5.56
K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple Stupid)
KAC SR-15 IWS Tan
KAC SR-25 EMC
LWRC M6 IC
If the bullet is 62gr and the PEO ammo is claiming increased velocities over M855, then that's one hot load. It will be interesting to see the numbers.
Last edited by Submariner; 11-26-08 at 15:20.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." Justice Robert Jackson, WV St. Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
"I don’t care how many pull ups and sit ups you can do. I care that you can move yourself across the ground with a fighting load and engage the enemy." Max Velocity
Sadly no, thank former President Clinton for that one. Surplus US made ammo cannot be outright sold to civilians. It is out right destroyed.
ETA: Doc, do you think that statement from LTC Day could just be a blanket PR statement? I mean this design is a pretty radical departure from the SS109 projectile and I would imagine there is going to be some difference in terminal performance.
Also would this projectile now be identified as "armor piercing" for legal purposes?
Last edited by decodeddiesel; 11-26-08 at 15:46.
To the best of my knowledge, ATF has not ruled on M855 LFS, but why would it legally be any different than Remington Bronze Point?
Keep in mind that the Big Army's first very expensive attempt at environmentally friendly ammo, the tungsten-nylon core "green" M855 ammunition was poorly conceived, badly implemented, did not work, and has turned out to be highly toxic:
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pb...NEWS/809110313
http://archive.capecodonline.com/spe...tungsten17.htm
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/libr...ts/TR-07-5.pdf
Last edited by DocGKR; 11-26-08 at 20:23.
Doc, a heads up your links are not working.
Yeah, I was in the active Army for the "leadless M855" boondoggle.
I suppose the only legal difference one could draw between a Rem Bronze Point and this ammo is that this new M855 is issued to the military, and the "core" is steel and not bronze.
Intuitively do you think this new ammo would exhibit enhanced blind barrier performance and decreased fragmentation thresh hold over SS109? Mind you yours is about the only opinion I would value for an "intuitive assesment" of this new ammo.
Finally, will you be testing it?
Thanks--links fixed.
Bookmarks