Matching bullet weight to twist rate is vital for maximum accuracy. How do you know which twist rate is right for you?

Brad Fitzpatrick

In the 1960’s, when the 5.56×45 and the accompanying AR platform debuted, but rifles had barrels with twist rates of 1:14 inches, or one full rifling twist for every 14 inches of barrel. That’s because at that time the standard choice in 5.56 ammo was a 55 grain FMJ projectile. And although the 50-55 grain bullet is still a versatile and effect varmint hunting bullet, for military and long-range purposes most ARs have switched to heavier bullets. That means that the barrels must switch, too.

Today you won’t find very many 1:14 barrels because, frankly, there isn’t a whole lot of demand for them. They’re good at stabilizing lighter bullets, but they won’t stabilize heavier projectiles. For that reason, the 1:12 is about the slowest AR barrel you’ll see today. Because there’s a “sweet spot” when combining bullet and barrel twist rate, you’ll need to have an idea what type of ammo you’re going to be shooting. If you’re going to limit yourself to 55 grains or less, the 1:12 will work.

But why give up the 5.56/.223’s blessed versatility? Why not get the most out of your rifle?

In that case, you’re probably going to want to look for a faster twist rate that stabilizes larger bullets. 1:10 and 1:9 twist barrels, which work just fine with 55 grain projectiles but will also handle heavier 60, 62, and 69 grain bullets. These two barrel twist rates are situated in the middle of the pack and, generally speaking, allow you to shoot a wider variety of bullets than any slower-twist barrels. But as you go beyond 1:9, barrels do better with heavier bullets and don’t perform as well with lighter ones. Just as slow-twist barrels won’t stabilize heavy bullets properly, fast-twist barrels will sometimes overstablize, which reduces bullet stability and results in poor performance. For that reason, the faster twist barrels—1:8 and 1:7—are best with heavy bullets. 1:8 twist barrels will stabilize bullets up to 80 grains, and 1:7 tubes will actually stabilize heavy, long-for caliber, aerodynamic bullets up to 90 grains.

So, what’s right for your AR? That depends. If I were building a strict varmint gun—something that would almost exclusively fire bullets in the 55 grain and below range—I’d opt for a 1:10 twist rate, which has proven effective for me in the past. The 1:10 is highly versatile and will work with most bullets, from 55 grain polymer tip varmint bullets on up to heavier boat-tails for a little extra reach. If I planned to shoot a bit of every type of ammunition I’d go for a 1:9 or 1:8, which would allow me to take advantage of a broad range of bullets. If I were building a long-range target gun and knew I’d be using bullets from 77 grain on up, well, I’d have a 1:7 twist.

If you’re building (or buying) a 5.56×45 AR then it will help to know twist rates. You’ll understand how your gun and ammunition work together, and you’ll be able to get the most out of your loads.

Though they share identical case dimensions, the .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO are slightly different—and the .223 Wylde makes the most of both of these loads.

Brad Fitzpatrick

The 5.56×45 NATO broke cover in 1957 as a military cartridge, and since that time it has served in multiple campaigns and conflicts around the globe. The 5.56×45 offered a lot—it was a flat-shooting, fast cartridge with minimal recoil and minimal weight (read: you can carry a lot of them). So great was the 5.56 that it soon followed in civilian garb as the .223 Remington, a cartridge that has remained viable and popular since its release date.

There are some that will tell you that a .223 and a 5.56 are the same cartridge. Well, in terms of case dimension, that is true. So, how do they differ?

The short answer is that they differ with regard to pressure and chamber dimensions. Pressures in the 5.56 cartridge are higher than the .223, and as a result the chamber of the 5.56 is different as well. There’s more throat length in a 5.56 barrel—about .077 inches—and the angle of the throat is different to accommodate increased pressures. It is, therefore, alright to fire a .223 cartridge in a 5.56 chamber, but going the other way can cause pressure problems. Simply put, the .223 doesn’t perform as well in 5.56 chambers as it could. If you have two cartridges that are so similar in external case dimensions why not have one chamber that makes the best of both loads?

Enter Bill Wylde. Bill had the idea to create a chamber that would serve the 5.56 and the .223 Remington equally well. The .223 Wylde has the same chamber angling as the standard 5.56 chamber, so there’s no problem with pressures, and it also has a .2240 freebore diameter. The result? You have a chamber that is sufficient to handle the hotter 5.56 load without concerns about pressure and you get the gilt-edge accuracy that’s common in many quality .223 rifles.

Is there a compelling reason to switch to a Wylde chamber? Well, the most obvious reason is that you can fire .223 ammo without giving up accuracy and 5.56 ammo without worrying about excess pressure. Sure, you can fire .223 ammo all day from a 5.56 without worrying about pressure problems thanks to generous chamber size, but if you really want to tighten those groups that .2240 freebore diameter helps. In fact, .223 Wylde chambers are known for extreme accuracy, which is better on the whole than what you can expect from a standard 5.56×45 chamber.

Better accuracy, more versatility with ammo—so what’s the downside? Well, right now that can be cost and availability. The gains that the .223 Wylde provides haven’t prompted a whole bunch of companies to swap to that chamber, but there are certainly .223 Wylde-chambered target rifles out there. Do you need a Wylde? No, but it will help your long game and will make your AR rifle even more versatile than it is now.

Dinner at the White House? How does that sound? Perhaps enjoying a good meal and conversation with President Obama about the Second Amendment and gun rights? Believe it or not, YOU have a better chance of getting such an invite than the Republican Senior U.S. Senator from Louisiana does. No doubt, the David Vitter M855 Ammo Giveaway saw to that.

Here’s why.

Vitter Giveth What Obama to Taketh Away.

March 11, 2015. The seated U.S. Senator in his second term, now campaigning for Governor of Louisiana, announced the David Vitter M855 Ammo Giveaway. “Obama and his allies are working to restrict our access to guns and ammo, and it is up to us to fight for our rights as gun owners,” said Vitter. “As a show of support for the Second Amendment, I am raffling off a free box of M855 ammo.”

(For your chance to win the David Vitter M855 Ammo Giveaway, go to his official campaign site for Governor of Louisiana. Hurry, it is ending in a couple of days!)

While the Obama-led ATF was recently promoting its proposed ban of M855 5.56 NATO ammo, re-classifying it as “armor-piercing” ammunition, (which is untrue by definition), Mr. Vitter and his Press Secretary, Luke Bolar, cleverly fired back. It was a sign of true marksmanship.

“Senator Vitter had already written a strong letter to the ATF against the ban,” Bolar told Ares Armor. “We were making plans for a scheduled campaign appearance at the Great Southern Gun & Knife Show in Kenner, Louisiana last weekend. We got to talking about the impact on rising ammo prices. So, we decided to buy a box and raffle it off.”

Several hundred law-abiding citizens attending the show signed up in person for The David Vitter M855 Ammo Giveaway. Through his website and social media, the total of entrants now stands around 1,000.

Like you, Mr. Vitter knows winning the raffle isn’t what’s most important. He’s obviously focused on winning an election. The latest polls show he is leading a tight race. But whether or not he becomes the first U.S. Senator in more than 100 years to become Governor of Louisiana, David Vitter has shown he is committed to defending gun rights, and fighting the Obama Administration’s attempted gun grabs and assaults on ammo. His voting record includes:

U.S. Senator David Vitter Voting YES:

Allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.

Co-sponsored bill allowing firearms in National Parks.

Co-sponsored banning gun registration and trigger lock law in Washington D.C.

Applying concealed carry permit to all other states where legal.

U.S. Senator David Vitter Voting NO:

Lawsuits vs. gun manufacturers.

Suing gun makers and sellers for gun misuse.

Foreign & UN Aid that restricts US gun ownership.

Banning high-capacity magazines over 10 rounds.

(And just for grins, we’ll point out David Vitter was one of only 2 U.S. Senators to vote “Nay” on Hillary Clinton becoming U.S. Secretary of State).

As they say in the bayou, “Whodat?“

Whodat gonna fight to defend the 2^nd Amendment and gun rights in Louisiana? Ares Armor knows one loud voice has been and will continue to be… Senator or Governor to be David Vitter.

Unplugged: Former ATF Agent Daniel O’Kelly

(Part 3 of 3-Part Series. Click Here for Part 1. Click Here for Part 2.)

#FightAmmoBan

Having fun or fighting, time flies. It was one year ago the ATF executed a search warrant, and a raid on Ares Armor locations. Their claim was an investigation into federal firearm violations.

To Ares Armor Founder, Dimitrios Karras, the agents in San Diego County looked similar to scenes from his 8 years as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps. “They came into our manufacturing facility with their guns up like they were invading Iraq,” he said at the time.

The March 2014 ATF raid confiscated computers, massive customer lists, and 80% polymer lower receivers. The battle between Ares Armor and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives included shots heard across the country. The legal case landed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District in California.

Daniel O’Kelly, former ATF Agent and world-recognized firearm and ammunition expert, followed the story from his International Firearm Specialist Academy office near Dallas, Texas. He never thought the fight would come to his door.

“I saw what was happening,” said O’Kelly, who spent 23 years in the ATF as an Agent and supervisor. “I said to myself it was just another guy going through the legal system.”

6 Months later, the court-certified expert witness of 25 years, got a call from attorney Scott McMillan. He was asked to render an expert opinion for a case as to whether an item would hold up in court as a firearm. Little did O’Kelly know it involved Ares Armor.

In November 2014, the former ATF Agent submitted a written declaration to Judge, Honorable Janis L. Sammartino. In it, Daniel O’Kelly took a stand for the truth, the 2nd Amendment, and Ares Armor, and against his former employer:

I have arrived at the following opinions summarized as follows:

 

1. The 5804 items at issue are not “firearms” as defined in 18 U.S. C. Section 921 (a) (3).

1. The 5804 items at issue are not a “firearm frame or receiver” as defined in 27 CFR subsection 478.11, which defines a “frame or receiver” as “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” Assuming for the sake of discussion, even if that unfinished lower receiver had been finished to the state known in the Firearms Industry as a “stripped AR-15 receiver”, that “finished” receiver still would not satisfy the elements of a “receiver” as defined in 27 CFR subsection 478.11, which defines a “frame or receiver” as “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

1. The 5804 items at issue are not “a frame or receiver,” even without reference to that definition of a receiver set forth in 27 CFR subsection 478.11, and wholly relying on the standards which the ATF has published in prior determination letters, the subject unfinished receiver is an “unfinished” blank based on the criteria relied upon in prior determinations.

1. The 5804 items at issue are not contraband.

“What they took are known in the industry as 80% blanks”, said O’Kelly. “By the way, the 80% figure is never used by ATF. Unfinished receivers always decided on a case by case basis. The Ares Armor blanks absolutely do not hold up to ATF’s own definition of a firearm receiver. They also don’t hold up for other reasons, such as the “indexing” issue. The so-called “biscuit” area on the inside which they called indexing, is not the right size, and indexing was not the purpose for making it. Also, the indexing issue was also already shot down by the Judge in a federal court. As a matter of fact, the definition of a receiver requires an item to have at least three features. Those being, a housing for the hammer, a housing for the bolt or breechblock, and a housing for the firing mechanism. Even a complete AR15 frame doesn’t have all three.”

Today, Daniel O’Kelly holds the courage and integrity to stand with the law and the truth against ATF members like one in the Ares Armor case. “A particular agent said in his affidavit that AR-15 receivers are the same thing as M-16 machine gun receivers,” said O’Kelly. “That is not true. Even if the receiver blanks at issue were completely finished, there’s a difference both legally and physically, between AR15 receivers and M-16 receivers.”

No one at Ares Armor is celebrating the first anniversary of the ATF raid. But because of it, and the currently proposed ammo ban, it seemed timely to share how even a former ATF insider is calling out the bureau’s bad practices.

All of us, Mr. O’Kelly, certain law enforcement leaders, (and ultimately the federal courts) will shoot down the stretching of firearm and ammunition definitions and facts, for exactly what it is…wrong, illegal, and unconstitutional.

Even some bad apples in the ATF, can’t overcome the core of the truth on “armor-piercing ammunition”:

By definition, the M855 bullet, and even its core, is NOT “constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;”

The M855 bullet and its core, are only partially made of steel. Therefore, calling it “armor-piercing ammunition” does not apply.

Share your voice using this hashtag in social media:

#FightAmmoBan

Is Your Elected Member of Congress with YOU? Did your Elected Member with or against the “ATF Framework?”

On March 4, 2015, a total of 238 members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed their name to a letter to BATFE Director, B. Todd Jones. By doing so, they announced they stand firmly against the proposed “ATF Framework” for the bureau’s proposed ban on M855 ammunition. There is no good reason for re-classifying the popular ammo by suddenly trying to call it “armor-piercing ammunition.” By definition, M855 ammunition clearly is not.

Ares Armor has assembled the list of Congressional members who signed the letter publicly stating their intention to fight the ATF and President Obama on the ammo ban. Take a look. Did your elected official elect to do as you want on the issue of the ATF Framework?

Letter Writers:

1. Bob Goldlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary. (Republican) Virginia 6^th District.
2. F. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman, Subcmte. on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations. Republican. Wisconsin 5^th District.

Additional House Member Signatures opposing the ATF Framework:

1. Paul Gosar. Republican. Arizona 4^th District.
2. Dan Benishek, M.D. Republican. Michigan 1^st District.
3. Ted Yoho. Republican. Florida 3^rd District.
4. Randy Weber. Republican. Texas 14^th District.
5. Scott DesJarlais. Republican. Tennessee 4^th District.
6. Tom Marino. Republican. Pennsylvania 10^th District.
7. Phil Roe, M.D. Republican. Tennessee 1^st District.
8. David McKinley, P.E. Republican. West Virginia 1^st District.
9. Ken Buck. Republican. Colorado 4^th District.
10. Ralph Abraham. Republican. Louisiana 5^th District.
11. Scott Rigell. Republican. Virginia 2^nd District.
12. Joseph R. Pitts. Republican. Pennsylvania 16^th District.
13. Jackie Walorski. Republican. Indiana 2^nd District.
14. Bruce Poliquin. Republican. Maine 2^nd District.
15. Mike Bishop. Republican. Michigan 8^th District.
16. Richard Hudson. Republiccan. North Carolina 8^th District.
17. Mark Amodei. Republican. Nevada 2^nd District.
18. Bob Gibbs. Republican. Ohio 7^th District.
19. Frank Guinta. Republican. New Hampshire 1^st District.
20. John Ratcliffe. Republican. Texas 4^th District.
21. Richard Hanna. Republican. New York 22^nd District.
22. Doug LaMalfa. Republican. California 1^st District.
23. Candice Miller. Repblican. Michigan 10^th District.
24. Mike Rogers. Republican. Alabama 3^rd District.
25. Will Hurd. Republican. Texas 23^rd District.
26. Thomas Massie. Republican. Kentucky 4^th District.
27. Garret Graves. Republican. Louisiana 6^th District.
28. Chuck Fleischmann. Republican. Tennessee 3^rd District.
29. Bradley Byrne. Republican. Alabama 1^st District.
30. John Moolenaar. Republican. Michigan 4^th District.
31. Jeff Duncan. Republican. Tennessee 2^nd District.
32. Tim Walz. Democrat. Minnesota 1^st District.
33. Mia Love. Republican. Utah 4^th District.
34. Jeff Denham. Republican. California 10^th District.
35. Chris Gibson. Republican. New York 19^th District.
36. Rodney Davis. Republican. Illinois 13^th District.
37. Brian Babin. Republican. Texas 36^th District.
38. Ron DeSantis. Republican. Florida 6^th District.
39. Scott Tipton. Republican. Colorado 3^rd District.
40. Ryan Zinke. Republican. Montana At-Large.
41. Tom Price, M.D. Republican. Georgia 6^th District.
42. Blake Farenthold. Republican. Texas 27^th District.
43. Bill Posey. Republican. Florida 8^th District.
44. Mark Meadows. Republican. North Carolina 11^th District.
45. Bill Flores. Republican. Texas 17^th District.
46. Rick Crawford. Republican. Arkansas 1^st District.
47. Bill Johnson. Republican. Ohio 6^th District.
48. Dan Newhouse. Republican. Washington 4^th District.
49. Ron Kind. Democrat. Wisconsin 3^rd District.
50. Doug Collins. Republican. Georgia 9^th District.
51. Jeff Fortenberry. Republican. Nebraska 1^st District.
52. Mike Kelly. Republican. Pennsylvania 3^rd District.
53. Jim Jordan. Republican. Ohio 4^th District.
54. Andy Harris, M.D. Republican. Maryland 1^st District.
55. Mike Bost. Republican. Illinois 12^th District.
56. Randy Neugebauer. Republican. Texas 19^th District.
57. Bill Huizenga. Republican. Michigan 2^nd District.
58. Renee Ellmers. Republican. North Carolina 2^nd District.
59. Scott Perry. Republican. Pennsylvania 4^th District.
60. Patrick Tiberi. Republican. Ohio 12^th District.
61. Alex Mooney. Republican. West Virginia 2^nd District.
62. French Hill. Republican. Arkansas 2^nd District.
63. Mo Brooks. Republican. Alabama 5^th District.
64. Roger Williams. Republican. Texas 25^th District.
65. Diane Black. Republican. Tennessee 6^th District.
66. Jason Smith. Republican. Missouri 8^th District.
67. Markwayne Mullin. Republican. Oklahoma 2^nd District.
68. Tim Huelskamp. Republican. Kansas 1^st District.
69. Morgan Griffith. Republican. Virginia 9^th District.
70. Rob Bishop. Republican. Utah 1^st District.
71. Glenn “G.T.” Thompson, Jr. Republican. Pennsylvania 5^th District.
72. Robert Hurt. Republican. Virginia 5^th District.
73. Joe Heck, Jr. Republican. Nevada 3^rd District.
74. Kevin Yoder. Republican. Kansas 3^rd District.
75. Jim Bridenstine. Republican. Oklahoma 1^st District.
76. Robert Pittenger. Republican. North Carolina 9^th District.
77. Barry Loudermilk. Republican. Georgia 11^th District.
78. Kevin Brady. Republican. Texas 8^th District.
79. Gregg Harper. Republican. Mississippi 3^rd District.
80. Jeff Miller. Republican. Florida 1^st District.
81. Dave Brat. Republican. Virginia 7^th District.
82. David Schweikert. Republican. Arizona 6^th District.
83. David Rouzer. Republican. North Carolina 7^th District.
84. Cresent Hardy. Republican. Nevada 4^th District.
85. Larry Bucshon. Republican. Indiana 8^th District.
86. Mike Pompeo. Republican. Kansas 4^th District.
87. Tom Emmer. Republican. Minnesota 6^th District.
88. Rick Allen. Republican. Georgia 12^th District.
89. David Valadao. Republican. California 21^st District.
90. Devin Nunes. Republican. California 22^nd District.
91. Steve Stivers. Republican. Ohio 15^th District.
92. Daniel Webster. Republican. Florida 10^th District.
93. Chris Collins. Republican. New York 27^th District.
94. Jaime Herrera Beutler. Republican. Washington 3^rd District.
95. Pete Olson. Republican. Texas 22^nd District.
96. J. Randy Forbes. Republican. Virginia 4^th District.
97. Paul Cook. Republican. California 8^th District.
98. Duncan Hunter. Republican. California 50^th District.
99. Mike Conaway. Republican. Texas 11^th District.
100. Steve Pearce. Republican. New Mexico 2^nd District.
101. Tim Walberg. Republican. Michigan 7^th District.
102. John Kline. Republican. Minnesota 2^nd District.
103. Blaine Luetkemeyer. Republican. Missouri 3^rd District.
104. Robert Latta. Republican. Ohio 5^th District.
105. Stephen Fincher. Republican. Tennessee 8^th District.
106. Rob Wittman. Republican. Virginia 1^st District.
107. Tom Cole. Republican. Oklahoma 4^th District.
108. Gene Green. Democrat. Texas 29^th District.
109. Doug Lamborn. Republican. Colorado 5^th District.
110. Ted Poe. Republican. Texas 2^nd District.
111. Lamar Smith. Republican. Texas 21^st District.
112. Austin Scott. Republican. Georgia 8^th District.
113. Mike Simpson. Republican. Idaho 2^nd District.
114. Marlin Stutzman. Republican. Indiana 3^rd District.
115. Kristi Noem. Republican. South Dakota At-Large.
116. Tom Graves, Jr. Republican. Georgia 14^th District.
117. Kenny Marchant. Republican. Texas 24^th District.
118. Don Young. Republican. Alaska At-Large.
119. Dana Rohrabacher. Republican. California 48^th District.
120. John Culberson. Republican. Texas 7^th District.
121. Steve Chabot. Republican. Ohio 1^st District.
122. Leonard Lance. Republican. New Jersey 7^th District.
123. Michael Burgess. Republican. Texas 26^th District.
124. Ed Whitfield. Republican. Kentucky 1^st District.
125. Collin Peterson. Democrat. Minnesota 7^th District.
126. Steve King. Republican. Iowa 4^th District.
127. John Shimkus. Republican. Illinois 15^th District.
128. Joe Wilson. Republican. South Carolina 2^nd District.
129. Adrian Smith. Republican. Nebraska 3^rd District.
130. Darrell Issa. Republican. California 49^th District.
131. Bill Shuster. Republican. Pennsylvania 9^th District.
132. Marsha Blackburn. Republican. Tennessee 7^th District.
133. Tim Murphy. Republican. Pennsylvania 18^th District.
134. Tom McClintock. Republican. California 4^th District.
135. John Carter. Republican. Texas 31^st District.
136. Lynn Westmoreland. Republican. Georgia 3^rd District.
137. Mac Thornberry. Republican. Texas 13^th District.
138. Charles Dent. Republican. Pennsylvania 15^th District.
139. Jeb Hensarling. Republican. Texas 5^th District.
140. Pete Sessions. Republican. Texas 32^nd District.
141. Vern Buchanan. Republican. Florida 16^th District.
142. Mark Sanford. Republican. South Carolina 1^st District.
143. Peter Roskam. Republican. Illinois 6^th District.
144. Louis Gohmert. Republican. Texas 1^st District.
145. Vicky Hartzler. Republican. Missouri 4^th District.
146. John Duncan. Republican. Tennessee 2^nd District.
147. Matt Salmon. Republican. Arizona 5^th District.
148. Virginia Foxx. Republican. North Carolina 5^th District.
149. John Fleming, Jr. Republican. Louisiana 4^th District.
150. Joe Barton. Republican. Texas 6^th District.
151. Henry Cuellar. Democrat. Texas 28^th District.
152. Patrick McHenry. Republican. North Carolina 10^th District.
153. Walter Jones. Republican. North Carolina 3^rd District.
154. Frank LoBiondo. Republican. New Jersey 2^nd District.
155. Tom Reed. Republican. New York 23^rd District.
156. Randy Hultgren. Republican. Illinois 14^th District.
157. Ed Royce. Republican. California 39^th District.
158. Sam Johnson. Republican. Texas 3^rd District.
159. Tom Rooney. Republican. Florida District.
160. Ander Crenshaw. Republican. Florida 4^th District.
161. Ken Calvert. Republican. California 42^nd District.
162. Jason Chaffetz. Republican. Utah 3^rd District.
163. Mike Turner. Republican. Ohio 10^th District.
164. Steve Scalise. Republican. Louisiana 1^st District.
165. Cynthia Lummis. Republican. Wyoming At-Large.
166. Brett Guthrie. Republican. Kentucky 2^nd District.
167. Mike Coffman. Republican. Colorado 6^th District.
168. Aaron Schock. Republican. Illinois 18^th District.
169. Glenn Grothman. Republican. Wisconsin 6^th District.
170. Evan Jenkins. Republican. West Virginia 3^rd District.
171. George Holding. Republican. North Carolina 13^th District.
172. Luke Messer. Republican. Indiana 6^th District.
173. David Young. Republican. Iowa 3^rd District.
174. Mario Diaz-Balart. Republican. Florida 25^th District.
175. Ryan Costello. Republican. Pennsylvania 6^th District.
176. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter. Republican. Georgia 1^st District.
177. Ann Wagner. Republican. Missouri 2^nd District.
178. Patrick Meehan. Republican. Pennsylvania 7^th District.
179. Martha Roby. Republican. Alabama 2^nd District.
180. Jim Renacci. Republican. Ohio 16^th District.
181. Steven Palazzo. Republican. Mississippi 4^th District.
182. Chris Stewart. Republican. Utah 2^nd District.
183. Mark Walker. Republican. North Carolina 6^th District.
184. Ann Kirkpatrick. Democrat. Arizona 1^st District.
185. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Republican. Washington 5^th District.
186. Rod Blum. Republican. Iowa 1^st District.
187. Tom Rice. Republican. South Carolina 7^th District.
188. Barbara Comstock. Republican. Virginia 10^th District.
189. Curt Clawson. Republican. Florida 19^th District.
190. Dennis Ross. Republican. Florida 15^th District.
191. Robert Aderholt. Republican. Alabama 4^th District.
192. Mimi Walters. Republican. California 45^th District.
193. Mike McCaul. Republican. Texas 10^th District.
194. Steve Russell. Republican. Oklahoma 5^th District.
195. Lou Barletta. Republican. Pennsylvania 11^th District
196. Steve Knight. Republican. California 25^th District.
197. Martha McSally. Republican. Arizona 2^nd District.
198. Steve Womack. Republican. Arkansas 3^rd District.
199. David Joyce. Republican. Ohio 14^th District.
200. Adam Kinzinger. Republican. Illinois 16^th District.
201. Keith Rothfus. Republican. Pennsylvania 12^th District.
202. Charles Boustany. Republican. Louisiana 3^rd District.
203. Trey Gowdy. Republican. South Carolina 4^th District.
204. Susan Brooks. Republican. Indiana 5^th District.
205. Bruce Westerman. Republican. Arkansas 4^th District.
206. Erik Paulsen. Republican. Minnesota 3^rd District.
207. Justin Amash. Republican. Michigan 3^rd District.
208. Kay Granger. Republican. Texas 12^th District.
209. Todd Young. Republican. Indiana 9^th District.
210. John Katko. Republican. New York 24^th District.
211. Paul Ryan. Republican. Wisconsin 1^st District.
212. Sean Duffy. Republican. Wisconsin 7^th District.
213. Brad Wenstrup. Republican. Ohio 2^nd District.
214. Andy Barr. Republican. Kentucky 6^th District.
215. Sam Graves. Republican. Missouri 6^th District.
216. Dave Reichert. Republican. Washington 8^th District.
217. Kevin McCarthy. Republican. California 23^rd District.
218. Mick Mulvaney. Republican. South Carolina 5^th District.
219. Frank Lucas. Republican. Oklahoma 3^rd District.
220. Hal Rogers. Republican. Kentucky 5^th District.
221. Sanford Bishop, Jr. Democrat. Georgia 2^nd District.
222. Trent Franks. Republican. Arizona 8^th District.
223. Greg Walden. Republican. Oregon 2^nd District.
224. Fred Upton. Republican. Michigan 6^th District.
225. Kevin Cramer. Republican. North Dakota At-Large.
226. Reid Ribble. Republican. Wisconsin 8^th District.
227. Jody Hice. Republican. Georgia 10^th District.
228. Raul Labrador. Republican. Idaho 1^st District.
229. Lynn Jenkins. Republican. Kansas 2^nd District.
230. Billy Long. Republican. Missouri 7^th District.
231. Dave Trott. Republican. Michigan 11^th District.
232. Rob Woodall. Republican. Georgia 7^th District.
233. Richard Nugent. Republican. Florida 11^th District.
234. David Jolly. Republican. Florida. 13^th District.
235. Todd Rokita. Republican. Indiana 4^th District.
236. John Mica. Republican. Florida 7^th District.

Fight the ATF Framework. Block the unconstitutional ammo ban. #FightAmmoBan

Unplugged on Ammo Ban: Former ATF Agent Daniel O’Kelly

(Part 2 of 3-Part Series. Click Here for Part 1.)

#FightAmmoBan

You are about to be armed with some serious facts. This is by no means another internet rant on the proposed ammo ban. This is quite different. These are the expert opinions and observations of world-recognized firearm and ammunition specialist, Daniel O’Kelly. He spent 23-years as an ATF Agent, co-wrote the Bureau’s Academy Curriculum, and is now the head of the International Firearm Specialist Academy.

This Ares Armor Exclusive Interview with Dan O’Kelly is “All ATF”: About the Facts.

Ares Armor: Dan, let’s begin by saying we know those who support the ATF proposed ammo ban are going to accuse us of “splitting hairs.” What do you say to that?

Dan O’Kelly: The law and its definitions come down to every word as they were written. Issues like this do hang on every word. Legally, it’s not right to stretch them. The facts hang on every word. It’s all we have.

Ares Armor: What are your thoughts on reclassifying and labeling popular green tip ammunition as “armor-piercing bullets?”

Daniel O’Kelly: This armor-piercing ammunition definition is silly. It came out in the 1980s. I wore a police vest for years so I appreciate it. The simple fact is all rifles will shoot thru a vest.

By definition, Armor Piercing ammunition is ammunition which has a “A projectile or projectile core…which is constructed entirely…from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;”

The M855 does not apply. The M855 bullet and its core is NOT constructed entirely from these metals. They are only partially made of steel. Therefore, reclassifying it as “armor-piercing ammunition” does not apply.

Ares Armor: You’re keenly aware of the M855 ammunition and its patent. Can you share the importance on this?

Daniel O’Kelly: What is the problem we’re suddenly trying to solve with the M855? Did someone get shot with it I didn’t hear about? This issue came out of the blue.

In the second paragraph of the patent under #2, ‘Descriptions of Related Art,’ line 7 says it has ‘a 32 grain lead core’:

“the M855 bullet 10 has two aligned cores 12 and 14 enveloped by a brass jacket 16. A steel core 12 is located in a nose section 18 of the bullet 10 and a 32 grain lead core(emphasis added) 14 is swaged into a rear section”

The fact that the bullet is made partially of lead is beyond dispute. The patent refers to the idea that the bullet has two cores, but also refers to them having three cores, those being a “front core” a “mid-core” and “read core”. These differentiations are obviously for the purpose of illustration.

A ‘core’ is defined as ‘The central or most important part of something’. A core may have front, middle and rear sections, however, there is still only one central part. Granted, I’m not the one who decides on lexicological nuances. I personally don’t think anyone, or anything can have two cores. A tubular object cannot logically have several “cores”.

By contrast, if the top inch of the core of an apple were blue in color, would we say the core is blue? No. We would say it is partly blue or its tip is blue. This would preclude the apple from falling into a definition including apples with a core that is “entirely” blue.

Ares Armor: Thank you sir. That is a great analogy for explaining the issue at hand with green tip ammunition. If we are splitting hairs, these are legal hairs which require splitting.

Summary: The key takeaway which should defeat the ATF proposed ban in federal court is that the bullet and the core of M855 does not fall within the definition of Armor Piercing ammunition.

The M855 bullet, and its core are only PARTIALLY made of lead.

By definition, the M855 is NOT “constructed entirely from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;”

Thus, the reclassification and definition of the M855 as “armor-piercing ammunition,” even by the President of the United States does not apply.

Wouldn’t you just like to hear what our nation’s forefathers think of all this?

In Part 3 of our series, “Unplugged: Former ATF Agent Daniel O’Kelly,” we’ll go inside the Ares Armor battle with the ATF and DOJ. Share your opinions in social media using the hashtag:

#FightAmmoBan

Unplugged: Former ATF Agent Daniel O’Kelly

(Part 1 of 3-Part Series.)

#FightAmmoBan

In this Ares Armor exclusive, it was an honor to have Mr. Daniel O’Kelly speak freely with us. Given the Obama Administration proposed ammo ban led by the ATF, it’s a critical time for gun rights in America. Without a doubt, the voice of Daniel O’Kelly should be loud on the subject. After all, he’s a world-renowned gun expert and former ATF agent. Currently, he’s top gun at the International Firearm Specialist Academy.

Ares Armor: Dan, we respect your important work teaching and training professionals and civilians on firearm and ammunition enforcement, technology and compliance. Thanks for taking time with us. It seems g-u-n is in your DNA. Please share a look into your expertise.

Dan O’Kelly: I’ve been a serious student of firearm history and design since I was a kid. I build and collect guns and ammunition. For 10.5 years, I served as a Police Officer and Detective. As an off-duty cop, I worked part-time in a gun store. Since 1981, I’ve been a certified firearm range instructor, and am a factory-trained armorer for 13 gun companies. I’ve taught at law enforcement academies around the world. And of course, I retired from the ATF in 2011 after 23 years as an agent and supervisor. I hope all that didn’t bore you.

Ares Armor: Impressive sir, not boring. Before we touch on the ammo ban, let’s specifically talk ATF. What stands out from serving 23 years?

Daniel O’Kelly: In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had a big hiring buildup. So, a mandate came down from the top to throw out the ATF Academy Curriculum from A to Z. Along with a handful of other dedicated and highly-qualified agents, I was chosen to be one of the co-writers of the new and improved ATF Academy Curriculum.

Ares Armor: Beyond personal pride, why is this so important?

Daniel O’Kelly: Prior to us, the firearm tech curriculum was only 8 hours long. We developed a comprehensive program which was 6 days long. The ATF leadership said, ‘6 days? No way. We’ll give it 3 ½ days at most. There is need to know information, and nice to know information. We’ll only give need to know.’ So, they threw away 40% of the important material their chosen team of experts prepared and recommended. So this may explain why for years, the saying goes that on some issues, ‘You can ask several different ATF people the same question, and get several different answers.’ It’s not the fault of those in the field, but at times they’re limited by what they were taught.

Ares Armor: Privately, you’re revered by some ATF peers. But because you’ve had the courage to criticize the ATF, publicly you’re about as popular with the bureau these days as Ares Armor Founder, Dimitri Karras, right?

Daniel O’Kelly: There are good, dedicated, and professional folks at ATF, but some are not pleased with me. They’ve been told not to talk with me. They aren’t happy about some of the truths that have been made known. My attitude is, I share the truth because I am proud to have been a Federal Agent. I’ve done my part for years to share information on firearm technology and rulings honorably, and in good faith. I’ve done so hoping to end the instances of people finding themselves in legal jeopardy only because they were poorly informed, or unable to find answers. I expect the ATF to be run in good faith. Let’s not stretch definitions and the truth. An item either has the features listed in a definition or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then re-write the definition if necessary. I believe that’s the honest way to operate.

Ares Armor: Do you believe the ATF is behind the currently proposed ammo ban?

Daniel O’Kelly: Absolutely not. Very little firearm legislation is driven by the ATF. They already have too much to do. The Firearm Technology Branch (now Firearms (sic) and Ammunition Technology Division) is way too busy. If the ATF wanted the proposed ammo ban, they could have dealt with this issue years ago. They didn’t.

Next, in our 3-part series, “Unplugged: Former ATF Agent Daniel O’Kelly,” we’ll get into more of his expert opinions on the proposed ammo ban.

To voice your opinion on the ammo ban use the hashtag #FightAmmoBan