Skip to comments.
M855 SS109 Cross Section of Projectiles (Bullets)
Gun Watch ^
| 6 March, 2015
| Dean Weingarten
Posted on 03/06/2015 6:42:07 PM PST by marktwain
K. Gross made these images to show the inner construction of the M855 and SS109 projectiles, or bullets. You can see the steel tip in front of the lead core. The mostly copper jacket is the layer around the outside in the images.
I do not have contact information for Mr. Gross; I will gladly take down the picture or provide a link as he may desire. I believe that he would like these images made available to inform the public.
Here is the definition of "armor piercing ammunition" from the applicable federal code:
(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.
The SS109 and M855 projectiles do not seem to fit, as their cores are mostly lead. But clear reading of definitions does not a legal scholar make; we all know how muddied "shall not be infringed" has been. I think more and better information helps people to understand the arguments.
Note that the composition of the core has little effect on the ability of 5.56X45 or .223 (basically interchangeable cartridges) to penetrate the soft body armor worn by police. All common 5.56X45 and .223 ammunition does that quite easily. It is only the presence of the steel tip in the projectile that the BATFE is basing their claim to be able to ban the ammunition on, even though it is actually irrelevant in penetration of police armor; and irrelevant in the sense that it has been commonly available for the entire existence of the law, and has never been used as the BATFE claim is the problem.
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
TOPICS: Education; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; batf; m855; ss109
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
The "armor piercing" bullet ban never made any sense whatsoever.
1
posted on
03/06/2015 6:42:08 PM PST
by
marktwain
To: marktwain
Most gun laws (1934, 1968?, etc.) make no sense. Those laws were enacted by emotional thinkers.
2
posted on
03/06/2015 6:47:58 PM PST
by
Paladin2
To: marktwain
The left loves to use buzz words like “cop-killer”, “automatic” “armor piercing”, “assault rifle” and others, in order instill panic in the low information crowd, hoping they will gain new recruits to their gun-control agenda.
3
posted on
03/06/2015 6:53:46 PM PST
by
deoetdoctrinae
(Gun-free zones are playgrounds for felons.)
To: marktwain
That must be some .223 handgun.
4
posted on
03/06/2015 6:56:41 PM PST
by
Vermont Lt
(When you are inclined to to buy storage boxes, but contractor bags instead.)
To: marktwain
Much of government agencies’ political decisions are based on subjective and irrelevant information. They agenda oriented. Nothing new here.
5
posted on
03/06/2015 6:57:42 PM PST
by
Sasparilla
(If you want peace, prepare for war.)
To: Paladin2
“Those laws were enacted by emotional thinkers.”
No, they were enacted by emotional FEELERS. No thinking was involved.
6
posted on
03/06/2015 6:59:33 PM PST
by
43north
(BHO: 50% black, 50% white, 100% RED.)
To: Vermont Lt
This is but one type of AR handgun:
7
posted on
03/06/2015 7:00:21 PM PST
by
Yo-Yo
(Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
To: marktwain
Were those projectiles created and intended for handgun use? I’m going to wager no, thus are part of the exception of that definition.
Having said that, it would not surprise me that some drone declared them banned. And it shouldn’t take that much effort to get such a ban overturned by a court, since the law is very specific that the round must be intended for use in (not just usable in) a handgun.
8
posted on
03/06/2015 7:02:43 PM PST
by
kingu
(Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
To: deoetdoctrinae
Always thought “armor piercing” only made politicians tremble when they rode in automobiles...
9
posted on
03/06/2015 7:05:02 PM PST
by
jughandle
(Big words anger me, keep talking.)
To: Yo-Yo
It slides right into your pocket. Ha Ha.
10
posted on
03/06/2015 7:05:59 PM PST
by
Vermont Lt
(When you are inclined to to buy storage boxes, but contractor bags instead.)
To: 43north
Yeah, Duh.
Correct.
Social Justice involved.
11
posted on
03/06/2015 7:08:32 PM PST
by
Paladin2
To: Yo-Yo
And 7.62x39 be far behind? This too is a pistol..
12
posted on
03/06/2015 7:09:17 PM PST
by
Jaxter
(Si vis pacem para bellum.)
To: Jaxter
13
posted on
03/06/2015 7:10:59 PM PST
by
Jaxter
(Si vis pacem para bellum.)
To: Yo-Yo
Kool. Do they have an AR-12 handgun?
14
posted on
03/06/2015 7:11:51 PM PST
by
Paladin2
To: Jaxter
“This too is a pistol.”
With the rear stock, isn’t it classified as a short barrel rifle?
15
posted on
03/06/2015 7:16:17 PM PST
by
Sasparilla
(If you want peace, prepare for war.)
To: Sasparilla
Carbine
If it is using “Pistol” ammo
16
posted on
03/06/2015 7:19:13 PM PST
by
timlilje
To: Jaxter
That’s a big bag of NOPE!
Ouch!
17
posted on
03/06/2015 7:22:41 PM PST
by
Clint N. Suhks
(Bibi is the President we wish we had.)
To: Vermont Lt
It is important to note that there
are differences between NATO spec M855 and 223 Remington. Shooting M855 out of a 223 Rem chambered weapon may result in overpressure failure of the casing where the primer is ejected...
SAAMI has issued a specific warning about this.
18
posted on
03/06/2015 7:30:28 PM PST
by
Rodamala
To: marktwain
The author doesn’t get it at all.
The letter of the law no longer matters.
19
posted on
03/06/2015 7:33:57 PM PST
by
Lurker
(Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
To: marktwain
Those pictures explain why the M855 sucked so bad at 600 yards in the EIC match at the Wilson match. Total inconsistent quality control.
20
posted on
03/06/2015 7:37:55 PM PST
by
Tailback
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson