AR Sponsor
Posted: 8/18/2009 9:38:28 PM EDT
|
I have 2 AR's and a 20 round box of the new ammo.
#1 is a CMMG 1/7 16" lightweight middy. #2 is a franken AR with a Wilson 20" SS 1/8 barrel. I don't have ballistic gel, but I can breakout the redneck gel (phone books soaked over night). Also have a chrono. So what kind of testing do you people want to see performed? |
|
Ok I'll get chrono data from both guns (5 shots each), plenty of before pictures (so we can judge sealant and what not), and I personally want to do redneck gel testing. I'm going to test my own personal hand loads for a comparison, and I think I might have 5 rounds of XM193 somewhere as well.
Any other ideas? |
| Sounds like you will need more than 1 box to do decent definitive testing. At least 1 box per rifle. Water jugs do tend to over fragment things. I generaly get 2-3 times the fragmentation from water jugs as i do in the feral hogs on my property I use as test media. Also line the jugs up back to back, you will need about 5-6 to catch most fragments from 25yds. Also leave the caps off so the kinetic energy has some where to go and does not blow most of them up. The 1st 2 are toast / blown completely to hell regardless. Phone books sound interesting. : ) Glad to see some one so gung ho to get us data. |
|
Quoted:
I thought we could chose the rifle for the test...my bad. 
This is ARFCOM, the only answer to that question is BOTH! I'm going to run rounds through both rifles to see what the velocity is like out of a 16" and 20" barrel. Oh yeah...beans. Bah, damn TEXANS!!!
|
|
Ok, here's some pre-firing info.
I took some pics and pulled the bullet on one of the rounds. The round has sealant both on the primer, and bullet. Quality wise, out of 20 rounds, 3 had decent sized dings on the neck, though I don't feel these are large enough to be a safety issue. I measured the COAL of 5 rounds at random, and they were pretty consistent, 2.245 to 2.248. Almost forgot to add, the brass is stamped WCC 09. The lot number 
dings on the right 3 rounds 
primer sealant 
pulled bullet, with neck sealant 
powder charge at 25.8gr. 
Jacket thickness looked fairly thin by my standards, and I suspect it will fragment similar to other M193 loads. The following picture compares the jacket to a Montana Gold 55gr FMJ round. The Montana gold is on the left, the pulled Q3131A1 bullet is on the right. The Q3131A1 bullet weighed in at 54.7gr, and is a typical M193 style bullet. 
If the weather behaves, I'll conduct my shooting session on sunday and post more info then. |
|
Quoted:
where did you get this stuff and how much was it? very interested to read your review Why are we treating WalMart ammo like it's a rare find? (also found at Bass Pro shops) A lot of guys here have already bought and shot this ammo. I've found the brass at the range last month. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Plain old water jugs is better than phone books in my opinion.  water leads to over expansion in my opinion. How is a FMJBT W/C going to expand at all?
And the human body is mostly water.... and not one bit phone book!  Well soaked phone books work fairly good as a cheapo testing medium. I think water jugs are too "easy" of a test, in that bullets tend to violently expand (in the case of pistol caliber JHP's) or fragment (in the case of rifle caliber FMJ ) much more then they would normally do in ballistics gel. |
|
Quoted:
where did you get this stuff and how much was it? very interested to read your review Walmart, 10.99 per box of 20. Expensive in my opinion, but if it performs like a good M193 type round, then its probably worth it. Which is why I am doing this testing 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
where did you get this stuff and how much was it? very interested to read your review Why are we treating WalMart ammo like it's a rare find? (also found at Bass Pro shops) Uhhhhh, have you noticed that 223 ammo has been hard to find the past 9 months? Particularly ammo of the M193 type (which the Q3131A1 appears to be at this point) ? A lot of guys here have already bought and shot this ammo. I've found the brass at the range last month. Yes, people are buying this ammo and shooting it. But I'd like to know more about it performs, and I've not seen any detailed write ups yet, so as a favor to the arfcom community, I'm doing one. Wouldn't you like to know how well this stuff fragments, and what velocity its giving? |
|
Quoted:
Well soaked phone books work fairly good as a cheapo testing medium. I think water jugs are too "easy" of a test, in that bullets tend to violently expand (in the case of pistol caliber JHP's) or fragment (in the case of rifle caliber FMJ ) much more then they would normally do in ballistics gel. Yeah. Pure water is a little too easy for a bullet to do its thing. No bone matter and such. |
|
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:
But I'd like to know more about it performs, and I've not seen any detailed write ups yet, so as a favor to the arfcom community, I'm doing one. Wouldn't you like to know how well this stuff fragments, and what velocity its giving? I, for one, would love to see your results. 
|
Winchester’s Q3131A1 fired from a 20” Colt barrel with a NATO chamber, chrome lining and a 1:7” twist had a muzzle velocity of 3180 fps with a standard deviation of 24 fps for a 10-shot string. Temperature: 78 degrees F Humidity: 31% Barometric pressure: 30.08 inHg Elevation: 950 feet above sea level The velocity specification for M193 laid out in MIL-C-9963D calls for an instrumental velocity of 3250 fps, plus or minus 40 fps, at 15 feet from the muzzle, with one standard deviation not to exceed 40 fps. This is from a 20” test barrel that does not have a gas system. The M16/AR-15 loses approximately 20 fps due to its direct impingement gas operating system, which gives you a velocity range of approximately 3190 fps to 3270 fps at a distance of 15 feet when fired from a 20” barreled M16/AR-15 or a muzzle velocity of approximately 3210 fps to 3290 fps depending upon the exact B.C. |
|
Quoted:
Not meant to hijack at all... I'd love to see a comparo of some good ole Guat M193 to this new Q3131. I'd love to get some Guat at all. I can remember turning my nose up to that stuff back in the day.
With the crap ammo that's available right now, the old Guat and SA packs would be a Godsend!
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Plain old water jugs is better than phone books in my opinion. water leads to over expansion in my opinion. How is a FMJBT W/C going to expand at all?
And the human body is mostly water.... and not one bit phone book! It CAN fragment. And while the human body may be mostly water, it's the "not water" components that sustain the injuries related to the "permanent cavity." THOROUGHLY soaked newsprint (phone books or newspapers) can produce very usable results. While not calibratible, soaked newsprint displays results that are very similar to those in gelatin. As "poor man's" ballistic medium, saturated newsprint is very serviceable. On the other hand, what are you going to see from shooting water jugs? Blown up jugs with a limited ability to determine how far the projectile penetrated (minute of milk jug is a LOT of uncertainty). Conversely, soaked newsprint is a repeatable medium that will show EXACTLY how far a bullet penetrated, and how it behaved after entering the target. |
|
Quoted: It CAN fragment. And while the human body may be mostly water, it's the "not water" components that sustain the injuries related to the "permanent cavity." I think markm is aware of the fact that M193 doesn't expand, and was pointing out that soaked newspaper tests are anything but reliable. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not meant to hijack at all... I'd love to see a comparo of some good ole Guat M193 to this new Q3131. I'd love to get some Guat at all. I can remember turning my nose up to that stuff back in the day.
With the crap ammo that's available right now, the old Guat and SA packs would be a Godsend! Yeah, that S/A M1A3 ammo was my fave too. Down to my last two BPs. Got a little bit of Guat left too, but not too much. Molon, thanks for the initial report, looks like the Q3131A1 chrono is a few fps less than the min for M193, but it's very close. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It CAN fragment. And while the human body may be mostly water, it's the "not water" components that sustain the injuries related to the "permanent cavity." I think markm is aware of the fact that M193 doesn't expand, and was pointing out that soaked newspaper tests are anything but reliable. You're probably right, but saturated newsprint beats blown up milk jugs for me. Milk jugs are spectacular, but they really don't tell you anything, while you really can get good (though not calibrated, of course) information from shooting newsprint. |
|
And the results are in. Before I give them, my apologies, I forget to shoot any through my 20" gun. So all my data is for my 16" AR.
Air temp 90F Humidity 30% altitude approx 5280 feet Gun used: CMMG 16" 1/7 pencil barrel with phantom flash suppressor I decided to warm up by firing some of my handloads. I use 55gr fmj with 26.0gr of Tac Velocities (in FPS) (my reloads) 3075 (ouch) 3007 2991 2994 3006 Average of 3015 I then decided to shoot 5 rounds of Q3131 I had from a few years back. Figured it would be nice to see what the US made stuff does compared to the ROK stuff. (American made Q3131, from 2005) 3185 3221 3207 3202 3198 Average of 3203 As expected, this stuff was HOT. Fairly consistent too velocity wise. And then I did a 10 round group with the Q3131A1. (Q3131A1) 3048 3080 3048 3081 3088 3066 3084 3082 3056 3052 Average of 3069 This surprised me. I figured the ROK ammo would be fairly close to the Q3131. Oh well. On to the fragmentation test. After shooting the obama loving phone books  , I recovered the ROK FMJ round. As the picture shows, its fairly deformed, and much of the lead core is gone. I did find a few lead fragments in the phone book. Measuring the remaining bullet shows a weight of 37.5gr. I also shot one round of the Q3131 (the US made stuff) for fragmentation testing. It fragmented even more violently, with a retained weight of 31.5gr.
(Q3131 US made on the left, Q3131A1 ROK made on the right) 
Conclusion: The ROK stuff shoots fine, and appears fairly well made. The velocity is a tad disappointing in my opinion, being 125fps slower then the US ammo. It does fragment, but you're definitely not going to have the effective range with the ROK ammo that you would with US made Q3131. Based on published fragmentation charts (such as the ones listed here in the ammo faq ), I estimate that out of a 16" gun, you're going to lose about 30 yards of effective fragmentation distance between the Q3131 and the Q3131A1. |
|
Reminds me of the days when PMC was coming in from Korea.
Good stuff, even my JP Enterprises rifle loved it and it shot very accurately for me. God I miss the old PMC stuff that I was buying for like 3.50 a box back in 98-99. There was a time it seemed everybit as hot and was true M193 spec up until about 2000. The stuff dried up for a summer and then came back that fall/winter of either 2000 or 2001. What came back was noticably weaker, didn't cycle 100% in all of my ARs where the older stuff was 100% in all my rifles. Looks like this stuff is still in the same performance envelope of the changed/lower pressure ROK 5.56. |
| The velocity of this stuff wasn't bad at all, it just doesn't match up to the US or Israeli made Q3131. That's what I find disappointing. I'd much rather blast this stuff then most of the 223 thats available. But for people who need zombie ammo, there are better choices such as XM193. |
|
Quoted: Conclusion: The ROK stuff shoots fine, and appears fairly well made. The velocity is a tad disappointing in my opinion, being 125fps slower then the US ammo. It does fragment, but you're definitely not going to have the effective range with the ROK ammo that you would with US made Q3131. Based on published fragmentation charts (such as the ones listed here in the ammo faq ), I estimate that out of a 16" gun, you're going to lose about 30 yards of effective fragmentation distance between the Q3131 and the Q3131A1. Conclusion: It fragments in TELEPHONE BOOKS. It probably fragments in living tissue, but I wouldn't take it for granted. Shooting plain water would have been more revealing. [ETA] Based on your testing, the 2005 Q3131 is definitely hotter than expected. The factory chrono data spreadsheet I have shows that the Q3131A1 you tested is right in line with LC XM193 out of a 16" barrel. |
|
Well according to the Faq, Q3131 does 3168FPS at 55F. It was about 90F today, and I was averaging 3203FPS with the Q3131. Thats not that much faster, and I'm willing to bet the 35F temperature delta was the cause.
As far as fragmentation goes, you're right, phone books are NOT people But it's what I had, and I figure it would at least give me an idea. I still have a fair amount of the ROK ammo left, so I'll see about doing some water jugs in the near future if that would generate useful information.
|
|
Quoted:
Definitely an indication that this round is worth the money to test in gelatin. It'd be interesting to see how the distribution of fragments in gelatin compares to that in paper, too. Since newsprint is less compliant than gelatin, I would expect the fragments to go farther in gelatin, implying more tissue damage.
Conclusion: It fragments in TELEPHONE BOOKS. It probably fragments in living tissue, but I wouldn't take it for granted. Shooting plain water would have been more revealing. |
|
Quoted:
Conclusion: It fragments in TELEPHONE BOOKS. It probably fragments in living tissue, but I wouldn't take it for granted. Shooting plain water would have been more revealing. I plan to do this myself. I picked up one box of this stuff this morning at Bass Pro. WAY overpriced, but I wanted to be able to give the ammo a whirl... I'd rather pay this price than go searching at WalMex to find it. Anyway, the ammo looks a shitload better (consistent) than Q3131. But I have at least one round with excessive bullet runout, and a few more that are a little iffy. I mean you can watch the bullet tip wobble. I don't have the instrumentation to get the exact measurement, but it's bad.... I wouldn't shoot this stuff through a silencer. That's for sure! I'm very disappointed.  I was hoping this ammo might be a higher quality than XM193 and 3131.
Did anyone pull any bullets to check for neck sealant? (I'll probably pull this bent round to see what's crappening inside) |
|
Quoted:
Yes, the one I pulled did have neck sealant. That's good. I'd like to get that Hornady gadget that checks and correct bullet runout. I think if someone were to sort off any bad rounds from this stuff, It'd be a decent load for bulk defensive storage. I'm optimistic about the frag results you've found, and I like that the velocity isn't right up against the blown primer threshold. Quoted:
Thanks for the report. I was in Gander Mountain the other day, and they had about 20 boxes of this on the shelf - at the ridiculous price of $14/box.  I thought the $10 and change I paid for my box was embarrassing!
|
|
Thanks for posting your work!
The Q3131A1 has always run well in all our ARs and seems decently accurate. I try and purchase it when ever I find it (and can afford to). I'd like to see a gelatin test as well. I do really appreciate the time/effort/expense some of you take to evaluate ammunition. I've always been interested in balistics and would be doing some of this type of work too if I had the time and resources. Thanks again, EMSflyer |
|
Quoted:
The Q3131A1 has always run well in all our ARs and seems decently accurate. I'd bet you could chalk up any fliers to bullet runout. I don't know if this has always been a problem with ammo, or if I'm just noticing it a lot because I look for it more. I started checking ammo more closely after getting some really nasty instances of this with XM193 and Q3131. I honestly didn't expect to find this problem with 3131a1. Now I wonder if it's because the ammo producers are cranking ammo out with less regard for quality or what....
I'd like to get more of the Korean stuff if I could find it at a decent price. |
|
Quoted: If you guys have a suggestion for test media other then soaked phonebooks, I'm open to ideas. I don't have the money for ballistics gel, but anything cheap (or free) I can do. Once again water. Water is an accepted test medium, you can convert your penetration depth results from water into ballsitic Gel (you cannot convert penetration into phone books into ballistic gel). Yes when testing handgun bullets it will show optimum expansion and 'real' results will be a little less, but the depth is what is we're looking for. |
AR Sponsor