ATF proposes to reclassify M855/SS109 green tip as armor-piercing ammo

[Arizona_Mike]

When do you find out when it becomes illegal?

When it is no longer for sale. The LEOPA deals with manufacturing, importation, and selling not possession or buying (although an accessory or conspiracy theory of a crime could theoretically be applied to buying). I still have some 7.62 black tips I bought in the early '90s.

Mike

 

[Robbins290]

Ok, let me rephrase that. How and when do we find out if it passes or not. Any way to follow it?

 

[dogtown tom]

Robbins290 Ok, let me rephrase that. How and when do we find out if it passes or not. Any way to follow it?

I think the odds are pretty strong that every gun forum on the internet will let you know within an hour of ATF posting the regulation.

 

[Apachedriver]

Ok, let me rephrase that. How and when do we find out if it passes or not. Any way to follow it?

As Bartholomew Roberts stated in another thread, don't forget to check your state penal codes regarding AP ammo possession if this ATF thing goes into effect.

 

[ol' scratch]

My ar dislikes that ammo. Good riddance.

You can't send a private message to this guy. I think he has folded up his tent. Probably a good thing. I wasn't going to be very High Road with him.

 

[ATCDoktor]

Have any of you guys read the ATF's entire proposal reference getting rid of SS109/M855 exemption?

If so, did you catch this tidbit of insight into the direction they are going with this nonsense?

From page 13 of the ATF's proposal:

While the design of most single shot handguns shows that they are primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, this is not necessarily the case of handguns with larger ammunition capacities. Revolvers and semi-automatic handguns, which are designed to be loaded with multiple rounds of ammunition that can be fired and reloaded quickly, differ substantially in design and function from single shot handguns. The likely use of revolvers and semi-automatic handguns in the community varies, and the projectiles they use are, in many cases, interchangeable among models designed to use the same or similar calibers. Consequently, it is not possible to conclude that revolvers and semi-automatic handguns as a class are “primarily intended” for use in sporting purposes. Similarly, most handguns designed to be loaded with two-rounds of ammunition are small-frame, easily concealable, derringer-type firearms. While two-shot derringers may share certain design characteristics with single-shot firearms (for example, a break-open loading function), they are not useful as sporting firearms.[/

Is this idea that revolvers and semi auto handguns having no sporting purose something new or has it been part their (ATF's) thinking all along.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Congratulations Mississippi shooters! Thanks to this regulatory change, you could be criminals as soon as March of this year.

Universal Citation: MS Code § 97-37-31 (2013)
It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, corporation or manufacturing establishment, not duly authorized under federal law, to make, manufacture, sell or possess any instrument or device which, if used on firearms of any kind, will arrest or muffle the report of said firearm when shot or fired or armor piercing ammunition as defined in federal law. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00), or imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than thirty (30) days, or both. All such instruments or devices shall be registered with the Department of Public Safety and any law enforcement agency in possession of such instruments or devices shall submit an annual inventory of such instruments and devices to the Department of Public Safety. The Commissioner of Public Safety shall document the information required by this section.

You'd best get to shooting that M855 you've saved up. Any other states affected besides IL and MS?

 

[jerkface11]

don't they have a clear definition of what armor piercing is?

 

[herrwalther]

don't they have a clear definition of what armor piercing is?

Nope. This is the government after all. Even in the military where M855 is/was used most often it is considered a "light" armor penetrator. But not considered a penetrator by anyone who shoots something bigger (M24, M240) or faster (M249).

 

[jerkface11]

I thought it only counted as armor piercing if the core was all steel or some other hard metal.

 

[MAKster]

Have any of you guys read the ATF's entire proposal reference getting rid of SS109/M855 exemption?

If so, did you catch this tidbit of insight into the direction they are going with this nonsense?

From page 13 of the ATF's proposal:



Is this idea that revolvers and semi auto handguns having no sporting purose something new or has it been part their (ATF's) thinking all along.

There has been a sporting purpose test for handguns since 1968. The import of many small pistols, such as the PPK, is prohibited since they don't have enough points.

 

[Trent]

Nope. This is the government after all. Even in the military where M855 is/was used most often it is considered a "light" armor penetrator. But not considered a penetrator by anyone who shoots something bigger (M24, M240) or faster (M249).

The military classifies M855 it as "BALL" ammo not "ARMOR PIERCING"

M995 is Armor Piercing (black tip).

M855 / SS109 was developed as a heavier projectile than the earlier M193, with the steel nose portion, so that when fired out of a 20" machinegun barrel w/ plunging fire it could penetrate 3mm of steel at 600 yards when leveraged in stand-off distance plunging fire (read as: pop through soviet helmets)

When fired out of a CAR length barrel (14.5") the effective range is really only 150-200 yards- beyond that it fails to break apart; it just pokes a hole through someone causing icepick like wounds. It also loses it's armor penetrating capabilities at standoff distance as it fails to generate enough momentum (velocity) to do so effectively at those distances.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

I think the real plan is to have the EPA take out the Lead based ammunition, then the ATF will call anything with Steel (Or any other hard metal) armor piercing....

Viola... There's nothing left, or the only alternatives are very expensive and they price it out of reality.

 

[Trent]

I think the real plan is to have the EPA take out the Lead based ammunition, then the ATF will call anything with Steel (Or any other hard metal) armor piercing....

Viola... There's nothing left, or the only alternatives are very expensive and they price it out of reality.

You aren't far off the mark, sadly.

"Lead Free" ammunition is becoming more and more a reality.

The "environmentally friendly" M855A1 projectile development was spurred mainly as a "environmentally green" projectile. Regulations in place at certain NATO member states make firing large quantities of lead ammunition in training a taboo.

To say these rounds aren't useful in sporting events, or aren't accurate enough to do anything but plinking, is a disservice;

http://www.army.mil/article/86321/

Throughout the competition, Harbison had several noteworthy performances, including firing a perfect 200 points in the Coast Guard Trophy Match, which is 20 shots fired from the sitting position at 200 yards. He also finished 17th overall in that match (of 385 competitors), finishing in the top five percent.

Also of note Harbison scored a perfect 100 on the final string of ten shots during the Air Force Cup Trophy Match, fired at 600 yards from the prone position. That is 10 shots in a row within the 12-inch, 10-point ring at 600 yards with combat ammunition.

Sadly, that A1 ammunition is virtually unobtainable, and if it were available commercially it would be very costly, consisting partly of Bismuth. Not exactly cheap as lead or steel, that one.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Letter sent: Below is the information. I sent via fax and e-mail.


Denise Brown
Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226:
Fax: (202) 648-9741.

email to: [email protected]

 

[bearcreek]

Listen unless your in the military or a criminal you really shouldnt NEED a round like that but ILL BE DAMNED if someones going to tell me I cant have it. Lets face it most LEOs wear armor and soldiers. The chances of your average burglar, aggressive one at that wearing armor is slim to none.

That being said who doesnt want the best?? Id take steel encased lead bullets in any round just for hunting any day over plain lead.

Need has not the slightest thing to do with it. My personal opinion is that there are several better rounds available for me to use in my AR's. The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the right of the people to have arms at least equal to that used by the military. M855 is used by the military, therefore, the people should have it too. It's as simple as that.

 

[Dr. Sandman]

Here's my letter. Feel free to cut and paste.

Dear Sir or Madame-
I am opposed to the proposed banning of M855 ammunition. This particular ammunition should never have been classified as "armour piercing", as it is composed of a steel tip and a lead core. This ammo does not have a core made of various banned hard metals, only lead.

The banning of this ammo will only make it more difficult and expensive for citizens who exercise their right to bear arms to obtain ammunition. Please do not let this happen.

Sincerely,
Dr. Sandman

 

[GAMEOVER44]

Need has not the slightest thing to do with it. My personal opinion is that there are several better rounds available for me to use in my AR's. The 2nd Amendment exists to protect the right of the people to have arms at least equal to that used by the military. M855 is used by the military, therefore, the people should have it too. It's as simple as that.

What rounds are better, in your opinion?

And, I know about the 2nd Amendment. I've studied the whole Constitution over and over for years. This is a violation of it as well as all other gun laws and I mean ALL of them. What do these people not get about "shall NOT be infringed" !

 

[Carl N. Brown]

One of the lawful uses of firearms is civilian marksmanship practice as preparation for potential or emergency military service. Banning a whole class of previously common military surplus ammo -- used mostly in rifles to perforate cardboard targets -- just makes marksmanship practice more expensive.

Without evidence of widespread criminal use of AR pistols, this ban is an answer to a hypothetical question. I have seen no local news reports of criminals using .223 AR pistols, much less any reports of criminals using AR pistols with green tip ammo.

Will it impact lawful use of arms? Yes. Will it impact criminal use of arms? Not really.

 

[Ryanxia]

I think the real plan is to have the EPA take out the Lead based ammunition, then the ATF will call anything with Steel (Or any other hard metal) armor piercing....

Viola... There's nothing left, or the only alternatives are very expensive and they price it out of reality.

There was a Federal law passed last month that outlawed the EPA or any other agency from banning lead ammunition for target shooting purposes.

Make sure everyone spreads the word to write in with an opinion on this latest 'reclassification'. At the very least we can bog them down for a year like we did with the Trust requirements for NFA items.

 

[bearcreek]

What rounds are better, in your opinion?

And, I know about the 2nd Amendment. I've studied the whole Constitution over and over for years. This is a violation of it as well as all other gun laws and I mean ALL of them. What do these people not get about "shall NOT be infringed" !

There's quite a number of BTHP cartridges with a variety of bullet weights that are arguably more affective as a defensive/offensive round. Really the only thing that M855 does well is penetrate thin steel and it's really not that much better at that even.

Of course, that has nothing to do with wether or not it should be legal. As you said, gun laws in general are a violation of the 2A and this falls into that same category.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I guess my biggest concern is that, since M855/SS109 doesn't actually meet the statutory definition of armor piercing ammunition, if BATFE gets away with this one, the precedent is set that they can declare anything they like to be armor piercing unilaterally.

This really needs to be litigated as soon as possible. There needs to be a strong judicial precedent set that keeps BATFE on a tight leash on this subject.

 

[Gottahaveone]

Lets face it most LEOs wear armor and soldiers.

The LEO's around here wear lots of stuff, but I can't recall EVER seeing one wearing a soldier

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, I have boiled down the key points that ATF is relying on in their memo. These are assertions by ATF that must be attacked. If we remove these keystones, ATF's rationale falls apart:

1. M855 is armor-piercing as defined under (i) of the statute (already discussed here; but relies primarily on the "two core" interpretation)
2. Primarily intended must focus on the “likely use” of that item in the general community, not the subjective intent of the designer or user (this is in direct contradiction to the stance ATF takes on the SIG brace which says the intent of the user changes the design intent of the weapon)
3. When the only readily available handgun for a projectile is objectively sporting, then it can be reasonably inferred the primary intent is also sporting.
4. It is not possible to conclude that revolvers, semi-auto handguns or two-round derringers are primarily intended for use in sporting purposes (surely we can come up with many good arguments against this)
5. ATF has recognized that SS109 is suitable for target shooting (a sport the ATF also recognizes as a “suitable sporting purposes”) in 1986. (Don't want to attack this; but draw attention to the fact)
6. AR handguns and semi-auto handguns accepting SS109 were not commercially available in 1986; but are now available (Gwinn Armpistol predated SS109 by almost 20 years – any other examples of pre-1986 semi-auto .223 handguns?)
7. Withdrawing the exemption on SS109 will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition (under Federal law only, will place individuals under criminal possession under state law that relies on Federal definition – See MS Penal Code)

How about some input from THR members on how we can tear down the blocks ATF is using to build their argument?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I should also note that VCDL has accused the BATF of making it more difficult to comment on this and excluding comments. Please note that if you do not include all the information requested (name, address, etc.) and formatted in the way ATF requested (see the last page of the memo), ATF may disregard the comments you make.