Of course .gov’s got no business banning M855 ammo. No controversy there. But…

Does that mean M855 is some super mousegun ammo AR shooters should all have been stockpiling?

Ian and Karl say…not really.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Of course .gov’s got no business banning M855 ammo. No controversy there. But…

  1. Kentucky says:

    The ammo ban thing went away, at least for now. From the recently-released ATF/GCA68 regulations . . .

    The GCA defines the term “armor piercing ammunition” as:

    (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.”

    Exemptions: The following articles are exempted from the definition of armor piercing ammunition.

    5.56 mm (.233) SS 109 and M855 Ammunition, identified by a green coating on the projectile tip.

    U.S. .30-06 M2AP, identified by a black coating on the projectile tip.

  2. Buck says:

    I agree with Ian. lackluster ammo. it’s accuracy is debatable. As a cartridge for social work it was not really designed to kill, just would an cause resources draining casualties. If I have to use a .223 for defensive work it’s not going to be loaded with M855 unless the other guy is wearing a flak jacket from Russia. And, it’s WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY to dammed expensive. The M193 is my better choice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *