GRNC Alert 12-22-2012: Is BATFE Moving To Ban Ammo?

ccsniper said:

could someone explain this? I don't seem to be getting it.

Click to expand...

To whom it may concern;

As a Federal Firearms Licensee I would like to respond to the ATF’s open letter regarding 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(ii) of the Gun Control Act of 1968, regarding the definition of sporting use as applicable to Armor Piercing ammunition.

A narrowing of the Sporting Purposes test for armor piercing ammunition could adversely affect many individuals who collect historically significant ammunition, such as holders of a licensed Curio and Relics FFL, as well as common everyday shooting enthusiasts in the industry.

While it is true that there are handguns chambered in rifle cartridges, such as the Thomson Contender series, those handguns are primarily intended for precision target shooting and hunting applications. Their single-shot nature does not lend the instrument to use in crime, and should represent no threat to law enforcement. Furthermore, REGARDLESS of what projectile those firearms are firing, the sheer amount of kinetic energy available will cause the projectiles to penetrate soft body armor. A Thomson Contender pistol chambered in 300 Winchester Magnum, for instance, will penetrate all modern police and military soft body armor at considerable range. Whether that firearm is shooting a bronze projectile, a lead core / copper jacketed bullet, a pure hardened lead bullet, or a tungsten core AP projectile does not matter in the least.

Regardless of the projectile composition, or whether fired from a handgun barrel or a rifle barrel, most, if not all, of the smokeless powder based rifle ammunition produced since the year 1905 (with the incorporation of the 7.92x57mm Mauser cartridge by the German military), will, indeed, penetrate soft body armor at ranges in excess of hundreds of yards. It does not matter if fired from a handgun or rifle. The technology to send small metal projectiles out at the speed required to defeat soft body armor has been around for well over 100 years. The threat to law enforcement has not, itself, changed, only the perception of the threat has changed. I would like to also comment that other certain projectiles, such as the primitive crossbow bolt, will readily penetrate all soft body armor.

In summary, no armor will defeat all projectiles.

Also of historical significance; Armor piercing rifle ammunition, from an historical, military perspective, was designated as such not for its ability to penetrate soft body armor (which did not even exist when the term was coined), but rather, for its ability to penetrate light skinned armored vehicles and aircraft, to damage components or personnel on the interior of the vehicle. With the advances in materials sciences for armor composition (polymers, layered armor, Lexan, and so on) the use of small arms fire, firing standard or “armor piercing” rounds, is generally ineffective against such vehicles.

Just as the application of anti-vehicle technology has changed with technological progress, ongoing development of personal body armor has changed; there are now SAPI plates available for personal body armor which will defeat multiple hits from a full sized 30-06 rifle cartridge firing an “armor piercing” projectile.

The line on what is, and what is NOT, armor piercing is impossible to quantify with a single written standard.

In this interest, I would respectfully request that the BATF not limit the projectiles that can be fired from any cartridge.

Best regards,

Trenton XXXXXXXXXX
Federal Firearms Licensee
{Address Omitted}

Click to expand...

mr.scott said:

Would you stop trying to justify it using "sporting/hunting uses".
We need to stop being defensive and start being offensive. Remind the idiots in power that the 2nd amendment isn't about sporting or hunting. It's about keeping the government in check.

Click to expand...