Month: May 2021

It is Monday again, and this time I have at least one good update to give. I have been doing a bit of reading and wanted to share a book I came across that I think a lot of guys who enjoy reloading might get a kit out of. Ammunition Making was written by George E Frost, and published in 1990 with a second printing in 1992. This book covers pretty much everything to do with the manufacture of ammunition. Bullets, brass, primers, and even powder. It also goes in-depth into crosssections of tooling, some dimensional drawings, and testing procedures. I have not come across another book like it.

It was originally published by the NRA and is now out of print. Amazon has a copy for about $320 and the description says it is in so-so shape. If you miss out on this copy keep an eye out for copies at used book stores or on eBay. It is well worth the addition to your library. I have not finished reading it, when I do I will write a formal review of the book and post it to the website. This is one book, I would like to see a third printing on, and I think it would do well especially with the number of new ammunition companies and resurgence in interest in handloading. Lots of guys like to get into the details of how things are made and this book is not short on those details.

I’ve got several books on my shelf that I have been meaning to read. As I get through them I’ll write up more reviews. I have several of Brian Litz’s books that deserve a review, they are fairly dry reads so it might take a bit for me to get through.

It seems like the last few months have been busy ones for the 2A community. Just the last few weeks there have been ATF proposed rule changes, a favorable Supreme Court ruling that was announced today, and a no so favorable ruling on the NRA bankruptcy proceedings. Combined with the 50 BMG SLAP ammo, there is just plenty of stuff to talk about but it’s hard to figure out everyone has value in.

A few weeks ago I talked about the 50BMG SLAP incident that was made public by Kentucky Ballistics. There has been a lot of speculative videos made about what happened. In fact, it seems like everyone who had a YouTube channel remotely connected to firearms did a video on it. To me, most of that has been noise, what has interested me is the response that Mark Serbu has put up.

As a firearms manufacturer, he has been put in a difficult position. He has made thousands of these firearms without incident, and now this one, highly publicized incident, threatens the reputation of not only the RN-50 design but of his company. He has a fine line to walk and I do sympathize. In the most recent video he posted, he went through some of the math regarding chamber pressures required to shear the threads and the locking tabs. The pressures they estimated were in excess of 160,000psi. For reference, the service pressure for 50 BMG is 55,000 the TM 43-0001-27 lists the proof pressure as 65,000psi.

50 BMG is not a SAAMI Cartridge, so SAAMI does not publish load data for that round. Ammunition specs, mainly pressure velocity and other “at a glance” type information can be found in the Army Ammunition Data Sheets Small Caliber Ammunition TM 43-00001-27. It is an interesting reference for someone who is a bit of an ammo geek.

Now, it should be stated that manufacturing mistakes do happen. Stuff can get improperly heat-treated, but honestly, I think that is not the case here. The mounting evidence really is starting to suggest that it was an ammunition issue, and more likely than not, the ammunition was counterfeit. Mark Serbu points this out in his video here. As a community, this should pose some serious questions about military surplus rounds. Especially ammunition that is “Exotic” stuff that is sold for a premium due to the unique nature. Incendiary rounds, SLAP rounds, Black Tip, or Green Tip. All of this has limited practical use beyond the uniqueness and novelty of it but can command a price that is often far and above premium ammunition. We just do not know the source, and if someone is selling counterfeit rounds to make a quick buck, it means the people buying up this stuff are unknowing participants in a game of Russian roulette.

If you are into that sort of thing, the only thing I can tell you is to only buy pull-downs handload your own, or collect the loaded rounds but do not shoot them. Honestly, I would love to add a SLAP round, some Blacktip, and other so-called “Exotic” ammunition to my collection of cartridges. However at this point, I will not be shooting any of it, not unless I load it myself and I know for sure, what the powder and charge weight is.

The last thing I want to push back against Mr. Serbu a bit. My point of contention is how the rifle failed. No one is going to design a rifle to withstand 160,000psi. These pressures are well above the failure point of the brass cartridge itself. SAAMI lists the maximum service pressure for Brass Cartridge cases at 65,000psi, which means proof pressures are well into the high 70,000 range. For this reason, we will not see a brass cartridge case approved for a service pressure above 65,000psi. The SIG 277 Fury is a notable exception as it is a multipiece stainless steel cartridge case, and it can get away with the higher pressures.

However, if we stick our new product designer hat on for a minute and look at risk and liability, we want to make sure our product is safe, and should it fail, it will fail in a manner that will minimize risk to the shooter. Engineering teams often conduct a study called a Failure Mode Effect Analysis or FMEA. This is an in-depth look at what all could possibly go wrong, and should it go wrong what the failure mode would be and what the effects may be. Sometimes the results of these studies alter the designs so they fail-safe, meaning that there are designed weak points where a failure is designed to occur in order to prevent a much larger failure that could harm an individual. For example, if there was a bore obstruction and the shooter fired a round, perhaps the locking lugs will shear off and the bolt will open, but there is a third “safety” lug that will prevent the bolt from opening completely allowing the gas to vent.

I do not think the design of the RN-50 is a weak design. In fact, I think it is a very strong design. So strong, that in order for it to fail, the action had to literally come apart sending shrapnel back at the shooter. The FMEA process is hard to do, because you have to balance the design of an object, with the cost to produce, and the liability a company is willing to assume. You are constantly playing a game of “What if” and sometimes the scenarios that are proposed seem preposterous outlining a very specific set of events that have to happen in order for that particular failure to occur. However sometimes life is stranger than fiction, and things happen that no engineer could possibly dream up.

Point in case, the recent gas shortage, people were filling up Tupperware containers, trash bags, and other less than ideal containers full of gasoline. More than one car ended up on fire. Some people figured out that diesel and gasoline are not interchangeable fuels, and a Prius does not sport a true multifuel engine. I’m just saying, engineers try and protect people from their own stupidity but there are limits…

Bottom line, I sympathize with Mr. Serbu, he’s got his company’s reputation and the firearms reputation on the line. If he was to admit he made an unsafe firearm, he would open himself up to so many lawsuits that it would bankrupt him. He has no choice but to defend the design, and honestly, I think he’s been pretty open and honest about it. Maybe he’ll take a look at this and make some design changes that will make what is reportedly an excellent rifle into an even better one.

The last point I wanted to make was a follow-up to the conversation regarding ATF’s proposed rule change. 2021R-05 is in public comment. It is worth your time to go over and make a comment. Generally, it is best to write out your own comment. The form letters and emails you see are often glossed over, and they do not receive much attention. Taking the time to write out your thoughts and opinions in a calm and articulate way will have a greater effect. With that said, I do not think a letter campaign is going to change the final rule one bit. Read the rules, they are very specific on what can and cannot be said, as well as what information needs to be included in order for the comment to be accepted.

The forces at play here have to do the public comment by law, but at this point, it is a formality. They will go through the process because if they do not, the judge will rule that the rule change is invalid due to the process being ignored. Our time is better spent petitioning our Senators and our Representatives. We should also be throwing our support behind organizations like the 2nd Amendment Foundation. The only way we are likely to make a meaningful change, on the Federal level, over the next four years is through the judicial system.

I do not like this on principle, as the judicial system is often abused, making law from the bench which short circuits the legislative process. This is not how the founding fathers intended the judicial system to function. With that said, the laws that we are challenging go against individual Rights, and while there is a fine line between judicial activism and fair judicial judgment. I do feel that this falls in the realm of the latter, but I am not wholly insensitive to counterarguments, and I would rather see action taken through the legislative process.

As always if you are looking to get in touch, the best way is to send me an email at jay@theballisticassistant.com. You may check us out on Parler, Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit. If you’d like to submit a load to our load database, the instructions are here.

As always, shoot straight and stay safe!

The Ballistic Assistant

Last week was a busy week in the firearms community. Namely, the ATF dropped a 115-page document outlining their proposed changes to firearm definitions. This has caused a lot of commotion, some of it justified some of it a bit overblown. Since may potentially have an impact on our lives, discussing this proposed rule change will be pretty much the topic this week.

First off, here is the link to the document summary. From here you can go and read the full document. Yes, it is 115 pages, it covers a lot of information that is in legalese, which can be dry and hard to understand at times. However, unless you plan on looking up every reference and cross-referencing it, it reads a bit more like 60 pages. Still, a chunk of text to read, but that is where everyone should begin. The reason is simple, there are a lot of claims that are being made that either misrepresent or purposely mislead what this document seems to be actually saying. So take the time to read it for yourself and inoculate yourself against some of the BS coming from guys who make money off sensationalism.

What does it do?

Well, first off, it makes it clear what is considered a firearm and what is not. This is something that has been in the courts. The ATF obviously disagrees with recent court rulings that would make AR-15 lower receivers, striker-fired pistol receivers, FAL receivers, and other “Multipiece” firearm designs which do not neatly fit the 1968 Gun Control Act definition of a Firearm. Our side rightly points out the inconsistency here, and that under current rules, an AR-15 receiver technically is not a firearm, the ATF proposed rule change will change the definition to basically make clear to the Courts that at least one component of a multipiece firearm must bear a serial number and is defined as the transferable item.

Some people claim that this means that AR Uppers or Glock Slides are now going to be serialized and will also require a 4473. However, I do not think this is the intent, as at the end of the document (pages 86 thru 88) provide what parts of the firearm will be considered the receiver and require a serial number. None of the examples are different from what we are already used to. In fact, this may be, a bit of good news for some firearm makers. For example, those who make bolt action upper receivers that mount on AR-15 lower. The ATF sent a cease and desist to some companies, including a company in Utah claiming that they were making and selling a firearm. Clearing up this definition could allow these manufacturers to sell bolt action uppers without the requirement for a 4473.

It also provides manufacturers of suppressors some leniency when dealing with suppressor parts. Since a baffle, or a wipe, is considered a suppressor part, it is tightly controlled. However many of us will rightly ask, when does an O-Ring cease to be an O-Ring and instead becomes a suppressor wipe? The ATF does not seem to answer this, but they do seem to say that baffles and other internal components will not require individual serialization, or the transfer of parts during the manufacturing process from one company to another (for example, Nickle plating an internal component such as a baffle by a third party). This cuts down on the paperwork and tracking requirements for both parties. Does not do anything for people who privately own and would like to get parts to repair their own suppressor.

Defines what a Privately Made Firearm (PMF) is, and how it is to be handled. Honestly, this section is not clear to me. The way I understand it is that firearms made by an individual, and are for individual use are still legal. If I want to take a file to a piece of round stock and carve out my own receiver I can do that. However, if I wish to later sell that firearm, then I cannot do it unless it has a serial number, date of manufacture, and place of manufacture. These engravings must be done by a licensed gunsmith. If there are PMF’s in a gun store inventory then they must either be marked or be destroyed. So the bottom line is, if we want to turn out our own firearms, we are still legal to do so, but if we want to sell it, it has to be serialized and put “on record” by a gunsmith.

Here is what we get into the crux of the bill. The so-called “Ghost Gun” portion. The issue at hand here, is when does a firearm become a firearm? The ATF is basically expanding the definition that they can call just about anything, up to including a block of aluminum a receiver if they think it is too easy for a nefarious individual to turn it into something that can go “Bang”. Honestly, reading the wording, I was very surprised by how purposely vague it was.

I think this is going to have the intended effect of killing 80% of receivers, and receiver kits. Honestly, it may kill a lot of the important demilled kits. Like the kit, I purchased to build my own VZ-58. This is a real bummer for me because I really enjoy these kits and when I have a bit of time and money, my hope was to pick another one up and build it out. Of all the text that was in this document, this is what was probably the most constitutionally fraught, and is very likely where we will see the strongest court challenge.

I am not 100% up on the record-keeping requirements of FFL dealers but this proposed rule looks to be extending the requirements from 10 years to 20 years. Which, I can only imagine the burden that will be for some FFL’s who have high volumes of sales. That just seems completely arduous, and maybe even a bit punitive.

What are my overall thoughts on it? Quite frankly, for the average firearm owner, and even the above-average firearm owner, this is going to have very little effect. It will go mostly unnoticed, and I suspect the ATF intended it that way. They are not stupid, they know if they rock the boat too much they will get a Supreme Court ruling that goes against them, or they will motivate legislative action that will undue their administrative changes. What we should take away from it, it is an example of incrementalism. The slow erosion of freedoms that to directly impacts the free exercise of a constitutional Right.

The ATF wrote several long pages about how they are defending these rules changes, citing precedence and FBI data on ghost guns. It is important to remember when reading this you are getting only one side of the argument. Unfortunately, the data they cite does show that several thousand “Privately Made Firearms” are being recovered at crime scenes and the trend is on the upward climb. Which poses a question to us, what alternative solutions do we propose to reverse this trend, or do are we willing to argue that in the interest of the free exercise of a constitutional right that we must be willing to tolerate some level of illicit behavior. Personally, I find myself more drawn to the latter argument, but it is a harder argument to sell to the general public, regardless, I believe it to be the right one.

Anyway, as you read over the proposed rule change, let me know if presented a fair assessment. Again, I am not trying to be sensational in anything I present, just trying to understand it and understand its potential impacts on both my industry and my hobby.

Anyway, as you read over the proposed rule change, let me know if presented a fair assessment. Again, I am not trying to be sensational in anything I present, just trying to understand it and understand its potential impacts on both my industry and my hobby. This is a single topic post this week, since it a long one, I keep it to that. I’ve got some more stuff I’d like to share but I will save it for next week.

As always if you are looking to get in touch, best way is to send me an email jay@theballisticassistant.com. You may check us out on Parler, Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit. If you’d like to submit a load to our load database, the instructions are here.

As always, shoot straight and stay safe!

The Ballistic Assistant

Good Evening, Morning, Afternoon, what ever it may be where you are reading this. It’s Monday again and time for a bit of an update. This past week has been a busy one, but somewhat productive. I managed to get a Bullseye Camera system working after significant tinkering. The root cause seemed to be a low battery.

The battery was charged enough to power the router but would not power the camera. The LiPo battery pack had sat in a state of discharge for who knows how long before I had inherited it, which is never good for LiPo batteries. I think it took a solid week before it hit full charge, which given the age is not surprising but it also probably means I likely did not have the right wall adapter. I need to look up and see what kind of wall adapter the manufacturer recommends for the LiPo pack.

This particular model is the sight in model, and has a range somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 to 200 yards. Honestly for the majority of my needs right now, this fits the bill. I played with a long range version and was quite impressed with it back in 2016. The company has since come out with some very nice systems, but I suspect the age of video based target systems is short lived. The electronic targets are coming down in price and it would not surprise me to see electronic targets in the neighborhood of 200 to 300 dollars within the decade. There is a high likelihood that I will be using this when I finally get out to the range to finish siting in the VZ-58.

The other industry news is the video posted by Kentucky Ballistics. If you have not had a chance to watch it, here is the link. I have see and few of his videos. It is not a channel I actively follow, and most of his content, honestly, is a bit “clickbaitish”. It is sometimes cool to see new guns, but the novelty of how different cartridges and rifles perform on various objects has worn off. Just not my cup of tea. The video is worth talking about because things went wrong, very wrong. He was testing 50 BMG SLAP ammunition, and the rifle came apart in the process nearly killing him.

SLAP, stands for Saboted Light Armor Penetrator. The round was developed in the 80’s to accelerate .30 caliber 355gr tungsten penetrator to nearly 4,000 feet per second. They did this by using a plastic sabot, which is discarded shortly after the projectile leaves the bore. This round, or a derivative of it, is still in production by Winchester. A variation on this round is the SLAP-T which is a tracer.

This ammunition is designed primarily for armor penetration’s and it was quite effective at it. Reportedly it is able to penetrate up to 1.3 inches of AR500 at 500 meters, and .90 inches at 1000 meters. All of this it accomplishes at a service pressure of 55,000psi. Based on the data I can find, the powder used was WC 856. Based on what information I have been able to find, this powder is faster burning then US 869, but does not have a commercial canister equivalent. Powder for typical 50 BMG ball ammunition is WC 860.

I have read many theories as to what could have caused this. Some say the chamber has to be of a special cut, and it will only work in machine gun, such as the Browning M2. However I have not found any technical specs or references which outline how this chamber is different. I have also found mention that the plastic sabot may have melted and stuck to the inside of the chamber creating a “stuck round”. Sounds a little plausible, but not completely convincing.

Usually the reason SLAP rounds are not recommended for general rifles is due to the fact the muzzle break has a tendency to catch on the muzzle break. This can screw up a clean release, resulting in a flier at best, or the sabot can get caught in the muzzle break and split the break on the next shot at worse. Some 50 BMG rifles also sport a special chamber cut to allow for bore rider bullets, and that could cause high chamber pressures. However it is unlikely either of those things were responsible for the way this gun catastrophically failed. A custom chamber is not something that the rifle maker, Serbu Firearms, Inc even offers for their RN-50 rifle, and a caught sabot is more likely to damage the muzzle break then cause the breech to fail as the pressures at the muzzle are far, far lower then they are at chamber.

Another point on why I doubt it is a chamber cut issue. The military knows that sometimes life does not go as planned. If things go sideways and you run out of M8 Ball, and all you have is a can of M903 linked with M962 (50 BMG SLAP and SLAPT-T), but no Browning M2 to fire it in, are we saying that it cannot be used under any circumstance? That trying to chamber an fire this round in a Barrett M107 will cause such a catastrophic failure as to risk life and limb of the soldiers using it? It kind of find it implausible that this has not be considered and the design of the ammunition makes allowances for it, but I suppose possible.

So what is my theory? Well, two things stand out to me, 1st Kentucky Ballistics reportely paid $100 per round. Which is insane, given the cost to produce is likely only $20 to $25 dollars a round. However given there is not a lot of it that makes it to the civilian market, the exotic nature of the ammunition is likely the driving factor in cost. This disparity between cost to produce and the potential sale cost makes me wonder if someone was not cranking these things out in their garage and selling them as military surplus rounds. If you think I am a bit off the deep end, let me give an example.

Several years ago, Remington caught wind of some guys selling off QC rejected ammunition. These stuff was sent to be scrapped, but it was making its way on to the market. There was hell to pay, I believe people went to prison over it. That only reason Remington caught word of it, was from a police officer who bought some of this reject and went to Remington to ask questions. If there is a quick buck to be made, someone is likely to try and make it. That is my sinister theory.

My less than sinister theory is that this ammo was subjected to abuse. US-869, the slower burning cousin to the WC 856 is not a particular temperature stable powder. If these rounds were left to bake in the sun, in the hot Iraqi desert, and made their way around the world a few times, before landing themselves in a military surplus store. It is not too far fetched that powder may not perform like brand new US 856, when powders are heated and cooled, sometimes the pressure they generate still remains elevated, indicated that the heat induced a permanent change to the powder burn characteristics.

I believe this is both the simplest theory and the hardest one to prove. Unless you can get ahold of that exact lot of ammunition, and test it with modern testing equipment, (which no one will want to risk destroying at a tune of $3000 for a transducer and $10,000 dollars for a UR) we likely will not find out. With that said, the fall out from this is likely real for Serbu Firearms Inc. with this being a potential stain on their rifle. I think it is prudent not to blame the rifle for the failure because the pressures generated were undoubetly way beyond proof pressures.

However it is fair to fault the firearm in the way that it failed. I am not saying a Barrett M99 or a Bushmaster 50 would have handled it better, but they may not have failed in the same manner that would risk life and limb of the shooter. The type of action that us being used on the Serbu, is a very strong action, but the idea that the action can fail in the manner directing that amount of force towards the shooter, does make someone pause. Given the two things that caused the major life-threatening injuries was a “Locking Lug” shearing off becoming a projectile and the threaded breech plug being shot backwards. An enclosed action likely would have contained a significant portion of the debris. Good thing he was wearing safety glasses, he better frame them and point to them every time a new shooter steps on his range.

We as handloaders and shooters to take an opportunity to learn from this. I hope none of this seems like I am being critical of Kentucky Ballistics. From everything he said, and presented I cannot find one thing he did, that I would have done differently, given the circumstances. What it does do for me is reinforce one point. The exotic ammo, whether it be, military surplus projectiles, or loaded rounds, are not really worth messing with. There is not enough load data, nor can we trace how that ammunition might be have been handled and by whom. My rifles, and my life is a bit too expensive to chance it for kicks and giggles. In almost all circumstances it presents more of a liability then it is worth. This is coming from someone who is giddy when they walk into a military surplus store.

I briefly wondered, for a moment given the violent nature of the failure, if Kentucky Ballistics had gotten ahold of a product of Eldest Son, a covert operation run back in Vietnam that purposely introduced rounds which were laden with an high explosive and would detonate when the soldier tried to fire it. This was done to sow doubt in the both the quality of the rifles and the ammunition. It is a very interesting, and not well known operation. However the dates of the SLAP ammunition development and adoption introduction, combined with the fact it’s a US round, make this impossible.

The last little update I have, is the UPS Saga continues but we seem to be making progress. After having to explain, for the second time, the difference between projectiles and live ammunition, it seems as those UPS is processing the claim. I will likely find the outcome of that in the next few days, I am very much hoping it is a full reimbursement of the value of the property lost. I would have much rather had the bullets delivered and not gone through this mess, but if I can come away with no money lost, I’ll take it as a small victory.

As always if you are looking to get in touch, best way is to send me an email jay@theballisticassistant.com. You may check us out on Parler, Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit. If you’d like to submit a load to our load database, the instructions are here.

As always, shoot straight and stay safe!

The Ballistic Assistant