What is the best 5.56 / .223 bullet weight for SHTF?
Will 55gr ball ammo get the job done efficintly or should I have something heavier like a 62gr or up?
I have yet to get a barrel for my AR build but want to see what is the minimal bullet weight that is suitable for taking out 2 legged predators.
I almost exclusively find 55gr in my local shops and wonder if it is enough.
Depends on your rifle's rate of twist. For a 1:7 or 1:8, then 62 grain JHP's or soft points. If 1:9 then 55 may perform better, you can test both weights and see how your rifle handles them.
>>30472517
Trust me man, you don't want to go down the rabbit hole of terminal wound effects. Just stay stupid and ignorant like you are now.
All rifle cartridges will do an assload of damage, so don't worry about it. Your AR will be just fine shooting whatever grainage you'd like. It's more important to be accurate with your rifle than to have "more damaging" bullets. So just buy whatever you can afford to shoot the most.
>>30472574
Might not have been as clear as I thought.
Basically assuming each weight is matched with the appropriate twist rate, which is the best man-stopper?
Im trying to figure out which bullet weight I should focus on so I can get the appropriate barrel.
>>30472517
55gr is excellent.
fragments great, works in all barrel twist pretty much.
i like a classic m193 load, such as from IMI
>>30472634
If you can afford it and have a 1:7" twist, shoot and stockpile 75-77gr OTMs. They're generally very accurate and perform great even at longer ranges where 55/62gr FMJs don't do so well.
>>30472517
The most common one, which for the most part is 55 grain. 62 grain is also pretty common. Honestly they all work, just to different degrees. This pic might help out.
Twist and barrel length.
If you have an AR pistol or SBR consider 77gr ammo.
If you have a 14 to16" or shorter barrel I'd go with 62gr.
If you have an 18 to 20" barrel, I'd go with 55gr.
I say this because heavier bullet gets a more complete powder burn which is good for short barrels and also, 55gr relies on velocity to do it's magic. Within shorter distances it will go fast enough out of anything over 10" but it'll do better and to better distances if it has the longer barrel velocity.
Obviously rifling has to be compatible.
>>30472761
what kind of distance are we talking?
What would be the max effective range of the 55gr?
there is seriously very little meaningful difference between any modern ammo in 5.56/223 these days. you sure as hell arent going to be worried about match-grade when SHTF. get a mountain of the cheapest ammo you can find. rounds per dollar is king.
>>30472781
iirc you want 55gr to be going over 2500fps when it hits the target. So the faster it leaves the barrel the longer you have until it slows down below that.
>>30472773
Thanks for the input on barrel length. I was wanting to stick with 16"
>>30472789
Im not looking for match grade accuracy. I just want to be able to stock up on the most effective ball ammo around.
>>30472803
I'll look into that. Thanks.
>>30472591
Where was your wisdom 2 years ago, anon.
>>30472781
Depends on the barrel, but 55gr (given correct jacketing, i.e. no Russian bimetal bullshit) tends to reliably fragment out to 150-200 yards. Meaning it can still fragment at 400, but you can't depend on it happening anymore.
It still kills shit pretty dead past that distance, mind you, there will just be less of an assfuck where it hits.
>>30472816
>Thanks for the input on barrel length. I was wanting to stick with 16"
I'd honestly get a 1:9 and stockpile 62gr unless 55gr was a lot cheaper in which case I'd go with 55gr.
>>30472830
>u so guru why u no hear our time airy day
>i give u comprimen tree ten dollar short time
>all u buddy too sukee sukee no good as me
was part of the herd too busy preaching about that evil 40cal to realize
>theyz done switched gears
>new trend: brainwashing the troglodytes on all his wolf ammo
>ruhro
"most effective ball ammo around"
same effective ball ammo that has been around
protip: lurk moar young one
>>30473663
Yeah.... I just meant about all the various grain weights and bullet types of .223, .260, .284, and .308.
>>30473700
exactly I wasn't refuting that
55gr HOLLOWPOINTS
Why the fuck does everyone ignore hollowpoints for AR's??
.223/5.56 is basically useless past 350 yards, throw some hollowpoints in it and you have a gun that will inflict obscene damage at any range you can hit at.
600+ yard kills all day long
I'd bet that .223 HP's would create wounds just as deadly as .308 FMJ's
Seriously though why are these ignored? Because the military can't use them?? I don't get it.
>>30474824
because theres real hollowpoints engineered for maximum expansion and theres old tech bullets which are basically fmjs with a hole drilled in the top
the majority of 55gr hollowpoints are old tech and might as well be fmj
>>30472517
whatever you have on hand and whats zeroed for your particular long gun and barrel length.
>>30472517
1:8 is perfect.
>>30474824
Because they are varminting rounds intended for blowing up ground squirrels, not people, and will create shallow cratering wounds a good deal of the time.
That said, I think they'd be ideal for urban defense. You don't want ricochets all over your neighborhood. And if the SOB gets up, shoot him again.
>>30474824
Why not soft-point ammo? Leads to the same thing...
Can someone explain M855A1?
>>30474876
>>30474894
my gun lacks a barrel at the moment
See >>30472634
>>30472517
62 grain 5.56 down a 1:7 twist barrel
>>30475575
why this weight specifically?
>>30475579
Accuracy and ballistics.
>>30475788
Any data to back this as a better load than something lighter?
>>30472517
any weight .223 will kill a person as long as you do your part. if youre that concerned about it, buy rifle chambered in a full sized rifle round
>>30476421
Not him, but there was a paper done by the DoD a few years ago on the lethality of the various 5.56 rounds in service based on analysis of 1,000's of combat shootings and wounds, etc. The report concluded they were all about them same, but the data showed the M855 was a little more lethal than all the rest.
>>30476482
In a SHTF situation, is there any reason not to go with a steel penetrating load as opposed to regular FMJs?
From all ive been looking at, Im thinking of going with a 1:9 twist mid length gas 16" barrel so I can deal with 55-62gr.
>>30476490
to add, im assuming a situation where 62gr is my most accurate performer, do I go with standard or XM855? Price would be a non-issue between the two.
>>30476490
Slightly heavier 5.56 rounds can give you better accuracy and terminal performance at longer ranges, but of course are more expensive than M855.
>>30476495
>standard or XM855
According to Federal, "XM-" ammo is composed of over runs and lots that were not acceptable to the government for any number of reasons, but are safe to shoot.
>>30476495
>>30476506
There is a debate whether any XM193/XM855 ammo that Federal sells is quality control rejected ammo because apparently they are not allowed to sell surplus ammo to the civilian market. Nobody knows for sure.
>>30474824
You want a round that can reliably penetrate light body armor at those ranges, too. Soft points and twist rates are the way to go, but hollow points aren't too bad either since most hostiles encountered are just violent civvies. However, I'd rather be safe than sorry
>>30476482
>the data showed the M855 was a little more lethal than all the rest
Bullshit. Show me the "paper done by the DoD". M855 is widely agreed to be the shittiest common load as far as terminal ballistics are concerned.
