Marquez- not offended. Just sticking up for myself.
Mobuck- the outside of the can bears a large label which plainly reads "NOT FOR DUTY USE", which to me is why this is XM855 and not M855. However the label does not explain why it is not for duty use. Dented cases is likely at least one reason. I don't feel the need to defend my standpoint that I won't shoot rounds with concentric dents, creases, etc, though. I'm not sure what Federal intends but I
am sure of what sits in my lockbox right now. I'm not open to discussion on whether or not the deformities exist, although a discussion of deformities and their effects would be interesting. It is possible I am being over-cautious but without real knowledge of how to tell what deformities are 'acceptable' I won't roll the dice. I mentioned before that I had a case burst on me once; I was lucky that the only thing scorched was a pair of shooting glasses and a little hair. I was further lucky that the round exited the barrel and that the rifle was a strong bolt action. Side of the case just let go in a straight line. No, it wasn't a re-load
Eghad- please take the time to read the parts of the thread in which the fact that this is
XM885 is discussed, and where I report on the number of rounds that do not pass muster on a visual inspection. The military to my knowledge is not using
XM885. I appreciate your anecdotal experience. I too have now fired hundreds of Federal (or should I really consider it Lake City? In that case I've fired even more LC, but it was LC '42 M2 Ball
) myself, with no problems. Could I have fired the twelve rounds out of 420 with no problems? Probably. I won't take that test though
