Does anyone know of any tests of this in ballistic gel?

Seems interesting.
https://ascendanceintl.com/asc...223-remington-110gr/

Interesting- usually frangible rounds are, if anything, lighter than standard rounds. I wonder if these will behave any different than frangible pistol rounds- i have dug several out of the dirt behind plywood boards that were intact. I’ve even pulled them (Speer and Federal) from pressure treated 4X4’s that didn’t fragment. Apparently they need something harder or impenetrable to come apart. Body armor panels will cause them to shatter. I’m guessing that the rifle version will penetrate gelatin like fmj.

My experiments with frangible ammunition.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...500052894#3500052894

Not the same type, and therefore results may be different, but it doesn't always perform as many people believe it will.

How are they pushing a bullet that's twice the weight of M193 to the same muzzle velocity as M193 (3240 FPS), while still staying within the acceptable pressure standard for .223?

The few other 110 grain .223 loads out there are all travelling significantly slower, anywhere from ~1000 fps slower down to subsonic velocities.

Heck, .223 rounds at 2/3 to 3/4 its weight (70s-80s) are typically ~500 FPS slower.

And even 110 grain .300 Blackout is typically travelling ~1000 FPS slower.

I’m thinking the fps has to be a typo; muzzle energy for a 55 grain pill is around 1300 ft lbs. the manufacturer rates this 110 grain bullet at @900. Something is way off here, and it seems it can only be velocity.

Bull. Shit.
The website is rife with typos, errors, and/or unsubstantiated marketing hype.

110 grains at 3,240 fps MV is 308 performance. JBM ballistics puts that at ME of 2,565 foot pounds. More than their stated 933 foot pounds, and way more than any AR15 system can handle.

110 grains won't fly reliably from a standard 1:7 twist barrel. Don't know what twist would be required -- maybe 1:5? With that big of bullet (cuz non-lead bullets are really long for weight), case capacity is almost certain reduced.

No way that 110 grain bullet will produce sub-MOA at 100 yards. Barrel twist for one. Frangible loads aren't match accurate for #2.

"No projectile jacket means no splash or frag on impact from as close as 6 inches." Bullshit. Reduced splash, yes. From 6 inches -- that's smoking some impressive weed.

"Does not leave barrel residue." Ahem. Every bullet leaves barrel residue.

"Standard chamber pressure." Not at 3,240 fps and 110 grains.

"Massive improvement to the lifecycle of your steel." I've shot frangible ammo at my own AR500 steel. At close distances with 50-ish grain 223 loads, it dimples steel.

I decided to check my figures and discovered I had posted the wrong MV value for 900 ft-lb. Below is the corrected figure (1920 v. 1910):

According to my calculations (using algebra, if we can believe it), if the ME of a 110 grain bullet is 900 foot-pounds, the muzzle velocity would be ~1920 fps, a much more reasonable figure.

933 ft-lb ME means ~1954 fps MV.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

I wondered about those specs as well. Tried reaching out to them, but there's something wrong with the Contact page on their website.

Thanks sigfreund. That makes a lot more sense, and puts it in line with other 110 grain loadings in .223/.300.

I see what they did -- copied the info for the 40 grain load into the 110 grain page.
I agree with Sigfreund's MV for the 110 grain at 1954 fps.

This also places their marketing hype for the 40 grain load in question.
- 1 MOA accuracy might occur if multiple 3-round groups are cherry picked. It just won't occur regularly.
- 3240 fps MV for the 40 grain load will damage steel. But if they feel steel target surface that resembles a golf ball is "undamaged", then that's their call. Dimpled steel ricochets more than flat steel.
- Anyone who has looked at the ground or nearby objects after using frangible ammo knows that it sprays fragments all over the place. I sure as hell won't shoot with the muzzle only 6" from the target.

I ain't buying their hype.

I wonder what the BC is on these idealistic long range rounds, or not. Pretty much 30-30 lever gun ammo.

PB

Yeah, pretty similar to the lighter bullet weight loads for .30-30, .300 Blackout, or 7.62x39.

According to the ammunition’s site, the ballistic coefficient is 0.194. That’s undoubtedly a G1 figure, which may even be a good value for a bullet like that. But by way of comparison I checked my Applied Ballistics reference and the lowest G1 BC I could find was for the Sierra 53 grain MatchKing bullet. That’s a very short, flat base bullet and its G1 BC is 0.221, or still significantly higher than this one’s.

I am also curious about what rifling twist rate would be necessary to stabilize a 110 grain 0.224 bullet. It must be possible with this one or they couldn’t get any sort of precision, much less 1 MOA at 100 meters*. The blunt rounded nose and flat base would shorten its overall length, but the light alloy of its composition would increase the length over that of a conventional lead core projectile. Common rifling twist rates in AR-type rifles run from 1/7" to 1/9", and if the bullet stabilizes only in 1/7 for example, that would be another issue with the ammo.

* I agree that’s no doubt a marketing hype exaggeration, probably based on a three-shot group or two that someone managed out of couple of boxes.

If someone decides to purchase some of this stuff and try it, a range report would be interesting. But in checking the site, I see a price, but not any ordering information. I also cannot find either the company or the ammunition name listed on AmmoSeek.

Maybe they just don't know how far away from the muzzle their chronograph needs to be.