Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11
    What are everyones thoughts on the best anti-personal/general purpose ammo to feed the little guns?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Union County, NC
    Posts
    76
    At this point I will speak in terms of reliability mostly. When I was breaking mine in I tested it out with:

    Hornady TAP Barrier .223 62Gr. https://www.hornadyle.com/rifle-ammu...tap-barrier#!/
    Regular M855 62Gr Green Tip
    Even more regular old M193 55gr
    Hornady 223 68gr that I found in my range bag
    Federal Tactical Bonded LE223T3 62gr https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/ammuniti...ls.aspx?id=679

    All four were equally reliable with no noticeable difference in recoil. I am using a spikes T2 Tungsten Buffer which is technically the same weight give or take as an H Buffer but for whatever reason is supposed to function the same as H2 I'm told... I don't know or care, I started with a Carbine buffer, went to an H buffer, then the T2 Spikes Buffer and the Spikes buffer was noticably smoother cycling though all were reliable. The Carbine buffer was light and gassy as one would expect...

    For actual carry use, I'll preface this by saying use case is a factor to consider first. The purpose of this "Pistol" is close combat and vehicle use as it was originally designed so long range shots while totally possible, aren't the primary consideration. Of the rounds I tested all were accurate enough for that use case, the TAP and Federal LE rounds were the tightest groups followed closely by the 68gr. Hornady. Point of impact at 30 yards was also not different enough to give a shit about.

    If I had to choose one and there were no other considerations I would take the Federal LE223T3, but things being as they are, I have a Metric Shit Tonne (notice that's a Tonne not ton because it's metric) of the TAP Barrier from a former employer. That being the case, it is high quality ammo, performs well enough in most conditions, and I don't need to buy it right now. I've tested this round with several agencies including when it was developed, it's not great at anything, but once upon a time it was incredibly available to me so It's my compromise.

    My opinion is that we tend to overthink cartridge selection in short barrels. If we are using a short barrel for CQB or short range applications then whatever is reliable and good in a 14 or 16 inch barrel will be good in an 8, 10, or whatever inch barrel. If the round tumbles because it doesn't stabilize properly at lower velocities, that may not be a terrible thing at short range. It sucks for long range accuracy, but at 4.5 feet with a ball of fire coming out the front end, nobody cares how well stabilized the round was.

    All that said, If someone has another line of thought that makes sense I'm all ears. Learning from the experience around here is what makes this place great... that and the cool toys!
    Semper Fi!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Exiled in Texas
    Posts
    7,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Brigrat View Post
    I am using a spikes T2 Tungsten Buffer which is technically the same weight give or take as an H Buffer but for whatever reason is supposed to function the same as H2 I'm told... I don't know or care, I started with a Carbine buffer, went to an H buffer, then the T2 Spikes Buffer and the Spikes buffer was noticably smoother cycling though all were reliable.
    You've got me utterly confused with that. I'd just throw that buffer on a scale and see what you've got. That's the most accurate way to know what you have.

    Ideally, you'd have a full spectrum of buffers with which to test a gun. You'd start with the heaviest and work your way down. Plenty of guns today have gas ports so large that even an H3 buffer will cycle reliably.
    Virtute et Armis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •