Another stoopid 5.56 question

"Either they're 62 grain military ball....

Or they're not ripe yet. "
Oh dam I thought they wer OK 'cause the Army guys who use our range hove been leving them all around. I picing unripe ammo off the ground, do they ripen in the frig?:D\

Mace

Happiness is a belt fed weapon with lots of ammo
 
Somtimes it doesn't get adopted and keeps the X designation forever. Your ammo could be leftovers from a test batch or something like that.
Click to expand...

Federal explains on their website that the XM193 and XM855 brands of ammo are what they call their civilian lines of ammo. It is manufactured using any spare capacity at the Lake City plant and is very similar to M193 and M855, though people who have disassembled the rounds have noted that several batches lack steps that the military requires for M193 and M855 (like sealant around the case neck, proper crimping, etc.).

Personal experience, I bought 3,000 rounds of XM193PD. No problem with 2 cases; but about 20% squib rounds in the last case.
 
I don't understand why nobody has the guts to simply say "this ammo is not safe", because that's what you're telling me

Apart from my disappointment, I wonder why nobody has just come out and said it
 
Federal Lake City XM855LC AC1 5.56mm 62gr. FMJ Ball Ammo 420rds on strippers

I thought we were talking about XM855. Its is made by Federal. This ammo comes on 10 round strippers. Not loose bulk ammo. My experience with this ammo is 500+ rounds, no failures of any type in a M&P 15 OR and Sport. Grouping with iron sights at 50 yards is around 1.5". At one hundred yards again with iron sights, the grouping is around 3". The only thing unsafe about this ammo is if you are on the receiving end of it.
 
Last edited:
I got out the ol' calipers, and I inspected the ammo

On overall length, the vast majority were 2.25" exactly (well, as close to exactly as can be determined by my dial calipers). The others were +0.002/-0.006

I found 12 with dents.

On the outside of the can it reads "XM855LC AC1". 420 round can. 10 rounds per sttripper clip. All headstamps read "LC 11". Cardboard sleeves all indicate M855
 
Last edited:
You are probably over-thinking this. It is good to shoot. It may not be full mil-spec (sealed primers, etc), but you don't care.

Unless, of course, it blows up your gun and kills you. If that happens, then it wasn't good to shoot. (joking)
 
Last edited:
Squib as in the bullets actually didn't exit the barrel?
Click to expand...

Only 2 didn't exit the barrel. The remainder exited but were underpowered to the extent they would not cycle the action. Of the few that made it to the target, they would be 10-15" below the others.
 
I don't understand why nobody has the guts to simply say "this ammo is not safe", because that's what you're telling me

Apart from my disappointment, I wonder why nobody has just come out and said it
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are getting that from. Other than the one case of squib rounds (which was actually the 55gr XM193PD not XM855), what makes you think "unsafe?" it isn't premium grade ammo I would use for defense; but even with the PD stuff I fired 2,000 rounds with no problem and saw another 3,000 go downrange OK in other rifles. Its affordable blasting ammo with occasional QC issues.
 
I'm not sure where you are getting that from. Other than the one case of squib rounds (which was actually the 55gr XM193PD not XM855), what makes you think "unsafe?"
Click to expand...



I get it from uh, reading the thread. When I read a bunch of negative comments such as "rejected", "doesn't meet spec", and "squib"...

mostlikey a cheap European knock off
Click to expand...
Anything with "X" at the beginning is a reject in some way
Click to expand...
I heard the official acronym for that was NFG
Click to expand...
but about 20% squib rounds in the last case
Click to expand...
(your post reads as if this in reference to the "X" designation, not the specific ammo)


...what was I supposed to think? That the good fairy would deflect the debris if I had a catastrophe? :D I don't make a habit of trusting to luck with controlled detonations less than a foot from my face ;) I had a 30-06 case rupture on me once. I didn't exactly dance the hockey-pokey afterward
 
I get it from uh, reading the thread. When I read a bunch of negative comments such as "rejected", "doesn't meet spec", and "squib"...


Quote:
mostlikey a cheap European knock off

Quote:
Anything with "X" at the beginning is a reject in some way

Quote:
I heard the official acronym for that was NFG

Quote:
but about 20% squib rounds in the last case

(your post reads as if this in reference to the "X" designation, not the specific ammo)
Click to expand...

The hard part of reading what is in a forum is differentiating what is fact and what is opinion. And while most opinions are based on experience, some are based on hearsay or generalization. I'd like to break down each of the quotes but that would not be any fun. :cool:
 
If you were reading and processing the info, you'd see the first two comments you quoted are not correct and the third one wasn't related to your question. The fourth comment is not the same type of ammo but is manufactured by the same people in the same place and gives you an idea of what kind of QC is in place.

Doesn't meet spec means just that - a 60gr Nosler Partition is a good round; but it doesn't meet spec for M193 or M855. Little things like lacking neck sealant won't affect your range shooting (unless you are shooting from the local pond) but it means the ammo doesn't meet M855 spec.
 
Just about all of the LC ammo sold on the civilian market that everybody loves so much is reject for some reason the lot did not meet Mil Spec in some way. Winchester used to run LC and now Federal does and they repackage the bad lots and sell it to us.

I wonder how big the lots are that they run, how many rounds at a time. I believe when they pull some samples and find something amiss they can the whole lot.
 
Federal is owned by Alliant

"Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) is a 3,935-acre (15.92 km2) government-owned, contractor-operated facility in Independence, Missouri that was established by Remington Arms in 1941 to manufacture and test small caliber ammunition for the U.S. Army. The facility has remained in continuous operation except for one 5-year period following World War II.[1][2] As of July 2007, the plant produced nearly 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition per year.[3]
Remington Arms operated the plant from its inception until 1985, when operations were taken over by Olin Corporation.[2] Since April 2001, it has been operated by Alliant Techsystems (ATK). LCAAP is the single largest producer of small arms ammunition for the United States military.[3][4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_City_Army_Ammunition_Plant

Excess capacity is another explanation. Anyway, if it wasn't safe to shoot BATF would not let them sell it.
 
If you were reading and processing the info, you'd see the first two comments you quoted are not correct and the third one wasn't related to your question. The fourth comment is not the same type of ammo but is manufactured by the same people in the same place and gives you an idea of what kind of QC is in place.

Doesn't meet spec means just that - a 60gr Nosler Partition is a good round; but it doesn't meet spec for M193 or M855. Little things like lacking neck sealant won't affect your range shooting (unless you are shooting from the local pond) but it means the ammo doesn't meet M855 spec.
Click to expand...

Sir:

Perhaps you don't mean to be taken this way, but your manner is not one of trying to assist; rather it seems as if you need to prove me wrong. Labeling me as incapable of reading comprehension is a poor way to make your point.

I have some experience with US military contract work. "Doesn't meet spec" can range from a misplaced label on a box to improper testing of critical performance. When you try to explain 'doesn't meet spec' in such rose colored terms as merely stating minor issues and then try to back it up with a ridiculous situation such as shooting from a pond, it seems to me that you don't appreciate the possible enormity of the issue of not meeting spec. I also can't see why I assume the spec not met is minor, or that indeed it is just one spec not met

Based on my inspection of the rounds in the can I purchased, 12 rounds out of 420 were not in my opinion fit to be fired. Of these twelve two have actual dimples as if struck by a center punch. The other ten have creases or dents which are in my opinion not to be chambered. This is not, as you suggest, merely one perfectly fine parameter being used in place of another that has no impact on civilian ammo, such as your example of bullet choice, or lack of a sealant. This indicates some problem with manufacturing

To you, being able to consider a box of ammo that has 3 question marks in every 105 as 'safe' could be perfectly normal. My opinion is not the same. To me, 'safe' means that I can use any round in the box; 'safe' does not mean "reject 2.9% of the ammo". Would I buy this ammo again? Yes. The rounds that passed my visual were flawless and suitably accurate. But I will inspect every round

I hope you can appreciate my point
 
Last edited:
Milspec

When I was downrange, we had Milspec M4 and ammo. This was provided for us during training and for duty.

I'm not trying to be a smart alec but most of us (99.9%) don't have 100% Milspec AR15s and shoot mostly .223 ammo instead of 5.56 due to cost.


So when I get a chance to shoot an almost milspec ammo on my almost milspec AR15, I jump at the chance because it feels good to me. As far as their safety record, I have not heard of anyone shooting the XM885 state any unsafe results (myself included).

If anyone did have unsafe results with this particular ammo, please speak up and let us know what happened.
 
I am hardly going to defend my point against the "well my rifle never blew up" anecdotes. That's simply childish, and potential dangerous in my opinion. You will never, ever have a bad experience...until it happens. You could shoot cases with marks from other rounds being driven into them .05" deep or creases in the case all day long from here until doomsday and never have a problem. But I won't. That 4 dollars and 80 cents worth of ammo I rejected is just not worth my rifle or my health
 
Last edited:
Chris-B, I totally agree with you as far as not shooting dented cases. We had a few fill up a 50 cal ammo can at my last FOB. Nobody wants to shoot them either.

If you are feeling offended by our comments, that is not the intention. I was expressing personal experience and wanted information from others' experience as well.

I was talking about ammo in good condition, without visible defects that are not deemed milspec which I have used without malfunction or unsafe results.

Safe shooting.
 
OK. So here's another option. The ammo may not have been tested to assure milspecs and therefore, cannot be labeled/warranted as combat ready. There may have been a production run that was determined to be safe but not up to velocity or consistency standards. It may have been an overrun of ammo designated for practice by some entity which was never intended to meet the requirements of military specifications. I seriously doubt that Federal Catridge would release ammo onto the commercial market that is unsafe for civilian use.
Even I have loaded some lots of ammo which I have plainly marked "not for combat" since I knew there was some factor which might create a problem which would be fatal in a real combat situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top