I've kinda split into penetration/ retention. I don't really get into ballistics coefficients because I don't have very many long shots and I don't practice long range normally because I'm a suburbanfag.

I like mk262 for ballistic effect and also accuracy.
I like bonded stuff because cars everywhere because suburbs.

If we all didn't love this shit we wouldn't be arguing about it on the internet. My G18 mag in my truck door is Hornady Critical Defense, not because I think it's the best round, but rather it would be the best round for me needing to grab a big Glock mag while I'm in the car. It excels in barrier penetration. Carrying everyday it's going to be HST

Outstanding replies so far!!!

Thank you Molon for sharing your testing, so much info and results!!

I agree 100%, we all love this topic and we want to shoot what works best. Lots of great info in this thread, I’ll keep buying m193 and 77 gr otm but maybe I’ll try some tmmk now too.

So .mil will just use up the m855 they have then replace war stocks with the m855a1 sounds like. Cool

Outstanding post

Thanks! Thats around the same time and price I sold all mine, and restocked with M193 at 0.28-.30

It's not called Wolf Gold anymore.   It's now packaged in a white box and called WM193, it's in stock most places at around 0.60 per round.

Selecting the correct round for the task is the best we can do. Sounds like you're making informed choices for your area.

One of my buddies who is not an ammo whore bought about 100rdd of bonded .223 ammo for coyote hunting Had to explain that he paid a lot for worse performance for the task he chose it for and he doesn't use a rifle for home defense.

For the record, I concur that HST is THE choice in pistol round and have had just plain bad performance from factory Hornady pistol ammo but ya gotta pick what makes the most sense. Now that said, if I need a good penetrating JHP for handloading it's going to be XTPs (factory American Gunner with XTPs is prone to setback, at least in .45, never bought any in 9mm).

As I understand it,  Wolf Gold is 223 and WM193 is 556 and they still make both

Interesting. I’ve not seen either local but my lgs has had PMC variants for a decade and it shoots well.

Along with federal and Winchester m193 clones of course.

I remember when he had the cans of m855, they disappeared in one day when the ban talk was going on. Oof

Same

Did anyone ever ballistic gel test the M193 clones?  I know Molon did his testing, but recall back in the day, certain “M193 clones” FMJ 55 gr load didn’t fragment.  S&B was one.  Some brands were mild steel leading to the “bimetal projectile” nonsense that sounded like LeMas “Blended Metal.”

Get the new Garmin.  It’s amazing.

That's what I do as well. I want my business ammo zeroed.

That’s the good path, agreed.

So basically we have found that while M855 is not as bad as most think it’s not worth buying at this point.

Better options exist and are available.

I don't really buy loaded ammo anymore.  If I did and 193 and 855 was the same price I'd let my groups decide. My 20"A2 surplus upper shoots any 855 better than m193. The rest of my guns it's a wash.

False.

...

M118 for the win

I only have 62gr and 77gr now.

55gr is shite out of 10.5" barrels even for practice.

The ranges I mainly use are either extremely Fuddy (Carter's in Spring----bench only, 100 yds only---etc.) Or are indoor and short.  Though one goes to 100 as well.  Haven't broken out the mat/sling, and I still need to get an adequate spotting scope and tripod.  There are few 300+ ranges around that I need to ingratiate myself with.

Work as usual, plus wife---she hates shooting, the noise, etc...though doesn't mind me doing it besides the time---and other hobbies eat time.

Interesting.  Even things like Fusion, TAP,  Barnes, and other LE-typical 5.56 loads?

I need to go back and look at that Box O Truth series on cars as cover or concealment.

Then tell us the right answer?  That would be helpful.

@molon

It is pretty good stuff and I trust it the most.

Having said that, I'm buying AAC SMK in bulk as it just performs at nearly 50% of the cost of BH, and for practice I'm running the AAC OTM. My go mags are all still BH, but the AAC SMK is shooting better for me and a few others then IMI razor core lately, and the AAC is $0.82 to the IMI $1.10. The AAC OTM is definitely not as good, but it is good enough for practice IMO at $0.62.

“Effectiveness”- at doing what exactly?  Yeah it does a few things better.  And a lot of things worse…

Youtube videos might not be the best source of info.  First don’t forget that youtube is full of complete garbage information on every subject known to mankind.  Then consider that of the ammo testing videos, most are not done in any kind of repeatable (scientific) manner, with calibrated gel, with consistent barriers, etc.

I will stick to well tested variants, carried by agencies who don’t need to worry about trying to pretend to follow any treaties governing warfare.  Stuff like the two FBI loads, or Gold Dots (CBP load).  M855 is literal proof that “mil spec” does not equal “better”…. There are a lot of knowledgeable folks posting right here in this thread, and I sure don’t see a lot of love for M855 among the group.

Don’t get me wrong- I watch some of the youtube videos also.  But only the better done ones.  And I also have access to industry info (publicly available, FBI test data (not as available), and have observed or participated in several ammo tests as well.  

Of course I have also been at a shooting where someone survived despite taking four .223 hits center mass hits, so I know anything can fail.  (Though it really was not a failure, as he certainly did stop immediately, and only lived due to medics treating him within a minute or two.  And I am not sure that what he had going on later would count much towards “living life to the fullest”).  As always, short barrels make things worse for performance.

Not saying M855 won’t work, because it will, but it is pretty much what I only would use after everything else runs out.  Personally I am mostly still using Gold Dots, because for a while they were quite affordable compared to other quality loadings at the time, and they work pretty well.

FPNI

M855 is trash

You need a 1/7  barrel for the 77gr or 75gr. That is why they are keyholing, 1/9 doesn't stabilize them.

You can shoot a raisin through a block wall if you get it moving fast enough.

True

What is preferred for wounding effect from 11.5 and below?

Abso- freaking-lutely!

It’s why an AR-10 is my go to for almost everything….

@molon

Could you please clarify this so we could all understand?

855 is good at specific things.  Its generally not great at anything.  

True LC green tip can be exceptionally accurate.  I've seen multiple lots that were consistently sub MOA from stock M4A1 Carbines with ACOGs.  

Above 3k FPS, it can fragment very well.  It often doesn't do so until it has penetrated 6+ inches which means the would tract is not optimal...but its still a GSW from a rifle.  

It punches certain armor quite well.  

Above 3K FPS, it can punch steel plates...not all of them though.

Its consistent, lot to lot.  

Its reliable across a broad spectrum of rifles and doesn't require any special care/feeding like some of the exotic loads do.  


Overall...its not bad.  Is it great?  no...but if you dump 6 rounds into a threat at 25 yards, it is perfectly adequate.  It wouldn't be my first choice for 10 inch guns...as it needs about 2700 fps to really perform.

77 TMK is supposed to be absolutely absurd down to some very low velocities.  1400 fps comes to mind, but that's likely wrong.  Now, try finding it anywhere...

No idea about barrier defeating effectiveness.

EDIT:  An older Arf thread on the subject, citing 1900 fps:

It's not like I haven't already done that over and over and over again.

This is Wolf Gold and new lots of this load have not been available for years.  This load is not nearly as accurate as the currently available Wolf WM193.






This is not Wolf Gold and this is what new lots are currently available as.  The word gold does not appear anywhere on the box and Wolf’s website does not refer to this load as Wolf Gold at all.  This load is not a 5.56 M193 load.  It is vastly slowly than M193, though it is much more accurate than Wolf Gold.





Wolf WM193 5.56x45mm Accuracy Evaluation




Notice that the box in the above picture is white.  Also notice that the word “gold” does not appear anywhere on that box.  Just, sayin’.

It is known by many that Wolf does not manufacture ammunition, but rather, is an importer of ammunition.  Wolf WM193 is imported from Taiwan.  Unlike the steel-cased, bi-metal jacketed Wolf Performance Ammunition that is imported from Russia, Wolf WM193 has copper jacketed bullets loaded in brass cases.  On-line vendors selling this ammunition claim that it is “manufactured to M193 specs.”  

Genuine US Military M193 can no longer be sold to civilians, thanks to the Clinton Administration.  The ammunition that is sold on the commercial market with some form of “M193” in its nomenclature is often referred to as an “M193 clone” because it “appears to be a copy” of genuine M193, but we generally have no idea what specifications of MIL-C-9963 that this ammunition has passed, or has even been tested for.

Genuine M193 must be tested for and pass all of the specifications laid out in the mil-spec, MIL-C-9963.  The required areas of testing included in MIL-C-9963 range from velocity, accuracy, chamber pressure and port pressure to waterproofing, temperature stability, bullet extraction, case hardness, fouling and much more.  

M193 is loaded with a 55 grain FMJ bullet with a cannelure.  The bullet itself, must meet required specifications in order to be used in genuine M193 ammunition.  For example, the specification for the thickness of the gilding metal jacket of the bullet is 0.021" with a tolerance of - 0.002".    For comparison, the jacket of Hornady’s 55 grain FMJ bullet has a thickness of approximately 0.028”.  

Jacket thickness can have a significant effect on terminal ballistic properties, particularly that of fragmentation.  Even the composition of the copper alloy used for the jacket and the lead used for the slug must meet mil-spec requirements for genuine M193.

Genuine M193 can only be charged with powder that has been specifically approved by the US Military for use in this cartridge.  If the ammunition in question is not loaded with one of the approved powders, it is not genuine M193 and naturally we have no way of determining what powder was used in a load simply by visual inspection.

Genuine M193 will have the annealing iris visible on the shoulder and neck portion of the case.  It will also will have crimped and sealed primers. Genuine M193 has a crimped case mouth along with sealant at the case mouth.




The annealing iris is lightly visible on the WM193 brass cases, though it’s not nearly as distinct as on a Lake City case.




The Wolf WM193 uses a typically shaped 55 FMJ projectile with a cannelure and has a nominal length of 0.743”. The case mouth has a collet-crimp and asphalt sealant.




The head-stamp for this ammunition reads: “556 Wolf”.  The primer pockets are crimped and smeared with sealant.




As with most M193 clones, the WM193 is charged with a flattened “ball” powder.




Velocity

Aside from aspects of M193 clones that can be assessed by visual inspection, the two main aspects of M193 clones that we can assess via live fire testing to determine if an M193 clone adheres to the US mil-spec are velocity and accuracy (technically precision).  The velocity specification for M193 that is cited in MIL-C-9963F (the mil spec that people who are concerned about the velocity of M193 care about) states:

The average velocity of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 72 degrees, plus or minus 2 degrees Fahrenheit (F), shall be 3165 feet per second (ft/sec), plus or minus 40 ft/sec, at 78 feet from the muzzle of the weapon.  The standard deviation of the velocities shall not exceed 40 ft/sec.

The specification is for a 20” barrel.  Depending on multiple variables, this velocity specification equates to a muzzle velocity of approximately 3270 FPS, plus or minus 40 FPS.  I chronographed the Wolf WM193 ammunition from a semi-automatic AR-15 with a chrome-lined, NATO chambered 20” Colt barrel.






As an aside, after reading the above specification, some of you may be wondering, “Why 78 feet from the muzzle?”  The answer to that question is that this specification is simply an historical hold-over from the days when “circuit” chronographs (e.g. Le Boulenge Chronograph and the Aberdeen Chronograph) were used at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Frankford Arsenal and Springfield Armory.  These types of chronographs required a significant distance between their first and second screens to produce accurate results.

As an example, when using the Boulenge Chronograph, the first screen of the chronograph was placed 3 feet in front of the muzzle and the second screen was placed 150 feet beyond the first screen.  For those of you who might not be aware of the following fact; chronographs determine the velocity of the bullet at a point that is midway between the first and the second screen (i.e. not at the location of the first screen).  Therefore, with the above spacing, the velocity of the bullet is determined for a point that is 75 feet from the first screen.  So, add the three feet (from the muzzle to the first screen) to the 75 feet (the midway point of the screens) to obtain the “78 feet from the muzzle” distance.







Chronographing was conducted using an Oehler 35-P chronograph with “proof screen” technology. The Oehler 35P chronograph is actually two chronographs in one package that takes two separate chronograph readings for each shot and flags any errant readings to let you know that the data is suspect.  There was no invalid data flagged during this testing.

The velocity stated below is the muzzle velocity as calculated from the instrumental velocity using Oehler’s Ballistic Explorer software program. The string of fire consisted of 10 rounds over the chronograph.











Each round was single-loaded and cycled into the chamber from a magazine fitted with a single-load follower. The bolt locked-back after each shot allowing the chamber to cool in between each shot. This technique was used to mitigate the possible influence of “chamber-soak” on velocity data. Each new shot was fired in a consistent manner after hitting the bolt release.  Atmospheric conditions were monitored and recorded using a Kestrel 4000 Pocket Weather Tracker.





Atmospheric conditions.

Temperature:  71.6 degrees F
Humidity:  78.4%
Barometric pressure:  30.02 inches of Hg
Elevation:  950 feet above sea level


The average muzzle velocity for the 10-shot string of the Wolf WM193 ammunition fired from the 20” Colt barrel was 3088 FPS with a standard deviation of 16 FPS.  The coefficient of variation was 0.52%.  For comparison, legacy IMI M193 had a muzzle velocity of 3274 FPS when fired from a 20” Colt barrel with a standard deviation of 18 FPS and coefficient of variation of 0.55%.


For those of you who might not be familiar with the coefficient of variation (CV), it is the standard deviation, divided by the mean (average) muzzle velocity and then multiplied by 100 and expressed as a percentage. It allows for the comparison of the uniformity of velocity between loads in different velocity spectrums; e.g. 77 grain loads averaging approximately 2,650 fps compared to 55 grain loads averaging approximately 3,250 fps.  

The US mil-spec for M193 allows for a coefficient of variation of approximately 1.2%, while one of my best 77 grain OTM hand-loads, with a muzzle velocity of 2639 PFS and a standard deviation of 4 FPS, has a coefficient of variation of 0.15%.



Accuracy


The US accuracy specification for M193 that is cited in MIL-C-9963F is as follows:

“The average of the mean radii of all targets of the sample cartridges, fired at 200 yards, shall not exceed 2.0 inches.”

These averages are from 10-shot groups fired from machine rested, bolt-actioned, heavy test barrels. All things being equal this specification equates to a mean radius of 1 inch at 100 yards (the distance at which I tested this ammunition).

I conducted an accuracy (technically, precision) evaluation of the Wolf WM193 following my usual protocol.  This accuracy evaluation used statistically significant shot-group sizes and every single shot in a fired group was included in the measurements. There was absolutely no use of any Group Reduction Techniques (e.g. fliers, target movement, Butterfly Shots).

The shooting set-up will be described in detail below. As many of the significant variables as was practicable were controlled for. Also, a control group was fired from the test-rifle used in the evaluation using match-grade, hand-loaded ammunition; in order to demonstrate the capability of the barrel. Pictures of shot-groups are posted for documentation.

All shooting was conducted from a concrete bench-rest from a distance of 100 yards (confirmed with a laser rangefinder.) The barrel used in the evaluation was free-floated. The free-float handguards of the rifle rested in a Sinclair Windage Benchrest, while the stock of the rifle rested in a Protektor bunny-ear rear bag. Sighting was accomplished via a Leupold VARI-X III set at 25X magnification and adjusted to be parallax-free at 100 yards. A mirage shade was used. Wind conditions on the shooting range were continuously monitored using a Wind Probe. The set-up was very similar to that pictured below.







The Wind Probe . . .





The test vehicle for this evaluation was one of my semi-automatic precision AR-15s with a 20” stainless-steel Lothar Walther barrel.  The barrel has a 223 Wylde chamber with a 1:8” twist.















Prior to firing the Wolf WM193, I fired a 10-shot control group using match-grade hand-loads topped with the Sierra 52 grain MatchKing.  That group had an extreme spread of 0.62”.





Three 10-shot groups of the Wolf WM193 ammunition fired consecutively from the Lothar Walther barreled AR-15 at a distance of 100 yards had the following extreme spreads:

1.72”

1.63”

1.62”

for a 10-shot group average extreme spread of 1.66”.  I over-layed the three 10-shot groups on each other using RSI Shooting Lab to form a 30-shot composite group.  The mean radius of the 30-shot composite group was 0.60”.

The smallest 10-shot group . . .





The 30-shot composite group . . .




For comparison, you can view my evaluation of the Wolf Gold 55 grain FMJ 223 Remington ammunition

https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/Wolf-Gold-55-grain-FMJ-Accuracy-and-Velocity/16-687936/?page=1




The results of both evaluations are summarized in the tables below.












….

M855 isn’t as prone to fragmentary effects as the projectile for M193.  This became a complaint in the Middle East & Africa, Somalia, in the day.  Skinny underfed men & 7-8” of travel for yaw & related fragmentation, IIRC.  The projectile was allegedly exiting after making an “ice pick wound,” is how I believe Dr. Fackler called them.

I’ve posted an observation from my days in a level 1 trauma center in an inner city hospital: I’ve yet to meet the person who’s been shot that complains about projectile choice or caliber.

Being shot likely sucks—I dunno, it’s one of the few health issues I haven’t experienced to date & I hope my luck continues.  Being shot with a more effect bullet that causes more tissue damage is more likely to have significant consequences.  Since 5.56 both M193 & M855 requires yaw or tumbling to result in fragmentation, the body type of subject being shot factors into the terminal ballistics of a projectile.  As does movement, luck & other things sometimes poorly reproduced.

With that background—over-weight & obese Americans typically have more tissue than the foreigners with a BMI 17 that started concerns about the terminal ballistics of M855 vs M193.  As non-target ammo—neither is going to be as accurate (I know the proper term is “precision,” Molon as match ammo.

I think some folks get a little too hung up in arrow vs the indian….

BS.  Lake City's own documentation shows that Lake City M855 can barely hold 3 MOA.




...

Thanks for posting.  

Just so you know, I havent followed every post you have made.  I have seen your work.  You are excellent at what you do.  But as far as wolf goes, I paid no attention.  I dont know exactly who makes wolf or the ins and outs of it.

False was simply an incomplete post for those of us who might not know.  Now that you posted this we have the opportunity to follow what you are saying rather than just be expected to accept FALSE as the answer.  It was a relatively simple explanation, but you posted it all.  I thank you for that.  You didnt have to post it all, a summary would have sufficed.  You went the extra mile.  Thanks again.

Did my own testing this morning, not as classy as Molon but fun and good results.

Will post them when I get home standby.

I want to k now whatever happend to that purple-tip stuff IMI was supposedly producing. They were claiming very high energy terminal ballistics, in a "standard" 5.56 package.

I cna't find ANYTHING about it online,anywhere, now, but I know it existed, there are still a few limited refernces to it online, like  https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/imi-5-56-apm-purple-tip/27640/6...

Test rifle was my “spr”, 18” BCM national match barrel with 1-10x lpvo

Shot at 50 yards.

Attached File

Attached File


Ammo selection for the testing, the 30 round mag is loaded with federal xm193.

Xm193

Attached File


M855

Attached File


Hornady frontier 75 gr bthp 5.56

Attached File


Hornady black 75 gr bthp 223

Attached File


And lastly AAC 77 gr OTM

Attached File

distance?

I just prefer mK262

However my Aug does not like it (1:9 twist ugh)

Everything else to Scar, MK12’s, Sig’s  - 10.5 SBR’s loves the stuff, HK’ roller Locked etc  

It’s super accurate- 23.0 grains of XBR8208 77smk with or with out cannelure

Shooting Competitions the 77 knocked the plates better

Looking at the size of the holes( ETA: and the scale on the slide), the grid on those targets is 1 inch, which would make those caliper readings...incorrect. Though it is Friday morning and entirely possible i'm having a brain fart...


Did you forget to zero the caliper?

Just looking at the printed graduations on the caliper itself appear to show the digital readings are about 1/2 of actual size.

yeah, those calipers weren't zero'd out. go by the measurements on the ruler part and not the digital reading

50 yards, I’ll do 100 next time

Well crap, live and learn I’ll do that next time.

Thanks, use your info for reference I’ll do better next time!

I understand why they stripped id's from archived posts, but it does make it a bit more difficult to find quality content from posters like Molon, or ManicMoran to mention another SME.  

Thanks for the info, Molon.

I agree with your point it makes it hard to find peoples stuff.  But honestly had nothing to do with it.  I have seen some of his work.  It is awesome.  But I do not go looking for his work.  And false was a very incomplete answer.  If you are gonna call somebody out as being wrong, CORRECT THEM.  And the reason you correct them is you might not be as well followed as you think you, no matter how good your work is.  

I say this without the slightest bit of intended insult.  Just fact.  It is a courtesy and a VERY GOOD ONE to back up your claims when you go correcting people.  Saves everybody time.  Or keeps them from just writing you off.  

He does great work when he posts.  Not everybody sees it.

Yep I sure did, haven’t used them before I had a pair or manual calipers prior. Oof.


Still fun and I felt decent groups for me and even if I have to double the shown size I’ll take it.

Yes, that’s correct. We would test everyone’s duty loads in the class. It was long established these loads wouldn’t penetrate both doors of a car long before I started helping with the classes. I was surprised by the results….



ETA I don’t recall seeing any Barnes come through so I can’t say for sure about that one. I know Fed, Winchester, Gold Dots and aall variations of Hornady were most of what we would see. All failed to penetrate both doors….