
- John Deutch
- John Deutch
|
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
I believe this to be correct, a heavy ass round out of too slow of a twist barrel would cause the round to yaw correct? Not sure where he got rainbow trajectory from Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By Eric802:
Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
Originally Posted By Morbidbattlecry:
I remember a while back when Doc Roberts posted here that you needed like a 1/6 twist rate to run it. Otherwise you got a rainbow trajectory. I believe most ballistic trajecories at sufficient angle resemble a rainbow or arc. And twist rate has nothing to do with trajectory. I believe this to be correct, a heavy ass round out of too slow of a twist barrel would cause the round to yaw correct? Not sure where he got rainbow trajectory from A non-stabilized will not fly as far as a stabilized one. So it will drop faster. |
| Very interesting, I wonder at what length and weight a 5.56 bullet will behave the same in a 1/7 twist barrel as the M193 did in a 1/12 twist, as it is my understanding it was the slight unstable in flight yaw that caused the M193 to be so devistating...until the faster twist rates rifles were issues and over stablized it. |
|
Originally Posted By OldArmy:
Very interesting, I wonder at what length and weight a 5.56 bullet will behave the same in a 1/7 twist barrel as the M193 did in a 1/12 twist, as it is my understanding it was the slight unstable in flight yaw that caused the M193 to be so devistating...until the faster twist rates rifles were issues and over stablized it. A myth. M193 bullets are fully stable in the air and you can't spin a bullet fast enough to make it stable in tissue, there is no such thing as overstabilized. |
Could God make a taco so bad that even He could not eat it?
| BH made the 100 gr supersonic load for the military back around 2002-2004. These supersonic loads had a blue coating on the bullets and they came on stripper clips packed in .50 cal ammo cans as illustrated above. The ammo was an limited issue expedient option designed primarily for fighting at 200 yds and closer. This ammo has not been made in over a decade, as there are much better options available now, so it is simply a footnote in SOF ammo history. |
|
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
A myth. M193 bullets are fully stable in the air and you can't spin a bullet fast enough to make it stable in tissue, there is no such thing as overstabilized. Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By OldArmy: Very interesting, I wonder at what length and weight a 5.56 bullet will behave the same in a 1/7 twist barrel as the M193 did in a 1/12 twist, as it is my understanding it was the slight unstable in flight yaw that caused the M193 to be so devistating...until the faster twist rates rifles were issues and over stablized it. A myth. M193 bullets are fully stable in the air and you can't spin a bullet fast enough to make it stable in tissue, there is no such thing as overstabilized. It seems to be a rather persistent myth. 55 grn bullets fired @ lower velocity than M193 from the early 1 in 14" twist M-16 seemingly produced spectacular wounds; M193, @ a slightly higher velocity w/ 1 in 12" twist did not do so well. Modern M855 out of the 14.5" M4 is rather notorious for ice-pick style wounds. |
Managing Member of Mischief
|
Originally Posted By DocGKR: BH made the 100 gr supersonic load for the military back around 2002-2004. These supersonic loads had a blue coating on the bullets and they came on stripper clips packed in .50 cal ammo cans as illustrated above. The ammo was an limited issue expedient option designed primarily for fighting at 200 yds and closer. This ammo has not been made in over a decade, as there are much better options available now, so it is simply a footnote in SOF ammo history. Thanks for the info Doc! |
Daddy loves you. Now go away.
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: It seems to be a rather persistent myth. 55 grn bullets fired @ lower velocity than M193 from the early 1 in 14" twist M-16 seemingly produced spectacular wounds; M193, @ a slightly higher velocity w/ 1 in 12" twist did not do so well. Modern M855 out of the 14.5" M4 is rather notorious for ice-pick style wounds. There is no difference in wounding from a 1/14 vs. 1/12. In regards to the variation in wounding potential from .223, please refer to the "Best choices for self defense ammo" and the chapter "Why not M193/M855?". It discusses the fleet yaw issue that seems to affect .223 to a disproportionate degree. |
Daddy loves you. Now go away.
|
Originally Posted By Zhukov:
There is no difference in wounding from a 1/14 vs. 1/12. In regards to the variation in wounding potential from .223, please refer to the "Best choices for self defense ammo" and the chapter "Why not M193/M855?". It discusses the fleet yaw issue that seems to affect .223 to a disproportionate degree. Originally Posted By Zhukov:
Originally Posted By backbencher: It seems to be a rather persistent myth. 55 grn bullets fired @ lower velocity than M193 from the early 1 in 14" twist M-16 seemingly produced spectacular wounds; M193, @ a slightly higher velocity w/ 1 in 12" twist did not do so well. Modern M855 out of the 14.5" M4 is rather notorious for ice-pick style wounds. There is no difference in wounding from a 1/14 vs. 1/12. In regards to the variation in wounding potential from .223, please refer to the "Best choices for self defense ammo" and the chapter "Why not M193/M855?". It discusses the fleet yaw issue that seems to affect .223 to a disproportionate degree. http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#.223 Has a very small section which discusses fleet yaw in M855, and does not seemingly address M193, nor the slightly slower predecessor to M193 which was fired from the 1/14" twist bbl. Nor does the link in that section work @ present. From http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html cited in the Ammo Oracle: 1962: July: ARPA's operational testing of the AR-15 in Vietnam ends. Later in the month, ARPA releases the report "Test of ArmaLite Rifle, AR-15." The report concludes that the AR-15 is superior to the M2 Carbine, and better suited for Vietnamese soldiers than the M1 rifle, the M1918 BAR, and the Thompson SMG. Vietnamese troops and their US advisors reportedly considered the AR-15 "the best "all around" shoulder weapon" then in use. ARPA notes that there were no part breakages in nearly 80,000 rounds fired, and only two parts were replaced. The report also includes graphic details of the .223 Remington's terminal effects. The results are typically described as "explosive." The American Rifleman article is cited for the AR-15's inaccuracy in cold weather, yet changing the rifling twist would likely decrease of the rifle's lethality. |
Managing Member of Mischief
|
Originally Posted By DocGKR:
BH made the 100 gr supersonic load for the military back around 2002-2004. These supersonic loads had a blue coating on the bullets and they came on stripper clips packed in .50 cal ammo cans as illustrated above. The ammo was an limited issue expedient option designed primarily for fighting at 200 yds and closer. This ammo has not been made in over a decade, as there are much better options available now, so it is simply a footnote in SOF ammo history. Thanks for the info Doc, still haven't shoot the 30 rds yet. Got a Mk18 (10.3") to test them with later. CD |
De Oppresso Liber
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09'
Afganistan: 09,10,11', & 14'
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09'
Afganistan: 09,10,11', & 14'
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#.223 Has a very small section which discusses fleet yaw in M855, and does not seemingly address M193, nor the slightly slower predecessor to M193 which was fired from the 1/14" twist bbl. Nor does the link in that section work @ present. From http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html cited in the Ammo Oracle: 1962: Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By Zhukov: There is no difference in wounding from a 1/14 vs. 1/12. In regards to the variation in wounding potential from .223, please refer to the "Best choices for self defense ammo" and the chapter "Why not M193/M855?". It discusses the fleet yaw issue that seems to affect .223 to a disproportionate degree. http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#.223 Has a very small section which discusses fleet yaw in M855, and does not seemingly address M193, nor the slightly slower predecessor to M193 which was fired from the 1/14" twist bbl. Nor does the link in that section work @ present. From http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html cited in the Ammo Oracle: 1962: July: ARPA's operational testing of the AR-15 in Vietnam ends. Later in the month, ARPA releases the report "Test of ArmaLite Rifle, AR-15." The report concludes that the AR-15 is superior to the M2 Carbine, and better suited for Vietnamese soldiers than the M1 rifle, the M1918 BAR, and the Thompson SMG. Vietnamese troops and their US advisors reportedly considered the AR-15 "the best "all around" shoulder weapon" then in use. ARPA notes that there were no part breakages in nearly 80,000 rounds fired, and only two parts were replaced. The report also includes graphic details of the .223 Remington's terminal effects. The results are typically described as "explosive." The American Rifleman article is cited for the AR-15's inaccuracy in cold weather, yet changing the rifling twist would likely decrease of the rifle's lethality. I'll have to fix the link. Molon pulled most of his documents off of box.net unfortunately. A 1962 article is hardly the definitive source on wounding potential. The knowledge about wound ballistics in those days was very limited. Unless I'm mistaken, Doctor Roberts or Dr. Fackler have tested 1/12 vs. 1/14 and did not find any difference. [ETA] http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_tighttwist.html |
Daddy loves you. Now go away.
|
"The report also includes graphic details of the .223 Remington's terminal effects. The results are typically described as "explosive." The mechanisms of yaw, hyperexpansion, and fragmentation were not known at that time, so that report simply perpetuates more myth along with a sad lack of science. Combat Diver: be careful--that ammo uses an older propellent which is NOT heat stable; there have been some pressure issues as a result. Would hate to see your rifle blown apart. |
|
Originally Posted By DocGKR:
Combat Diver: be careful--that ammo uses an older propellent which is NOT heat stable; there have been some pressure issues as a result. Would hate to see your rifle blown apart. Roger, might just keep for last ditch defensive use then. CD |
De Oppresso Liber
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09'
Afganistan: 09,10,11', & 14'
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09'
Afganistan: 09,10,11', & 14'
|
Originally Posted By Zhukov: I'll have to fix the link. Molon pulled most of his documents off of box.net unfortunately.
A 1962 article is hardly the definitive source on wounding potential. The knowledge about wound ballistics in those days was very limited. Unless I'm mistaken, Doctor Roberts or Dr. Fackler have tested 1/12 vs. 1/14 and did not find any difference. [ETA] http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_tighttwist.html Ah, thanks for the link - that does answer the question. But I've really enjoyed reading this: http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-6.html |
Managing Member of Mischief
|
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Maximum allowable chamber pressures have been upped? Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By Ridgeline: I remember arguing about this 10-12 years ago. It was a bust then. Why would it be any better now when it was dropped 9-11 years ago? Maximum allowable chamber pressures have been upped? Ok, I can see that. Not so sure higher pressures are all that good long term but it does rekindle the argument a bit. |
|
Originally Posted By Combat_Diver:
Roger, might just keep for last ditch defensive use then. CD Originally Posted By Combat_Diver:
Originally Posted By DocGKR:
Combat Diver: be careful--that ammo uses an older propellent which is NOT heat stable; there have been some pressure issues as a result. Would hate to see your rifle blown apart. Roger, might just keep for last ditch defensive use then. CD Self defense? Hell i'd sell it. I'd imagine some ammo collectors would love to have some. I would love to have some lol
|
Does this mean there’s someone on another forum right now asking about 55gr bullets in a 300blk. 
Also since when does 'Not heat stable' mean ammo has a shorter shelf life or that these round should never be fired in any rifle? No but in all seriousness don't fire them. |
|
Based on some of the above, I have been experimenting with heavy bullets (90 to 100 gr) for use in a 10.5" SBR. Latest version was 92 gr with a muzzle velocity of 2100 fps. Bullet expanded to twice original diameter, penetrated 15 inches of Clear Ballistics Gel, and had a retained weight of 86 gr.
Velocity in a 16" barrel was 2400fps. This also expanded to twice original diameter, completely penetrated a 16 inch block of gel and had a retained weight of 55 gr. Been too cold to test my next version which is 97 gr. |
|
Yes I swage my own rifle bullets. The 92 gr bullets have shown to be stable out to 100 yds with the 7" twist in both my 10.5" and 16" barrels with outside temperature around 40 degrees. Have not shot them in my long barrel with 8" twist. Penetration in gel has been straight line with no noticeable departure from the original flight path. Goal was to achieve excellent penetration with some expansion for the SBR. |
100 gr 5.56mm ammo? (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor