Skip to main content

Greetings,

I'm trying to find out some info on Federal's xm223sp1 ammo. I've read that it is an ICE contract overrun, and very similar to Fusion/Gold Dot loadings.

Does the "X" mean this ammo has been rejected for some reason like XM193? Does anyone have any experience shooting this ammo? I'm looking at this ammo as a more affordable defensive loading.

Thanks.
Original Post
With M193 and M855 the Army established a set of parameters for acceptance of ammunition. Lots are tested for variation. This includes the individual components as well as completed rounds. Things like primer sensativity, temperature stability, velocity variation, etc. all go into it. Anything outside the parameters isn't accepted for Army/Military use. That doesn't mean its not safe to shoot, its just outside of the agreed upon parameters. So with that understanding I can see why companies are telling the story from their perspective. They have looser parameters for acceptable rounds, so they aren't rejects. I will however say that LC is pumping out all it can and has been for the last five years or so. The paramters of acceptance have also been expanded a little (accuracy standard)to meet demand. This is from a tour at Lake City in 09 but not something they publish or advertise. It was also when the first runs of M855A1 where absolute shit and employees weren't allowed to talk about it.

So, you take your chances with anything XM, but probably no more than any other big brand generic .223/5.56 these days. Higher demand means lower QC and in tough economic times with consolidated companies and management that will push shit out the door, you get what pay for.
This is the reply I recieved from Federal a few weeks ago, when everyone was asking about the ammo in cans from Palmetto State Armory:


Greetings,

All our Xm193 ammunition is manufactured by LCAAP and is first
production run, the XM193 is a 5.56 cartridge and is not interchangeable
with the 223. The Xm855 is also first production run made by LCAAP in
5.56 and is load with a steel penetrating bullet.

Thank you

Not saying they are beyond reproach, but thats the word from them.
I also don't think its meant to be "mil-spec" in every regard, but only a load that uses components and parameters that mirror the military load.

In Doc current 5.56 load recommendations he lists Federal 62grn Trophy Bonded Bear Claw load, XM556FBIT3

I've also seen and purchased "X" pistol loads, from Federal.

My uneducated opinion is that "X" is just a variation on a current load.

I've fired alot of XM193, with no issues.

Not sayin its the greates ammo ever, but I wouldnt automatically dismiss it because it has an "X" in its designation.

Bob
quote:
So, you take your chances with anything XM, but probably no more than any other big brand generic .223/5.56 these days.


Why? It has not been established that the X means the ammo was rejected...at this point it appears to simply be a 'rebranding' of current LC production ammo for civilian sale.

Statistically small metric follows: I fired 500 rounds of Federal XM193 (two different lots) through my Noveske this weekend. Zero malfunctions.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the "X" in "XM" means Experimental. You see this with other items too, like the XM8 from H&K, which was an experimental assault rifle designed to replace (but did not accomplish its goal) the M16/M4 series.

I believe Federal is simply borrowing from this usage in the military to show that it is ammo they tried to make to military spec but may or may not be completely adherent to that spec. I don't think it is rejects, necessarily. As someone else said: They probably allow a greater variance in the specs to have a larger volume of ammo they can ship out.

It isn't last on my list of ammo but it also isn't first.

I've had good luck with the stuff from PRVI (Serbia), hasn't ever failed on me. It is (supposedly) a little less accurate than the Federal stuff though.
Standard first run, USG contract 5.56 mm 62 gr bonded JSP ammo for the FBI and other Fed LE agencies is XM556FBIT3--so much for "x" meaning rejected...

For the last year or two, several large west coast LE agencies have been getting XM193 on stripper clips for training use, as it is on the state contracts for a few western states. In excess of 3 million rounds fired, of which I and several colleagues in training assignments have probably witnessed close to 500,000 rounds being shot. When used in properly built 5.56 mm carbines there have been no major issues witnessed or reported. When STUPID agencies/individual officers try to shoot true 5.56 mm pressure loads in poorly built .223 carbines then there are problems, primarily blown primers--but that is NOT the fault of the ammo.

I STRONGLY urge everyone to use a chamber reamer or gauge to ensure their carbine is actually a 5.56 mm chamber, irrespective of who made the weapon and what may be stamped on the barrel.
quote:
Originally posted by DocGKR:
BKennedy: Noveske makes a fine carbine; I have a couple. However, we have found that Noveske's frequently do not have a true 5.56 mm chamber, instead using a tighter chamber similar to a "Wylde". This may help accuracy, but can cause issues when shooting true 5.56 mm spec ammo like XM193.


Doc,
Do you recall finding this on any Noveske chrome-lined, hammer-forged barrels? He advertised a NATO chamber for these, but a proprietary (accuracy-oriented) chamber for his stainless-steel barrles.
The Doc is correct. The X is not a rejected batch. It is used to identify a round that is not a standard load. As in a load that is custom built for an agency, bid, spec. You will see the X also attached to show that this is not a standard product. specifically XM193 is sold domestically when the .gov requirements are met and extra rounds are built. It took me a while to wrap my head around it...
quote:
Originally posted by DocGKR:
Sorry, I don't recall. We stick a 5.56 mm chamber reamer into EVERY rifle--you would be surprised at how many rifles do NOT have the correct chamber, yet whenever their is a problem agencies/guys always want to blame the ammo when it is in fact their shitty, out of spec rifles...


Wow. I was doubting my BCM rifle had a incorrectly sized chamber but it might?
quote:
Originally posted by DocGKR:
...we have found that Noveske's frequently do not have a true 5.56 mm chamber, instead using a tighter chamber similar to a "Wylde". This may help accuracy, but can cause issues when shooting true 5.56 mm spec ammo like XM193.


Wow...I've been having problems with popped primers in my Noveske barreled SBR when shooting 5.56. It never crossed my mind that the chamber could be the issue. Thank you very much.
quote:
Originally posted by Aubrey:
Doc,
Do you recall finding this on any Noveske chrome-lined, hammer-forged barrels? He advertised a NATO chamber for these, but a proprietary (accuracy-oriented) chamber for his stainless-steel barrles.


Hi, Aubrey,

I am certainly no Doc, but during a Dean Caputo class he inserted the 5.56mm chamber reamer into my Noveske N4 Basic and did get some shavings out. Hope that helps some.
My brother and I were breaking in rifles about 2 years ago, a combination of Federal XM193 bulk and PMC .223.

Out of his Rock River 20" A4 upper (chrome lined, /w the Wylde chamber), he popped at least 5 primers, of which brass we recovered. The mag was loaded to 28 rds of the XM193, and the first sign we observed was failure to extract. It pulled free with medium force on the charging handle. After approx. 10 shots without issue, the rifle seized solid. The case had extracted and ejected, but the bolt carrier was frozen 50% through the recoil and felt like it was TIG welded in place.

We ended up smashing the BCM carrier back into the buffer tube with a dowel and mallet. Then we reversed play and pushed the carrier forward enough to find one, very deformed primer. It somehow managed to wedge itself on the top of the carrier, in the charging handle channel and ended the training session. When it finally broke loose, the primer was wedged between the steel BCG and the aluminum upper receiver, leaving a shiny brass path of where it had been lodged.

RR first wanted to blame everything in the world except the chamber. I simply asked him besides a double load, what else could cause a drastic spike in chamber pressure. He then conceded to my argument the chamber was improperly reamed to shoot 5.56mm.
They did take it back and ended up reaming it to 5.56x45mm, per my request. A month later, it ate the rest of the same lot of XM193 with zero signs of overpressure.

My BCM 16" Midlegnth had zero issues with the same ammo.

Great thread, Gentlemen.
quote:
BKennedy: Noveske makes a fine carbine; I have a couple. However, we have found that Noveske's frequently do not have a true 5.56 mm chamber, instead using a tighter chamber similar to a "Wylde". This may help accuracy, but can cause issues when shooting true 5.56 mm spec ammo like XM193.


In my journey about handloads, I came across an article wereas the author measured a few different chambers. The article was about overal length. The Noveske was slightly tighter than the Wylde if I recall correctly, and a Kreiger chamber was much tighter than the Noveske. The 5.56mm chamber was much larger than all. I don't think tighter is the right word for this, but you get the idea. I would speculate there is much more to a chamber than just throat length.

Add Reply

Post
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2020
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×