Redefining the range of 5.56?

[jc000]

I found this interesting SME comment in another thread:


I wouldn't push 556/223 past about 200 yards unless I had no other choice. If my requirements were for situations beyond that, I would have to seriously look at other calibers more suited for such use. Certainly "proven" to hit at extended ranges, but they have also proven to fail to incapacitate at less than 400 yards with multiple, confirmed CNS hits.

I understood, maybe mistakenly, that the 5.56 AR was considered a ≤500m weapon, but I feel like there has been a recent shift in thinking where the effective range has been dropped back to 200m. Am I correct in observing a trend towards 5.56 being optimal only for fairly short ranges? Does moving to bonded / non-fragmenting ammo increase the effective range? What ramifications, if any, are there to the viability of the MK12 rifle?

[Haraise]

I found this interesting SME comment in another thread:



I understood, maybe mistakenly, that the 5.56 AR was considered a ≤500m weapon, but I feel like there has been a recent shift in thinking where the effective range has been dropped back to 200m. Am I correct in observing a trend towards 5.56 being optimal only for fairly short ranges? Does moving to bonded / non-fragmenting ammo increase the effective range? What ramifications, if any, are there to the viability of the MK12 rifle?

You need to define your terms, before you can come to conclusions.

What definition are you using, as to what 'effective' means? Have that in mind, and the math is simple and objective.

[YVK]

I don't know anything about nothing, but "fail to incapacitate with multiple proven CNS hits"? I think he meant something else.

[klewis]

Not an SME, but I think defining your terms is the key here.

The military said 500m because you can hit things with X amount of energy at that range from a 20" barrel, and since they can't use hollow points, that's all they have to measure terminal effect, despite the fact that the idea of energy is as outdated as 20" barrels.

Now when you're talking about a round expanding or fragmenting, you need to meet certain thresholds. Those thresholds disappear pretty fast, especially with shorter carbine barrels that are popular in .223, so you're down to about 200m in a lot of cases to get real terminal effect from the round.

Essentially, different definitions gets you different numbers.

[Odin Bravo One]

Since it was my comment, I'll offer this for consideration..........\

Define effective range.

I define it as the range in which I can not only hit my target, but also cause a degree of physiological disruption to their ability to send hate my direction.

Some choose to define it as the distance in which they hit a target..............everyone is entitled to their opinion on the topic. If I can see it, I can probably hit it........(though some days are better than others). But just because I hit it, insofar as bad people are concerned, doesn't mean I did any real damage. .300 Win Mag is a lot more convincing when using bullets to alter personal behavior at extended ranges.

[jc000]

Sorry for the lack of clarity – I had the language in, but took it out because I thought "effective range" had universal meaning. By "effective range", I meant as Sean M defines it: the range at which one could expect consistent incapacitation of a live target.

I'm also guessing that more recent real world data is based on 20" v 14.5" (and 10.5") barrels and fragmenting FMJ ammo.

Sean, thanks for responding – I'm curious if your thinking on 5.56 has evolved, or has this 200m (or yard) limit always been understood by you? As mentioned, my understanding was that the 5.56 AR was a ≤500m weapon, which in my mind means can consistently incapacitate at that distance.

[NETim]

I always considered the .223 as a good prairie dog thwacker up to 300 yards or so. This out of a 24" bolt gun with a good Leupy scope and 55 grain VMax's launched at 3200 fps. (The .223 has the steam past that range to be effective on p-dogs, but trajectory and western Nebraska winds being what they are....) Coyotes out past 200 I always figured I was in .243 territory. Wil E. is damn tough.

Two legged critters at extended ranges (>200 yards), I'd want more than 5.56 ballistics if I had a choice.

[Odin Bravo One]

I shot the 500 KD qual course during my days in the USMC. The 500 was my bread and butter, and I got pretty used to not dropping any points there. (If only I could have controlled that damn "up & to the right" stringing during my 300 rapid fire!!).

Hitting at extended distance is obviously more difficult with 556 at longer ranges simply due to physics, but it is certainly possible, and many people are able to turn out some pretty impressive marksmanship feats with the AR and 556 at longer ranges. (I hosted a buddy from AMU a couple years back for a marksmanship clinic and while we shot 762/300 bolt guns, he shot off-hand an iron sighted M16, and never missed the 10" bull @ 600.)

As for data............DocGKR posts great scientific info in the stickies in this topic. I haven't read them here (SOMEONE SMART INSERT LINK), but I do keep up on his info, and he is kind enough to share photos, diagrams, numbers, etc., with me for use in training others. Of course, this is scientific data, and not a 100% representation of real world performance, but it does list performance parameters for various types of (specifically for the purpose of this topic) 556 ammunition, at given velocities, and the relationships with the muzzle and down range velocity of said projo's from the various barrel length rifles, carbines, and SBR's.

Real world data falls into two basic categories: Antecdotal information, like that provided by me in the quote you referenced in the initial post...........and investigative information gathered after the fact, to varying degrees of proficient information collection, collation, analyzation, articulation, and distribution.

The after the fact investigative info is (if processed properly) gives us the best relative and pertinent info, as it is facts & science both painting the performance picture, and offers ups points for discussion, development of tactics, techniques, and procedures, etc., based on that real world data. That is not to say that war stories, or "I know a guy, whose half-brother had a dog, who once worked for a narcotics team, who saw a SWAT guy using ABC ammo because of XYZ" have no use or validity, but the information is incomplete. For those who "took him out with one shot at 500m" with 556.............where did it hit him? Did it "take him out", or did he take himself out? Or did you just not happen to see him again? On the flip side, for the "emptied an entire mag into him from 5 feet, and he was still fighting"...........we have to start with the same question. "Where did you hit him"?

I've been fortunate to have scientific data or answers a phone call, or email away, and have seen both extremes of what 556 can/cannot/will/ will not do in the real world. Two that stand out are the guy at 385 yards who took 11 rounds of 77 grain Black Hills OTM to the chest and head from a 26" barreled AR built, chambered, and rifled specifically for that round. Later examination showed two of the three head shots went clean through the face, putting a damper on his romantic life and ability to pick up hot chicks, but doing little significant damage. Of the eight torso shots, five turned his heart into a "puree" consistency, the other three double punched both lungs. The other was a young man who took three hits to the heart from inside 50 yards with a short barreled carbine, was eventually evacuated to a hospital about an hour later, and is alive to this day. Why did it take 11 solid hits, where it matters, to put the guy down? Why does homeboy have X-Ray's with three bullets in his heart, and is still alive to tell the story?

Dunno.

The same can be said for the other extremes of the spectrum. How/why does a guy die from a GSW through the tib/fib in less than 5 min? How/why does a guy die from a gut shot at 400+?

Dunno.

I don't put anything into incapacitation, or reduced capability from the psychological aspect. If it happens, so be it. But it is a dangerous concept to consider as an option, even though it is always an available option during any shooting scenario...........they always get a vote. They get to vote if they get shot, or continue to get shot...........but just like election season.........I am not going to stand around after someone has cast their ballot and ask them detailed questions about it.

Then we get into the "why" aspect of engaging (assuming defensive use) targets out to even 200, let alone past 200.............an awful lot of things are going to need to happen to be able to justify shooting at those ranges.

I consider the 16" barreled 556 carbine to be a 200 yard gun. I know I can hit at further ranges if I do my part (which is getting more and more elusive these days it would seem!), and I know it "can" be effective, by the definition I use. I also know that inside 200 (or 50, or even 5) yards, there is no promise from the bullet or gun manufacturers that I am going to get the results I want 100% of the time even if I do everything right marksmanship-wise. However, if I manage my expectations, and base my decisions based on the information available, I can make better/more informed choices for the required task(s).

I don't feel at all under-gunned with 556 inside those requirements/range parameters. Flip side is that I have never felt that a .300 Winchester Magnum was too much gun up close, or far away.........for most people, shooting anything with two legs beyond 200 yards probably requires some research, training, discussion, serious thought, and plenty of practice, regardless of caliber choice.

Did I answer your questions? Or just open Pandora's Box wider?

[MEH]

Where is the LIKE button!!!

[TGS]

Did I answer your questions? Or just open Pandora's Box wider?

Yes (shakes head side-to-side) and no (nods head up and down).

So, if a 5.56 carbine is a 200m platform, why the use (and love on your part, IIRC) for variable power optics? Simply for target ID, burning through brush, ect?

[Haraise]

For me, and the data I've seen, the answer is pretty simple:

Is the caliber 5.56/.223? Y/N

If (Y), with the ammunition and barrel, at what range does it stop fragmenting? (x)

(x) is the maximum effective range.

Non-fragmenting rounds is a whole other can of worms.

[DocGKR]

Anyone reading this should pay VERY close attention to Sean M's comments above, as I completely agree with what he has written.

Almost everyone I know who has spent a significant amount of time observing the terminal effects of various cartridges pretty much comes to the same conclusion--5.56 mm from a 16" carbine is about a 200 m and under weapon; a 20" barrel might stretch that out to 300 in some circumstances, while a 5.56 mm SBR is generally a tool for 100 and closer.

[Wheeler]

Anyone reading this should pay VERY close attention to Sean M's comments above, as I completely agree with what he has written.

Almost everyone I know who has spent a significant amount of time observing the terminal effects of various cartridges pretty much comes to the same conclusion--5.56 mm from a 16" carbine is about a 200 m and under weapon; a 20" barrel might stretch that out to 300 in some circumstances, while a 5.56 mm SBR is generally a tool for 100 and closer.

I find this interesting. When I was in the GPMFI we were told as gospel that the M-16A2 was 800m effective and 600m accurate while the M-249 SAW was 800m accurate and 1000m effective. Effective is defined in this context as being able to lob rounds and attain incapacitating hits on individuals with a different ideology.

I don't know where the data came from but it was pounded into us every time we went to AWQ. FWIW, I never had issues getting hits on the 400m segment of the KD range.

[Dave J]

I find this interesting. When I was in the GPMFI we were told as gospel that the M-16A2 was 800m effective and 600m accurate while the M-249 SAW was 800m accurate and 1000m effective. Effective is defined in this context as being able to lob rounds and attain incapacitating hits on individuals with a different ideology.

I don't know where the data came from but it was pounded into us every time we went to AWQ. FWIW, I never had issues getting hits on the 400m segment of the KD range.

I'm more familiar with the Army's doctrinal pubs than the USMC's, but assuming the references aren't too different, I think they may have taken a few things slightly out of context. "Effective range" as defined in the FM's is based entirely on the distance that one might reasonably hit a point target (i.e. the size of a standing man), or an area target (i.e. the size a fire team). Terminal effectiveness was never part of the military's definition, which I think often leads to unrealistic expectations. Just because I can usually hit an E-type at 800m with an ACOG-equipped M4 (once I've got the wind figured out), doesn't mean that's going to result in an effective hit, even if I were lucky enough to pull it off against a real bad guy who, unlike the E-type, probably won't stand still for me at a precisely known distance.

FM 3-22.9 lists effective range vs. a point target at 500m for the M4, and 550 for the M16A2/A4. It also lists 800m as the max effective range for the M16A4, and 600 as the max effective range for the M4 & M16A4. Not coincidentally, those figures happen to be the max elevations on the rear sight elevation knobs if the detachable carry handles are in use.

I've misplaced my copy of the USMC rifle marksmanship manual, but I don't think it's drastically different.

For the SAW using the bipod, max effective range is listed as 600m for a point target, and 800m for an area target. If using tripod with T&E, those figures increase to 800m & 1000m respectively.

So, I wouldn't be surprised it somehow those figures got twisted into "accurate" and "effective" in somebody's lesson plan. Anyway, all of the above is mainly an attempt to explain why the "effective range" in published military manuals is so much more optimistic than what experienced SME's often say about the 5.56.

[jc000]

Did I answer your questions? Or just open Pandora's Box wider?

Yes and no, but you probably have addressed many of the questions I should be asking. Thanks for your perspective.

I'm trying to do the math to see if a bonded/SP bullet extends this range any, but I never was that good at math...


FM 3-22.9 lists effective range vs. a point target at 500m for the M4, and 550 for the M16A2/A4

This was the limit of my understanding. If this isn't really the case, then I suppose I'm re-examining how the M4, solely from a effective range perspective (as defined above), offers any benefit over 7.62 x 39 / .300 AAC. Are their effective ranges, using FMJ ammo, significantly below 200m?

[LittleLebowski]

So, if a 5.56 carbine is a 200m platform, why the use (and love on your part, IIRC) for variable power optics? Simply for target ID, burning through brush, ect?

Just guessing but target ID? Accuracy?

[Failure2Stop]

Y
So, if a 5.56 carbine is a 200m platform, why the use (and love on your part, IIRC) for variable power optics?

For me; because the ones I choose are just as good at close range at 1x as an EoTech/Aimpoint, with the on-board ability to locate, identify, and place accurate hits.
If I am shooting a short 5.56 at anything past 100 meters, I really need to get effective hits.
Much like a headshot; when called for, nothing else will do.

[Wheeler]

I'm more familiar with the Army's doctrinal pubs than the USMC's, but assuming the references aren't too different, I think they may have taken a few things slightly out of context. "Effective range" as defined in the FM's is based entirely on the distance that one might reasonably hit a point target (i.e. the size of a standing man), or an area target (i.e. the size a fire team). Terminal effectiveness was never part of the military's definition, which I think often leads to unrealistic expectations. Just because I can usually hit an E-type at 800m with an ACOG-equipped M4 (once I've got the wind figured out), doesn't mean that's going to result in an effective hit, even if I were lucky enough to pull it off against a real bad guy who, unlike the E-type, probably won't stand still for me at a precisely known distance.

FM 3-22.9 lists effective range vs. a point target at 500m for the M4, and 550 for the M16A2/A4. It also lists 800m as the max effective range for the M16A4, and 600 as the max effective range for the M4 & M16A4. Not coincidentally, those figures happen to be the max elevations on the rear sight elevation knobs if the detachable carry handles are in use.

I've misplaced my copy of the USMC rifle marksmanship manual, but I don't think it's drastically different.

For the SAW using the bipod, max effective range is listed as 600m for a point target, and 800m for an area target. If using tripod with T&E, those figures increase to 800m & 1000m respectively.

So, I wouldn't be surprised it somehow those figures got twisted into "accurate" and "effective" in somebody's lesson plan. Anyway, all of the above is mainly an attempt to explain why the "effective range" in published military manuals is so much more optimistic than what experienced SME's often say about the 5.56.

That was the Army, not the Marines. I won't argue with your data, I was a grunt and at the time happy to get any trigger time I could. Not sure if the data has changed with dates but this was mid 90's and we were issued A2's.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Dave J]

That was the Army, not the Marines. I won't argue with your data, I was a grunt and at the time happy to get any trigger time I could. Not sure if the data has changed with dates but this was mid 90's and we were issued A2's.

Thank you for the clarification.

My bad -- I didn't recognize the GPMFI acronym, so I presumed it was from their side...I was toting an A2 in the mid '90's too, so I don't really have a valid excuse.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I'm more familiar with the Army's doctrinal pubs than the USMC's, but assuming the references aren't too different, I think they may have taken a few things slightly out of context. "Effective range" as defined in the FM's is based entirely on the distance that one might reasonably hit a point target (i.e. the size of a standing man), or an area target (i.e. the size a fire team). Terminal effectiveness was never part of the military's definition, which I think often leads to unrealistic expectations. Just because I can usually hit an E-type at 800m with an ACOG-equipped M4 (once I've got the wind figured out), doesn't mean that's going to result in an effective hit, even if I were lucky enough to pull it off against a real bad guy who, unlike the E-type, probably won't stand still for me at a precisely known distance.

FM 3-22.9 lists effective range vs. a point target at 500m for the M4, and 550 for the M16A2/A4. It also lists 800m as the max effective range for the M16A4, and 600 as the max effective range for the M4 & M16A4. Not coincidentally, those figures happen to be the max elevations on the rear sight elevation knobs if the detachable carry handles are in use.

I've misplaced my copy of the USMC rifle marksmanship manual, but I don't think it's drastically different.

For the SAW using the bipod, max effective range is listed as 600m for a point target, and 800m for an area target. If using tripod with T&E, those figures increase to 800m & 1000m respectively.

So, I wouldn't be surprised it somehow those figures got twisted into "accurate" and "effective" in somebody's lesson plan. Anyway, all of the above is mainly an attempt to explain why the "effective range" in published military manuals is so much more optimistic than what experienced SME's often say about the 5.56.

Jibes with my (somewhat dusty) memories from MCRD San Diego/Camp Pendleton circa 1987 (M16A2).

[leaddealer]

Just guessing but target ID? Accuracy?

That would be my reasoning for using variable power optics. Older eyes, hard to see and clearly tell what's what at 200m, sometimes just need to a little bit more of a boost to what I can see.

[Odin Bravo One]

For me; because the ones I choose are just as good at close range at 1x as an EoTech/Aimpoint, with the on-board ability to locate, identify, and place accurate hits.
If I am shooting a short 5.56 at anything past 100 meters, I really need to get effective hits.
Much like a headshot; when called for, nothing else will do.

This.

I am also not legally bound to defensive use only. While I prefer 1x for the majority of my carbine use, it is a lot easier to PID S-Vests, IED materials, etc. with 6x.

That said........I have a lot of carbines. I have one 1-6x variable. The rest wear Aimpoint.

[leaddealer]

Sean, if I may ask, what 1-6x optic do you prefer?

[Odin Bravo One]

I honestly don't know anymore.

I stopped keeping up with gear developments a couple of years ago. During that time, many of my contacts in the optics world have moved on to other things. I couldn't even tell you what is out there right now, let alone say I have a preference.

The best 1-6x optic I know of is the free kind.

[Lomshek]

Anyone reading this should pay VERY close attention to Sean M's comments above, as I completely agree with what he has written.

Almost everyone I know who has spent a significant amount of time observing the terminal effects of various cartridges pretty much comes to the same conclusion--5.56 mm from a 16" carbine is about a 200 m and under weapon; a 20" barrel might stretch that out to 300 in some circumstances, while a 5.56 mm SBR is generally a tool for 100 and closer.

Do the Barnes X bullets add significantly to the ranges you list above vs. fragmenting or traditional expanding bullets?

[Rich]

I consider my carbines 14.5 barrels 200M weapons when using BB loads BH 5.56mm 50gr TSX

I gave up fragmenting load 77/75gr long ago

[rob_s]

for most people, shooting anything with two legs beyond 200 yards probably requires some research, training, discussion, serious thought, and plenty of practice, regardless of caliber choice.


Not to mention determining why most people would be shooting (at) other people at anywhere near that distance to begin with, let alone further.

Although that's probably a separate topic. I just never understand the discussions among civilians (including LE) regarding engaging humans at more than about 100 yards. I do understand that there are rare, unique cases for it within LE, but outside of LE it's uncommon enough to be insignificant. At one time I went looking for documented non-LE civilian engagements that didn't result in the shooter either being prosecuted or killed by LE during/after the fact and never did find anything.

[TGS]

Not to mention determining why most people would be shooting (at) other people at anywhere near that distance to begin with, let alone further.

Although that's probably a separate topic. I just never understand the discussions among civilians (including LE) regarding engaging humans at more than about 100 yards. I do understand that there are rare, unique cases for it within LE, but outside of LE it's uncommon enough to be insignificant. At one time I went looking for documented non-LE civilian engagements that didn't result in the shooter either being prosecuted or killed by LE during/after the fact and never did find anything.

For the same reason people put z-rated tires on their car, but they never break 90mph when driving it.

If I have a carbine, I want to know how far it can perform, and how I can make it perform....just for the sake of knowing my weapon.

[jc000]

Not to mention determining why most people would be shooting (at) other people at anywhere near that distance to begin with, let alone further.

Why wouldn't this topic be about hunting deer/pigs?

It's understood that part of this discussion has been centered around hits on people, but the 5.56 range question is relevant to hunting medium-sized game, as well, right?

[jc000]

Regarding bonded ammo, it seems that certain TSX bullets are claimed to still expand at 300+ yards. Hs anyone on here done any testing to substantiate that?

[rob_s]

Why wouldn't this topic be about hunting deer/pigs?

It's understood that part of this discussion has been centered around hits on people, but the 5.56 range question is relevant to hunting medium-sized game, as well, right?

Is it?

I'm no expert in either field, but I have heard many times from many sources that I believe to know more about such things than I do that killing a 200 pound animal takes a lot more than killing a 200 pound man.

I do, of course, realize that this is the internet and that without theoretical discussions it would likely cease to exist.

Well, that and porn.

[Failure2Stop]

Medium-sized hogs are a pretty close analog to adult male humans in the "shooting them" department.
Of course, there are some distinct differences in vital organ placement and holds, but for solid drops, the target areas on hogs are pretty similar in size to dudes.
They are also good moving target practice.

[blake_g]

Is it?

I'm no expert in either field, but I have heard many times from many sources that I believe to know more about such things than I do that killing a 200 pound animal takes a lot more than killing a 200 pound man.

I do, of course, realize that this is the internet and that without theoretical discussions it would likely cease to exist.

Well, that and porn.

Sig-line gold right there - I'm taking it (and will give full attribution)...

[dbateman]

Hmm there are some really solid ideas in this thread.

Very good reading.

[Wheeler]

Medium-sized hogs are a pretty close analog to adult male humans in the "shooting them" department.
Of course, there are some distinct differences in vital organ placement and holds, but for solid drops, the target areas on hogs are pretty similar in size to dudes.
They are also good moving target practice.
After watching several videos of the hog eradication hunts in Texas where an AR chambered in 5.56/.223 is used with soft point ammunition I have developed a new respect for the cartridge.

[littlejerry]

At one time I went looking for documented non-LE civilian engagements that didn't result in the shooter either being prosecuted or killed by LE during/after the fact and never did find anything.

What about the Texas tower school shooting? Weren't there civies right next to LE lobbing rounds back at the tower?

[Josh Runkle]

I just never understand the discussions among civilians (including LE) regarding engaging humans at more than about 100 yards. I do understand that there are rare, unique cases for it within LE, but outside of LE it's uncommon enough to be insignificant. At one time I went looking for documented non-LE civilian engagements that didn't result in the shooter either being prosecuted or killed by LE during/after the fact and never did find anything.

http://www.guns.com/2012/08/01/texas-gun-owner-shoot-out/

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/08/daniel-zimmerman/one-year-later-vic-stacy-and-the-peach-house-shootout/

Vic Stacy. Texas. Supposedly 165 yards with a revolver. My understanding is that he was given a Larue by the Governor of Texas (Rick Perry) afterward.

[Odin Bravo One]

What about the Texas tower school shooting? Weren't there civies right next to LE lobbing rounds back at the tower?

And how often do we see this?

Rarely.

Which is precisely why I mentioned there are rare circumstances in which a civilian, in a defensive situation, would be called on to shoot more than 200 yards with an AR.

Certainly, in such circumstances, I would push my AR to as far as I can effectively hit a target.

But if I am given a choice, in such circumstances, even at 165 yards...........I am choosing a .300 Win Mag.

Right tool, right job.

[Josh Runkle]

And how often do we see this?

Rarely.

Which is precisely why I mentioned there are rare circumstances in which a civilian, in a defensive situation, would be called on to shoot more than 200 yards with an AR.

Certainly, in such circumstances, I would push my AR to as far as I can effectively hit a target.

But if I am given a choice, in such circumstances, even at 165 yards...........I am choosing a .300 Win Mag.

Right tool, right job.

Well said.

[jstone]

Regarding bonded ammo, it seems that certain TSX bullets are claimed to still expand at 300+ yards. Hs anyone on here done any testing to substantiate that?

I have not done it yet, but I personally know a couple guys that have made shots out to around 250-270 yards with the 70gr tsx and got full expansion. Also if you go to the hunting section of m4c there is a guy nam3d skypup. He has video and lots of pictures of dead hogs shot with the 70gr tsx. Some of his longer shots use 30 cal tsx, but IIRC h3 has some shots at very close to 300. He uses tsx/ttsx bullets most of the time.

You whould check it out a lot of questions you might have about the tsx and there range will more than likely be answered. The thread is called "223 barnes 70 tsx performance"

[jc000]

I have not done it yet, but I personally know a couple guys that have made shots out to around 250-270 yards with the 70gr tsx and got full expansion. Also if you go to the hunting section of m4c there is a guy nam3d skypup. He has video and lots of pictures of dead hogs shot with the 70gr tsx. Some of his longer shots use 30 cal tsx, but IIRC h3 has some shots at very close to 300. He uses tsx/ttsx bullets most of the time.

You whould check it out a lot of questions you might have about the tsx and there range will more than likely be answered. The thread is called "223 barnes 70 tsx performance"

I've read a lot of skypup's threads (including his awesome FLIR footage) but there is a slightly different crowd here than M4C and was looking for other perspectives.

[jstone]

Regarding bonded ammo, it seems that certain TSX bullets are claimed to still expand at 300+ yards. Hs anyone on here done any testing to substantiate that?


Why wouldn't this topic be about hunting deer/pigs?

It's understood that part of this discussion has been centered around hits on people, but the 5.56 range question is relevant to hunting medium-sized game, as well, right?

Well you were the one that brought up the hunting aspect. So if it is not relevant why bring it up. Your going to get a lot more information from hunters using the tsx and its performance at 300+, then you are going to get from people that have used them on 2 legged targets. While I understand the difference in the two forums there are similarities and the perspectives are not as different as you seem to think they are.

[jc000]

Well you were the one that brought up the hunting aspect. So if it is not relevant why bring it up. Your going to get a lot more information from hunters using the tsx and its performance at 300+, then you are going to get from people that have used them on 2 legged targets. While I understand the difference in the two forums there are similarities and the perspectives are not as different as you seem to think they are.

You seem to be responding to a point I haven't made – what are you saying?

[jc000]

BTW, the above post isn't meant to come across as snarky as it sounds – however I don't seem able to edit the post.

You seem to misunderstand: I never suggested that hunting wasn't relevant. My point is that I am looking for opinions here on the terminal effects of bonded ammo (TBBC, TSX, even Fusion or Gold Dots, etc.) at extended ranges beyond fragmenting ammo. You're right that there's definitely some good info on M4C, but I've elected to get some input here.

[jstone]

BTW, the above post isn't meant to come across as snarky as it sounds – however I don't seem able to edit the post.

You seem to misunderstand: I never suggested that hunting wasn't relevant. My point is that I am looking for opinions here on the terminal effects of bonded ammo (TBBC, TSX, even Fusion or Gold Dots, etc.) at extended ranges beyond fragmenting ammo. You're right that there's definitely some good info on M4C, but I've elected to get some input here.

No I completely understand and it did not come off snarky at all. I read your posts after a long night shift with no sleep all day and my reading comprehension was taking a nap. I reread it and understand what you were trying to say. From my experience the bonded bullets and tsx greatly increase the effective distance of the 223/556.

One of my favorite is the 64 nosler bonded solid base. It expands down to 1600fps, and it is tough. I have not been able to shoot any animals with it yet, but I have got some of the deapest penetration through water jugs with that bullet.

Im hoping to get a chance to shoot some hogs or a deer this year if time allows. I know guys that have had some long shots on hogs with the bonded and tsx bullets. The performance is great. They really step the 223 up to a medium game cartridge as long as the distances are around 325 and under. All the animals I have had a chance to shoot have been pass throughs. Putting the animal down it its tracks. Another bullet I have been very impressed with is the 60grain partition. They give you the best of both frag and expansion.

The front fragments and where the partion is expands and blows through the back side.

[Failure2Stop]

No I completely understand and it did not come off snarky at all. I read your posts after a long night shift with no sleep all day and my reading comprehension was taking a nap. I reread it and understand what you were trying to say. From my experience the bonded bullets and tsx greatly increase the effective distance of the 223/556.

One of my favorite is the 64 nosler bonded solid base. It expands down to 1600fps, and it is tough. I have not been able to shoot any animals with it yet, but I have got some of the deapest penetration through water jugs with that bullet.

Im hoping to get a chance to shoot some hogs or a deer this year if time allows. I know guys that have had some long shots on hogs with the bonded and tsx bullets. The performance is great. They really step the 223 up to a medium game cartridge as long as the distances are around 325 and under. All the animals I have had a chance to shoot have been pass throughs. Putting the animal down it its tracks. Another bullet I have been very impressed with is the 60grain partition. They give you the best of both frag and expansion.

The front fragments and where the partion is expands and blows through the back side.

Any idea about precision potential from those at 300-500 meters/yards?

[jstone]

Im not the best shot so Im not the best to ask. Also the longest range I have access to is my backyard which is 200 yards. Im working on expanding that this summer to what hopefully will be 500.

At 200 I get moa regularly with the 64 nosler, and sub moa when im on top of my game. I do know peopl that have shot some of my loads that regularly get sub moa at 100 with the nosler. The tsx for me has been 1-1.5 moa. The 60 grain partition has performed about the same as the 64 nosler. I recently got some 62 tbbc pulls, but I have not had a chance to do anything with them. Im hoping since they are similar to the 64 nosler I can use the same load and get the same performance.

[Odin Bravo One]

I notice we are starting to toss around the "MOA" terminology........


A minute of angle, to keep it simple, roughly corresponds to those numbers, but a gun/bullet/shooter combo that shoots a 1" group @ 100 or 2" @ 200 is not necessarily a true MOA combination. The "minute" and the "angle" continue far beyond those chip shot ranges. I generally reserve use of the terminology for topics were it is applicable. It generally is not, when discussing a GP carbine chambered in .223 or 5.56mm.

[jstone]

I understand that these are very short distances and tbe load may not maitain a minute of angle at further distances. I just used the term because it is universal. Pretty much everybody knows what a minute of angle is. That is the only reason why I used the term. I also put down the distance as a qualifier rather than saying it is a sub moa load.

Im sure for someone of your qualifications hearing people always speak of moa and sub moa gets frustrating. I just wanted to give an honest evaluation of the performance im getting in terms that are universal.

Edit: I wanted to add when I said someone of your qualifications which I know nothing of other than what I read into your posts was meant with no disrespect. From what I get from your posts I respect what you do very much, and hope one day I can call a couple hundred yards a chip shot like you do. A couple hundred yards is me pulling out my driver ( keeping with the golf reference).