By our pal, Sunshine Shooter
Well first up, it’s not garbage. This is some really neat stuff. I just needed a clickbait title for the search engines. What I’m trying to do is find out is if this ammo is good for what the internet says it it’s good for: basically everything. I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s not. Also, this ammo was provided to the blog by Ammo To Go. This literally would not have happened without their contribution, so go show them your thanks.
Background
What is the ammo we’re looking at? It’s a 77 grain open-tipped match bullet designed for precision work originally asked for by the US Navy [sauce]. Now if you read online, some people will talk about how this round is great in SBRs because of it’s high grain weight and open-tip construction which makes sense if you only sort of understand how ballistics works.

Since 5.56/.223 is a velocity-dependent round, the energy downrange is mostly determined by the bullet’s velocity [read more here]. But velocity is dependent on barrel length, and short barrels are in vogue these days. So what it do? If we can’t get more speed, can we get more bullet? Or at least, more bullet weight? Enter the 77 grain OTM from Black Hills. Not only is this bullet 24% heavier than the standard-issue 62 grain and 40% heavier than the original 55 grain bullet the AR-15 was designed for, but it is also open-tipped. Open tipped bullets have been the standard for self-defense and hunting applications for decades because they work. A deforming, expanding bullet replicates the characteristics of the soft lead projectiles that dominated warfare world-wide for centuries. In conclusion, the 77-gr OTM rocks from SBRs, right? I don’t think so.
5.56/.223 is velocity-dependent. Even with a heavy-for-caliber 77 gr bullet, it still has a need for speed. Now, as we learned from the post about SBR effectiveness, speed (aka: effectiveness) drops off very quickly as you chop the barrel down. The 77 gr OTM is very heavy for caliber, so it starts off slow.
The bullet construction is an area of concern for me, as the 77 gr OTM is a competition-designed bullet, the ‘M’ in “OTM” standing for “match”. Match rounds are not optimized for use on living tissue. The fact that self defense ammo and match ammo both have open tips is a coincidence, match rounds are optimized to fly as straight as possible and hit steel or punch a hole in paper. What competition bullets do once they reach the target is of no consequence. As you can imagine, that is not what you want in a self-defense round. Hunting and self defense ammo is designed with “what happens after it hits the target?” in mind, like controlling the expansion of the bullet, retaining weight after impact, etc. There is a reason that even today there are different projectiles intended for hunting vs match shooting.
Why did this round even become a choice for SBRs in the first place? I’m not sure. If I had to come up with something, I would assume that its because SOCOM guys who were using mk18’s were not pleased with the performance of their issued M855 ammo (a topic for another day) and figured the super cool sniper stuff would be more interesting. Considering the very low standard they were comparing the 77gr OTM to, I would choose it too, if I only had those two options. As a private individual who has access to the commercial market, I don’t have that limitation..
So, what is the 77-gr OTM? Probably an excellent target shooting load (as the history of the round attests), and probably mediocre in a gel block. Let’s find out.
Testing
I’m using a 6″ x 8″ x 20″ 10% gel block from Clear Ballistics. It’s quickly becoming the industry standard, and it’s cool to look at.

I shot the block one time each with my 12″ AR and my 18″ AR. The pistol’s round went very low, bouncing off the table the block was sitting on, before going back into the gel. It was almost a catastrophe and made photographing the wound track very frustrating. The 18″ rifle shot was dead center and looks excellent.

Interpreting the Results
77 gr OTM out of an 18″ Barrel
Let’s look at the 18″ barrel first.

The majority of the jacket came to rest at 13.5″, and the majority of the core penetrated 14.75″. As you can infer from that sentence, and from the impressive cavity pictured above, the round came apart in the block. I see this as a good thing. The 77gr OTM sent little fragments all over the place. There is a big chunk at 8″, another around 12″, the two I already described, and little pieces here & there.

Now let’s talk about the massive, permanent deformation.

It’s hard to see, but the permanent cavity is 2-2.5″ wide and starts around 2.5″ into the block. It maintains that width until 9.5″. Essentially, it’s a 2″ x 7″ cylinder of destruction and would be a devastating flesh wound.
My opinion? The 77 gr OTM is a very capable loading from an 18″ barrel, at least up close. No data yet on how it’d perform at distance in gel (stay tuned).
77gr OTM out of a 12″ Barrel

The round penetrated the same depth of 15″ like the longer barrel, but what it did in the process is the real story. While it looks nasty, the cartridge didn’t perform as spectacularly out of the shorter barrel. The two biggest differences are the lack of permanent cavity and increased early fragmentation. The lack of permanent cavity is due to the lack of velocity I noted above. The 77gr doesn’t have enough runway in a 12″ barrel to get up to speed, and performance suffers. The bullet somewhat ice-picked through the gel at the slower speed, not nearly causing the same kind of damage as it did from the longer barrel.

The bullet did fragment and send even more little pieces out into the gel than it did from the longer barrel, but I’m not sure how much stock to place in those fragments. The bullet bounced three times off the metal surface where the block rested — once at 2.25″, again at 6.25″, and lastly at 11.5″. The fragmentation from the short barrel happens immediately following the first two bounces, leading me to believe the bullet would have held together longer if I had hit the block more towards the center. The very short distance the small fragments traveled away from the main bullet path also leads me to believe they would have very little wounding capacity in flesh, and not contributing much to the bullet’s effectiveness. A few of the small fragments got 3 or so inches away, so they might have had a positive effect.
Conclusion

Obviously, I think this round rocks out of the 18″, which makes a lot of sense considering it was developed for the 18″-barreled mk12. It might still be good out of a 16″-barreled ‘do-all’ gun, but I don’t think I’d be very impressed by the performance in gel out of anything shorter. The lack of permanent wound cavity alone would keep me from recommending this round for sub-16″-barreled guns, but that’s not the only reason.
Something else different that I hadn’t realized until I started writing this is that the faster bullet traveled straighter than the slower one. The slow bullet almost escaped the block three times, whereas the faster one penetrated very straight. Imagine this kind of behavior in a self defense scenario. I want my bullets going exactly where I put them, not veering off course! Now, I don’t know if this is a one-off fluke or a common occurrence, but it doesn’t sit well with me. Just one more reason I wouldn’t recommend this round for dudes running sub-16″ guns.
Will this bullet get you killed in the streets? No. Anything coming out the end of a 5.56/.223 gun will ruin a person’s day, especially if it’s followed by 4-8 of its friends in quick succession, but there’s no reason we can’t make each bullet effective. This round is wonderful out of a longer barrel because that’s what it’s designed for: precision work at high speed (from a ~20″ barrel). Dropping this into a 12″ SBR and expecting it to retain it’s incredible performance is just not logical.
I’m certain there are loads out there that perform much better from the increasingly common pistol/SBR length barrels we see these days. Now that I have a gel block and a place to shoot it, I plan on finding some of them.
Stay safe, stay tuned, and don’t believe everything your read on the internet.
Except this blog, believe us. But not everyone else.
-S_S
And once again, thank you to Ammo To Go for sending the ammo. Go check them out.
If one knows that 223/556 needs velocity why have a “rifle” with sub-machine gun length barrel? Even 55 gr fmj, M193’ is going to be very range limited for fragmenting. And finally one shot tests, if I read this right are, not really proof of anything.
LikeLike
The main and arguably the biggest reason for SBRs, is to make the user look cool.
LikeLike
I mean, that’s 90% of the reason I got one.
LikeLike
The “One shot tests are garbage” critique is fair. I did one shot from each barrel length because I wanted a clear view of what was happening from each. A more complete test would be to do 3-5 shots from each barrel and see how it performs over and over again. I guess I still could do that.
LikeLike
Did you just acknowledge someone else’s argument as valid? Sir, this is the Internet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, sorry. I’ll be sure to call them fake and gay next time.
LikeLike
Hmmmm…..,if one looks cool and then adds a sbr does that make one “way/super/epically/awesomely”cool?
Asking for a friend.
Side note,appreciate folks who do these tests/runs even though probably never need the info.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Having an SBR only makes the user cool in their own mind. They are too cliche to be cool post Vietnam
LikeLike
I was issued both the 14.5″ SOPMOD upper and the 10.5″ Crane Industries shorty upper. Never was a huge fan of my 10.3, but used it when running a KAC can. Running a can on the end of a 14.5″ made the M4 too long for CQB.
As for Mk 262 77gr, it was always in short supply, so we always allocated it to our Mk12 SPR’s which had 18″ barrels and a can. I never used the can on my Mk12, but a few team guys did.
For anyone interested in running a 10.3″ SBR, stick to outdoor ranges. When running a shorty indoors for CQB, the muzzle blast is HORRENDOUS! Without ear pro fighting inside a building, house or mud hut, you will be wearing hearing aids the rest of your life.
This is what made the 10.5″ such a catch-22. It made the weapon short and handy when in the cramped confines of an MH60, M1151, REVA or RG32 and it was even handier due to the short length for CQB, but the short length handiness was negated by having to attach a can, which made it as long as our standard 14.5’s. On the teams, we all ran Sordin or Peltor ear pro, but our host nation operators didn’t always have ear pro.
Unless the mission required the use of cans, I just stuck with the superior ballistics of the 14.5″ upper.
One last negative of the 10.3″ uppers, the heat sink isn’t as effective as the 14.5″ heavy SOPMOD barrel. This required our 10.3″ barrels to be replaced once per year, since they would fail one or more of headspace/muzzle wear/throat erosion gauging during annual reset inspection by SARIT. Not a huge issue in the green machine, but it is for a civilian that has to pay for barrel replacement.
LikeLike
You may or may not know but Colt does not like to make 10.3 inch barrels. They figured out in Vietnam that 11.5 is the shortest you can get and still have reliability and service life. If you notice that the vast majority of Colt SBRs for civilian sales and LE are always the 11.5 inch commandos unless the gov or LE agency specifically asks got the 10.3 inch barrel. Even then Colt tries really hard to convince them to go with the 11.5 barrel. But for some reason that dumbass crane 10.3 barrel caught on as a fad and as we all know, if the military says its the best then that must make it so
LikeLike
i agree. I’m running an 11.5 Colt at work now that I’m a civilian. Best thing about it is that our 11.5 barrels don’t burn out in one year
LikeLike