Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stay away from one called "Centerfire" ... I bought some stuff from them a couple months ago using my PayPal debit card and my account was hacked and cleaned out within hours ... Just a heads up ... Cheers, Unc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I wish I still had my sks. Look's like this brand of 7.62X39 is going to give Wolf hell. If you like cheap plinking stuff this is it.

http://www.ammunitiondepot.com/Precision-Ammunition-7-62mm-x-39mm-123-Grain-F-M-J-p/ruagpa76239b.htm

Rim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I just bought some 62 grain .223 FMJ ammo from Cheaper - Than - Dirt made by a company called Bitteroot Valley Ammunition. http://www.bvac-ammo.com/ So far so good. Made in Montana. It seemed fairly reasonably priced. Not sure if they make a full line of ammo. Not what you are lookng for, but thought I'd share.

Ammo Depot as Mike suggests usually has good prices if you intend to buy in bulk.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually, you can't beat J&G Sales up in Prescott ... Right now they've got 7.62x39 on sale for either $209 or $219 / 1,000 ... I buy most of my ammo from them and sometimes they have awesome deals on LE trade in's ... I just missed a great sale they had on mini-14's in .223 with synthetic stock, 20 rd. mag. .... Cheers, Unc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Unc ... and others ... Been looking at a few AR platforms and found an interesting potential issue with 5.56 NATO and .223 interchangeability. I've been told to be sure if you are buying that the gun is designed for 5.56 NATO rounds which will easily shoot .223 ... but if you buy one that is designed to shoot .223 it will not shoot 5.56NATO well if at all. From what I have been told there is a very slight difference in the case design between 5.56 and .223. I haven't verified this but have now heard it from 4 sources I have talked to. Anyone heard of this before? I have an inquiry into a gunsmith I trust back east for verification as well and will post his answer here once received.

Mike F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, Take a serious look at the Ruger Tactical Mini-14. In my opinion (like I NEVER have one) the mini-14 action is superior to the AR. Reliable and far less to go wrong. You can take a normal mini-14 Ranch for example, and buy the ATI stock and furniture for it, makes it a nice mean looking tactical rifle.

More on the rounds in a bit....

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without spending a lot of time on this, read this...

http://en.wikipedia..../.223_Remington

It's really how the chamber is cut in the rifle...you need to know which it is as they vary a little bit in the throat.

I quit shooting, for the most part, 55 grain bullets because I have noticed with both my XM15 and the mini, the bullet tumbles...a lot! I went to a 62 grain bullet which is longer and it appears to have greatly reduced the tumbling....I am still playing with them.

When I was really into target shooting and reloading, I set my seat depth by the chamber of the gun it was going to be shot in and I never mixed ammo. With a semi-auto, this is not much of an issue, provide you use the right ammo. To be safe, it's best to shoot the ammo recommended for the gun you are shooting. If you have a NATO AR, it will shoot .223's fine...always wear safety goggles with these....or you will sooner or later learn why!

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some more about the NATO 5.56. I actually do not like the round but I have two rifles that shoot it....sooo. You can carry a bunch more .223 than you can any 30 caliber round. I'd like to own an AR-10. A Ruger Mini-30 would be a cool gun to own as well!

_____Wiki----

There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the firearms used and the downrange bullet deceleration do not achieve the minimally required terminal velocity at the target to cause fragmentation.[18] This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the first Gulf war, Somalia, and in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7–10 in of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer.[18] This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range increases (e.g., ranges over 50 m when using an M4 or 200 m when using an M16) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5 inches (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than the longer 20" barrel found on the M16, and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.

Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting.

This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a thin, small statured individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants.

Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag's papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11–28, Winter 2001) also describes this problem.

[18]

Despite complaints that the 5.56 round lacks stopping power, others contend that animal studies of the wounding effects of the 5.56×45mm round versus the 7.62×39mm have found that the 5.56 mm round is more damaging, due to the post-impact behavior of the 5.56 mm projectile resulting in greater cavitation of soft tissues.[19] The US Army contended in 2003 that the lack of close range lethality of the 5.56×45mm was more a matter of perception than fact. With controlled pairs and good shot placement to the head and chest, the target was usually defeated without issue. The majority of failures were the result of hitting the target in non-vital areas such as extremities. However, a minority of failures occurred in spite of multiple hits to the chest.[20]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

They do put warnings on firing 5.56 in 223 chanbers. Increased head pressures and such but I don't ever remember any barrels actually blown up because of using the wong ammo. Many people have shot either round in their guns and never had a problem. Which ever AR you have from what I have read they are all way overbilt. Also there are 3 major chambers, the saami 223, the wylde 223, and the nato 5.56. The wylde is built closer to the specs of the nato 5.56. So should be a better choice for shooting both types of ammo.

Also something else to check out is look at your gun. The lower may be marked 223 but stamped on the barrel it may say 5.56 in some cases. What's on the barrel is all that matters.

I sold my AR about a year ago and I shot both rounds and never had a hiccup. BTW, the 5.56 does run at greater pressures.

Rim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know for a fact that the 5.56 rounds we used in Nam were very effective at tumbling after hitting a target. You could hit someone in the lower torso and the bullet could exit the shoulder.... lots of messed up stuff in between...Not to mention how much lighter they were compared to the M-14. .... My favorite long arm in Nam was an M-2 carbine, but I did not have it very long and never really used it in any firefights.... My current AR lower is a multi-cal lower so I can use just about any caliber upper. Currently the upper is 5.56 so it will shoot either round. I have been thinking of starting to gather the stuff I need to reload this round, but ammo is still cheap enough and I really don't go plinking away lots of bullets in it.........an AR-10 may be in the future

Handgun, I reload lots of .45 ammo.....so buying components in bulk works for me. Used to reload the S&W .460 mag, but sold that cannon. I do reload the 38/357 but do not shoot that one very much.

I do reload my .300 WSM, but once again, do not shoot that one very much either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One word of advise. If you buy ammo cans full of boxes at the gun shows take the time to search the bottom few rows of boxes... Mostly the green "russian" rounds... Have seen before where the dealers will take a few rounds out of each box...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

El D that's exactly what my brother told me also when he came back from nam. And from my on experience, in flight, if the bullit were tumbling there ain't no way they could be so deadly accurate. Much more accurate then 7.62X39 imo.

El D were you ever able to hit bullseye at 500 meters with your military m-16? I'm guessing you had a 20 inch barrel.

Also i'm not familiar with the m-2. What cal was that?

Rim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rim ... The M2HB is a .50 cal Browning machine gun ... I believe it goes back to WW1 ... maybe slightly after it but certainly before WW2. With a scope mounted it was also used as a sniper rifle.

Mike F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rim ... Got carried away on my last post and went too far back in history. When El D referred to the M2 Carbine he was talking a M1 (semi auto version) that is capable of full auto and therefore designated M2 Carbine and there was also an M3 Carbine that was scope mounted ... can't remember whether the M3 Carbine was semi or full auto capable ... they were all .30 cal. designated 30 Carbine as opposed to the M1 Rifle that used the 30-06 Springfield and later the .308 Winchester. They were used in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam.

Mike F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh. Those garands were a hunk Mike. I never bought one because I always thought they were way too heavy for me. But accurate...VERY!!! I had a friend in Palestine Texas and one day we went down to the rock crusher just south of there to do some shooting. All I brought with me was a 20 gauge pump shotgun and he pulls out his M1 garand. We walked down to a lake on the property and about 300 yards out in the lake was a stump about 5-6 inches dia and maybe 8 inches out of the water. He said...Do you think I can hit that? I said...I don't know, give it a shot. So he fiddled with the rear sight and standing with no help of a tree or a bench rest, took aim. VAAAROOOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!! Man-o-Man that stump exploded into a million pieces. I was very impressed. Being fairly new friends, I regret not asking Don if he had served in the military before. He was 3 years older then me at the time and this was like 1970. It's possible he served in nam. He seem to have mastered that Garand.

Mike that 30 cal carbine I came this close - to buying one mainly due to how light weight it was but decided not too. I never was impressed with that round of ammo. But it would be a fun gun for plinking. Here's a nice link to most all of the changes made to the gun since it was first invented with nice pictures too. http://www.rjmilitar.../m1carbineb.htm

It's amazing how much these guns cost to produce.

At the beginning of World War II the average production cost for an M1 carbine was approximately $45, about half the cost of an M1 rifle at approximately $85 and about a fifth of the cost of a thompson submachine gun at approximately $225.

Rim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...