M855 buyers need to settle down.

ol' scratch · Feb 16, 2015

I don't mean to sound condescending, but people need to relax about this. I don't mean to say we shouldn't contact congress and the ATF, but panic buying really isn't going to benefit anyone. Keep in mind that this particular ammo isn't known for great terminal ballistics. It has been widely criticized in Afghanistan and Iraq. It isn't even the cheapest ammo available. WOLF or reloading your own are both cheaper. You can even still purchased 55 grain milspec ammo. While not quite as accurate, it is fine for plinking and some competition. If you are fussing about accuracy that much, you are not looking at M855 anyway. The good news regarding 5.56 is that it is easy to find ammo components and projectiles for. The 7n6 mess I could understand because it can be a difficult round to find components for and domestic production.

Don't get me wrong. I am mad as heck about this and have shot my representatives a line and I am drafting a letter to the BATF (thanks to HSO and Trent for direction, by the way). I have even fallen into the trap of speculating about possible unforeseen ramifications concerning this ruling. I would just hate to see people panic and pay inflated prices for something that is easily replaced.

HisStigness · Feb 16, 2015

I also don't understand the fascination with m855. If I want an accurate 556 round, I can load a better one. If I want a round with good terminal ballistics, I can load a better one. And it's not like the round is especially good at piercing armor anyway, so I don't know why people are getting all excited. People that got screwed over by the 7N6 5.45 ammo situation I don't blame for buying it up. I guess people have enough Pmags and 22 ammo, so this is the next thing for them to fill their basement with.

HorseSoldier · Feb 16, 2015

+2. It's kind of like the NHTSA announcing they were banning pre-1990 Honda Civics and people rushing out to buy them up. Yeah, it's a stupid decision, but they're old and dated and were never that super, even if they got you from point A to point B cheaply back in the day. Lot of better options, whether "better" is cheaper, higher performance, etc.

rhinoh · Feb 16, 2015

Bread and milk before the snow storm.
Generators before the hurricane.

Only antidote I see is having your items on hand before everyone else panics, human nature is hard to change.

Pilot · Feb 16, 2015

People always want stuff they can't have. Thank the 1994 AWB for the number of AR-15's in circulation, and the ascension of that rifle in the shooting sports.

That being said, the principle of these ammo bans is the problem, as they will continue to use them as a means of gun control on the law abiding. We need to use every legal means to fight them.

Davek1977 · Feb 16, 2015

I tend to sort of agree with the OP. I've had my AR several years, and have yet to find a "need" this ammo fills for me personally. I understand the outrage to a degree, but I, on a personal level, would be FAR more traumatized by the absence of M193 than I am m855. I'm sure I'd feel differently if my rifle preferred the M855 though

USAF_Vet · Feb 16, 2015

I never liked it, don't run it in my ARs. Still, I also don't agree that it should be banned or even restricted in any way. I'm sure some people love it, and for that, I'll be sending my Congressman (Justin Amash) an e-mail. I'll send my Senators an e-mail as well, but I'm pretty sure I know exactly where one stands (Stabenow is a rabid Bloomberian anti), so we'll just have to wait and see with the other (Gary Peters).

OilyPablo · Feb 16, 2015

Well it's more accurate than any given 55gr in most all 1:7 barrels. That's a fact. 1:9 barrel? No.

My problem is I can't even imagine those people buying at crazy prices all have 1:7 barrels.

JR47 · Feb 16, 2015

We have to remember that many owners of ARs aren't exactly dedicated. They buy from habit and cost, or from friends recommendations.

The convoluted method that BATFE is using to obtain this ban, though, needs to be ought tooth and nail. If left to their handgun provision definition in "armor piercing", we're going to see restrictions on a lot more calibers. They had a definition based on materials, but now, we're going to the absolutely vague "sporting purposes" fiasco.

HorseSoldier · Feb 16, 2015

Well it's more accurate than any given 55gr in most all 1:7 barrels.

You'll usually get better consistent accuracy from M193 out of a 1-7 twist than you'll get with M855, because M855's complex bullet construction leads to its accuracy being all over the place from lot to lot, or sometimes within lots.

W.E.G. · Feb 16, 2015

Ostensibly still in stock:

http://www.ammunitionsupplycompany.com/Federal-Lake-City-5-56-NATO-XM855-Ammo-p/xm855c.htm

tallpaul · Feb 16, 2015

well their info i read was all 223 over 40 grains and not rimfire.... so if they do get away with that we are all screwed... like any other executive order crap it will all be in the wording and interpetation.

Thermactor · Feb 16, 2015

tallpaul said:
well their info i read was all 223 over 40 grains and not rimfire.... so if they do get away with that we are all screwed... like any other executive order crap it will all be in the wording and interpetation.

So does this mean to you that they are quietly going to roll out a ban on M193 too?

I've been wondering...

Some smart money's been sinking into M193 when M855 went gaga.

fireman 9731 · Feb 16, 2015

Its not about the specific round, its about the principle. Its a back door slime ball attempt to restrict gun rights. End of story.

Wisco · Feb 16, 2015

I'm just wondering how much my 20 420-round cans of M855 are going to be worth...

At $175 a can into them, I can't see losing any money.

MachIVshooter · Feb 16, 2015

I'm just wondering how much my 20 420-round cans of M855 are going to be worth...

At $175 a can into them, I can't see losing any money.

I told my buddy to put his 420 round can on arms list and use the proceeds to buy a case of M193. lol.

As stated, this is all about the principle, not about how we'll be losing a fabulous ammunition. I have some M855, I have a lot more M193. Both are plinking rounds for me, I buy whichever is cheaper at the time. Accuracy is about the same, almost regardless of brand or twist rate in the rifle I'm using. I have found various brands of M193, M855 and my handloaded versions of each to produce 1.3-1.8 MOA 100 yard groups, regardless of using 1:7, 1:8, 1:9, or even the 1:12 bolt rifle I used to have. Even my 22" 1:8 Wilson bull barrel rifle, which is .6 MOA with 50 gr Hornady Z-max bullets, will not shoot sub-MOA with M193 or M855. If I want accuracy, I'm using premium varmint or match bullets. But if we're just blowing up soda bottles or busting clay pigeons at 50 yards with red dots, I'll use $0.30-$0.35/rd M193 or M855.

jmr40 · Feb 16, 2015

Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically this has always been illegal to use this ammo in AR handguns. The proposal is meant to enforce laws that have been ignored all along.

At this point I'm undecided about how I feel, and will wait to see exactly where this is going. But at the same time don't see any long term problems. I can remember the fuss right after the 1994 AWB. it didn't ban much of anything, just redefined some stuff. Gun makers quickly made compliant rifles and sold more during the 10 year ban than sold during the 10 years prior to the ban.

I predict ammo makers will respond with different ammo that meets our needs as well if not better at comparable prices.

armoredman · Feb 16, 2015

I don't own a single firearm in .223/5.56mm right now, but I have been all over my reps about this. Doesn't matter one bit WHAT the ammo is, it matters that it doesn't fit the description of AP in law. It matters that if ATFE gets away with this, they will find another ammo to go after, like the 193 that at least one person has so kindly put up videos of it greasing through Level III plates.

ol' scratch · Feb 16, 2015

M193 isn't being banned.

Thermactor said:
So does this mean to you that they are quietly going to roll out a ban on M193 too?

I've been wondering...

Some smart money's been sinking into M193 when M855 went gaga.

There is no indication they are banning M193. It doesn't have the steel perpetrator in the tip. It is a brass jacket lead core bullet. If you know something I don't could you supply a link?

To address the other concern, it isn't all projectiles over 40 grains.

MachIVshooter · Feb 16, 2015

Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically this has always been illegal to use this ammo in AR handguns. The proposal is meant to enforce laws that have been ignored all along.

You are wrong. Yes, it has always been unlawful to use AP ammo in handguns. The issue is that M855/SS109 is not, by definition, armor piercing. ATF seeks to reclassify it as AP ammo; it would suddenly become illegal to use in handguns, as well as to import, manufacture and sell.

Trent · Feb 16, 2015

MachIVShooter;

The BATFE classified M855/SS109 as armor piercing LONG ago.

What they are talking about doing now is removing the sporting purpose exemption on the ammunition - it has always been considered and listed as an armor piercing cartridge by the BATFE.

The difference is subtle but very important.

The point of fact is they incorrectly listed the ammunition as armor piercing in the first place under LEOPA. The removal of LEOPA exemption is a moot point - it never should have been listed as armor piercing in the FIRST place. (the projectile fails to meet the materials qualifications set up by the federal statutes, which is how 'armor piercing' is determined.)

They made a mistake a long time ago in classifying it as armor piercing, then quickly exempted it, rather than retracting their mistake. Now they're leveraging and compounding their mistake to effectively ban the ammunition.

notaglockfanboy · Feb 16, 2015

will find another ammo to go after, like the 193 that at least one person has so kindly put up videos of it greasing through Level III plates

Along with every other high powered rifle round. Just about any jacketed high powered rifle round will zip right through level 2 and level 3 armor that LEOs wear so why consolidate the m855 and 193 into a category by itself?? I am not saying it should be banned in any way, because I am against the BATF overstepping their "bounds", if they have any at all, but take a .243win, 308win, 300win and watch it melt through body armor like butter. The guy who "has so kindly put up videos of it greasing through level III plates" didn't start this ban so why throw him under the bus?? :scrutiny:

stonecutter2 · Feb 16, 2015

Trent said:
MachIVShooter;

The BATFE classified M855/SS109 as armor piercing LONG ago.

What they are talking about doing now is removing the sporting purpose exemption on the ammunition - it has always been considered and listed as an armor piercing cartridge by the BATFE.

The difference is subtle but very important.

The point of fact is they incorrectly listed the ammunition as armor piercing in the first place under LEOPA. The removal of LEOPA exemption is a moot point - it never should have been listed as armor piercing in the FIRST place. (the projectile fails to meet the materials qualifications set up by the federal statutes, which is how 'armor piercing' is determined.)

They made a mistake a long time ago in classifying it as armor piercing, then quickly exempted it, rather than retracting their mistake. Now they're leveraging and compounding their mistake to effectively ban the ammunition.

With a steel penetrator in the core, isn't it truly "armor piercing" though?

Trent · Feb 16, 2015

Jeez guys.

Crossbows and conventional bows and arrows will penetrate level 2 and 3 armor.

If they followed the logic of what truly defines armor piercing we'd be throwing stones at game animals.

This is the Government that we are talking about though; what they do rarely makes any sense from a scientific perspective.

The issue here is SS109/M855 should never have been listed as armor piercing in the first place because it does not meet the material requirements of (18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)

The ATF overstepped their bounds ORIGINALLY when they defined it as armor piercing.

stonecutter2 said:
With a steel penetrator in the core, isn't it truly "armor piercing" though?

NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT, BY FEDERAL STATUTE THE ATF FAILED TO FOLLOW, THE PROJECTILE IS NOT ARMOR PIERCING.

That statute reads:

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
(continued)

SS109/M855 fails to meet EITHER requirement, because the jacket is not nearly 25% of overall weight, and the CORE is not 100% ("entirely") steel. It's approximately 1/3 steel, 2/3's soft lead.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=773583

If they fail to heed the advice offered by people who are writing in letters, there's a very high probability of a successful suit against them for their "creative re-interpretation" of the law. The law is black and white. The ATF is moving in shades of orange and chartreuse here.

paintballdude902 · Feb 16, 2015

my issue is that m855 is the cheapest 62gr(or heavier) ammo on the market. and pulled bullets were pretty cheap too.

my ar likes the heavier bullets. it will shoot 55gr fine but the 1in 8 twist just likes the heavier rounds.

M855 buyers need to settle down.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads