M855 to be replaced in 2009

[Savior 6]

Lets hope that means a lot of surplus of the "old" stuff hits the streets!!!

This is my line of thinking. Bring on all that "old stuff", I'll take it. Maybe we'll get to see some decent 5.556 prices again.

[Savior 6]

5.56

[Telperion]

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.

[Submariner]

Lets hope that means a lot of surplus of the "old" stuff hits the streets!!!

Nope. Then Congress can ban lead just as they banned Freon.

Then watch Obama sign it!

[decodeddiesel]

Lets hope that means a lot of surplus of the "old" stuff hits the streets!!!

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?

[Savior 6]

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?

[DocGKR]

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

[decodeddiesel]

??

Is there something I can help you with?

[decodeddiesel]

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/a...80911/NEWS/809110313

http://archive.capecodonline.c...en/howtungsten17.htm

http://www.crrel.usace.army.mi...lreports/TR-07-5.pdf

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?

[DocGKR]

Thanks--links fixed.