Self defense loads for .223

Status
Not open for further replies.
My friends who have recently come back from Afghanistan within the last few years were all using A1.

I gotta disagree with the idea that M855 just ice picks. It does have a long time to upset in certain situations, but it's not super widespread and M855 has been killing the crap out of badguys for the past 19 years. I've seen multiple guys shot with it from bad breathe distance out to a few hundred yards.

This article has some gruesome pics of what M855 will do.

https://www.shadowspear.com/2016/06...h-an-ak47-than-an-m4-contains-graphic-images/
 
Last edited:
C-grunt said:
My friends who have recently come back from Afghanistan within the last few years were all using A1.

I gotta disagree with the sin that M855 just ice picks. It does have a long time to upset in certain situations, but it's not super widespread and M855 has been killing the crap out of badguys for the past 19 years. I've seen multiple guys xhog with it from bad badge distance out to a few hundred yards.

This article has some gruesome pics of what M855 will do.

https://www.shadowspear.com/2016/06...h-an-ak47-than-an-m4-contains-graphic-images/
Click to expand...
Quite informative
 
DustyGmt said:
I did not know that. That's surprising because the M855A1 and Mk262 are very expensive....
Click to expand...
Remember... the M855A1 uses a "Green" lead free bullet... so in the long run, it is cheaper. FAR less range lead cleanup, far less lead exposure to the troops.

And to be blunt.. the improved, more consistent "wounding" performance, over the previous M193 and M855 is considerably better.

55gr FMJ, and 62gr M855 ammo will "work". But there are far better more consistently performing bullet designs.
The M193 bullet is very yaw dependent. The angle of impact for the bullet can produce very different wounding results.
Different enough, that one 55gr FMJ ( with little yaw ) might ice pick straight through some thing, and the next with slightly more angle of impact ( more yaw ) and that same bullet could dramatically fragment.
And the fragmentation is heavily dependent on velocity... and by velocity, I mean barrel lengths will be a factor.

That is the problem with yaw dependent bullet designs.

Many, Many Modern bullet designs are not as heavily dependent on velocity being a factor or the yaw impact angle.
Speer Gold Dot .223 loads are a very good example.
Reliable, rapid expansion, while retaining bullet mass /weight ( via a bonded bullet ) at reasonable speeds.

The Black Hills 5.56 Sierra 77gr TMK load, is a great example of a great soft target bullet design, repeatable, consistent performance, a short neck, and then violent fragmentation... every time ( within its design velocity threshold )

Then on the other end of current 5.56 bullet designs.. are the Blind Barrier loads.

Tougher bullets , meant to penetrate Barriers and provide rapid violent expansion.. a great example of that is the Mk318 Rapid expansion, with a good wound channel, and very deep penetration from the non-expanding base.

All that said ... no one wants to be shot with a 55gr FMJ bullet.. even if it zips through flesh, it could hit a bone and cause massive damage.
But my comments are geared towards improving your odds, via a more consistently performing / predictable bullet.
Technology has vastly improved consistent bullet performance... IMHO, we, you and I should use ammo better then 55gr FMJ.



http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm



 
Last edited:
bfoosh006 said:
Remember... the M855A1 uses a "Green" lead free bullet... so in the long run, it is cheaper. FAR less range lead cleanup, far less lead exposure to the troops.

And to be blunt.. the improved, more consistent "wounding" performance, over the previous M193 and M855 is considerably better.

55gr FMJ, and 62gr M855 ammo will "work". But there are far better more consistently performing bullet designs.
The M193 bullet is very yaw dependent. The angle of impact for the bullet can produce very different wounding results.
Different enough, that one 55gr FMJ ( with little yaw ) might ice pick straight through some thing, and the next with slightly more angle of impact ( more yaw ) and that same bullet could dramatically fragment.
And the fragmentation is heavily dependent on velocity... and by velocity, I mean barrel lengths will be a factor.

That is the problem with yaw dependent bullet designs.

Many, Many Modern bullet designs are not as heavily dependent on velocity being a factor or the yaw impact angle.
Speer Gold Dot .223 loads are a very good example.
Reliable, rapid expansion, while retaining bullet mass /weight ( via a bonded bullet ) at reasonable speeds.

The Black Hills 5.56 Sierra 77gr TMK load, is a great example of a great soft target bullet design, repeatable, consistent performance, a short neck, and then violent fragmentation... every time ( within its design velocity threshold )

Then on the other end of current 5.56 bullet designs.. are the Blind Barrier loads.

Tougher bullets , meant to penetrate Barriers and provide rapid violent expansion.. a great example of that is the Mk318 Rapid expansion, with a good wound channel, and very deep penetration from the non-expanding base.

All that said ... no one wants to be shot with a 55gr FMJ bullet.. even if it zips through flesh, it could hit a bone and cause massive damage.
But my comments are geared towards improving your odds, via a more consistently performing / predictable bullet.
Technology has vastly improved consistent bullet performance... IMHO, we, you and I should use ammo better then 55gr FMJ.



http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm


Click to expand...

"Might... could... may..."


M193, or the Wolf Gold .223 equivalent, is also inexpensive training ammo.

So shoot a few hundred rounds into stuff with your rifle - water jugs, water balloons, watermelons, wet-pack, jello, clay, mud, hogs, etc., and, whole fryer chickens.

...and see how many "ice pick" inside of 100 yards, when impact velocities (from an 18.5" Bbl'ed Mini-14) are well above 2700 fps.

Bet you will find that, worst case, you might have to shoot a goblin with your 20-30 round semi-automatic carbine rifle... twice.

Worst case.

I call'em hand-grenade rounds.

YMMV




GR
 
Last edited:
DustyGmt said:
I did not know that. That's surprising because the M855A1 and Mk262 are very expensive....
Click to expand...

Probably not quite as much so when buying in incredibly large bulk, and with the buying power of the US government. Plus, when has overpaying for something ever bothered the federal government?
 
C-grunt said:
My friends who have recently come back from Afghanistan within the last few years were all using A1.

I gotta disagree with the idea that M855 just ice picks. It does have a long time to upset in certain situations, but it's not super widespread and M855 has been killing the crap out of badguys for the past 19 years. I've seen multiple guys shot with it from bad breathe distance out to a few hundred yards.

This article has some gruesome pics of what M855 will do.

https://www.shadowspear.com/2016/06...h-an-ak47-than-an-m4-contains-graphic-images/
Click to expand...

It does and it doesn't depending on the yaw angle upon impact. The guys at Ft. Benning did a pretty detailed study when the 1st complaints cropped up concerning M855 effectiveness. Their findings were that the yaw at impact had an effect, most rounds fragmented, but occasionally they didn't. Their solution was to shoot everybody worth shooting twice.
 
Hog huntin Harry said:
Not to deviate from the thread, but how well does 7.62x51 M80 ball wound ?
Click to expand...

The problem(beauty?) of any .30 Ball rifle round is... Out-Standing penetration.

As for effectiveness...?


... If you skip ahead to time stamp 20:30, and Hector Cafferata's story, the CQB effectiveness of .30 Ball Rifle is articulated.




GR
 
I would be willing to bet quite a large sum of money that at least 90% of the complaints that we have ever heard about M-855's effectiveness are actually the result of the service member in question missing the target in question. I reached this conclusion right around the first time I witnessed first hand it being used for it's intended purpose and performing well even after hearing for seemingly the majority of my life how terrible it was at stopping the enemy.
 
Garandimal said:
The problem(beauty?) of any .30 Ball rifle round is... Out-Standing penetration.

As for effectiveness...?


... If you skip ahead to time stamp 20:30, and Hector Cafferata's story, the CQB effectiveness of .30 Ball Rifle is articulated.




GR
Click to expand...



"Screw the boots, keep shootin" ; "That "little guy" messed up the shine on my shoes!! (Truman, putting the MOH around his neck)

Beautiful story!
 
If choosing a soft tip bullet, be sure to test functionality before trusting your life with it!

One of my AR's chokes of the soft tip at the barrel extension entering the chamber!

Smiles,
 
Chuck R. said:
It does and it doesn't depending on the yaw angle upon impact. The guys at Ft. Benning did a pretty detailed study when the 1st complaints cropped up concerning M855 effectiveness. Their findings were that the yaw at impact had an effect, most rounds fragmented, but occasionally they didn't. Their solution was to shoot everybody worth shooting twice.
Click to expand...

Definitely. I didn't mean for my reply to convey that M855 is great. It definitely has issues and Im glad it's been replaced. I was just saying that the issues are very overblown on the internet. I was an Army infantryman with two tours in Iraq, I still got several buddies in who are still fighting, I got a couple buddies that went Special Forces and are still fighting, I have some close friends and family members that were Marine infantryman (Iraq and Afghanistan) with combat experiences..... None of these guys complain about the effectiveness of M855. I dont buy it myself as I find M193 to be cheaper, more accurate, and known to have more consistent terminal performance.

zdc1775 said:
I would be willing to bet quite a large sum of money that at least 90% of the complaints that we have ever heard about M-855's effectiveness are actually the result of the service member in question missing the target in question. I reached this conclusion right around the first time I witnessed first hand it being used for it's intended purpose and performing well even after hearing for seemingly the majority of my life how terrible it was at stopping the enemy.
Click to expand...

I came to the same conclusion. Only guys in my unit to complain about the effectiveness of 5.56 had a hard time qualifying at the rifle range, yet were positive they hit the guy 200 meters downrange running at a full sprint across a narrow road with less than 2 seconds to take the shot.
 
At home, my carbine is usually loaded with either Winchester 55gr softpoints or Federal 55gr JHP, but there are lots of good choices available.
 
Took advantage of an early day off work today and some spoiled veggies from the neighbors farm stand to do some more unscientific testing. Fired WCC marked M193, Hornady 55fmjbt handload, Speer 55SP handload, Nosler Varmageddon 55 tipped, Hornady 55 Vmax. Also fired all of the above through single 2x8 Yellow Pine pallet stock. Handloads were all running in the ballpark of .223 speeds. All shooting with a 16" 1:9 twist barrel.

The 2 FMJ loads showed evidence of yaw and or fragmentation on squash and pumpkins but not especially impressive. Same target, Speer SP caused severe destruction. Vmax seemed slightly more explosive. Nosler was absolutely devastating. In a single shot through pine board, M193 and Hornady 55FMJBT penciled, I could distinguish no difference between SP and Vmax and Varm, all blasting a ragged hole out the back of the board.

Very unscientific, but leads me to believe that any SP or HP or tipped in the 55 grain range could be used with similar results on a non hardened target where additional penetration is not required.
 
C-grunt said:
Definitely. I didn't mean for my reply to convey that M855 is great. It definitely has issues and Im glad it's been replaced. I was just saying that the issues are very overblown on the internet. I was an Army infantryman with two tours in Iraq, I still got several buddies in who are still fighting, I got a couple buddies that went Special Forces and are still fighting, I have some close friends and family members that were Marine infantryman (Iraq and Afghanistan) with combat experiences..... None of these guys complain about the effectiveness of M855. I dont buy it myself as I find M193 to be cheaper, more accurate, and known to have more consistent terminal performance.



I came to the same conclusion. Only guys in my unit to complain about the effectiveness of 5.56 had a hard time qualifying at the rifle range, yet were positive they hit the guy 200 meters downrange running at a full sprint across a narrow road with less than 2 seconds to take the shot.
Click to expand...

We tend to split pretty fine hairs here from time to time, and when I say we I obviously include myself within that, I think we just like to chat and analyze things and try to make the best choices, nothing wrong with that. I would bet that if an attack was imminent and you had all of 15 seconds to react and you had M193 in one mag or M855, X, Y, Z in the other mag next to it you probably wouldnt even consider it and would just grab whatever was closest and it likely wouldnt change any outcome in any meaningful way, realistically.

I just reccomend M193 spec ammo because it is so proven and trustworthy, from many rounds downrange and some informal testing, like I said before, 10 years ago i thought it was the Ball vs JHP equivalent of many other projectiles, I didnt realize it was purpose built for devastating wounds, more or less considered it training ammo and kept Hornady TAP in everything.

Same could be said for M855 in terms of reliability and lethality but it does have some undesirable characteristics that make me pass on it typically, being expensive doesnt make it any more attractive either.
 
Last edited:
Doctor Gary Roberts has probably seen / examined more firearm wounds than all of us put together.

"
About Gary Roberts
Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center where he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. As a U.S. Navy Reserve officer from 1986 to 2008, he served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he has been a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

I suggest many of the previous posters actually read the link I provided earlier.... Dr. Roberts is THE foremost authority on firearms stopping power.

"water jugs, water balloons, watermelons, wet-pack, jello, clay, mud," ... really poor testing medium... you could shoot all those with an high velocity ammo and get the same results. Good thing we aren't made of any of those.

hogs, etc., and, whole fryer chickens.... again, fryer chickens we ain't

Hogs... finally, a possibly useful suggestion.
Go ahead and shoot a hog with a FMJ... then one of the newer designed rounds next to it... look at the destruction, penetration depth, wound track... go ahead and do the test, then consider the wounds in context to a human bodies depth.

I am going to stick with my original comments .. there are far better choices for a 5.56 then FMJ bullets

If your life was on the line, I'd rather use a better bullet then rely on having to shoot twice.

Read the link above... Dr Roberts is a VERY well respected expert on 5.56 ammo ... he may be the most knowledgeable expert on the earth.

If some of you guys want to use FMJ... feel free... however, beyond a doubt, bullet technology has dramatically improved over the decades since 5.56 FMJ's and .30 cal FMJ's... producing far better wound ballistics then ANY typical combat rifle FMJ bullet

Seriously, if you want better bullet performance then a FMJ bullet can give... read the earlier link.

Dr. Roberts is THE foremost authority on firearms stopping power.

So, don't take my word on it... read it for yourselves.

And consider reading Dr. Roberts results over at https://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition&s=a56ebb377663e18ca961cb234e1fce28

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf

 
bfoosh006 said:
Doctor Gary Roberts has probably seen / examined more firearm wounds than all of us put together.

"
About Gary Roberts
Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at a large teaching hospital and Level I Trauma center where he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After completing his residency in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory and became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent wound ballistic testing and analysis. As a U.S. Navy Reserve officer from 1986 to 2008, he served on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition, he has been a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.

I suggest many of the previous posters actually read the link I provided earlier.... Dr. Roberts is THE foremost authority on firearms stopping power.

"water jugs, water balloons, watermelons, wet-pack, jello, clay, mud," ... really poor testing medium... you could shoot all those with an high velocity ammo and get the same results. Good thing we aren't made of any of those.

hogs, etc., and, whole fryer chickens.... again, fryer chickens we ain't

Hogs... finally, a possibly useful suggestion.
Go ahead and shoot a hog with a FMJ... then one of the newer designed rounds next to it... look at the destruction, penetration depth, wound track... go ahead and do the test, then consider the wounds in context to a human bodies depth.

I am going to stick with my original comments .. there are far better choices for a 5.56 then FMJ bullets

If your life was on the line, I'd rather use a better bullet then rely on having to shoot twice.

Read the link above... Dr Roberts is a VERY well respected expert on 5.56 ammo ... he may be the most knowledgeable expert on the earth.

If some of you guys want to use FMJ... feel free... however, beyond a doubt, bullet technology has dramatically improved over the decades since 5.56 FMJ's and .30 cal FMJ's... producing far better wound ballistics then ANY typical combat rifle FMJ bullet

Seriously, if you want better bullet performance then a FMJ bullet can give... read the earlier link.

Dr. Roberts is THE foremost authority on firearms stopping power.

So, don't take my word on it... read it for yourselves.

And consider reading Dr. Roberts results over at https://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition&s=a56ebb377663e18ca961cb234e1fce28

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf
Click to expand...

You pump your tires up pretty hard on DocRoberts, who is an expert and credible source.

But what does he say, exactly, w/r/t 55 gr. FMJ M193 Ball ammo at > 2700 fps impact velocity?

That is your fallacy.


bfoosh006 said:
...
"water jugs, water balloons, watermelons, wet-pack, jello, clay, mud," ... really poor testing medium... you could shoot all those with an high velocity ammo and get the same results. Good thing we aren't made of any of those.

hogs, etc., and, whole fryer chickens.... again, fryer chickens we ain't
Click to expand...

How about ballistic gel?



​


So you think this same round, that also explodes a whole fryer chicken... won't do the same thing to a human thoracic cavity?

Troops in the field that used it - nicknamed it the "Meat Axe."

Academics - are a wonderful thing.

Shoot what you want.




GR
 
Last edited:
40052-MilitaryAssaultRifleWPcopy.jpg
C-grunt said:
My friends who have recently come back from Afghanistan within the last few years were all using A1.

I gotta disagree with the idea that M855 just ice picks. It does have a long time to upset in certain situations, but it's not super widespread and M855 has been killing the crap out of badguys for the past 19 years. I've seen multiple guys shot with it from bad breathe distance out to a few hundred yards.

This article has some gruesome pics of what M855 will do.

https://www.shadowspear.com/2016/06...h-an-ak47-than-an-m4-contains-graphic-images/
Click to expand...


I should have been clearer then "can" ice pick... I am saying it isn't a consistent performer.

FleetYaw2.jpg m855 body overlay 01.jpg
 
Garandimal said:
You pump your tires up pretty hard on DocRoberts, who is an expert and credible source.

But what does he say, exactly, w/r/t 55 gr. FMJ M193 Ball ammo at > 2700 fps impact velocity?

That is your fallacy.

What if your impact velocity is below 2700fps ? Not everyone uses longer barrels... and you are proving my point... Modern designs are better performers below 2700fps.
Look at some Speer GD .223 videos... 1703fps low enough for the Gold Dot ? How well does the 55gr FMJ do at that speed ?





Show me. Tell me about how he ignores Yaw .

Wait... here is what he says..

"While these are not bad bullets, you will note that they are subject to large variations in neck length (distance the bullet penetrates before fragmenting); this variability is not desirable. In case of the short neck length, it is indeed an effective bullet."




How about ballistic gel?


I can also show you plenty of videos of better performing modern bullets....





​


So you think this same round, that also explodes a whole fryer chicken... won't do the same thing to a human thoracic cavity?

You said that, not me. I have repeatedly said there are better choices. More consistent choices.
If you are going to now shot someone only in the thoracic cavity... even then a more modern, consistent performing, short neck , faster fragmenting bullet would be my choice.



Troops in the field that used it - nicknamed it the "Meat Axe."

So... all 5.56 55gr FMJ ammo performs the same way ? IE , every 55gr FMJ used in 5.56 ammo fragments ? .... everytime ?

Is that why Uncle Sam has developed Mk262, Mk 318, M855A1 ?.... rather then going back to the 55gr FMJ ?

Academics - are a wonderful thing.
I couldn't agree more.

Shoot what you want.

You as well.




GR
Click to expand...
 
bfoosh006 said:
View attachment 938680


I should have been clearer then "can" ice pick... I am saying it isn't a consistent performer.

View attachment 938678 View attachment 938679
Click to expand...

That is all about 62 gr. M855 ammo, assuming a 1:7 Military twist rate.

What does that have to do with 55 gr. M193 Ball?

<- Steel core M855 on the left - M193 FMJ on the right ->
​


Again...

What does DocRoberts say, exactly, w/r/t 55 gr. FMJ M193 Ball ammo at > 2700 fps impact velocity?

That is your fallacy.


​



And it's also my inexpensive training ammo.

...so Every Shot - will be the same.

No "precious" and expensive Tac ammo - that may not shoot the same.


If - your carbine does have a short Bbl... buy appropriate ammo for it.

From my 18.5"/ 1:9" twist Ruger 580 Series Mini-14... where > 2700 fps is ~ 115 yards down range...?

55 gr. M193 Ball... works.



​
GR
 
Last edited:
C-grunt said:
Definitely. I didn't mean for my reply to convey that M855 is great. It definitely has issues and Im glad it's been replaced. I was just saying that the issues are very overblown on the internet. I was an Army infantryman with two tours in Iraq, I still got several buddies in who are still fighting, I got a couple buddies that went Special Forces and are still fighting, I have some close friends and family members that were Marine infantryman (Iraq and Afghanistan) with combat experiences..... None of these guys complain about the effectiveness of M855. I dont buy it myself as I find M193 to be cheaper, more accurate, and known to have more consistent terminal performance.



I came to the same conclusion. Only guys in my unit to complain about the effectiveness of 5.56 had a hard time qualifying at the rifle range, yet were positive they hit the guy 200 meters downrange running at a full sprint across a narrow road with less than 2 seconds to take the shot.
Click to expand...

I found the original document from the guys at Benning:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf

Not long after the US Army’s entry into Afghanistan, reports from the field began to surface that in close quarters engagements, some Soldiers were experiencing multiple “through-and-through” hits on an enemy combatant where the target continued to fight. Similar reports arose following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Those reports were not always consistent – some units would report a “through-and-through” problem, while others expressed nothing but confidence in the performance of their M4 carbines or M16 rifles.
Click to expand...

3. Field reports are accurate and can be explained by the phenomenon of bullet yaw. Shot placement aside, why is it that some Soldiers report “throughand-through” hits while others report no such problems, despite using the same weapons and ammunition? The phenomenon of bullet yaw can explain such differences in performance.
Click to expand...

4. There are doctrinal and training techniques that can increase Soldier effectiveness. The analysis tools used in this study were used to evaluate some alternative engagement techniques. The technique of engaging CQB targets with controlled pairs – two aimed, rapid shots as described in Chapter 7 of FM 3-22.9 – was shown to be significantly better than single aimed shots (see Figure 8). While that should certainly not be surprising to those who have been using this technique for some time, we now know why. Not only are two hits better than one, but controlled pairs help to average out striking yaw; on average, the Soldier is more likely to see a hit where the bullet’s yaw behavior works in his favor
Click to expand...

And just for the "bigger is better" guys:

The specific values of the chart are not meaningful; what is meaningful is the fact that all of the rounds act in the same band of performance. Interestingly, the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation, the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close quarters range.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
1:7-8 twist bolt action 5.56mm youth rifle exist?
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Jackal
Jackal
Dave Markowitz
  • Locked
Wolf .223 JHP?
Replies
4
Views
464
AZTOY
A
N
  • Locked
Which amongst the 5.56 M123
Replies
4
Views
929
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
Ben86
  • Locked
What do you keep loaded in your 5.56/.223 AR?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
wnycollector
W
rbernie
  • Locked
7.62x39 self defense ammo?
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
Carter
C
Back
Top