Millett scopes

[ReconLdr]

I disagree with the latter statement. It can kill at that distance, but certainly not effectively nor reliably. For a 16" barrel, you lose the crucial fragmentation effect much beyond 100 - 120 yds (depending on ammo). You can certainly get hits at 300 yds, but the terminal ballistics are not impressive.

"Petering out" means exactly that -- the primary mode of incapacitation identified with this round has run out by 150 yds. From that distance forward, you're relying on second tier effects.

I think you are missing the point. The US Military is looking for a way to make the caliber more effective at closer range not at longer range. At ranges less than 100m the bullets pass through flesh without much fragmentation because the bullets are going too fast to tumble. This is why the USMC is issuing soft point ammo for their next run through Afghanistan.

The .223/5.56 doesn't have the best terminal performance at that range but I assure you, the round is more than capable of "incapacitating" humans and game at 300+ yds.

[dgg9]

I think you are missing the point. The US Military is looking for a way to make the caliber more effective at closer range not at longer range. At ranges less than 100m the bullets pass through flesh without much fragmentation because the bullets are going too fast to tumble. This is why the USMC is issuing soft point ammo for their next run through Afghanistan.

The .223/5.56 doesn't have the best terminal performance at that range but I assure you, the round is more than capable of "incapacitating" humans and game at 300+ yds.

I don't think I'm missing the point at all. If your goal is target shooting, then an AR will produce excellent results, with some work, at 300m. If your aim is to incapacitate large mammals at 300m, .223 will not yield reliable results.

Your "At ranges less than 100m the bullets pass through flesh without much fragmentation because the bullets are going too fast to tumble" statement is the exact opposite of everything we know about the .223 design. It ONLY tumbles and fragments reliably when velocity is over 2700fps (with some variation due to specific bullet designs, but then the army is only using a small set of designs). You lose the fragmentation effect when velocity (the result of bbl length and distance to target) drops BELOW that threshold.

Using soft point ammo will likely give more consistent results across a wider velocity window, BUT those results will be inferior to the effect you get with fragmentation. A SP round will give you some expansion, but you're only expanding a .22 caliber projectile.

My point stands: .223 from a carbine is an adequate self defense round for the very typical self defense ranges of 125m on in. At 300m, the round is much less effective than it is at <120m. If your goal is to reliably incapacitate 150+lb creatures at 300m, .223 will give you sub-par results.

[dgg9]

Isn't the military exclusively using SS109 (aka M855) over there?

My understanding of the subpar results in the Middle East were precisely because of the M4's short barrel, and engaging at anything more than CQB distances. Why? Because short barrel + distance = unreliable fragmentation with their chosen ammo. SS109 was itself a compromise, where they traded away some short range incapacitation for improvements at distance (and also barrier penetration -- they want it, likely you don't want it). SS109 stops fragmenting at a much closer range than XM193.

We're not soldiers. We don't need to use a steel penetrator round. For most of our self defense purposes here, M193 will fragment much more reliably.

Some good info here:

http://www.razoreye.net/mirror/ammo-...cle_Mirror.htm

[Tomcat088]

I don't think I'm missing the point at all. If your goal is target shooting, then an AR will produce excellent results, with some work, at 300m. If your aim is to incapacitate large mammals at 300m, .223 will not yield reliable results.

Your "At ranges less than 100m the bullets pass through flesh without much fragmentation because the bullets are going too fast to tumble" statement is the exact opposite of everything we know about the .223 design. It ONLY tumbles and fragments reliably when velocity is over 2700fps (with some variation due to specific bullet designs, but then the army is only using a small set of designs). You lose the fragmentation effect when velocity (the result of bbl length and distance to target) drops BELOW that threshold.

Using soft point ammo will likely give more consistent results across a wider velocity window, BUT those results will be inferior to the effect you get with fragmentation. A SP round will give you some expansion, but you're only expanding a .22 caliber projectile.

My point stands: .223 from a carbine is an adequate self defense round for the very typical self defense ranges of 125m on in. At 300m, the round is much less effective than it is at <120m. If your goal is to reliably incapacitate 150+lb creatures at 300m, .223 will give you sub-par results.

First I'm going to apologize to the OP for taking this thread so far off topic, and I will refrain from doing so again, any other comments about this should be make in another thread or PM. So as not to completely disregard the OP's question and suggestions.

Maybe I missed a lot of points, missed some posts even though I've looked over this thread 4 times, or something. I believe the OP asked about scopes, and did not mention what the scope or firearm would be used for. I never saw anywhere that the rifle was a carbine with a 16" barrel, or that it would ever be used as a "self defense weapon". Where I saw all of this get introduced was after your post about YOUR 16" carbine and what YOUR uses were. Then you only start talking about military ammunition, which is REALLY selling the .223 short. Just for the record, there are several different powders that aren't at max loads and are able to reach 2,900 fps out of a 16" barrel.

Maybe due to your restrictions, and with the ammunition restrictions that you're talking about, the .223 may not be effective at incapacitating large game or humans at 300 yards, MAYBE. Even so, using a 16" AR carbine, I assure you that there are LOTS of ammunition manufacturers that make .224 caliber bulltes that will reliably expand or fragment around 2,000 fps (most of them even at 1,600 fps). If someone is using even a 16" barrel pushing these types of bullets, they are VERY deadly at 300 yards. There are also quality manufacturers who make bullets in .224 caliber that will kill deer effectively at 300 yards. Last I remember, the K.E. requirements and wound cavitation that people speak of for humans and white tail deer is exactly the same. Have you ever seen what a Sierra blitzking, Hornady V-max, Nosler Ballistic tip and others do on animals at 300 yards? Have you ever shot a living animal at that distance before?

I'm speaking from experience when I say this, the internals of animals hit by those types of projectiles look like "jelly". Lots of times you will also get exit wounds the size of baseballs or larger (depending on the load, distance, and if the bullet hit bone or not). How many medium to large animals have you shot at that distance with some of the projectiles that you've mentioned and I've mentioned? If you're going to say those bullets don't have enough penetration to kill deer or humans, maybe you need to re read where I said "pass through", or you need to search for another thread on here where I was recommending bullets for killing deer in .224 caliber. There are some companies that make them and that almost always have pass throughs.

So maybe I missed the post where we automatically got limited to carbine length barrels, and only military grade FMJ's that will NEVER fragment as well as a Sierra Blitz King at any velocity. Maybe I missed where the thread turned into limiting the range of the .223 to 150 yard, and then it turning into incapacitating large game animals or a human being at 300 yards. I think the human being incapacitation at 300 yards sounds like a bit of a stretch for the "self defense" category, in most environments, conditions, and people's skills, even in a SHTF scenario. Either way, I have a pretty good idea at what the .223 does at these distances because I do it on a semi frequent basis, but I could just be crazy and not know a thing. Back to the regularly scheduled scope questions.

[dgg9]

Maybe I missed a lot of points, missed some posts even though I've looked over this thread 4 times, or something. I believe the OP asked about scopes, and did not mention what the scope or firearm would be used for. I never saw anywhere that the rifle was a carbine with a 16" barrel, or that it would ever be used as a "self defense weapon". Where I saw all of this get introduced was after your post about YOUR 16" carbine and what YOUR uses were. Then you only start talking about military ammunition, which is REALLY selling the .223 short.

The OP specified "AR." Apart from that, I have no idea what his intentions are. As is often the case in these threads, where you don't know what the OP's use profile will be, we tend to specify what WE do and what the reasons are. My concerns tend to be: self defense, using ammo that's affordable, which then implies an effective range. Maybe YOUR use is different; if so, I'm sure the OP appreciates your input.

How many states allow deer hunting with a .223? Varminting, sure, but deer? How many humane hunters would try to kill a deer at 300m with a .223? You tell me.

Can the window of fragmentation be pushed to lower velocities by expensive, boutique ammo? Maybe. Does the OP want to buy into all that? That's up to him. The virtue of ammo like XM193 that you buy by the case is that you can practice with what you would use.

You can always spend a lot of money to stretch a platform's performance window beyond what it's generally intended for. But it's still important to know what the rule is vs the exception.

So maybe I missed the post where we automatically got limited to carbine length barrels, and only military grade FMJ's that will NEVER fragment as well as a Sierra Blitz King at any velocity. Maybe I missed where the thread turned into limiting the range of the .223 to 150 yard, and then it turning into incapacitating large game animals or a human being at 300 yards.

The thread is not limited to anything, until such time as the OP narrows the field. Until then, it doesn't hurt to give the overall picture, rather than the fringe exceptions.

[Tomcat088]

The OP specified "AR." Apart from that, I have no idea what his intentions are. As is often the case in these threads, where you don't know what the OP's use profile will be, we tend to specify what WE do and what the reasons are. My concerns tend to be: self defense, using ammo that's affordable, which then implies an effective range. Maybe YOUR use is different; if so, I'm sure the OP appreciates your input.

How many states allow deer hunting with a .223? Varminting, sure, but deer? How many humane hunters would try to kill a deer at 300m with a .223? You tell me.

Can the window of fragmentation be pushed to lower velocities by expensive, boutique ammo? Maybe. Does the OP want to buy into all that? That's up to him. The virtue of ammo like XM193 that you buy by the case is that you can practice with what you would use.

You can always spend a lot of money to stretch a platform's performance window beyond what it's generally intended for. But it's still important to know what the rule is vs the exception.



The thread is not limited to anything, until such time as the OP narrows the field. Until then, it doesn't hurt to give the overall picture, rather than the fringe exceptions.

What you're saying is exactly what my intention was, to NOT limit application to the fringes. Nowhere did I ever mention any distances, until the "short fringe" of 150 yards was mentioned. It was later elaborated "using military ammunition, 16" barrel, etc". Nowhere did I start to put things on the fringes. You yourself admitted that shooting paper, steel, etc, you can do it with typical fmj bullets. So even me mentioning 300 yards was far less limiting than the applications that you started. I merely brought up what I did to say that the effective range of the .223 caliber (not with your specifications) is far more effective than 150 yards, for LOTS of applications.

As far as offering advice, I don't offer what "I do", I try to offer general information related to the original question. I have lots of applications, I'm a hunter, long range shooter, self defense, target shooting, etc. In general terms, there's not much ammunition that is "affordable", that's why I reload so that I can shoot quality ammunition and it still be affordable. This is not feasable for lots of people, and that's fine. Still, calling 300 yards the "fringes" of effective range for a .223 is silly and shows your lack of experience with anything but surplus ammunition. "Fringes" are on the videos that I linked, which are 680-850+ yards.

Nosler ballistic tips, Sierra blitzking & gameking, Hornay v-max, etc are NOT boutique ammunition, it's quite common. It's not like I started talking about Swift Scirocco 2, or lathe turned Lutz Muller bullets made to expand at subsonic velocities. I don't know how many states allow people to hunt deer with .223, but I know that Texas does. I think you'd be surprised how many deer are effectively killed with .223, obviously there's a fair share because there's major companies that offer a variety of game bullets in .224 caliber. Sierra offers 4 different bullets and styles for .224 game bullets. There's plenty of humane hunters that will kill deer with a .223. For as close as the shots are in PA, I could get it done with a .223 varmint bullet. I would NOT do this, because I don't think just because someone could do something, they should; but it's not a stretch at all to kill deer with the correct bullet from a .223 out to 300 yards.

So I believe that I was offering more of the "big picture" when I merely mentioned the 300 yards was a perfectly acceptable range for the .223. I believe the narrowing down of the big picture started on your end. Either way, if you'd like to debate ballistics, bullet design and lots of other factors, I'd be happy to in another thread. We really should get back to scope recommendations.

[Skullz]

I think that you are mistaken here Skullz.

Possibly. But seriously, I gave a 3 sentence response to the OP. You had to write a book about how wrong I was?

Ok Rudy, sorry that I got so far off topic with the LRS

Really?

First I'm going to apologize to the OP for taking this thread so far off topic

Obviously not...

Oh teh noes!!!!!!



Maybe you need to take a break from the intertubes.

[dgg9]

What you're saying is exactly what my intention was, to NOT limit application to the fringes.

If someone says they're considering buying a Honda Civic, then it's worthwhile to examine what the common uses of that car would be. Sure, you CAN turn it into a drag racer, but is that the best use of that platform?

The OP could be intending just about anything. But I think it's useful to mention the typical performance characteristics of most ARs with the ammo that's 99.9% of what's out there to buy.

As far as offering advice, I don't offer what "I do", I try to offer general information related to the original question.

Well, bully for you. Tomato, tomahto.

Still, calling 300 yards the "fringes" of effective range for a .223 is silly and shows your lack of experience with anything but surplus ammunition.

Again, I'm not interested in fringe applications. Maybe I should have said that up front. I'm interested in conveying what most ARs with most ammunition will be doing. Since the OP brought up a "good buy for the money" type scope, my remarks are directed to that price/quality region, which happens to be where a lot of people live. If the OP had mentioned an upper-tier scope, that would have directed me elsewhere. Yes, of course, and AR and .223 "can" do more, with enough money, but that, too, is up to the OP.

I'll work my end of the street, you work yours.