testtest

Green Tip Ammo

Talyn

Talyn

SAINT
Founding Member
Green-tipped ammo was originally named SS109 when it was introduced in the 1970s. The Belgian made SS109 round was entered into NATO’s standardization trials and won them. The trials were held because NATO did not have an official standardized 5.56 round at the time. NATO wanted the cartridge to offer optimal penetrating ability at extended distances, which is why the trials involved firing the rounds at steel helmets.

Green Tip Ammo

1613413735364.png
 
Excellent article. I like the M855, but I have both M855 and 193. I'm going to be picking up some of that IMI 62 gr. stuff soon too.

The article didn't mention anything about the M855A1. Isn't the A1 standard military issue or is it the regular Lake City M855 ?
 
I prefer M193, myself.

Outside of a batch of Lithuanian SS109 I picked up several years ago, I have never had any M855/SS109 62gr Green(steel)tip exhibit anything beyond mediocre accuracy out of any rifle I’ve owned...usually around 3-4MOA, where M193 out of the same rifle will come in at 2-3MOA (1:7 twist barrels).

Additionally...the 55gr M193 can often penetrate armor that will stop M855, as the M193 has higher velocity out of the same length barrel.
 
Talyn said:
Green-tipped ammo was originally named SS109 when it was introduced in the 1970s. The Belgian made SS109 round was entered into NATO’s standardization trials and won them. The trials were held because NATO did not have an official standardized 5.56 round at the time. NATO wanted the cartridge to offer optimal penetrating ability at extended distances, which is why the trials involved firing the rounds at steel helmets.

Green Tip Ammo

View attachment 15139
Click to expand...
Very good article, thanks Talyn
 
HansGruber said:
I prefer M193, myself.

Outside of a batch of Lithuanian SS109 I picked up several years ago, I have never had any M855/SS109 62gr Green(steel)tip exhibit anything beyond mediocre accuracy out of any rifle I’ve owned...usually around 3-4MOA, where M193 out of the same rifle will come in at 2-3MOA (1:7 twist barrels).

Additionally...the 55gr M193 can often penetrate armor that will stop M855, as the M193 has higher velocity out of the same length barrel.
Click to expand...


The IMI M193 is what I'm looking at right now.

For the record, the Lake City M855 I've shot has been pretty F'n accurate, but then the 55 gr. steel cased crap I shot was hitting the same spot.
 
HansGruber said:
I prefer M193, myself.

Outside of a batch of Lithuanian SS109 I picked up several years ago, I have never had any M855/SS109 62gr Green(steel)tip exhibit anything beyond mediocre accuracy out of any rifle I’ve owned...usually around 3-4MOA, where M193 out of the same rifle will come in at 2-3MOA (1:7 twist barrels).

Additionally...the 55gr M193 can often penetrate armor that will stop M855, as the M193 has higher velocity out of the same length barrel.
Click to expand...
I find 55 gr M193 kills hogs better than 62gr M855, which just passes right through them. The Ball ammo is more likely to tumble in a pig it seems.
 
I've found in AR pistols that m193 groups better than m855. The lighter bullets likely reclaim some of the lost velocity from short barrels. I mostly stocked up on m193 for this reason, and it's usually cheaper.
 
bigx5murf said:
I've found in AR pistols that m193 groups better than m855. The lighter bullets likely reclaim some of the lost velocity from short barrels. I mostly stocked up on m193 for this reason, and it's usually cheaper.
Click to expand...


Right now it's all pretty close to the same price. It seems to have dropped a bit over the last few weeks. It's not unusual to find it around $.80/rd. Which is still ridiculous.
 
TacticalPirate said:
I find 55 gr M193 kills hogs better than 62gr M855, which just passes right through them. The Ball ammo is more likely to tumble in a pig it seems.
Click to expand...
I found the exact opposite and switched to m855 almost exclusively for hogs. It was taking less rounds with 62 gr green than the 55 gr after they were on the run. Both would drop a hog with the first shot behind the ear, but once on the run, the 62gr took less rounds...

I have since abandoned both rounds several yrs ago and use my .308 or 6.5 grendel exclusively.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
I found the exact opposite and switched to m855 almost exclusively for hogs. It was taking less rounds with 62 gr green than the 55 gr after they were on the run. Both would drop a hog with the first shot behind the ear, but once on the run, the 62gr took less rounds...

I have since abandoned both rounds several yrs ago and use my .308 or 6.5 grendel exclusively.
Click to expand...
I wonder—what barrel length were you using, vs what @TacticalPirate was using?

Because one thing that has been observed is that the M855’s performance was a bit subpar out of M4’s (14.5” bbl), but excellent out of M16A2’s (20” bbl)...the extra velocity out of the M16 caused the bullet to yaw and fragment in tissue, where when the went too slow, they “icepicked” and just punched straight through.
 
HansGruber said:
I wonder—what barrel length were you using, vs what @TacticalPirate was using?

Because one thing that has been observed is that the M855’s performance was a bit subpar out of M4’s (14.5” bbl), but excellent out of M16A2’s (20” bbl)...the extra velocity out of the M16 caused the bullet to yaw and fragment in tissue, where when the went too slow, they “icepicked” and just punched straight through.
Click to expand...
16” barrel for me
 
HansGruber said:
Well...that probably screws my hypothesis...unless TacticalPirate was using a shorty...
Click to expand...
I think , and my hunting buddies and I have talked at length, neither 55 or 62 grain will drop them on the run. Too thick a hide and all the “hogness” of the animal. Hit anything behind the ear and its dead. Starts missing shots and hit their back, abdomen, shoulder, etc .. and they have the will and way to run off before they die. AR-15 is not optimal for hogs. It works, but not optimal.

we think the 62 gr offers more “hydrostatic shock” factor with the pass thru with our experience.

why I switched. Needed high capacity rounds over a bolt action deer rifle but 5.56 wasn't cutting it. Thus the .308 Victor. Which has been outstanding
 
KillerFord1977 said:
I think , and my hunting buddies and I have talked at length, neither 55 or 62 grain will drop them on the run. Too thick a hide and all the “hogness” of the animal. Hit anything behind the ear and its dead. Starts missing shots and hit their back, abdomen, shoulder, etc .. and they have the will and way to run off before they die. AR-15 is not optimal for hogs. It works, but not optimal.

we think the 62 gr offers more “hydrostatic shock” factor with the pass thru with our experience.

why I switched. Needed high capacity rounds over a bolt action deer rifle but 5.56 wasn't cutting it. Thus the .308 Victor. Which has been outstanding
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t cause more temporary cavity damage (“hydrostatic shock” is a different thing entirely, and is highly questionable if it actually exists) as it’s moving slower, and it’s velocity that is the primary factor in TC.

I’d think that a decent soft point would do much better in getting a stop on a hog...regardless of caliber.
 
HansGruber said:
I wonder—what barrel length were you using, vs what @TacticalPirate was using?

Because one thing that has been observed is that the M855’s performance was a bit subpar out of M4’s (14.5” bbl), but excellent out of M16A2’s (20” bbl)...the extra velocity out of the M16 caused the bullet to yaw and fragment in tissue, where when the went too slow, they “icepicked” and just punched straight through.
Click to expand...
16 inch barrel with a patented S&W flash suppressor and 5R rifling in barrel, if that makes a difference, not all AR rifles have 5R.
 
HansGruber said:
It shouldn’t cause more temporary cavity damage (“hydrostatic shock” is a different thing entirely, and is highly questionable if it actually exists) as it’s moving slower, and it’s velocity that is the primary factor in TC.

I’d think that a decent soft point would do much better in getting a stop on a hog...regardless of caliber.
Click to expand...
I dont think 5.56 is suited for a larger hog at all now. 55, 62 or 77 or other... wrong size round.
This first hog from my son took 10 rounds of 55 gr before it dropped ... lots of key hits at under 40 yards.

my hog took 8 rounds .. first round rolled him over behind the ear. He got up 10 seconds later and started to run ... 7 more rounds dropped him
09D93823-E71B-48A0-84B2-3F75DA100E8C.jpeg
9C331D15-AEDB-472C-8E34-BB5DB463EBA8.jpeg
 
KillerFord1977 said:
I dont think 5.56 is suited for a larger hog at all now. 55, 62 or 77 or other... wrong size round.
This first hog from my son took 10 rounds of 55 gr before it dropped ... lots of key hits at under 40 yards.

my hog took 8 rounds .. first round rolled him over behind the ear. He got up 10 seconds later and started to run ... 7 more rounds dropped him View attachment 15352View attachment 15353
Click to expand...
Those are big animals, indeed a 308 can kill easier, but as you know, shot placement is everything. I kill 100 to 150 pound hogs with 55gr pretty regularly, sometimes they take a gut shot and stumble a dozen yards and drop in death throes and I finish them with a head shot. I'd say I average two bullets a hog if I don't get the heart or brain on the first shot.

Since 556 was made to kill a 170 pound man, if you are going after 200 pound plus game, it may take more than one bullet for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top