ATF: Reclassification of M855/SS109 ammo as armor-piercing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sense the LEO protection act was established to protect officers wearing soft body armor from badguys with handguns. It seems like a stretch to discuss 556/223 rounds.

Yes there are now AR pistols, but just about any 556/223 round out of those "pistols" will defeat soft armor. Then the issue of Green tip ammo is irrelevant.
 
To be fair to the ATF, wasn't armor piercing one of the reasons they switched to it?
Click to expand...

M855 penetrates 10ga steel at 600m (something M193 would only do to around 500m). During the 60s, that was one of the military requirements for M80 ball (penetrate the old steel pot at 600yds). They played around with various attempts to get that with .223 (including 77gr bullets way back in the 1960s) and then just reduced the range requirement.

However, they wanted the 600m for the SAW project so SS109 was created and adopted.

M855 also penetrates those super-thick polyethylene plates better than M193; but penetrates AR500 worse at close ranges. At best though, it has marginally better performance than FMJ - which is why M995 is issued for 5.56mm AP ammo and M855 was general issue ammo.

Another issue is ATF has provided an exemption since 1986 when SS109 type ammo was introduced but now they are claiming it needs to be banned because of AR pistols - even though 5.56mm semi-auto pistols sold to civilians predates SS109 ammo.

And as noted above - the bill is about soft armor worn by police; but any rifle caliber will zip right through that regardless of construction. So in practical terms this ban changes nothing.
 
The reason the ATF quoted for banning importation of 7N6 5.45X39 was the presence of pistols chambered for the cartridge.
 
Recently there was a post about a Heir? or something like that...silly single shot short barreled 5.56 and I guess 7.62 Nato?Plus handguns like TC,the single shot hunting /silouhette pistols,all available in a variety of rifle cartridges.

So,for a wild example,if I could buy a .375 H+H Encore,does that mean Solids for African hunting could no longer be produced in USA for 375 H+H?

I understand,my example is silly...but so is this ruling.

What will they do about the new non lead solid copper bullets?
 
Some bureaucrat is justifying there existence. As in "What can we ban today"
Click to expand...

Well, that always can be part of it, but I think this is a systematic approach by this Administration to restrict firearm choices, and usage THROUGH AMMUNITION RESTRICTIONS across the board, especially for evil black rifles. First 7n6, and now M855.
 
Last edited:
What will they do about the new non lead solid copper bullets?
Click to expand...

I think that is a feature, not a bug, to them. At the same time ammunition choices on one end (lead bullets) are being restricted by the states; ATF is restricting choices on the other end (non-lead/less-lead alternatives).
 
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and
which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other
substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron,
brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended
for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25
percent of the total weight of the projectile.


If I'm not mistaken, the core of M855 isn't made entirely of steel, it has some lead in it. It's also designed to be fired from a rifle and is .22 caliber. Is there a place where we can make public comments?
 
You are correct on both counts - and the steel portion is nowhere near 25%. ATF is taking the position that anything over 40gr and not rimfire is not ".22 caliber" as described by the law.

They are also taking the position that M855 is composed of multiple cores and that if any of those cores meet the definition then that is AP.

Both interpretations are legally suspect I would say.
 
My opinion on this matter is since the lawmakers know they can't ban AR-15's all together, they are trying to restrict our ammo supply so it makes it harder to use our rifles. When I got an email from the NRA about this I thought about how many times Ive seen dirt cheap M855 ammo for sale. If they ban it, it will be a blatant disregard to their statement earlier about it being popular for sporting use.

John
 
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended
for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25
percent of the total weight of the projectile.
Click to expand...

"designed and intended for use in a handgun"

I think a very strong argument can be made that the ammo in question was designed and intended to be used in a rifle.The design and intent was to meet the needs of the US or NATO military.AFAIK,the US and NATO use no handguns chambered for 5.56 NATO ,so it would not be possible the military variants of 5.56 ammo were designed or intended for handgun use.

The existence of a handgun that will accept the ammo does not mean the ammo was designed or intended for a handgun.

According to me.But,I learned to read in public school.
 
If they ban it, it will be a blatant disregard to their statement earlier about it being popular for sporting use.
Click to expand...

No, it will completely consistent with their interpretation of sporting use. AKA HUNTING.

They do not recognize "games" as legitimate sporting use. They should, but they don't. They do for some other things, but not for the evil assault weapons and their ammo.

And neither do the worst of the states, in this regard.

Back when the 94 AWB took effect (and several states essentially copied it) the .22 Olympic match pistol became an assault weapon, because it used a magazine that did not go through the pistol grip.

IIRC, a 16yr old girl, Olympic hopeful asked her state Senator for help with a variance, so she could continue to practice for competition. She was told, in essence, if she wanted to continue to compete, she should move to another state.

They simply don't care about what effect these rulings might have on innocent people, UNLESS we make it clear with the power of the vote. Even when we do that, they don't admit it, to anyone, other than themselves.
 
Some bureaucrat is justifying their existence. As in "What can we ban today"
Click to expand...

+1.

I expect to see a whole lot more of this in the next 22 1/2 months.

Byzantine regulations capriciously enforced cultivate a disrespect for the Law.

At some point, the folks will say, "Screw it." and will decide it is less risky to be a criminal than to attempt to follow the ever changing whims of some faceless, nameless, bureaucracy, and all the court cases engendered by same. At least that way, they know where they stand.
 
Some bureaucrat is justifying their existence. As in "What can we ban today"
Click to expand...
It could be that, or it could be something else.

The ATF recently issued a letter on those pistol braces. You know: the ones everybody and their brother used like rifle stocks. They went and made "nuts to the NFA" videos on YouTube and crowed about having a short-barrel rifle without the tax stamp.

Poke the bear enough and what happens? A weird letter from the ATF with a tortured reading of the word redesign. Somebody there was obviously unhappy with the situation.

I wonder if this isn't an extension of that. If people are being idjits with the AR-15 pistols, what's a good way to punish them? Ban the ammunition that can be used in them.
 
they need to be defunded

We need to all ride our congressmen and senators those clowns need to be defunded, they serve no useful purpose nothing that couldn't be handled by state and local law enforcement
 
Tom, ATF's tortured interpretation of LEOPA predates the whole SIG brace thing. ATF has been very up fromt 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.
 
Last edited:
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

ETA: Another poster on another board corrected me on the legislative history, relying on the history as reported by the ATF memo itself:

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.
Click to expand...

I don't thing the amendment records from 1986 are available online yet, so that might require some research to verify; but is worth keeping in mind as it reflects ATF's understanding of the law.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top