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

[Averageman]

These folks have an agenda.
If you put the pieces together, what they "allow" and then when and how they repeal these "allowances" you might be able to see an agenda.
It's a slow process they are willing to wait and approve certain things that meet the agenda only to disapporve them later, that only allows them to take a bigger bite of your rights later on.

 

[herrwalther]

My ar dislikes that ammo. Good riddance.

That is a great idea. I have a pocket gun that hates HP ammo. Doesn't matter the brand, hates all of them. We should ban all HP ammo.

Sound like a stupid rational? That is because it is. I like M855. Have shot thousands of rounds of it and used it in combat. It is a well performing round. Your one AR is not the benchmark.

 

[BSA1]

Deleted

Deleted.

I apologize to the O.P. I must have been too tired last night and posted on the wrong thread.

 

[W.E.G.]

Comment period ends March 16.
Act now.


Here is the email I sent today.
I encourage like-minded members of this group to do likewise.


email to: [email protected]

TOPIC: I object BATFE proposed ban on M855 ammunition



Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to object to the proposal to ban “M855” ammunition and projectiles as described in your agency letter titled: “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c).”

Please DO NOT restrict this ammunition.

There are millions and millions of rounds of this ammunition in circulation.
Thousands of shooters use this ammunition every day for bona fide sporting purposes.

I am unaware of even ONE INSTANCE of this ammunition being used in a handgun, and for the purpose of defeating body armor of any law enforcement officer. This proposed ban on M855 ammunition is a solution in search of a problem. There is no need whatsoever for this ammunition to be banned.

Please do not ban M855 ammunition or projectiles.

Respectfully,

NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
EMAIL ADDRESS

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

BATFE isn't reclassifying this as AP, they're proposing to remove the exemption to SS109/M855 under LEOPA. An important distinction and much easier to address.

It is an "exemption" for an ammunition that shouldn't fall under LEOPA to begin with as the core is not entirely steel, etc. and the jacket weight is not more than 25% of the bullet weight (heck the jacket and mild steel in SS109 together are not even 25%)

And while I encourage everyone to get busy with activism, I wouldn't count on having more than 30 days. NRA and ATF already ran around this tree once before in 2012 (as Trent noted) and NRA was very clear it would mean a fight. So ATF knew what they were starting.

 

[walking arsenal]

Two thoughts.

1. I wonder if that new Heizer defense .223 hand cannon has anything to do with this.

2. Is .223 M855 out of a handgun barrel even capable of penetrating armor? Would that matter as an argument?

 

[Walkalong]

For all those who think they don't need to worry because they don't like SS109 ammo, just remember, this is just one more chip they wish to knock from the stone.

Today it is SS109, because it is easy to scare people with. Armor piercing, who needs that scary dangerous stuff, right?

Tomorrow? "Sniper" ammo? You know, target rounds.

Fight them at every turn, and hope we win most of the battles. And join the fight even when it isn't a gun or an ammo your interested in, because they want it all in the long run. Yours included.

 

[Trent]

Two thoughts.

1. I wonder if that new Heizer defense .223 hand cannon has anything to do with this.

No, this started a long time ago, shortly after the first AR pistol was produced.

Sometimes they are VERY quick on this and don't bother taking public comment - such as when someone started turning out AK74 pistols. VERY quickly after that, 7n6 was banned from import. Same with 6.5 brass bullets, as soon as one prototype 6.5 SPC handgun was produced Barnes got notice to stop producing 6.5 brass projectiles (despite people trying to stop that particular manufacturer from making the pistol, knowing what would happen).

2. Is .223 M855 out of a handgun barrel even capable of penetrating armor? Would that matter as an argument?

It's irrelevant as the law isn't based on any sort of scientific evaluation of armor piercing. It doesn't even define what "Armor" is, let alone how much "piercing" is required.

SS109/M855 penetrates soft body armor the same as FMJ.

The design specifications of SS109 called for 3mm penetration of steel at 600 meters - or, put another way, "Capable of penetrating a helmet." This assumes it is fired out of a 20" barrel and at a certain muzzle velocity.

55gr FMJ can't do that - it loses too much velocity on the way to 600 meters, and doesn't have enough structural integrity to defeat the steel. SS109 can because it has slightly more mass, loses slightly less velocity, and has that steel tip in the front 1/3 of the projectile.

(Even with that working towards it, SS109 won't reliably pass that 3mm of steel out of a 16" or shorter carbine barrel; it was designed for the M249 SAW basically to support better plunging fire at a standoff distance.)

Anyway, the bottom line is science has nothing at all to do with this particular law. It's a poor law, all feel good bullhockey that had no public safety basis or basis in fact to begin with.

 

[HexHead]

Doesn't surprise me in the least, considering the proliferation of AR pistols thanks to Sig's "arm brace". They used the 5.45x39 ban as a precedent. Sometimes the gun industry are our worst enemies.

 

[docsleepy]

Doesn't meet the statutory definition of armor piercing. Government has therefore no right to restrict. Exemption superfluous. Suit needs to be brought by someone was standing to force compliance with the law.

 

[Trent]

....

 

[HOOfan_1]

Doesn't surprise me in the least, considering the proliferation of AR pistols thanks to Sig's "arm brace". They used the 5.45x39 ban as a precedent. Sometimes the gun industry are our worst enemies.

The gun companies building guns people want to buy is a bad thing??


Umm...NO..NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

Completely false.

This is on the gun grabbers, they are the enemies.

Why should we have to hide the fact that we are exercising our rights? Why should we walk on eggshells to please the "government overlords"?

 

[Trent]

Well, to be honest, sometimes we are our own worst enemies, but not this time.

The anti-gunners started this mess. Well, technically, hysterical mass media hand wringing started all of this mess waaaay back when, with the mythical "Cop Killer" / "Teflon Coated" crap we saw decades ago. (Remember the plot of "Lethal Weapon"?)

 

[CLP]

I agree this is total crap, but retailers advertising M855 ammo or SS109 projectiles as "armor piercing" doesn't exactly help.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

ATF's tortured interpretation of LEOPA predates the whole SIG brace thing. ATF has been very up front about where they would like to take this:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012...poses-exemption-to-armor-piercing-ammunition/

http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-508401.html

The Captain's Journal link states that ATF's initial position in 2012 was that any ammo that can penetrate soft armor and be fired from a handgun is armor piercing and that ATF can add any ammo it thinks is a threat to public safety.

If true, then the degree to which ATF is attempting to stretch LEOPA is flat out scary. However, this current notice is completely in keeping with those views and makes a good test case for ATF to see how far they can stretch it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

One other thing I would note is that the legislative history and statutory interpretation supports an intent that the ammo be designed and intended for use in a handgun. Here we have the opposite situation - the ammo was designed and intended for use in a rifle and somebody later came along and built a handgun* that will accept the ammo. ATF appears to once again be arguing that the design and inetent is changed by the use - except this goes even farther than SIG brace as they are attempting to ban the ammo from everybody if even one person could theoretically use the ammo in a semi-auto handgun.

*Although many of these "handguns" would make a Walker Colt look like a dainty pocket pistol

 

[BobTheTomato]

I really think this has a lot more to do with banning surplus ammo and not getting rid of AP ammo. If you ban M855 from resale it can't go onto the surplus market and thus ammo gets more expensive.

 

[Pilot]

I really think this has a lot more to do with banning surplus ammo and not getting rid of AP ammo. If you ban M855 from resale it can't go onto the surplus market and thus ammo gets more expensive.

^^^^^This. It is to make it more expensive, and hence difficult for the average, legal citizen to use his/her firearms. Again, it is aimed at the legal gun owner. It is de facto gun control on the law abiding citizen, and yet another example of utter tyranny from this Administration.

 

[Jason75979]

"One other thing I would note is that the legislative history and statutory interpretation supports an intent that the ammo be designed and intended for use in a handgun. Here we have the opposite situation - the ammo was designed and intended for use in a rifle and somebody later came along and built a handgun* that will accept the ammo. ATF appears to once again be arguing that the design and inetent is changed by the use"

Bartholomew, according to the bulletin linked in the OP, it was covered in 1986 to say "may be used in a handgun".
Excerpt: Although the design and intention for the ammunition is relevant to the second alternative definition, the first alternative contains no such limitation. In fact, during the final vote on LEOPA, Congress specifically rejected an amendment that would have limited the definition of armor piercing ammunition to ammunition “intended” to be used in a handgun, thereby exempting “standard rifle ammunition.”1 As a result, rather than limiting the definition to the manufacturer’s “design” or “intent,” the final bill passed by Congress clearly expanded the definition of armor piercing ammunition to include any ammunition containing the specified metal content “which may be used in a handgun.” This definition has remained unchanged since enactment of LEOPA in 1986.

 

[GAMEOVER44]

A ban on this round is COMPLETELY stupid. The criminals will just find a better round to fire off at armored targets. Hell, my 358 Win has more power then the 5.56. As an example, theyll just use bigger rounds.

What a waste of time to ban this round.

 

[Robbins290]

When do you find out when it becomes illegal?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bartholomew, according to the bulletin linked in the OP, it was covered in 1986 to say "may be used in a handgun".

Thanks for correcting me and providing the correct info. That is an important point and I apologize for putting out bad info on that point.

I would like to note though that the quoted text is from ATF's own memo saying it has the power to do this. Considering one of my many problems with ATF is how they interpret their own powers, I'd feel better if I could read the actual legislative history myself; but it appears Thomas only covers Senate history back to 1989. And even if the footnoted statement is true, it still contradicts statements made by the bill's authors on the floor of Congress and may be further contradicted by additional actions in conference committee or the House.

 

[Jason75979]

Thanks for correcting me and providing the correct info. That is an important point and I apologize for putting out bad info on that point.

I would like to note though that the quoted text is from ATF's own memo saying it has the power to do this. Considering one of my many problems with ATF is how they interpret their own powers, I'd feel better if I could read the actual legislative history myself; but it appears Thomas only covers Senate history back to 1989. And even if the footnoted statement is true, it still contradicts statements made by the bill's authors on the floor of Congress and may be further contradicted by additional actions in conference committee or the House.

I'll eat a little crow on this, but, you were partially right BR when using the BATFEs 2nd defining point for armor piercing. "designed and intended for use in a handgun" is found there.
Sorry, sometimes I don't brain too good.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Eh... no big deal. I'll read up on these subjects and get super well informed to the extent I think I'm big stuff and then six months later I'll mix up parts from the original bill with later amendments and think I've discovered some major issue only to find out the major issue is my brain doesn't work as well as it did.

It is complex stuff. Lawyers trying to get over on other lawyers.

 

[GAMEOVER44]

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.