Are you allowed to load 9mm, or any hand gun with penatrators? And, I know the .223 has them but I've never seen a bullet for re-loading. Why? As far as pistols, are you allowed to sell, buy or own them? I know the thread is a bit pregnant but I didn't want to write a bunch of them. Thanks.
9mm with penatrators - OK?
- Thread starter CANNONMAN
- Start date
- Status
Sorta. Depends what you mean by "penetrators".
18 USC 922(a)(7) bans the manufacture or importation of armor piercing ammunition.
In addition a federal licensee may not sell or deliver AP ammo.
AP ammo is defined in 18 USC 921 (a)(17)(B):
9mm certainly fits the "may be used in a handgun" part, but the definition is very specific. If you were to make the projectile core out of some other, dense, material it wouldn't fit the federal definition of AP, and as such isn't banned at the federal level*. Performance would depend on exactly what you used.
I suspect you don't see 9mm AP projectiles sold because to make one outside the federal definition would be prohibitively expensive, a niche market, and a PR nightmare.
If you came across some AP 9mm that predated GCA '68, you could possess it, and as long as you are not any level of FFL, you could sell it. If it were only projectiles you could not load them into live cartridges (manufacturing) I honestly have no idea if any legit, legal 9mm AP made it into the country or is still floating around. On a practical matter I would hate to be trying to prove some steel core 9mm I had was old enough.
*I only looked at, and quoted, US federal law. State laws can, and do, vary widely and you would need to research your local laws before any attempted loading near this line.
**The quoted USC is mirrored in 27 CFR 478.37.
18 USC 922(a)(7) bans the manufacture or importation of armor piercing ammunition.
18 USC 922(a)(7) said:
In addition a federal licensee may not sell or deliver AP ammo.
AP ammo is defined in 18 USC 921 (a)(17)(B):
18 USC 922 (a)(17)(B) said:
9mm certainly fits the "may be used in a handgun" part, but the definition is very specific. If you were to make the projectile core out of some other, dense, material it wouldn't fit the federal definition of AP, and as such isn't banned at the federal level*. Performance would depend on exactly what you used.
I suspect you don't see 9mm AP projectiles sold because to make one outside the federal definition would be prohibitively expensive, a niche market, and a PR nightmare.
I assume you mean AP pistol ammo. Obviously we can own, buy and sell pistols.CANNONMAN said:
If you came across some AP 9mm that predated GCA '68, you could possess it, and as long as you are not any level of FFL, you could sell it. If it were only projectiles you could not load them into live cartridges (manufacturing) I honestly have no idea if any legit, legal 9mm AP made it into the country or is still floating around. On a practical matter I would hate to be trying to prove some steel core 9mm I had was old enough.
*I only looked at, and quoted, US federal law. State laws can, and do, vary widely and you would need to research your local laws before any attempted loading near this line.
**The quoted USC is mirrored in 27 CFR 478.37.
You need to understand the law and economics. It’s been illegal to manufacture or import new armor piercing ammunition that’s transferable to ordinary citizens for quite some time, and for the most part, it’s generally unavailable, and what is out there is mostly from pulled 7.62mm and 30 caliber rifle bullets. Pistol ammo was forbidden and if you have a handgun that fires rifle ammo it gets prohibited to manufacture. Since you won't find any AP 9mm pulled bullets out there and you can't sell any newly manufactured AP to the public, there's none commercially available.
Last edited:
USAF_Vet
Member
I asked a similar question not too long ago about enhanced penetration rounds, like the M855 rifle round. It seems that through the language of the law, a thing that would enhance penetration would be viewed as armor piercing.
Want to punch through armor with a 9mm, the key is velocity. Sadly, it's limited by the size of the case.
Want to punch through armor with a 9mm, the key is velocity. Sadly, it's limited by the size of the case.
UziLand
Member
I have a bunch of 9mm "carbine only" rounds with black tips. They pass the magnet test so I don't think they are AP. Action arms imported them from IMI years ago when they were selling Uzi's, etc. Brand name on the box is "Eagle". I have fired them from my Uzi carbine and they are "hot" rounds. The head stamp even says "carb".
In researching these I discovered that IMI didn't keep very good records on the colors
they used for the tips (which changed from black to green, etc).
In researching these I discovered that IMI didn't keep very good records on the colors
they used for the tips (which changed from black to green, etc).
Which seems strange to me, as I can't imagine any normal pistol caliber generating enough oomph to drive an AP bullet through a steel plate anyway. But I guess it's about defeating LEO body armor, and criminals typically carry handguns, not rifles.
.30-06 AP sure is fun though!
.30-06 AP sure is fun though!
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Handgun caliber HP ammo?
Banned by Federal law in 1986 by the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act.
Google 'cop killer bullets'.
(Even though no cop was ever killed by AP handgun bullets to my knowledge.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet
rc
Banned by Federal law in 1986 by the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act.
Google 'cop killer bullets'.
(Even though no cop was ever killed by AP handgun bullets to my knowledge.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet
rc
The teflon makes a bullet slide through armor like an egg slides off a teflon pan, see
1911 guy
Member
^^THIS^^
Laws written by buffoons who know nothing of the topics they seek to regulate. Anybody else remember "the shoulder thing that goes up"?
Laws written by buffoons who know nothing of the topics they seek to regulate. Anybody else remember "the shoulder thing that goes up"?
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Worth reprinting and shouting to the world:
And yes, I remember Carolyn McCarthy's answer to "What is a barrel shroud?"
I thought she was referring to a brassiere strap or something.
:banghead:
And yes, I remember Carolyn McCarthy's answer to "What is a barrel shroud?"
I thought she was referring to a brassiere strap or something.
:banghead:
This issue is a good example of "the camel's nose under the tent." It typifies creeping government intrusion into our rights. The idea was to prevent armor piercing handgun ammo because it would defeat soft armor worn by LEO's. The reality is that it was simply overreaction to a overhyped bullet trumpeted in the anti gun media who's intent was to play it up as being widely available and a huge threat to law enforcement. They got into the bill as part of their anti gun agenda.
Now, when the ATF looks at a new cartridge, they determine if the bullet is made of a particular kind of metal for it's anti armor properties. No real assessment of it's actual ability is made, just if it meets the letter of the law rather than an objective and scientifically based evaluation of performance.
This is where the law becomes flawed - ammo that has little ability to actually pierce armor is declared out of bounds, and other ammo which meets the letter of the law is allowed, despite it's ability to defeat armor. The original thinking in the law understood there is no absolute line in the sand, now they created one that isn't realistic.
The eventual result was the ATF trying to ban M855 as armor piercing - a rifle round not addressed in the pistol oriented cartridge language of the law. That reach was prompted by the Administration's agenda against AR15's. Many attributed it to the existence of AR pistols, but the reality is anything that can be demonized will be, and no crisis should ever go to waste.
Keep in mind that the ATF is the regulatory Agency who interprets gun laws and writes more regulation based on them, which is treated as law in the courts. Certainly by Agents as enforceable. That was done by Congress so they wouldn't have to fuss over what was considered minor issues in the constant flux of changing technology. ALL the Agencies do that - DOT, EPA, etc., to some degree, which means we are becoming a Government who is controlled by select bureaucracies, not the people, and certainly not by oversight or all to infrequent judicial review.
It's why we are now effectively a socialist form of Government. Kind of like the denial of those who think they live in a small town with a daytime population of 250,000. They don't grasp the meaning of "Metro." Most don't grasp how our government really works.
It's not the country I grew up in.
Now, when the ATF looks at a new cartridge, they determine if the bullet is made of a particular kind of metal for it's anti armor properties. No real assessment of it's actual ability is made, just if it meets the letter of the law rather than an objective and scientifically based evaluation of performance.
This is where the law becomes flawed - ammo that has little ability to actually pierce armor is declared out of bounds, and other ammo which meets the letter of the law is allowed, despite it's ability to defeat armor. The original thinking in the law understood there is no absolute line in the sand, now they created one that isn't realistic.
The eventual result was the ATF trying to ban M855 as armor piercing - a rifle round not addressed in the pistol oriented cartridge language of the law. That reach was prompted by the Administration's agenda against AR15's. Many attributed it to the existence of AR pistols, but the reality is anything that can be demonized will be, and no crisis should ever go to waste.
Keep in mind that the ATF is the regulatory Agency who interprets gun laws and writes more regulation based on them, which is treated as law in the courts. Certainly by Agents as enforceable. That was done by Congress so they wouldn't have to fuss over what was considered minor issues in the constant flux of changing technology. ALL the Agencies do that - DOT, EPA, etc., to some degree, which means we are becoming a Government who is controlled by select bureaucracies, not the people, and certainly not by oversight or all to infrequent judicial review.
It's why we are now effectively a socialist form of Government. Kind of like the denial of those who think they live in a small town with a daytime population of 250,000. They don't grasp the meaning of "Metro." Most don't grasp how our government really works.
It's not the country I grew up in.
What is also ill defined is what is "handgun ammo". When these little one handed mini AR's and AK's "handguns" came out, it was deemed that 223 Rem and 7.62x39 were handgun rounds. So steel core 7.62x39 can no longer be imported. There are 30-06 handguns (e.g. Remington XP-100), but there were specific exemptions in the law for 30-06 AP.
What is silly is that a steel core or solid brass 25 ACP is illegal and it probably would not penetrate a level II vest. But a typical copper jacketed lead core 25-06 would zip through level III and IV without a problem (no need for a steel core in that cartridge).
There is also a sporting purposes exception. I bought a bunch of Barnes solids (all brass bullet) when they were allowed in .223, .277, and .308. Now, the ATF won't allow those in most calibers. You can still get them for the cartridges that typically don't have a handgun counterpart (e.g. 9.3mm, .416 caliber, .422 caliber, etc).
What is silly is that a steel core or solid brass 25 ACP is illegal and it probably would not penetrate a level II vest. But a typical copper jacketed lead core 25-06 would zip through level III and IV without a problem (no need for a steel core in that cartridge).
There is also a sporting purposes exception. I bought a bunch of Barnes solids (all brass bullet) when they were allowed in .223, .277, and .308. Now, the ATF won't allow those in most calibers. You can still get them for the cartridges that typically don't have a handgun counterpart (e.g. 9.3mm, .416 caliber, .422 caliber, etc).
highlander 5
Member
There are some mold blocks out there that cast a bullet a profile that looks like they could easily defeat body armor with a sufficiently hard lead alloy.
Jim Watson
Member
Granted that we were going to be stuck with a pistol AP ban, it is probably good that it was based on material of construction instead of a performance test.
A performance test would likely have been based on the lightest and cheapest Type I vest.
If so, that would ban a lot more ammo than the steel core language.
It would be a nightmare to administer, imagine the California Safe Gun Roster expanded to cover all the myriad of different calibers and loads on the market. There would probably be a tax to fund a bureau to keep track of it.
A performance test would likely have been based on the lightest and cheapest Type I vest.
If so, that would ban a lot more ammo than the steel core language.
It would be a nightmare to administer, imagine the California Safe Gun Roster expanded to cover all the myriad of different calibers and loads on the market. There would probably be a tax to fund a bureau to keep track of it.
HankB
Member
The teflon coating may have been first applied to KTW ammo, which originally used a tungsten alloy core that was slightly undersized; this being too hard to be take the rifling, it was actually the teflon which allowed the bullets to be spun and stabilized.
There ARE legal alternatives - for example, iridium or an iridium/osmium alloy would probably make a dandy penetrator, being both hard and dense . . . but they'd be a bit pricey.
There ARE legal alternatives - for example, iridium or an iridium/osmium alloy would probably make a dandy penetrator, being both hard and dense . . . but they'd be a bit pricey.
Jim Watson
Member
The original KTW with tungsten and hardened steel cores had copper half jackets. The Teflon coating was not thick enough to take the rifling. Final version was bronze with characteristic green Teflon.
I had a piece of zirconium left over from a project requiring resistance to hot sulfuric acid.
It is nearly as hard as mild steel and is pyrophoric to boot, which would make a vehicle you shot at a hot place.
Not on the list of Seven Deadly Metals, it would be technically legal for a pistol bullet. But I bet they could think of something to run up your legal bills with, even if they could not convict.
I had a piece of zirconium left over from a project requiring resistance to hot sulfuric acid.
It is nearly as hard as mild steel and is pyrophoric to boot, which would make a vehicle you shot at a hot place.
Not on the list of Seven Deadly Metals, it would be technically legal for a pistol bullet. But I bet they could think of something to run up your legal bills with, even if they could not convict.
TimSr
Member
They called them "cop killer" bullets at the time to hype the lies. No cop had ever been killed or even shot with a "cop killer" bullet. Then Holywood picked up the ball in one of the "Lethal Weapon" movies where non of the good guys arms could take out guys hiding behind steel drums, but the bad guy's "cop killer" bullets passed right through them.
Not just steel drums. That movie portrayed an uzi loaded with them punching a front loader bucket.
This law almost expired in 2014 but our congress renewed it on a voice vote so they wouldn't be on record with an anti-gun vote.
M855 survived because the steel portion is not the entire core*, I'm sure the same thing could be done with handgun rounds and pass the letter of the law. The effectiveness may not be good enough to bother but the law does not prohibit a sharp piece of steel secured in the HP cavity of a handgun round.
(*There may be other reasons M855 survived. The penetrator not being fully bonded and held in place by the jacket or not being centered along most of the axis of the bullet but instead riding in the front. I don't recall the ATF providing reasons the attempted ban was dropped, it was just withdrawn. In any event a handgun bullet of similar construction is feasible.)
This law almost expired in 2014 but our congress renewed it on a voice vote so they wouldn't be on record with an anti-gun vote.
M855 survived because the steel portion is not the entire core*, I'm sure the same thing could be done with handgun rounds and pass the letter of the law. The effectiveness may not be good enough to bother but the law does not prohibit a sharp piece of steel secured in the HP cavity of a handgun round.
(*There may be other reasons M855 survived. The penetrator not being fully bonded and held in place by the jacket or not being centered along most of the axis of the bullet but instead riding in the front. I don't recall the ATF providing reasons the attempted ban was dropped, it was just withdrawn. In any event a handgun bullet of similar construction is feasible.)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
