#Chrony

The Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test’s first batch of 6 rounds is through, but there’s more to come. In the last post, we reflected on the test methodology, and some possible solutions. In this post, we’ll talk about what you can expect in the future.

We’ve seen how the 6 different .223 Remington and 5.56mm loads have fared in the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test, but we still have more to talk about. Specifically, we need to discuss what I did wrong (or what I am not satisfied with), and what I plan to do next. This post will concern the former, and a second installment will cover the latter.

Next up for  the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is RUAG Ammotec’s version of the NATO-standard SS109 round (equivalent to US M855). I believe the ammunition I tested may have been made in RUAG’s facility in Thun, Switzerland, although I have not confirmed that.

Next up for  the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is RUAG Ammotec’s version of the NATO-standard SS109 round (equivalent to US M855). I believe the ammunition I tested may have been made in RUAG’s facility in Thun, Switzerland, although I have not confirmed that. The test procedure was as follows:

Next up for  the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is Federal’s T556TNB1 load, which is the civilian market name for the Mk.318 SOST projectile developed by US SOCOM as a “barrier blind” round for the M4 Carbine and Mk. 18 CQB upper receiver. This ammunition uses a reverse drawn jacket to improve accuracy, and couples a fragmenting front end with a solid gilding metal base that improves penetration through tough barriers. I love this ammunition and use it religiously for home defense.  Continuing on from the last installment, we are now looking at the velocity test results for the 20″ barrel (more on the 16″ later).

Next up for  the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is Federal’s T556TNB1 load, which is the civilian market name for the Mk.318 SOST projectile developed by US SOCOM as a “barrier blind” round for the M4 Carbine and Mk. 18 CQB upper receiver. This ammunition uses a reverse drawn jacket to improve accuracy, and couples a fragmenting front end with a solid gilding metal base that improves penetration through tough barriers. I love this ammunition, and use it religiously for home defense. The test procedure was as follows:

Next up for  the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is Korean manufacturer PMC’s clone of M855, called X-TAC M855 LAP. This ammunition features very uniform-looking external dimensions, attractively finished brass cases and projectile jackets, and a reasonable price. I formerly used M855 as a stockpiling round, although I have since switched to other rounds like Federal’s T556TNB1.

Next up for  the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is Korean manufacturer PMC’s clone of M855, called X-TAC M855 LAP. This ammunition features very uniform-looking external dimensions, attractively finished brass cases and projectile jackets, and a reasonable price. I formerly used M855 as a stockpiling round, although I have since switched to other rounds like Federal’s T556TNB1. The test procedure was as follows:

Next up for  the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is Korean manufacturer PMC’s clone of M193 Ball, called XP193. This ammunition features very uniform-looking external dimensions, attractively finished brass cases and projectile jackets, and a reasonable price. Interestingly, XP193 appears to use a lower drag 55gr bullet, possibly based on the Sierra 55gr, instead of the somewhat draggier Remington-style projectiles used by Federal, IMI, and others for their M193 clones. I like to use XP193 when I need full-power ammunition without spending too much.  Continuing on from the last installment, we are now looking at the velocity test results for the 20″ barrel (more on the 16″ later).

Next up for  the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is Korean manufacturer PMC’s clone of M193 Ball, called XP193. This ammunition features very uniform-looking external dimensions, attractively finished brass cases and projectile jackets, and a reasonable price. Interestingly, XP193 appears to use a lower drag 55gr bullet, possibly based on the Sierra 55gr, instead of the somewhat draggier Remington-style projectiles used by Federal, IMI, and others for their M193 clones. I like to use XP193 when I need full-power ammunition without spending too much. The test procedure was as follows:

Next up for  the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is Vympel’s budget 55gr FMJ load in .223 Remington, made in Amursk, Russia. This ammunition features a lacquered steel case, bimetal jacketed 55gr FMJ bullet and purple neck sealant. This is one of my favorite practice rounds due to its environmental toughness.  Continuing on from the last installment, we are now looking at the velocity test results for the 20″ barrel (more on the 16″ later). The test procedure was as follows:

Next up for  the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is Vympel’s budget 55gr FMJ load in .223 Remington, made in Amursk, Russia. This ammunition features a lacquered steel case, bimetal jacketed 55gr FMJ bullet and purple neck sealant. This is one of my favorite practice rounds due to its environmental toughness. The test procedure was as follows:

The first round up of the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is IMI’s take on the Black Hill’s classic heavy precision load, Mk. 262. Branded as “77gr Razor Core”, IMI’s version sports annealed 5.56mm NATO cases, neck and primer sealant, and of course 77gr Open Tip Match projectiles. Continuing on from the first installment, we are now looking at the velocity test results for the 16.1″ and 20″ barrels. The test procedure was as follows:

The first round up for the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test is IMI’s take on the Black Hill’s classic heavy precision load, Mk. 262. Branded as “77gr Razor Core”, IMI’s version sports annealed 5.56mm NATO cases, neck and primer sealant, and of course 77gr Open Tip Match projectiles. Based on reputation alone, I expected the best accuracy and relatively high muzzle velocities from this ammunition. The test procedure was as follows:

Through the Modern Calibers series of posts, we’ve covered 40 different rifle and pistol calibers, ranging from the diminutive .22 Winchester Magnum to full power calibers like the 7.62x51mm NATO. The series was intended to give readers a baseline picture of how different calibers compare to each other in performance, but its biggest limitation has been that it is entirely theoretical. The ballistics graphs in that series were created based on numbers spat out by a conventional calculator using nominal muzzle velocity and static ballistic coefficient figures – and while this is accurate enough to give us an idea of the performance of different rounds relative to one another, it is imperfect. Well then, it’s time to get empirical: Introducing the Big Freakin’ Cartridge Test.