Clearing the Caliber Confusion: .223 Wylde vs. 5.56 NATO

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?



Technical Dimensions of the .223 Rem vs. the 5.56 NATO Cartridges

Technical Dimensions of the .223 Rem vs. the 5.56 NATO Cartridges. Image credit: here


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.


The .223 Wylde Chamber Dimensions

The .223 Wylde Chamber Dimensions


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.

Check out AWC’s High Quality Barrels here.


Understanding Twist Rate for the 5.56

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.


Originally at 1:14 twist, more common 1:7-1:9 twist rates are available in the market today

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.


A small example of the hue variety in bullet profile and weight


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.

Check out our High Quality Barrels here at AWC!


9MM vs .45 Auto and Concealed Carry

The 9MM, The .45 Auto and Concealed Carry:  The FBI Is No Help At All by Brian McCombie

When the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced it was returning to 9MM handguns, those who used 9MM’s for their every-day carry firearm acted like the 9MM versus .45 Auto controversy was settled. After all, the FBI–the country’s most respected federal policing agency–had not only selected the 9MM; it had issued a science-heavy explanation of why the 9MM was the best choice over the .45 Auto and the .40 S&W it had been using for a couple decades.

The FBI also stressed that 9MM self-defense rounds had come a long, long way over the last 30 years, and argued the 9MM was actually the equal of the .45 Auto and .40 S&W when it came to “immediate incapacitation.” The 9MM concealed carry crowd jumped on these statements, and proclaimed: the 9MM was the equal of, if not actually better than, the .45 Auto.

The problem with all that? It’s not actually true–not from an ammunition standpoint.

An examination of the FBI’s own report on selecting the 9MM makes it clear the FBI actually choose the 9MM for non-ammunition reasons, including the lower costs associated with running 9MM’s instead of the FBI’s .40 S&W’s–not some huge advantage the 9MM round would provide law enforcement.

The FBI’s report document for choosing the 9MM—widely shared across the Internet—notes that law enforcement officers, “miss between 70 – 80 percent of the shots fired during a shooting incident.” Even on the range, officers aren’t very good shots and handgun recoil—or the inability to adjust to it—was pegged as a big reason for the lack of accuracy.

So if most of your shots are misses, especially in an actual shoot-out, and if handgun recoil makes your shooters even less accurate? The solution, according to the FBI, is the “….9mm Luger [because it] offers higher magazine capacities, less recoil, lower cost (both in ammunition and wear on the weapons) and higher functional reliability rates (in FBI weapons).”

FBI agents had carried 9MM’s in the past. But during the infamous 1986 Miami Florida shoot out with a pair of heavily armed bank robbers, the 9MM’s used by FBI agents fared so poorly, the 9MM round was cited as partially to blame for two FBI agents dead and a third wounded. The FBI went in search of a more powerful round, eventually selecting the .40 S&W.

But how to get around the fact that the .45 Auto uses a larger, heavier bullet that (generally speaking) delivers a larger foot-pounds-of-energy wallop than its 9MM cousin?

The FBI did that by insisting there is no such thing as stopping power. Got that? Stopping power does not exist! According to the FBI document, “Handgun stopping power is simply a myth.”

Ah, the magic of making your own definitions to fit your own argument. The FBI defines “stopping power” as one-shot and an assailant is down and done. In the FBI’s terminology, real stopping power would be “immediate incapacitation,” which is only achieved through a hit to the brain or spine. So, the FBI notes, a hit from a 9MM, .40 S&W or a .45 Auto all have the same effect: bad guy down.

The FBI then indulges in some sleight of hand in discussing the “medical facts” relating to handgun wounds. According to the FBI document, “Due to the elastic nature of most human tissue and the low velocity of handgun projectiles relative to rifle projectiles, it has long been established by medical professionals…that the damage along a wound path visible at autopsy or during surgery cannot be distinguished between the common handgun calibers used in law enforcement.”

It continues, “That is to say an operating room surgeon or Medical Examiner cannot distinguish the difference between wounds caused by .35 to .45 caliber projectiles.”

However. The research cited by the FBI was from 1989 medical studies. These studies examined wounds made from the same relatively ineffective rounds used by the FBI and other agencies in the past.

Not by wounds caused by the more effective self-defense rounds available today.

Today’s 9MM self-defense rounds are better than full-metal jacket and hollow-point rounds used by law enforcement 30 and 40 years ago. But so, too, are their .45 Auto brethren.

Take a look at two current rounds on the market today, Federal’s HST Premium Personal Defense, and Winchester’s Defender line.

9MM Federal HST Premium

9MM Federal HST Premium

According to data supplied by Federal, the 9MM HST round with a 150 grain bullet, and fired from a Glock 43, showed an average diameter expansion to .607”, with 13.7” of penetration, when fired into bare 10% ordnance gelatin. When the gel was covered in heavy clothing, a .597” diameter and 13.25” penetration.

From a standard-sized 1911, the .45 Auto HST firing a 230 grain bullet averaged an expansion to .926” diameter and 12.85” penetration in bare gel, and .831” diameter and 13.35” penetration in heavy clothing.

.45 HST after ballistics testing (Comparison to 9MM)

.45 HST after ballistics testing (Comparison to 9MM)

The same general pattern exists the Winchester Defender loads (data supplied by Winchester): the 45 Auto 230 grain Defender penetrates 12.2” and expands to .84” in bare gel; the 9mm 147 grain Defender penetrates 15.8” and expands to .58”.

Of note: both ammo makers used the standard FBI Protocol for gel testing these rounds.

No one in their right mind wants to get drilled with any of the aforementioned rounds. But the laws of physics suggest very clearly that the heavier bullet, with larger expansion, has to do more damage than the lighter, less expanding bullet.

The FBI would have done a better service to both law enforcement officers and concealed carry holders had they admitted they chose the 9MM despite it offering less knock down than the .45 Auto and the many self-defense loads for it on the market today.

But, they didn’t.

Build your own 9MM or .40CAL polymer pistol here with AWC.

Senator David Vitter M855 Ammo Giveaway


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 AWC. “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 2nd Amendment and gun rights in Louisiana? AWC knows one loud voice has been and will continue to be… Senator or Governor to be David Vitter.


Congressional Letter on ATF Framework

congress-letter-atf-frameworkIs 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.

AWC 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 6th District.
  2. F. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman, Subcmte. on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations. Republican. Wisconsin 5th District.

Additional House Member Signatures opposing the ATF Framework:

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

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



Former ATF Agent on Ammo Ban M855

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

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


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.


Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ATF Logo

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

AWC: 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.

AWC: 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.

AWC: 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.

AWC: 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 AWC battle with the ATF and DOJ. Share your opinions in social media using the hashtag:


Former ATF Agent on Ammo Ban

Unplugged: Former ATF Agent Daniel O’Kelly

(Part 1 of 3-Part Series.)


In this AWC 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.

AWC: 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.

AWC: 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.

AWC: 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.

AWC: 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 AWC 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.

AWC: 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