User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 9:12:35 AM EDT
[#1]
As far as I know... it would still be considered ( under the ATF's guidelines ) AP, because of the overall percentage of ( specifically ) steel in the construction of the bullet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 9:44:42 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As far as I know... it would still be considered ( under the ATF's guidelines ) AP, because of the overall percentage of ( specifically ) steel in the construction of the bullet. Figured that, or the exposed penetrator would be their excuse to call it AP. Could probably make the penetrator shorter, with a larger lead slug; would likely push the cartridge closer to 68 or 70 grains, though. Maybe shorten the bullet? From what I've seen, it's longer than M855 since the copper slug needed to be larger to bring the weight up to 62 grains. Doesn't need to be that long with a lead core. Remove material from the backside of the penetrator, swap the copper slug for a larger lead one. ETA: Hang on, the definition of AP ammo says nothing about ratios of metal in bullets. It just says if a bullet is made "entirely of" certain listed materials. According to the definition, retrieved straight from the ATF website, it shouldn't matter if the penetrator takes up 90% of the bullet, so long as there is a lead core present. They're pretty damn selective on how they "Interpret" laws these days. Maybe I should write a letter to the ATF. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 10:18:32 AM EDT
[#3]
Naturally I can't find the specific details... but the percentage part is the same part that allows the regular M855 bullet to not be considered AP.
The regular M855 bullets steel portion is under those specific thresholds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 8:10:04 PM EDT
[#4]
What would be the point of making these bullets?
Why go through all that trouble, just get some good quality bullets, like Barnes.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 8:18:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Figured that, or the exposed penetrator would be their excuse to call it AP. Could probably make the penetrator shorter, with a larger lead slug; would likely push the cartridge closer to 68 or 70 grains, though. Maybe shorten the bullet? From what I've seen, it's longer than M855 since the copper slug needed to be larger to bring the weight up to 62 grains. Doesn't need to be that long with a lead core. Remove material from the backside of the penetrator, swap the copper slug for a larger lead one. ETA: Hang on, the definition of AP ammo says nothing about ratios of metal in bullets. It just says if a bullet is made "entirely of" certain listed materials. According to the definition, retrieved straight from the ATF website, it shouldn't matter if the penetrator takes up 90% of the bullet, so long as there is a lead core present. They're pretty damn selective on how they "Interpret" laws these days. Maybe I should write a letter to the ATF. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As far as I know... it would still be considered ( under the ATF's guidelines ) AP, because of the overall percentage of ( specifically ) steel in the construction of the bullet. Figured that, or the exposed penetrator would be their excuse to call it AP. Could probably make the penetrator shorter, with a larger lead slug; would likely push the cartridge closer to 68 or 70 grains, though. Maybe shorten the bullet? From what I've seen, it's longer than M855 since the copper slug needed to be larger to bring the weight up to 62 grains. Doesn't need to be that long with a lead core. Remove material from the backside of the penetrator, swap the copper slug for a larger lead one. ETA: Hang on, the definition of AP ammo says nothing about ratios of metal in bullets. It just says if a bullet is made "entirely of" certain listed materials. According to the definition, retrieved straight from the ATF website, it shouldn't matter if the penetrator takes up 90% of the bullet, so long as there is a lead core present. They're pretty damn selective on how they "Interpret" laws these days. Maybe I should write a letter to the ATF. It states if the core is made entirely. Your core is steel; hence it will be AP. If you could slap a little lead on something and make it AP kosher, you would see WC cored 5.56 on the market. M855 is not kosher; it was given an exemption. If you tried to make something similar without meeting mil specs for it to be called M855, you would receive a nasty visit. The only thing you might be able to try would be to use a mild steel "ballistic tip" and see if it slides through. Corbin makes metal tips but the site does not say what they are made of. Some company was selling mild steel tips but I cant find the website anymore. Corbin's CNC machined tips are 18.5cents plus shipping. I don't think you will make your 40cent price point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 8:29:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M855 ... was given an exemption.... As was M2 AP ball. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 8:44:57 PM EDT
[#7]
(17)(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
(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. (C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device. The bullet (projectile) must also have a core made entirely out of the metals listed above, or be a full jacketed bullet with a jacket weighing more than 25% of its overall weight. This means that the SS109/M855 bullets wouldn’t be covered, as their cores are partly steel, and partly lead. Lead isn’t listed in the metals above. Furthermore, as you’ll see in the list below, the ATF has specifically stated that the SS109/M855 bullets are exempted from AP status. ATF AP Classified Rounds •All KTW, ARCANE, and THV ammo •Czech made 9mm Para. with steel core •German made 9mm Para. with steel core •MSC .25 ACP with brass bullet •BLACK STEEL armor and metal piercing ammunition •7.62mm NATO AP and SLAP •PMC ULTRAMAG with brass bullet (not copper) •OMNISHOCK .38 Special with steel core •7.62×39 ammo with steel core bullets ATF Exempted Rounds •5.56 SS109 and M855 NATO rounds, with steel penetrator tip. •.30-06 M2 AP ammo |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 8:54:18 PM EDT
[#8]
We just need to get it exempted by the next admin. If not the m855 will run out eventually.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 10:51:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We just need to get it exempted by the next admin. If not the m855 will run out eventually. All US mil surplus, anyway. My worry is that other countries will adopt M855A1 and eventually stop producing M855; bye-bye cheap imported SS109. If the ATF refuses to exempt M855A1, we won't get any more low-cost surplus 5.56 imported. M855 is jacketed lead-core with a steel penetrator in the tip. M855A1 is semi-jacketed copper core, with a steel penetrator. It is not primarily steel core, as the steel is not the "core" of the bullet. At least by my logic, since the "core" has to be at the base of the bullet to be called such. My suggested changes actually would sound better if called "Ballistic tip," with a larger lead core, and a smaller than Mil spec steel penetrator. Probably wouldn't need to be hardened steel, either. From Liberty Ammunition's propaganda, the reason T3/M855A1 works better than M855 through barriers is because the steel is exposed, and it doesn't deform as easily as jacket of M855. Its wounding capabilities seem to be based around the exposed steel fragmenting the thin jacket almost immediately in soft tissue, causing the three separate components, those being the penetrator, core and jacket, to go in different directions, typically while tumbling. That makes for a nasty wound, no matter where it hits, and it's nowhere near a reliant on velocity as other 5.56 variants. I won't say M855A1 has better terminal ballistics than current SD ammo, but it's ball ammunition. Hell, it's just semi-jacketed M855 with a non-lead core and a slightly larger penetrator. My entire reasoning for wanting something like is because it's a better general-purpose cartridge than 60-90 cent soft point ammo. Great intermediate barrier penetration, works with current BDC for M855, works well from 14.5" barrels, and has great wounding capabilities for ball ammo. As for cost, using a cheaper lead core would probably help. It would definitely be expensive until we start getting XM855A1 from Federal or foreign companies start shipping it to us, but I doubt it would cost as much as Gold Dots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 11:22:49 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All US mil surplus, anyway. My worry is that other countries will adopt M855A1 and eventually stop producing M855; bye-bye cheap imported SS109. If the ATF refuses to exempt M855A1, we won't get any more low-cost surplus 5.56 imported. M855 is jacketed lead-core with a steel penetrator in the tip. M855A1 is semi-jacketed copper core, with a steel penetrator. It is not primarily steel core, as the steel is not the "core" of the bullet. At least by my logic, since the "core" has to be at the base of the bullet to be called such. My suggested changes actually would sound better if called "Ballistic tip," with a larger lead core, and a smaller than Mil spec steel penetrator. Probably wouldn't need to be hardened steel, either. From Liberty Ammunition's propaganda, the reason T3/M855A1 works better than M855 through barriers is because the steel is exposed, and it doesn't deform as easily as jacket of M855. Its wounding capabilities seem to be based around the exposed steel fragmenting the thin jacket almost immediately in soft tissue, causing the three separate components, those being the penetrator, core and jacket, to go in different directions, typically while tumbling. That makes for a nasty wound, no matter where it hits, and it's nowhere near a reliant on velocity as other 5.56 variants. I won't say M855A1 has better terminal ballistics than current SD ammo, but it's ball ammunition. Hell, it's just semi-jacketed M855 with a non-lead core and a slightly larger penetrator. My entire reasoning for wanting something like is because it's a better general-purpose cartridge than 60-90 cent soft point ammo. Great intermediate barrier penetration, works with current BDC for M855, works well from 14.5" barrels, and has great wounding capabilities for ball ammo. As for cost, using a cheaper lead core would probably help. It would definitely be expensive until we start getting XM855A1 from Federal or foreign companies start shipping it to us, but I doubt it would cost as much as Gold Dots. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We just need to get it exempted by the next admin. If not the m855 will run out eventually. All US mil surplus, anyway. My worry is that other countries will adopt M855A1 and eventually stop producing M855; bye-bye cheap imported SS109. If the ATF refuses to exempt M855A1, we won't get any more low-cost surplus 5.56 imported. M855 is jacketed lead-core with a steel penetrator in the tip. M855A1 is semi-jacketed copper core, with a steel penetrator. It is not primarily steel core, as the steel is not the "core" of the bullet. At least by my logic, since the "core" has to be at the base of the bullet to be called such. My suggested changes actually would sound better if called "Ballistic tip," with a larger lead core, and a smaller than Mil spec steel penetrator. Probably wouldn't need to be hardened steel, either. From Liberty Ammunition's propaganda, the reason T3/M855A1 works better than M855 through barriers is because the steel is exposed, and it doesn't deform as easily as jacket of M855. Its wounding capabilities seem to be based around the exposed steel fragmenting the thin jacket almost immediately in soft tissue, causing the three separate components, those being the penetrator, core and jacket, to go in different directions, typically while tumbling. That makes for a nasty wound, no matter where it hits, and it's nowhere near a reliant on velocity as other 5.56 variants. I won't say M855A1 has better terminal ballistics than current SD ammo, but it's ball ammunition. Hell, it's just semi-jacketed M855 with a non-lead core and a slightly larger penetrator. My entire reasoning for wanting something like is because it's a better general-purpose cartridge than 60-90 cent soft point ammo. Great intermediate barrier penetration, works with current BDC for M855, works well from 14.5" barrels, and has great wounding capabilities for ball ammo. As for cost, using a cheaper lead core would probably help. It would definitely be expensive until we start getting XM855A1 from Federal or foreign companies start shipping it to us, but I doubt it would cost as much as Gold Dots. Buy Mk318 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 11:50:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All US mil surplus, anyway. My worry is that other countries will adopt M855A1 and eventually stop producing M855; bye-bye cheap imported SS109. If the ATF refuses to exempt M855A1, we won't get any more low-cost surplus 5.56 imported. M855 is jacketed lead-core with a steel penetrator in the tip. M855A1 is semi-jacketed copper core, with a steel penetrator. It is not primarily steel core, as the steel is not the "core" of the bullet. At least by my logic, since the "core" has to be at the base of the bullet to be called such. My suggested changes actually would sound better if called "Ballistic tip," with a larger lead core, and a smaller than Mil spec steel penetrator. Probably wouldn't need to be hardened steel, either. From Liberty Ammunition's propaganda, the reason T3/M855A1 works better than M855 through barriers is because the steel is exposed, and it doesn't deform as easily as jacket of M855. Its wounding capabilities seem to be based around the exposed steel fragmenting the thin jacket almost immediately in soft tissue, causing the three separate components, those being the penetrator, core and jacket, to go in different directions, typically while tumbling. That makes for a nasty wound, no matter where it hits, and it's nowhere near a reliant on velocity as other 5.56 variants. I won't say M855A1 has better terminal ballistics than current SD ammo, but it's ball ammunition. Hell, it's just semi-jacketed M855 with a non-lead core and a slightly larger penetrator. My entire reasoning for wanting something like is because it's a better general-purpose cartridge than 60-90 cent soft point ammo. Great intermediate barrier penetration, works with current BDC for M855, works well from 14.5" barrels, and has great wounding capabilities for ball ammo. As for cost, using a cheaper lead core would probably help. It would definitely be expensive until we start getting XM855A1 from Federal or foreign companies start shipping it to us, but I doubt it would cost as much as Gold Dots. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We just need to get it exempted by the next admin. If not the m855 will run out eventually. All US mil surplus, anyway. My worry is that other countries will adopt M855A1 and eventually stop producing M855; bye-bye cheap imported SS109. If the ATF refuses to exempt M855A1, we won't get any more low-cost surplus 5.56 imported. M855 is jacketed lead-core with a steel penetrator in the tip. M855A1 is semi-jacketed copper core, with a steel penetrator. It is not primarily steel core, as the steel is not the "core" of the bullet. At least by my logic, since the "core" has to be at the base of the bullet to be called such. My suggested changes actually would sound better if called "Ballistic tip," with a larger lead core, and a smaller than Mil spec steel penetrator. Probably wouldn't need to be hardened steel, either. From Liberty Ammunition's propaganda, the reason T3/M855A1 works better than M855 through barriers is because the steel is exposed, and it doesn't deform as easily as jacket of M855. Its wounding capabilities seem to be based around the exposed steel fragmenting the thin jacket almost immediately in soft tissue, causing the three separate components, those being the penetrator, core and jacket, to go in different directions, typically while tumbling. That makes for a nasty wound, no matter where it hits, and it's nowhere near a reliant on velocity as other 5.56 variants. I won't say M855A1 has better terminal ballistics than current SD ammo, but it's ball ammunition. Hell, it's just semi-jacketed M855 with a non-lead core and a slightly larger penetrator. My entire reasoning for wanting something like is because it's a better general-purpose cartridge than 60-90 cent soft point ammo. Great intermediate barrier penetration, works with current BDC for M855, works well from 14.5" barrels, and has great wounding capabilities for ball ammo. As for cost, using a cheaper lead core would probably help. It would definitely be expensive until we start getting XM855A1 from Federal or foreign companies start shipping it to us, but I doubt it would cost as much as Gold Dots. The core is what is inside the jacket therefore if your steel is inside the jacket, it is part of the core. You will notice that the word "core" is not defined in the law. Most laws fully define the terms they use but since this one does not, the "core" can be anything the ATF wants to call it within some reason. The Nosler Partition has been around for 60+ years and has a partitioned core. Corbin makes multiple core dies in various configurations that use multiple jackets nested inside one another. I'm afraid anything that is largely covered by the jacket will be a core reguardless of its location. If you made a Tip that had the same design as a Corbin tip with one little shank that sat in the nose of the bullet, you might get away with it. But the smaller and softer the tip, the less penetration you have. All you have created is a more expensive Amax or TMK.. Liberty is wrong on the idea of exposed penetrators working better. There are research papers where this has been tested and penetrators work better with jackets for penetrating hard surfaces. Unfortunately there is no market for what you want to build. No one needs slightly increased penetration that might occur and there are plenty of good duty loads already. You will have to roll you own and you are looking at several grand just to get started plus refining your design and dies if it doesn't work right to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 12:13:59 AM EDT
[#12]
From where? MK318 was discontinued, or so I heard, and it's outrageous from any place I can find it. USArmorment has it for $420 per 500, before shipping. At that price, I can have TSX, TAP, MK262, Gold dots, or stuff that 'fell off the truck.'
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 12:33:13 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The core is what is inside the jacket therefore if your steel is inside the jacket, it is part of the core. You will notice that the word "core" is not defined in the law. Most laws fully define the terms they use but since this one does not, the "core" can be anything the ATF wants to call it within some reason. The Nosler Partition has been around for 60+ years and has a partitioned core. Corbin makes multiple core dies in various configurations that use multiple jackets nested inside one another. I'm afraid anything that is largely covered by the jacket will be a core reguardless of its location. If you made a Tip that had the same design as a Corbin tip with one little shank that sat in the nose of the bullet, you might get away with it. But the smaller and softer the tip, the less penetration you have. All you have created is a more expensive Amax or TMK.. Liberty is wrong on the idea of exposed penetrators working better. There are research papers where this has been tested and penetrators work better with jackets for penetrating hard surfaces. Unfortunately there is no market for what you want to build. No one needs slightly increased penetration that might occur and there are plenty of good duty loads already. You will have to roll you own and you are looking at several grand just to get started plus refining your design and dies if it doesn't work right to begin with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We just need to get it exempted by the next admin. If not the m855 will run out eventually. All US mil surplus, anyway. My worry is that other countries will adopt M855A1 and eventually stop producing M855; bye-bye cheap imported SS109. If the ATF refuses to exempt M855A1, we won't get any more low-cost surplus 5.56 imported. M855 is jacketed lead-core with a steel penetrator in the tip. M855A1 is semi-jacketed copper core, with a steel penetrator. It is not primarily steel core, as the steel is not the "core" of the bullet. At least by my logic, since the "core" has to be at the base of the bullet to be called such. My suggested changes actually would sound better if called "Ballistic tip," with a larger lead core, and a smaller than Mil spec steel penetrator. Probably wouldn't need to be hardened steel, either. From Liberty Ammunition's propaganda, the reason T3/M855A1 works better than M855 through barriers is because the steel is exposed, and it doesn't deform as easily as jacket of M855. Its wounding capabilities seem to be based around the exposed steel fragmenting the thin jacket almost immediately in soft tissue, causing the three separate components, those being the penetrator, core and jacket, to go in different directions, typically while tumbling. That makes for a nasty wound, no matter where it hits, and it's nowhere near a reliant on velocity as other 5.56 variants. I won't say M855A1 has better terminal ballistics than current SD ammo, but it's ball ammunition. Hell, it's just semi-jacketed M855 with a non-lead core and a slightly larger penetrator. My entire reasoning for wanting something like is because it's a better general-purpose cartridge than 60-90 cent soft point ammo. Great intermediate barrier penetration, works with current BDC for M855, works well from 14.5" barrels, and has great wounding capabilities for ball ammo. As for cost, using a cheaper lead core would probably help. It would definitely be expensive until we start getting XM855A1 from Federal or foreign companies start shipping it to us, but I doubt it would cost as much as Gold Dots. The core is what is inside the jacket therefore if your steel is inside the jacket, it is part of the core. You will notice that the word "core" is not defined in the law. Most laws fully define the terms they use but since this one does not, the "core" can be anything the ATF wants to call it within some reason. The Nosler Partition has been around for 60+ years and has a partitioned core. Corbin makes multiple core dies in various configurations that use multiple jackets nested inside one another. I'm afraid anything that is largely covered by the jacket will be a core reguardless of its location. If you made a Tip that had the same design as a Corbin tip with one little shank that sat in the nose of the bullet, you might get away with it. But the smaller and softer the tip, the less penetration you have. All you have created is a more expensive Amax or TMK.. Liberty is wrong on the idea of exposed penetrators working better. There are research papers where this has been tested and penetrators work better with jackets for penetrating hard surfaces. Unfortunately there is no market for what you want to build. No one needs slightly increased penetration that might occur and there are plenty of good duty loads already. You will have to roll you own and you are looking at several grand just to get started plus refining your design and dies if it doesn't work right to begin with. Excellent points. If penetrators work better when jacketed, the T3 design is either a stroke of genius or a fluke. Hard to say which. If I had the machinery and the time, I'd be cranking out a few oddball bullets to test. There's plenty of good stuff out there, but like I said, I'm trying to find the best possible 'general purpose' cartridge. But I suppose we'll find out in the next few years if M855A1 performs well or if it has the same problems as M855, seeing as it's already being issued. I just hope we'll get the stuff exempted from the AP ban. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 1:13:00 AM EDT
[#14]
I doubt that manufacturers in other countries will go the expense of switching over to producing M855A1.
Regular SS109 is what they are set up for and works just fine for countries that are not shooting anyone with it anyway. I would love to have A1 available as a reloading projectile if not factory ammo. But I don't think it will happen. IM FatMcnasty if you want to learn about the hoops you have to jump through to manufacture and sell bullets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 3:32:04 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt that manufacturers in other countries will go the expense of switching over to producing M855A1. Regular SS109 is what they are set up for and works just fine for countries that are not shooting anyone with it anyway. I would love to have A1 available as a reloading projectile if not factory ammo. But I don't think it will happen. IM FatMcnasty if you want to learn about the hoops you have to jump through to manufacture and sell bullets. Give it a decade. If it shows to be as effective as the government has been saying it is and the UN or NATO start pushing "Lead-free," I wouldn't be surprised if other countries started using it, even if only in limited quantities. Hurry up and wait... Gonna have to see how our glorious new leader values our personal freedoms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 6:45:06 AM EDT
[#16]
NAMMO already making AP45 that's a SS109 with tungsten carbide tip and steel back half, sales are poor I hear.
Two theories - jackets acts as viscous fluid during penetration, or no jacket and sabot release at barrel because they think it doubles the penetration impact area. I'm on fence on the last one. Try drilling out (perfectly) a solid bullet, either copper or brass, and insert a rod of tungsten carbide or if you want penetration with incendiary, titanium rod or powder. Don't sell, just for your self. M855A1 has hardened steel tip, that makes the difference. The ban on 5.45 was because the west started hardening their mild steel cores in 2010ish. wolfgang |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 9:08:46 AM EDT
[#17]
Even if you could find some on the civilian market, I'd steer away from shooting any in my own guns. M855A1 is loaded to a higher chamber pressure (+4,000 psi) than standard M855 according to the Amy TM. There's no need to put that kind of stress on a firearm that I would have to repair or replace from my own pocket.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 9:53:57 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From where? MK318 was discontinued, or so I heard, and it's outrageous from any place I can find it. USArmorment has it for $420 per 500, before shipping. At that price, I can have TSX, TAP, MK262, Gold dots, or stuff that 'fell off the truck.' Not discontinued, and given the materials used m855a1 wouldn't be cheaper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 5:40:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NAMMO already making AP45 that's a SS109 with tungsten carbide tip and steel back half, sales are poor I hear. Two theories - jackets acts as viscous fluid during penetration, or no jacket and sabot release at barrel because they think it doubles the penetration impact area. I'm on fence on the last one. Try drilling out (perfectly) a solid bullet, either copper or brass, and insert a rod of tungsten carbide or if you want penetration with incendiary, titanium rod or powder. Don't sell, just for your self. M855A1 has hardened steel tip, that makes the difference. The ban on 5.45 was because the west started hardening their mild steel cores in 2010ish. wolfgang A Nammo PDF with all their ammo as of 2014 if anyone is interested. Nammo 2014 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2016 6:15:23 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I doubt that manufacturers in other countries will go the expense of switching over to producing M855A1. Regular SS109 is what they are set up for and works just fine for countries that are not shooting anyone with it anyway. I would love to have A1 available as a reloading projectile if not factory ammo. But I don't think it will happen. IM FatMcnasty if you want to learn about the hoops you have to jump through to manufacture and sell bullets. NAMMO has been producing their versions of lead free 5.56mm ball rounds for the European market for a few years now. they have dual steel cores (one harder than the other) but are not considered to be AP rounds. I think only Norway uses them so far |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
