Educate me on the M855

Sorry,Aguila Blanca, That is what I meant, as a person, like many others, who own AKs in 7.62X39, that is the only Russian Ammunition that I buy.

So banning it, that impacts on me, no other calibre would bother me, at all!
 
Just received an e-mail from the owner of Ares Armor citing a former BATFE agent, who provides a very insightful explanation of the impetus to ban the M855 ammo:

http://aresarmor.com/store/NewsArti...F Agent weighs in on proposed M855 bancontent

The definition of Armor Piercing (AP) Ammunition is;

"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;"

This definition was agreed upon in the mid-'80s between the pro-gun and anti-gun forces as a middle-ground against the Senator Charles Schumer's catch phrase "cop-killer bullets". At first it was suggested that any bullet be banned which can penetrate a cop's vest. Law enforcement and many others were all for that definition until the NRA fought it because the unthinking hadn't realized that it would ban ALL rifle ammunition.

That was the only definition of AP ammunition until the Swedish M39B (9mm Luger) cartridge arrived on the surplus market in the late 80's. Being intended for use in the Carl Gustav M45 (Swedish K) submachinegun, it had a much thicker jacket than normal 9mm Luger cartridges and a higher velocity, which allows it to penetrate soft body armor.

So, since the problem didn't fit the solution (the M39B didn't qualify as AP), a new definition was added to the definition of AP ammo. It was added that AP ammo would include;

"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".

Notice that the definition didn't just say M39B, because that would leave the possibility to re-name the cartridge all allow it to come into the U.S.
Click to expand...

There's more -- a lot more.

He ends with what I picked up as soon as I read the definitions:

Here's the real tool that should be used to fight the ban. Point out to ATF that the bullet of M855 is not within the definition of Armor Piercing ammunition. Because the bullet is partially made of lead, it is NOT "constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;" Therefore the definition of AP does not apply.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Point out to ATF that the bullet of M855 is not within the definition of Armor Piercing ammunition. Because the bullet is partially made of lead, it is NOT "constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;" Therefore the definition of AP does not apply.
Click to expand...

They know this.

This is where they are making their argument.
The definition of Armor Piercing (AP) Ammunition is;

"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;"
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Their argument is that the penetrator insert is the projectile core, and is, clearly made of steel. Therefore, AP.
 
And the counterargument is that the intent of the regulation was based on a traditional, full metal jacket projectile that had a homogeneous core wrapped in a thin covering jacket. The "core" of the M855 is everything that's contained within the copper jacket, and that core is mostly lead (which is not listed in the definition), with only a small bit of "penetrator" at the very tip.

The problem, of course, is that the regulation itself doesn't define "core," so here we are ...
 
This is absolutely ludicrous. Any common bullet (45-75gn) in a 556/223 fired out of a 10" or longer barrel will penetrate soft armor. Ive never shot soft armor with a 7.5" barrel... But i would think that would penetrate as well.

Soft armor was what is talked about in the LEO protection act. Just about ANY rifle round will go thru a IIIa vest. The small fast calibers do it best. 223 fits that bill. While velocity loss from the shorter "pistol" length barrels does reduce performance, it still has the speed to go thru HANDGUN rated armor.

The small tungsten insert in M855 does not matter in this reguard.


LUDICROUS GOVT B.S. Nothing more...nothing less
 
And the counterargument is that the intent of the regulation was...
Click to expand...

This is exactly the argument. The ATF is deciding, on their own, what the intent of Congress was, something they are not supposed to do.

Sharkbite, you are correct. But this matter is not about what the ammo will or won't do at all. It simply is not relevant. The matter is about whether or not the M855 meets the definition in law of AP handgun ammo.

That legal definition has been quoted several times in this and other threads, and it contains NOTHING about bullet penetration at all. It defines AP Handgun ammo entirely by what the projectile is made of, and that it can be fired in from a handgun. NOTHING ELSE.

In a nutshell, the ATF is saying that Congress intended this stuff to be AP (and banned) and that's how they wrote the law. We are saying that if Congress had meant for this stuff to be banned AP, they would have written the law differently, and because they wrote it the way they did you, ATF are outside your authority to interpret the intent of Congress and may not use that interpretation as justification to declare M855 Handgun AP ammo.
 
From reading this, the troublesome phrase is "...may be used in a handgun... "

If that is indeed the phrasing of the law(I didn't look it up) then that can be very problematic in the future if they set a precident now
 
rickyrick said:
From reading this, the troublesome phrase is "...may be used in a handgun... "
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. IMHO the troublesome issue is that the term "core" is not defined in the regulation, which says that AP ammo is:

"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;"​

So, if the M855 is a jacketed projectile (which it is), and a major portion of the "stuff" contained within the jacket is lead, does the M855 have a projectile "core" that is constructed entirely of one or more of the materials listed? My answer is "No," because the core is (to me) everything within the copper jacket, and most of that is lead.

But ... "core" is not defined.
 
Interesting background about the intent of the federal law banning "armor-piercing" handgun ammunition:

Representative Mario Biaggi and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the original Congressional sponsors of the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (P.L. 99-408), clearly stated that they intended and expected that ALL common ammunition originally or primarily intended for rifle use should be exempt from the bill, even if pistols were chambered for such rifle ammunition. In fact Rep Biaggi explicitly stated the, “legislation does not seek to affect in any way ammunition made originally or primarily for rifle use”.

As noted above, Senator Moynihan testified before the Senate, stating: “Let me make clear what this bill does not do. Our legislation would not limit the availability of rifle ammunition with armor-piercing capability. We recognize that soft body armor is not intended to stop high-powered rifle cartridges. Time and again, Congressman Biaggi and I have stressed that only bullets capable of penetrating body armor and designed to be fired from a handgun would be banned; rifle ammunition would not be covered.”
Click to expand...

More at - https://pistol-forum.com/showthread...Ammo-Exemption&p=296670&viewfull=1#post296670
 
Thought this was especially interesting.

Quote:
Furthermore, as you’ll see in the list below, the ATF has specifically stated that the SS109/M855 bullets are exempted from AP status.
Click to expand...


Again, they were exempted as rifle ammo because it was determined as rifle ammo they had a sporting purpose. Again, the concern was for protection to LEOs from semi-auto handguns. This excerpt about the projectile core in the law has been argument from both sides as to whether they should or should not be classified as AP in handgun rounds. Both sides are very well aware of it's existence.

Many of us expressed a concern over this back in the 80s when the law was passed and the M855 was originally exempted. There was suspicion even back then that at some point the exemption could be lifted and M855 prohibited. Problem was, because it did not affect folks using it in their rifles they did not have a concern. Most that used M855 never knew the law and the exemption were on the books. Like many chest thumping gun owners, they were not concerned until the law actually affected them..........
 
it sure aint fair

It sort of looks like the rules and the laws are bent and swayed by politics and nothing to do with common since, Fairness, or logic but a lot to do with power and who holds it.
bb
 
So, if M855 rounds do get banned for having some steel in them, what happens to all of the 5.56 and 7.62x39 and even 9mm that are steel jacketed? Those can be fired from handguns too.
 
I ma really surprised at all the media attention this is getting. there has been several segments every day on fox, actually watching one right now. FOX states that no police officer has ever been injured due to vest penetration from ar15 ammo in general, hard thing to figure out as fact, but sounds legit. let's hope people wake up..... I am just happy to hear the discussion
 
The best recourse would be for congress to repeal the original ban on AP ammo. I remember it well. I think it was in the early 90's. The original bill banned any ammunition that would penetrate LEO bullet proof vests. (This obviously didn't bide well for anyone with a rifle.) The main target was steel core 7.62x39 ammo which was cheap and plentiful. At that time, AK47's were the evil demon of the press, much like the AR15 is today. Since the gun grabbers seemd to be a majority, the NRA did their best to contort, stretch, twist and bend the law to make it less punative, since they could not defeat it in congress. The media called them "cop killer" bullets. There was even a reference in one of the stupid Lethal Weapon movies where a cop is hiding behind a barrel, and all teh bullets bounce off until a bad guy shoots right through it with "cop killer" bullets.

The same argumenst were used then, as today, that pretty made the entire piece of legislation a solution for a non-existant problem. No cop has ever been killed with a "cop killer" bullet, and rifles ar rarely used in crimes. It was not suited for hunting, defense, or criminal activity, and people used the ammo for target shooting because it was really cheap.

Rather than put patches and bandaids on it to save this particular ammo, congress would far better serve shooters to repeal the old bill which was never necessary to begin with.
 
for sporting use only

And the for sporting use only clause of the second amendment to the constitution says what? And is located on which line in which paragraph you got help me I looked and some how missed it.
bb
 
And the for sporting use only clause of the second amendment to the constitution says what? And is located on which line in which paragraph you got help me I looked and some how missed it.
Click to expand...
I think we all know that it's not in the Constitution.

However, it is certainly a concept which has been entwined into our gun control laws over the years.

I think we need to fix that, but until that happens (if it ever happens), it's inadvisable to pretend that the laws say something different than what they actually do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top