1)To build off of what Gadget said, the most accurate for your rifle may not have anything to do with what the military currently uses. In general a 1:9 twist barrel (like many commercial ARs) will shoot the lighter 55gr projectile a bit more accurate than the heavier 62gr or higher rounds as they just dont stabilize as well. This is irrespective of the inherent inconsistency caused by the cores of the M855 projectile. Likewise the 1:7 twist tends to stabilize a heavier round better. The best thing to do is test what shoots best in your rifle.
2) As an aside the military also is starting to use the Mk318 SOST which is a newer open tip 62 gr round as well as the mk262 OTM which is a 77gr round. These are really not widely used other than in the Special Operations community, though the Marines have made noises of switching to the Mk318.
1) this is
almost true.... Actually 1 in 9 not only stabilizes the 55gr better but
also the 62gr.
But 62gr will
tolerate the 1 in 7 twist ok (again aside from the fact that M855 penetrator ammo will often have accuracy issues).
69 gr works well with 1 in 7 but also still good with 1 in 9.
So there really is no reason to use anything other than 1 in 9 unless one wishes to go heavier (longer really) rounds than 69.. As they tend to be expensive I see little reason to.
To boot ,1 in 9 will wear out better (slower ) than 1 in 7 if all other things are equal.
however due to the milspec craze its hard to find high end CHF, 1 in 9 barrels as stock equipment on new ARs
(A rifle is useless w/o ammo and so Ammo really is the "arms" we must bear...
In a SHTF situation it may be easier to find a rifle than a useful amount of ammo...
And lets not forget training requirements even in SHTF)
2) The Mk318 is a nice round but starts at about 90 cents a round (commercial sales) and so is off the table for all but the wealthiest preppers since buying expensive ammo gets in the way of stacking deep.
As an analogy SHTF I rather have one 900 dollar rifle with iron sights and 6 cases of ammo than a $1900 rifle and a nice redot with a half case of ammo.
Then there is the Army's M855A1.
better accuracy than (X)M855, better effect on targets than M855 while still retaining penetration of M855.
Only knock on it it its expensive (if u can find it) and its also kind a magnum round and will but a lot of wear on your rifle...
Mk262 is nice but again the focus on these "boutique" ammo types detracts from stashing and stashing deep.
As preppers I believe we would be misdirected to try to find the very best bullets money can buy.
As we all are limited by our personal budgets and there will NEVER be enough ammo our key performance parameters (KPPS) should be these:
1) affordability
2) reliability
3) useful minute of man accuracy
4) Effectiveness on Human being
Item 1 should perhaps be weighed double since Ammo that you no longer have since you could not afford as much as you needed is the worst ammo is it not?
I propose an evaluation system for "Prepper aquistions" for 5.56mm Ammo:
Let me try a 1 -5 value system eval for XM855. 1 is worst and 5 is best
1) 2 pts
2) 5 pts
3) 2 pts
4) 2 pts
Weighing item 1 twice this gives 2+2+5+2+2 divides by 5 = an avg rating of 2.6
Federal white box in 55gr:
1) 2
2) 5
3) 4
4) 5
using same formula this gives: 2+2+5+4+5: 3.6
Tula 55gr:
1) 5
2 )1
3) 2
4) 2 (low velocity)
Same formula: 3 . Worse than Federal 55gr
PPU69gr Match
1) 1
2) 5
3) 5
4) 4
Same formula: 3.2
Wolf Military Classic 62gr HP:
1) 4
2) 4
3) 4
4) 5
Same formula: 4.2
Now we can all quibble how the values that should be assigned.. this was just an off-the-cuff example for a candidate round for as a main carry round for the purpose of manning your team should be evaluated.
While we all can (and doubtless will) argue how we should assign these numbers it's IMO an example of the kind of methods we must use approach this problem
