barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
**Let me preface this by politely asking anyone about to type "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to please at least read the following paragraph before posting
The purpose of my spitballing is not to greatly expand our projectile options, nor to punish the BATFE, nor to "go along to get along" with those who want the AR15 straight-up banned; the purpose is to replace the mess we've got with language that is clear, precise, enforceable, accomplishes what the original statute intended (whether you agree with it or not), and most importantly leaves little to no room for expansion or interpretation. From a solid foundation, we can then work to educate the public/police on how armor piercing ammo is no significant threat, and a needless restriction that is at its root completely arbitrary. I'd like to get something with at least some level of support from my fellow gun-peers framed up before presenting it to a bunch of (pro and anti) reps, orgs, and bloggers as a possible solution.
Normally I'm a strong believer in avoiding compromise on gun issues since they are almost always traps presented to us by the ignorant/malicious. But this particular LEOPA law is one that doesn't seem to serve any side of the issue very well;
-it allows for true AP ammo in rifles (which are increasingly indistinguishable from pistols) so it doesn't 'ban AP ammo'
-it doesn't restrict all or even most ammo capable of defeating armor so it can't protect police
-it doesn't restrict most civilian ammo options appreciably at the end of the day
-it doesn't give the ATF a clear road map of what they're even supposed to do to enforce the thing
-it doesn't provide a very clear letter of the law for gun owners and manufacturers to follow, and the pistol/rifle provision makes it easy to become a violator unknowingly
Basically, it seems to me that a simplification of language and use of measurable criteria would serve everyone's interests to some degree. At least better than what we have now. And that's important when getting people to cooperate with something they don't fully endorse.
****************
Background
Presently, the statute is composed of two parts; the first lists materials that are prohibited in any quantity from monolithic cores (or 'projectile elements' in the BATFE's eyes), the second restricts bullet construction to 'pistol' rounds with thin/deformable jackets. True to typical congressional form, practically every operative word in the statute is subject to regulatory interpretation; nowhere is there a clear definition for; core, pistol round, jacket, and the minimum caliber restriction is not accurate enough (significant digits) to properly describe a bullet typically measured in thousandths of an inch.
It is clear the original intent was to ban handgun bullets that are harder or more rigid than the norm, the thinking being their purpose is to shear a plug of material through hard barriers (and to be fair, this is more or less accurate for specifically-armor-piercing bullets). Lots of talk of effectiveness on police armor and whatall, but that's not the bill that was passed. Anything over ~1500ft/s starts rapidly defeating fibrous armor since the fibers can't react/stretch fast enough to dissipate the energy. The fact that most/all widely used cartridges associated with rifles far exceed this level, and the lack of velocity standards in the original law, suggest that ballistics cannot be a determining factor in classifying armor piercing bullets for restriction. Non-sensical, I know, but when it is not practicable to restrict ammo based on its performance, the next option is to look for clear design intent.
So what options do we have to make a clear, workable law that satisfies the objective? The original writers were on the right track, turns out; materials and construction. They just weren't gunnies or engineers, so they went crazy from there on. Bronze, brass, steel, and iron were banned simply because they could be hardened to piercer-levels and often were, even though non-armor piercing ammo can easily be constructed with them that is both cheaper and less toxic than lead.
Part One: Bullet Materials
-Restrict from civilian production and import all rifling-stabilized projectiles*, regardless the caliber/weight/chambering, using specific hardening/kinetics-enhancing elements above trace levels: Beryllium, Tungsten, and Uranium (and any other heavy/hard elements seen only in purpose-designed armor-piercing/kinetic penetrator bullets that we care to add at the time of passage)
Part Two: Bullet Construction
-Restrict from civilian production and import all rifling-stabilized projectiles, regardless caliber/weight/chambering, containing a material produced at a hardness in excess of 200 Brinell (approx. 4130 normalized, "barrel steel" --or whatever other threshold we care to set) at the time of firing**
Part Three: Exemptions
-The Attorney General shall make an exemption for any projectile (not cartridge; NFA already has that provision) deemed acceptable for legitimate civilian purposes or in common use***. Use of non-exempt projectiles meeting the above criteria as armor piercing may not be used on animal or human targets (so good for practice only, as the existing supply depletes) with some tacked-on penalty applied if you are caught doing so, even in a "good shoot" situation.
Potential impact:
Well, we'd get a lot of the non-AP mild steel core ammo back, and finally some cheap lead-free options (that may actually outpace lead-based options for plinking ammo soon thereafter). We'd also lose things like hardened aluminum-core SS190 5.7x28 ammo, sintered hard-bronze frangibles and saboted ring-airfoil rounds --unless exempted by the AG, as some would be. Projectile development towards harder materials like ceramics and composites would also suffer, at least in the civilian sector. Anyone possessing ammo at present would be totally uninhibited in their use or sale of it, provided the use is not for defense or hunting (the purpose of the law is to preclude it from the former, common decency to animals precludes its use for the latter)
Thoughts? Constructive thoughts? Any possible implications I may not be aware of, or did not account for properly? Any items you'd like included? Tips/tricks/contacts for getting the proposal in the hands of those who could actually do something with it?
TCB
*i.e. not heavi-shot. Also, the term "rifling-stabilized" is subjective, but already falls under BATFE discretion for NFA determinations of the firearms that'd be firing these things. I don't think the term's inclusion would allow for discretion they do not already have. "Stabilized" seems overly broad, but its scope would cover fin-stabilized projectiles; probably not an issue since we don't often see those outside smoothbore applications that don't factor in here.
**so they can't go and measure the hardness after the round has impacted on something and cold-worked itself, and so we can't age-harden the bullet after assembling the cartridge
***Allows for expansion of usable projectile classes if technology advances faster than the regulators. "Deemed" may allow too much leeway here, but there does need to be some room for the AG to add or be forced to add by court order, exemptions as they become applicable.
The purpose of my spitballing is not to greatly expand our projectile options, nor to punish the BATFE, nor to "go along to get along" with those who want the AR15 straight-up banned; the purpose is to replace the mess we've got with language that is clear, precise, enforceable, accomplishes what the original statute intended (whether you agree with it or not), and most importantly leaves little to no room for expansion or interpretation. From a solid foundation, we can then work to educate the public/police on how armor piercing ammo is no significant threat, and a needless restriction that is at its root completely arbitrary. I'd like to get something with at least some level of support from my fellow gun-peers framed up before presenting it to a bunch of (pro and anti) reps, orgs, and bloggers as a possible solution.
Normally I'm a strong believer in avoiding compromise on gun issues since they are almost always traps presented to us by the ignorant/malicious. But this particular LEOPA law is one that doesn't seem to serve any side of the issue very well;
-it allows for true AP ammo in rifles (which are increasingly indistinguishable from pistols) so it doesn't 'ban AP ammo'
-it doesn't restrict all or even most ammo capable of defeating armor so it can't protect police
-it doesn't restrict most civilian ammo options appreciably at the end of the day
-it doesn't give the ATF a clear road map of what they're even supposed to do to enforce the thing
-it doesn't provide a very clear letter of the law for gun owners and manufacturers to follow, and the pistol/rifle provision makes it easy to become a violator unknowingly
Basically, it seems to me that a simplification of language and use of measurable criteria would serve everyone's interests to some degree. At least better than what we have now. And that's important when getting people to cooperate with something they don't fully endorse.
****************
Background
Presently, the statute is composed of two parts; the first lists materials that are prohibited in any quantity from monolithic cores (or 'projectile elements' in the BATFE's eyes), the second restricts bullet construction to 'pistol' rounds with thin/deformable jackets. True to typical congressional form, practically every operative word in the statute is subject to regulatory interpretation; nowhere is there a clear definition for; core, pistol round, jacket, and the minimum caliber restriction is not accurate enough (significant digits) to properly describe a bullet typically measured in thousandths of an inch.
It is clear the original intent was to ban handgun bullets that are harder or more rigid than the norm, the thinking being their purpose is to shear a plug of material through hard barriers (and to be fair, this is more or less accurate for specifically-armor-piercing bullets). Lots of talk of effectiveness on police armor and whatall, but that's not the bill that was passed. Anything over ~1500ft/s starts rapidly defeating fibrous armor since the fibers can't react/stretch fast enough to dissipate the energy. The fact that most/all widely used cartridges associated with rifles far exceed this level, and the lack of velocity standards in the original law, suggest that ballistics cannot be a determining factor in classifying armor piercing bullets for restriction. Non-sensical, I know, but when it is not practicable to restrict ammo based on its performance, the next option is to look for clear design intent.
So what options do we have to make a clear, workable law that satisfies the objective? The original writers were on the right track, turns out; materials and construction. They just weren't gunnies or engineers, so they went crazy from there on. Bronze, brass, steel, and iron were banned simply because they could be hardened to piercer-levels and often were, even though non-armor piercing ammo can easily be constructed with them that is both cheaper and less toxic than lead.
Part One: Bullet Materials
-Restrict from civilian production and import all rifling-stabilized projectiles*, regardless the caliber/weight/chambering, using specific hardening/kinetics-enhancing elements above trace levels: Beryllium, Tungsten, and Uranium (and any other heavy/hard elements seen only in purpose-designed armor-piercing/kinetic penetrator bullets that we care to add at the time of passage)
Part Two: Bullet Construction
-Restrict from civilian production and import all rifling-stabilized projectiles, regardless caliber/weight/chambering, containing a material produced at a hardness in excess of 200 Brinell (approx. 4130 normalized, "barrel steel" --or whatever other threshold we care to set) at the time of firing**
Part Three: Exemptions
-The Attorney General shall make an exemption for any projectile (not cartridge; NFA already has that provision) deemed acceptable for legitimate civilian purposes or in common use***. Use of non-exempt projectiles meeting the above criteria as armor piercing may not be used on animal or human targets (so good for practice only, as the existing supply depletes) with some tacked-on penalty applied if you are caught doing so, even in a "good shoot" situation.
Potential impact:
Well, we'd get a lot of the non-AP mild steel core ammo back, and finally some cheap lead-free options (that may actually outpace lead-based options for plinking ammo soon thereafter). We'd also lose things like hardened aluminum-core SS190 5.7x28 ammo, sintered hard-bronze frangibles and saboted ring-airfoil rounds --unless exempted by the AG, as some would be. Projectile development towards harder materials like ceramics and composites would also suffer, at least in the civilian sector. Anyone possessing ammo at present would be totally uninhibited in their use or sale of it, provided the use is not for defense or hunting (the purpose of the law is to preclude it from the former, common decency to animals precludes its use for the latter)
Thoughts? Constructive thoughts? Any possible implications I may not be aware of, or did not account for properly? Any items you'd like included? Tips/tricks/contacts for getting the proposal in the hands of those who could actually do something with it?
TCB
*i.e. not heavi-shot. Also, the term "rifling-stabilized" is subjective, but already falls under BATFE discretion for NFA determinations of the firearms that'd be firing these things. I don't think the term's inclusion would allow for discretion they do not already have. "Stabilized" seems overly broad, but its scope would cover fin-stabilized projectiles; probably not an issue since we don't often see those outside smoothbore applications that don't factor in here.
**so they can't go and measure the hardness after the round has impacted on something and cold-worked itself, and so we can't age-harden the bullet after assembling the cartridge
***Allows for expansion of usable projectile classes if technology advances faster than the regulators. "Deemed" may allow too much leeway here, but there does need to be some room for the AG to add or be forced to add by court order, exemptions as they become applicable.
Last edited: