# General > General Guns & Ammo >  Anyone have personal experience with this ammo?

## druid

My local Army Navy had it on sale and I bought 3 boxes of it for my AR's maiden run.

Good? Bad? Indifferent?

I'm not looking to be a tack-driver with it, my intention is "utilitarian" in nature. Will I be able to achieve at least a 3" group or better at 100-400 yards with it?
Barrel specs are 18" S/S bull barrel, 1:8" twist, .223 Wylde chamber, M4 feed ramps, flash hider and mid length gas system.

American Eagle 5.56, 62 gr fmj 

https://ii.cheaperthandirt.com/fcgi-...=1000&cvt=jpeg

Thanks.

----------


## pete lynch

I have used different calibers of American Eagle ammo. It's made by Federal.

----------


## crashdive123

Haven't used the 5.56, but I have used quite a bit of it in other calibers and had no problems.

----------


## hunter63

I would guess if your groups are good now....I don't see where the ammo would make that much difference given the same bullet weight and type.

Use AE all the time in hand guns......So can't really tell ya on these?

----------


## Wildthang

I wouldn't use for prairie dog shooting at long range, but it's okay. It is fine for target practice and will perform better in some guns than others!

----------


## taint

3" at 100 yds is a far, far different thing than 3" at 400 yds.  Most of this accuracy thing is about the shooter, not the ammo or the gun.

----------


## druid

> I would guess if your groups are good now....I don't see where the ammo would make that much difference given the same bullet weight and type.
> 
> Use AE all the time in hand guns......So can't really tell ya on these?


Well this was a question regarding my AR build that I posted - which hasn't seen the range yet. That's why I was asking. 




> 3" at 100 yds is a far, far different thing than 3" at 400 yds.  Most of this accuracy thing is about the shooter, not the ammo or the gun.


Agreed but as I said, I bought this for its maiden voyage and son't know much about the ammo. The AR platform is far removed from what I'm used to - from bolt action and pump or lever hunting rifles to AKs and SKSs. The AR [as a personally owned/built rifle] is a new unknown for me.

I'm just wondering what 'typical' accuracy I can expect from this ammo.

----------


## Wildthang

Use a good high quality ammo for sighting it in, then try the cheap stuff, that will tell you just how good it is! I use Hornady to sight in my varmint rifles!

----------


## finallyME

I have used it in my AR.  But, I also wasn't sitting down at a bench and shooting paper to see what it did.  Just trying to hit a 10" steel circle at some distance.  No problems feeding.  Better than the Tula I use more often.

----------


## kyratshooter

Well Druid it seems you are in the same boat as all of us builders and reloaders.  You have absolutely no idea what is going to happen when you sit down at the bench and pull the trigger.

I never know how a reload is going to work in any given rifle.  I have one rifle that will not shoot factory ammo into an 8" circle at 100 yards.  I was about to give up on the rifle while testing reloads because it was doing nothing better with anything I tried.  Then I hit the combination it liked and it turned into a 1/2" shooter @100. 

The one thing I can tell you is that you need to get a stable platform and eliminate your own input in the shooting process.  Use a steady rest.  That way you know it is either the rifle or the ammo and nothing else.

I would also recommend you take a box of Tula and a box of Wolf along for the test.  Those are the surplus standards and you really do not know what you have until you compare it to something else.  If you start stacking crates deep you are more than likely going to have a lot of the Wolf and Tulla stuff stored so you should know how it shoots.  

On top of that most of the calibrated scopes and gauged scope reticles are set up for the 55 grain hardball ammo.

If you need a real life standard, not something from a gun test in a magazine or review, My PSA slick-side (1/8 16" barrel, nitride finish, carbine setup, M4 ramps) with polymer frame I built myself, topped with a $25 Beeman pellet rifle scope ($350 in the whole rig) shoots the Wolf into 1 1/2"@100 off my lead sled.  

That is about the norm for all the Wolf, Tulla and most of the unknown generic white box ammo I have put through any of my AR platforms.  It is also the norm for my bolt action .223 (shoots my hand-loads into less than an inch), so I just consider all surplus .223/5.56 ammo as 1 1/2" ammo from any platform no matter what the set up or how good the rifle is. 

Hells-bells my 7 1/2" AR pistol will do 1 1/2@50 using a red dot and shooting the Wolf.

Good luck, and have some fun for me too!  It's snowing here right now and I am not going to make it to the range today.  There's a new upper to sight in and I am having a little fit to get out.

BTW when you sight in set it for 2" low at 25 yards.  You will be 2" high at 100, dead on at 200 and about 4" low at 300.  

I have found that if using a calibrated scope I can set the dial on 300 and do the 25yard thing and it will be very close when I move to real distance for the fine tuning. For tuning I move to the 100yard range,  reset the dial to 100 and do final zero.  Saves a lot of walking due to my old eyes not being able to see the .22 caliber holes even with the spotting scope.

----------


## InfantryAmerican

I use this ammo all the time in my AR-15 (Rock River LAR-15 A2). In fact, I actually have quite a bit of it. 

I still manage to get shot groups within three inches at 200 yards (open sights). I prefer it over Bear ammunition because it makes my weapon less dirty. One of the big things people forget is that carbon buildup in the barrel and upper receiver of an AR-15 (or any weapon) will result in compromised performance. So, if the ammo is designed well but has a tendency to produce more carbon than the leading brand, it might result in less accurate shooting.

----------


## kyratshooter

That might be true for a long shooting session of several hundred rounds, but for a sight in session of 15-20 rounds, or a competition string from a clean gun there is not going to be enough carbon build up to affect accuracy.  

If it were the case then the AK would be considered the more accurate platform because it does not fart where it eats.  (I get equal accuracy out of either platform when comparing apples to apples)

The biggest factor in total accuracy performance in a new AR is the ammo, closely followed by the quality of the trigger.  In an older AR it is going to be barrel erosion, but that is not a problem until several thousand rounds have gone down the tube. 

All these guys you hear about shooting 1/2" groups out of the AR are NOT shooting surplus or factory, they are shooting carefully tailored hand loads. And most of them will have a custom trigger installed that almost equals the price of the base rifle.

----------


## natertot

I agree with Kyrat. The AR by design is not an accurate rifle. It was originally designed to shoot minute of man out to 300yds. Anything more than that is the result of modifications and not in a "basic" AR. A 500+yd AR that is shooting within inches or a less than 300yd AR shooting MOA is due to custom triggers, specific barrels, high end optics and hand loads that are specifically tailored to that individual rifle.

This is not a bash against an AR, I am simply stating the AR capabilities around it's design.

----------


## kyratshooter

When the AR was adopted one of the gripes was that it reduced the effective range of the rifleman from 500 meters to 275 meters.

Yep, 275 meters was considered effective range and max-effective range was 500, which had been the normal effective range of the M14. 

That is not a 1 MOA requirement, just hit the guy somewhere in a body sized 24" circle from 500m away, which is about 5-6MOA capability at 100M.  It was also from the longer 20" barrel with the longer sight radius than the standard 14" and 16" carbines of today.

Add to that a qualification pass requirement of only 50% hits out to 275m and you can see why we have always stressed accurate artillery fire.  Not everyone qualifies expert.

So yep, the shooter is the greatest factor in AR accuracy, but he can not make a rifle/ammo combination do what it is not capable of doing.

----------


## taint

men aint 20" targets. Mostly, they are 10", head on prone targets, dodging, or using cover.  500 yds was bs with the m14, cause it was  a 3moa rifle, with ball ammo.  and when you're being shot-at, without ear protection and half of the time it's at night,  you'll miss a lot at  a mere 20 yds, just like everyone else does.

in Basic, at fort lost in the woods, MO, we qualified to 400 yds or 400m, I forget which, in 1971 and I was hititng the 500  yd toros in practice, but they were huge things.

----------


## natertot

> 500 yds was bs with the m14


snort... chuckle.....

----------


## DSJohnson

<SMH>  I had no idea how misguided I have been for so many years.....

----------


## kyratshooter

> men aint 20" targets. Mostly, they are 10", head on prone targets, dodging, or using cover.  500 yds was bs with the m14, cause it was  a 3moa rifle, with ball ammo.  and when you're being shot-at, without ear protection and half of the time it's at night,  you'll miss a lot at  a mere 20 yds, just like everyone else does.
> 
> in Basic, at fort lost in the woods, MO, we qualified to 400 yds or 400m, I forget which, in 1971 and I was hititng the 500  yd toros in practice, but they were huge things.


Well that answers several questions.

I'm out of this one! :Whistling:

----------


## Wildthang

We should be grateful for our re-education! You just never get too old to learn :Smartass:

----------


## InfantryAmerican

> That might be true for a long shooting session of several hundred rounds, but for a sight in session of 15-20 rounds, or a competition string from a clean gun there is not going to be enough carbon build up to affect accuracy.


I think you'd be surprised at how much carbon buildup affects the accuracy of a weapon. One of the biggest reasons people handload is because they get to experiment with different products and how much carbon they leave in the upper receiver / chamber. 




> If it were the case then the AK would be considered the more accurate platform because it does not fart where it eats. (I get equal accuracy out of either platform when comparing apples to apples)


I know there's a lot of variability between weapons, but that's simply not true. Unless you're talking about using some pristine match grade AK (if there is such a thing) versus an old M16 A1 or something, the AR-15 is just a far more accurate rifle by design. In fact, that's one of the only reasons the AR-15 is better than the AK. The AK-47 was based off of the SKS, which uses an very style old school gas piston. This is less accurate than (many) AR-15s gas impingement systems. Granted, although many ARs do use gas pistons, they're a different design than an AK's - which is literally just a piece of tube on the outside of the weapon. The reason is because the impingement system has less moving parts over the barrel than the gas piston, resulting in better accuracy. The AK's barrel also heats up quicker, (usually) has a shorter barrel, and is more prone to barrel wobble (as opposed to modern AR-15s free floating barrel systems).


Attachment 11044

This is the gas impingement system on an AR-15. 





> The biggest factor in total accuracy performance in a new AR is the ammo, closely followed by the quality of the trigger.



If you ask me, the biggest factor in the total accuracy is the shooter! 


And as far as your claim about the M14 being more accurate at 500 yards, I'm going to have to call you out there. One of the biggest reasons the m14 was phased out was because the wooden furniture on it would swell in the damp jungles of Vietnam, resulting in horrible accuracy. The M16A1 wasn't exactly a tac driver, but the fact that it was made out of polymer and steel left it basically immune to swelling. Granted, they made polymer housing for M-14s, but that was way later. 

Also, part of the reason the range is different is because we're talking about what's called "maximum effective range." A 7.62x54 is simply more effective at a higher range because it's a heavier round. You can still accurately shoot an AR-15 through paper targets beyond 300 meters, you just can't reliably kill a person with them. 

There's also a difference between point target and area target, but I digress.

----------


## natertot

> And as far as your claim about the M14 being more accurate at 500 yards, I'm going to have to call you out there. One of the biggest reasons the m14 was phased out was because the wooden furniture on it would swell in the damp jungles of Vietnam, resulting in horrible accuracy. The M16A1 wasn't exactly a tac driver, but the fact that it was made out of polymer and steel left it basically immune to swelling. Granted, they made polymer housing for M-14s, but that was way later. 
> 
> Also, part of the reason the range is different is because we're talking about what's called "maximum effective range." A 7.62x54 is simply more effective at a higher range because it's a heavier round. You can still accurately shoot an AR-15 through paper targets beyond 300 meters, you just can't reliably kill a person with them.


A couple of things. The m-14 shoots 7.62 nato, not 7.62 x 54. Second of all, the m-14 was never phased out. It is still currently in use by at least three branches. Navy uses it to shoot lines from one ship to another and for ship defense because the range is farther. The Marines and Army are also currently using it because the 5.56 can't shoot from one mountain to the next. The maximum range of the m-14 is 700-975yds, depending on the ammo issued.

----------


## Rick

Just so you know...you are challenging a gun smith that used them in Viet Nam.

----------


## natertot

> Just so you know...you are challenging a gun smith that used them in Viet Nam.


That's fine, I used one less than 10 years ago.

----------


## kyratshooter

> I think you'd be surprised at how much carbon buildup affects the accuracy of a weapon. One of the biggest reasons people handload is because they get to experiment with different products and how much carbon they leave in the upper receiver / chamber. 
> 
> 
> 
> I know there's a lot of variability between weapons, but that's simply not true. Unless you're talking about using some pristine match grade AK (if there is such a thing) versus an old M16 A1 or something, the AR-15 is just a far more accurate rifle by design. In fact, that's one of the only reasons the AR-15 is better than the AK. The AK-47 was based off of the SKS, which uses an very style old school gas piston. This is less accurate than (many) AR-15s gas impingement systems. Granted, although many ARs do use gas pistons, they're a different design than an AK's - which is literally just a piece of tube on the outside of the weapon. The reason is because the impingement system has less moving parts over the barrel than the gas piston, resulting in better accuracy. The AK's barrel also heats up quicker, (usually) has a shorter barrel, and is more prone to barrel wobble (as opposed to modern AR-15s free floating barrel systems).
> 
> 
> Attachment 11044
> 
> ...


There are so much misinformation in this one post that it would take all day to point them out.  From the materials used to make an M14 to the origins of the AK to the miss-naming of the round used in the M14 to the insertion of terms intended to dazzle the reader which have no relevance to the discussion.

As I said in the last post I made, a lot has been revealed and there is little use continuing the discussion when reality has been altered.

----------


## Rick

Sorry, Nate, that was for IA: Next post up. You and I posted at the same time.

----------


## natertot

> Sorry, Nate, that was for IA: Next post up. You and I posted at the same time.


Ahhhhhh,  gotcha. Now I see how it goes together. Thanks!

----------


## druid

Well.....I do appreciate all the input and the off-topic discussion was wildly entertaining for me......

I'm well aware that most accuracy 'issues' are with the shooter, the shooter's platform, breathing technique, trigger control and all that... 

As I recall, I did say this is a "utilitarian" rifle and I'm just hoping to get 3" groups [or better] at about 200 yards with this ammo.

Thank you for all the responses.

----------


## InfantryAmerican

Ok, I'm the new guy here so I'm not trying to make everyone angry, but I don't know where some of you guys are getting your "information." Much of it is dubious to say the least, and at worse inaccurate. I'm honestly getting the impression that some of you guys are relying on things you experienced a long time ago and thinking it's gospel. I'm not one for getting into long drawn out arguments on the internet, but I'm hoping to clear up some of the "misinformation" around here with something other than hearsay. 




> The m-14 shoots 7.62 nato, not 7.62 x 54.


That's true, I mistyped it. It shoots a 7.62x51 (.308) round. Sorry, I'm using a tablet. 




> Second of all, the m-14 was never phased out. It is still currently in use by at least three branches. Navy uses it to shoot lines from one ship to another and for ship defense because the range is farther. The Marines and Army are also currently using it because the 5.56 can't shoot from one mountain to the next.


Not really accurate. Sure, the Army, Navy, and Marines still have them but to act like they're frequently seeing use or haven't been phased out is not true. In fact, the first source also uses the phrase "phased out." Marines are the branch that are most inclined to use them, but that's simply because they always use the oldest equipment. Even so, the M14 was phased out in 1970, and (at least in the Army) Basic Combat Training / OSUT does *not* give soldiers training or exposure to M14s. In fact, their most common use is ceremonial. 

Source: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/a/m14.htm
Source: My Enlistment in the infantry. 

So unless your argument is that it's a superior twirling rifle, it's not really accurate to say that they haven't been phased out. *You're right they're still used,* but it's very uncommon.




> Just so you know...you are challenging a gun smith that used them in Viet Nam.


Just so you know, I went to US Army Armorer school less than six years ago and just finished my enlistment recently. As in, not fifty years ago. 




> There are so much misinformation in this one post that it would take all day to point them out.


Oh please, I typed the wrong diameter of the round. The rest of the information is very accurate and I have sources proving it all. Stop being dramatic.  :Wacko: 




> From the materials used to make an M14


The original M14 that was issued in the Vietnam war *did have* wooden furniture. 

"_However, there were several drawbacks to the M14. The traditional wood stock of the rifle had a tendency to swell and expand in the heavy moisture of the jungle, adversely affecting accuracy. Fiberglass stocks were produced to resolve this problem, but the rifle was discontinued before very many could be distributed for field use._"

Source: Emerson, Lee. M14 Rifle History. imageseek.com, 10 October 2006.
Source: M14 rifle / Mk.14 Mod.0 Enchanced [sic] Battle rifle (USA) world.guns.ru
Source: Kevin Dockery (4 December 2007). Future Weapons. Penguin. pp. 45–. ISBN 978-0-425-21750-4. 




> ...to the origins of the AK


"The rifle that Kalashnikov designed was in the same class as the familiar SKS-45 Simonov with fixed magazine and gas tube above the barrel."

It was also being designed while the soviets were currently using the SKS (which Kalashnikov have used), so to think that it wasn't influenced is kind of a point you'll have a hard time proving.

source: Shilin, Val; Cutshaw, Charlie. "Mikhail Kalashnikov". Power Custom. Archived from the original on 2 April 2005. 




> ...to the insertion of terms intended to dazzle the reader which have no relevance to the discussion.


I guess this is in reference to the piston? Not to be rude here, but if you think that talking about a rifle's construction is irrelevant to discussing its accuracy, you have no idea what in the world you're talking about. In fact, the gas piston vs. gas impingment system is an old debate! Gas piston weapons are less accurate even though they run cooler, but they're also cleaner. The reason they're less accurate is because they have more moving parts over the barrel. 

Source: http://info.stagarms.com/blog/bid/29...y-for-an-AR-15
Source: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/dir...pros-and-cons/
Source: http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-ge...ment-vs-piston




> As I said in the last post I made, a lot has been revealed and there is little use continuing the discussion when reality has been altered.


Again, you really don't need to be this dramatic. You don't really have the right to be this dismissive considering most of what you wrote was wrong.


My original point was simple - This ammo in question is not bad, I've used it before, I shoot it frequently, I have some stored, and most rifles will probably shoot it accurately. However, when people discuss ammo, they often forget that carbon buildup can affect the overall accuracy of a weapon more than they realize. *This being said, the number one factor as to whether or not you hit your target is the operator.* 

I am now respectfully bowing out of the "debate." I'm sure people will have things to say in response, which is fine. I'll leave with this recommendation.

----------


## Rick

> _Just so you know...you are challenging a gun smith that used them in Viet Nam._
> Just so you know, I went to US Army Armorer school less than six years ago and just finished my enlistment recently. As in, not fifty years ago.




That's fine. It's just YOUR reference was to the problems with them in Viet Nam. As in, not six years ago.

----------


## natertot

And I will add that the m14 was never phased out. It was replaced as the primary issue weapon, but it has never been discontinued. Half of my ships hand held rifles were m14 and stood many watches with them. In the army and marine corps, there are very few of them compared to the m16, but they are still being used continuously.

----------


## crashdive123

I agree with InfantryAmerican on this one.  Phased out may not be the correct term because they are still around and some upgraded versions are being used, but they are no longer the primary battle rifle that they once were.

----------


## InfantryAmerican

> That's fine. It's just YOUR reference was to the problems with them in Viet Nam. As in, not six years ago.



The wooden furniture on M14s swelling up and being less accurate is a matter of documented history (which you're still apparently disputing). Anybody who claims they served in the Vietnam War but apparently doesn't know this is suspicious in my book. 

Not like that's even relevant though. Even if this person soley used an M14 in combat and it totally outperformed every other weapon, his anecdotal experience doesn't change the fact that hundreds of thousands of soldiers reported these issues and ergo caused it to change. 


This just proves my original point that people are hemming and hawing over facts. Perhaps these are facts that they dislike I guess, but I literally posted sources for every claim I made. 





> And I will add that the m14 was never phased out. It was replaced as the primary issue weapon, but it has never been discontinued. Half of my ships hand held rifles were m14 and stood many watches with them. In the army and marine corps, there are very few of them compared to the m16, but they are still being used continuously.



So if you admit that the M14 is no longer purchased by the military, hasn't been the primary issue weapon since the 1970s, you saw them used for guard duty while not actively deployed, and their primary use is for ceremony - what would you call that? I guess if you don't like the word "phased out" that's cool, but it's rather silly to watch people backpeddling when the original point was showcasing as if this weapon was still activley and frequenly in use by the service. 

The US hasn't had full Naval engagement in with m14s in years. Some soldiers used them in theater through Operation Iraqi Freedom, but it's very few. Of those few, most were Marines, which makes sense because they have the oldest equipment. 

Argue about it all you want.

----------


## crashdive123

I think that everybody's point has been made on the topic.  No need to belabor it and cover the same ground again.  Time to move on or add something new if you've got it.

----------


## hunter63

What was the final thought on the American Eagle 5.56, 62 gr fmj ?....in an AR platform.

Seems that got kinda lost.

----------


## natertot

> So if you admit that the M14 is no longer purchased by the military No, they are not purchasing them. They are used in refurbished or rebuilt units, hasn't been the primary issue weapon since the 1970sCorrect, I never said otherwise. The m-16 became the primary issue weapon in 1964. Due to issues with the initial m-16, the primary issue went back and forth between the m-16 and the m-14 until 1970 when the m-16 and variants became the primary issue weapon ever since., you saw them used for guard duty while not actively deployedNope, I personally used them while actively deployed three separate times., and their primary use is for ceremony I was on the ships honor guard and we did use the m-14 as well for this. They were the same m-14's we used for everything else.  - what would you call that? I guess if you don't like the word "phased out" that's cool, but it's rather silly to watch people backpeddling when the original point was showcasing as if this weapon was still activley and frequenly in use by the service.  It is still actively in use, but it is in very very small amounts compared to the m-16 and its variants. The m-14 is probably outnumbered 1 million to 1. I just understand "phased out" as meaning "no longer used at all". 
> 
> The US hasn't had full Naval engagement in with m14s in years. True, but that is because we have only been in wars with countries that have no Navy themselves and reside primarily in desert and mountain regions. Ships only go where there is water.  Some soldiers used them in theater through Operation Iraqi Freedom, but it's very few. Of those few, most were Marines, which makes sense because they have the oldest equipment. 
> 
> Argue about it all you want.


Not arguing with you. I think we have different meanings for the term "Phased Out". I take it to mean "no longer in use" whereas it seems you take it to mean "we still use it but aren't buying anymore". That is fine, and I think we agree. It seems were are saying the same thing in different ways. Kind of a PITA about the English language, so many people speak it but there are so many variants!

----------


## hunter63

Ammo, ammo, what about the ammo?.......LOL

----------


## druid

alright guys...if you want to debate the merits of the M-14...please create a new thread. Thanks.

Hunter.....I have no idea. LOL.

----------


## hunter63

> alright guys...if you want to debate the merits of the M-14...please create a new thread. Thanks.
> 
> Hunter.....I have no idea. LOL.


LOL....Me either.....anyway.....let us know what you think if you try it.

----------


## natertot

> As I recall, I did say this is a "utilitarian" rifle and I'm just hoping to get 3" groups [or better] at about 200 yards with this ammo.


Given the specs you have given, a 3" group or better is plausible with the ammo in question. Of course, things can very from one rifle to the next and one lot of ammo from another so there is no guarantee. I find that no matter what I shoot, if I am not reloading for it I will buy different ammo and test it. I then stick to what works from there. 

I hope this helps you.

----------


## Rick

> Ammo, ammo, what about the ammo?.......LOL




What he said.....

----------


## natertot

> What he said.....[/COLOR]


Pst. Read the post above yours.

----------


## InfantryAmerican

Like I said earlier, I really like that ammo! I buy it in bulk.

It's not handload quality but I still get good shot groups.

----------


## natertot

> It's not handload quality but I still get good shot groups.


Very true, and that is what has to be understood about mass produced commercial ammo. Companies make their ammo to shoot up to 3" groups at 100 yds regardless of what gun it is fire from. This is pretty acceptable as a standard. When someone hand loads their own, the ammo is catered to their specific firearm. It may get half inch groups in his rifle at 100yds, but put it into another rifle and a struggle to get 2" groups occur. This is where commercial match grade ammo gets tricky. A guy pays 2-3x the price for super duper accurate ammo and will use nothing else because he gets great results in his gun. Another guy paying the high price gets ticked off because he gets the same results as if he were using the cheap stuff, but finds another brand match ammo works great for him. It wasn't that the high priced ammo was bad, it just wasn't compatible to his rifle. 

As I said before, that ammo and gun combo shooting 3" groups at 200yds is plausible. I would set my expectations to 8" groups at that range so as not to be disappointed. My thought is using a basic level AR with run of the mill commercial ammo, I should expect minute of man results at that range because that is the purpose behind the design of both the rifle and the ammo in question.

I agree with IA, it is worth buying and even if it doesn't meet up to your hopes I am sure you can still find some fun with it. Then reload the brass afterwards!

----------


## hunter63

Trying to think what brand of .223 the BIL and I split a bucket full....like 1000 rounds or so...and seeing the white label with eagle,... I'm thinking that was it....several years ago.

Some had a real hard time pressing out the primers, had like a red coating around the outside on the primer.
Broke a primer push pin in a die trying to get a bunch out.

Anyone try re-loading this stuff....?

----------


## kyratshooter

I believe the term the shooting writers in the paper magazines use for this is "acceptable accuracy".

You factor in all the influences; a gun capable of 2" groups, ammo capable of 2" groups and a shooter capable of 2"groups.

Using that standard one should be pleased with not 2" groups, but 6" groups.

There are things one can do to eliminate the unfavorable parts of the equation, but if one part is left alone the other two can not overcome the control factor.

It is one of the reasons why I scope my rifles (I even have a scoped AK) and do testing from a rest.  I am the weak link in my testing chain so I need to be eliminated to obtain best results.

If I have done everything to the rifle that is possible then that leaves only ammo as a factor and since the factory has control of quality rather than me, I test several brands, decide what is "good enough" and accept it.

You simply decide what is "good enough", and you do not base it on the reports of internet reviews or You tube videos where imaginary results are discussed and shown.  

There was a day when no one expected to get the same results from a rifle/ammo combination that the gun writers got.  Everything they shot was MOA out to 500 yards and variations in ammo were imperceptible.   We knew they were lying so the manufacturers would keep sending them new guns to test and freebees for the good reviews.  

Now days we hear someone got less than an inch at 100 yards and that becomes our expectation from everything we touch.

it is not going to happen and it is not necessary.  

You can be "good enough", and that's fine.

Hunter, I think those primers are crimped, for full auto use, or a sealant is applied to waterproof them.  That is why they are difficult to punch out and can be why it is difficult to insert new primers.  It's also why they last for 100 years in an ammo can.

----------


## crashdive123

> You can be "good enough", and that's fine.


Yep.  Was at the range today and shot 200 rounds out of the G34.  There were a lot of what some might call fliers (I call them normal shooting), but the center of the target was completely gone.  Ran through several drills and every round would have hit an attacker.  I call that good enough.

----------


## natertot

I agree Crash. Some people are striving for minute of angle accuracy, have groups the size of a dime. Many people do achieve the goal as well, which is fine. I am of the philosophy that I just want to be able to take care of situations that may arise or be able to take out that deer, turkey, goose or whatever for sustenance. Dead is dead and the heart isn't the size of a dime.

Thanks KyRat for using the term "acceptable accuracy". That is what I was thinking about earlier, just couldn't find the words!

----------


## druid

> Like I said earlier, I really like that ammo! I buy it in bulk.
> It's not handload quality but I still get good shot groups.


That's what I was hoping for. Thanks.




> I believe the term the shooting writers in the paper magazines use for this is "acceptable accuracy".
> You factor in all the influences; a gun capable of 2" groups, ammo capable of 2" groups and a shooter capable of 2"groups.
> Using that standard one should be pleased with not 2" groups, but 6" groups.
> There are things one can do to eliminate the unfavorable parts of the equation, but if one part is left alone the other two can not overcome the control factor.
> It is one of the reasons why I scope my rifles (I even have a scoped AK) and do testing from a rest.  I am the weak link in my testing chain so I need to be eliminated to obtain best results.
> If I have done everything to the rifle that is possible then that leaves only ammo as a factor and since the factory has control of quality rather than me, I test several brands, decide what is "good enough" and accept it.
> You simply decide what is "good enough", and you do not base it on the reports of internet reviews or You tube videos where imaginary results are discussed and shown.  
> There was a day when no one expected to get the same results from a rifle/ammo combination that the gun writers got.  Everything they shot was MOA out to 500 yards and variations in ammo were imperceptible.   We knew they were lying so the manufacturers would keep sending them new guns to test and freebees for the good reviews.  
> Now days we hear someone got less than an inch at 100 yards and that becomes our expectation from everything we touch.
> ...


I agree. I built this AR but haven't had the chance to get it to the range. I bought this ammo because it happened to be on sale at the time. I'm just hoping [at first] to keep 2-3" groups until I settle in to buying the proper reloading equipment. I'd be absolutely happy with 6-8" groups out to say....400 yards...but only as a 'starting point'. Once I begin reloading, then I can tailor my ammo to the rifle. This was, after all, created to be a SPR and it's eventual expectations to be accurate at moderate distances. 




> I agree Crash. Some people are striving for minute of angle accuracy, have groups the size of a dime. Many people do achieve the goal as well, which is fine. I am of the philosophy that I just want to be able to take care of situations that may arise or be able to take out that deer, turkey, goose or whatever for sustenance. Dead is dead and the heart isn't the size of a dime.
> 
> Thanks KyRat for using the term "acceptable accuracy". That is what I was thinking about earlier, just couldn't find the words!


That's the difference between Western and Eastern philosophies on battle rifles. Here in the West, we tend to think the tighter then MOA, the 'better' the rifle. Contrast that to Combloc rifles like the AK47, SKS, K98 and similar weapons....where they were happy just wounding infantry and getting 3 off the field when they hit only one [one victim, two carrying him].

I'm not [necessarily] looking for 1/2 MOA accuracy at the outer reaches of an AR15's useful range.......but I do want "reasonable" accuracy at all reasonable ranges until I can fine tune my ammunition.

Thanks for the replies.

----------


## kyratshooter

Druid, did you realize that NATO an Warsaw Pac weapons and ammunition specs and requirements are almost identical?

Off the rack AKs are expected to be just as accurate as off the rack NATO hardware and their ammo has almost the exact same accuracy requirements as ours.

It is the training and tactics that differ, along with the fact that much of the combloc hardware has been used by backwoods, 3rd world troops that maintained their gear badly. 

The AR is used as a match rifle because that is what the match rules are based on.  The AK is not allowed on national competition, so no one makes accurizing goodies for it.

I hope you get your 6-8 inch 400 yard group, but that is not standard performance from an AR in spite of what you have heard.  That is Camp Perry performance and if your AR with factory ammo will do that then you need to be at the national matches shooting with the "big boys".

CMP 300 yard targets have a 19" bull with a 7" ten ring, 3" X ring, so you are expecting National Match performance from a "utility rifle" using factory or issue ammo.

----------

