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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If someone fired an armor piercing round at you it would go in one end and come out the other like an ice pick. You really want the round to expand and dump its energy into the target. So the AP round wouldnt be the most effective stopper. All it would be good for is stopping people in lightly armored vehicles. Specifically, the M995 round has the ability of making it through a half inch of steel.

So would it pierce the standard Lenco Bearcat which the swat teams use? Nope. Bearcats have at least 1 inch of steel. It might go through some of the much earlier designed armored vehicles from the 1960s though. If you had a 50 BMG AP that might give the Bearcat a good challenge.

So the M995 and M855 rounds are useless for civilian and law enforcement use. Go ahead and buy them, but they are not at all useful for our purposes. Since the M995 cant pierce through modern armored vehicles it has questionable use in the military.
 
Re post 226, don't forget to contact your elected officials, U.S.Senators (2) and Congress person. Forgive me if I repeat myself.
 
It might not be useful as a SD/HD round....but it was CHEAP. All the mil surplus made it the cheapest (quality) ammo in the caliber.

Great for a plinker/training round

You wanna have guns to defend the 2nd...you better be training with em. The m855 ammo made that economically viable.
 
ronl noted the following in a post:


Here's the thing I never really understood about the matter, with the whole "protect our officers" talk. Most departments are issued level IIIA soft body armor, which any rifle projectile will generally blow right through.

He then noted: The point is they're blowing smoke, followed by the following: This entire matter is simply about taking away our ammo, plain and simple, and has nothing at all to do with police safety. He concludes with:If they want to keep the police safe, then issue them level III plates and let them use them.
_________________________________________________________________
Sounds like the man has his head screwed on correctly, along with having a clear understanding of what's going on.
 
Last edited:
New report posted today. ATF claims ALL 5.56 ammo poses a threat to LE with the proliferation of AR15 rifles and pistols. Article HERE
 
Gee...

I'm shocked I tell you. Just shocked.
One now has to wonder what the "new" framework will be re-written to look like.

(... as if anyone really had to look too deeply for an agenda at work.)
 
Eh, he is asking the same Congress that told him to suck eggs on M855 ban to revisit LEOPA and give him more power. I'd say that performance is mainly for his base who can't figure out why ATF backed down.

However, the Dems have been sending a consistent, clear message on ammo for over a decade now. If it can penetrate soft armor (i.e. all centerfire rifle ammo), then they want to give ATF the discretion to ban it.

Note that in 2004, Politfact labeled the claim that a bill Kerry voted for would ban all rifle ammo as "False" and now here is the director of ATF making exactly that argument to Congress. Good thing he didn't already have that power from the 2004 bill.
 
They can make all the "claims" they want but, the article says:

the ATF will suspend rewriting the "framework" used to exempt armor piercing ammo from sale or use. "It probably isn't going to happen any time soon," he said. Jones also said, "We are not going to move forward."
Click to expand...

They made it clear that they are not planning any action, Could they at some future date ? Certainly, but for now, the case is closed.
 
They made it clear that they are not planning any action,
Could they at some future date ? Certainly, ...
but for now, the case is closed.
Click to expand...
"Promises" made by the BATF are worth about what promises are when made to Colonels.

They change on a dime, and at the orders of those above the action.
 
They made it clear that they are not planning any action, Could they at some future date ? Certainly, but for now, the case is closed.
Click to expand...

The comment period is open until March 16 and we should use that if we have not already. One concern is that ATF appears to think the M855 ban was an "interpretive ruling." If they thought otherwise, they would have had to give 90 days for comments.

The recent SCOTUS ruling just said that no notice or comment is required for interpretive rulings. Next time ATF revisits this, we may not receive any notice at all. So at a minimum, we should make the best of this opportunity to comment.

Even more importantly, ATF is being very clear about where they want to take this. This is an agency with a great deal of discretion in interpreting the authority Congress has delegated them. We need to fix that now by demanding Congress take a more active role in their oversight and remove some of that authority where ATF has demonstrated a habit of abusing it.
 
tepin

New report posted today. ATF claims ALL 5.56 ammo poses a threat to LE with the proliferation of AR15 rifles and pistols. Article HERE
__________________
"Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." by Justice Oliver
________________________________________________________________

Re the comment of BATFE head, B. Todd Jones re things that could be dangerous for or to police, it strikes me that MOST ANYTHING dangerous or harmful to a civilian, remember them, could be dangerous or harmful to police officers. Seems that we all live in a dangerous world.
 
From the washington examiner today...

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Thursday raised new concerns about surplus military ammo used in popular AR-15 rifles and pistols just days after pulling back on a proposal to ban the ammo because it could threaten police safety.
Click to expand...

And this jewel about less leathal .223

The ATF singled it out for a ban because more AR-15 style pistols that can shoot the ammo are being produced and presumably could be used by criminals in police shootouts. The AR-15 can also shoot the less lethal .223 round, which was not targeted by ATF in the ban proposal.
Click to expand...
lol
 
the ATF will suspend rewriting the "framework" used to exempt armor piercing ammo from sale or use. "It probably isn't going to happen any time soon," he said. Jones also said, "We are not going to move forward."
Click to expand...

That didn't take long...
 
Here is CSPAN's link to the Director of ATF's testimony before the Senate hearing on Federal Law Enforcement Budget Requests:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324792-1/hearing-federal-law-enforcement-fiscal-year-2016-budgets

ATF's testimony begins about 29 minutes in. He mentions the M855 ban and the resulting mayhem at 35 minutes in and then the Senators start in on him. Sen. Murphy sets up an obscenely ignorant anti-gun slow pitch for him at 1:10. Money quote comes at 1:23.
 
Last edited:
I've said it before and I will say it again. This is not over, not even close. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" always comes to mind when dealing with the government. You see something in front of you, but there's something else going on behind the scenes.

This came out in an article today, and I agree 100%.


"They will propose something so onerous and outrageous, that it manages to inspire outrage across the country. They will then back away from the plan, while trying to preserve as much of their effort as possible; a “tactical withdrawal” if you will. If even one segment of legislation, regulation, or executive order survives the public’s backlash, then they’ve still made some progress. In this case, they won’t succeed in banning this ammunition, but they will come back with something less concerning. They will say “be reasonable, let’s meet halfway on the issue.”

Everyone will still be allowed to buy the ammo, but there might be an additional tax. Or perhaps they’ll ask that anyone who buys it must fill out a special form, not unlike purchasing certain cold medicines. This of course sets a different precedent, just not the same one that was originally intended."

Don't get too comfortable or start celebrating. This is just a flanking maneuver.
 
From pturner's quote from the article:

""They will propose something so onerous and outrageous, that it manages to inspire outrage across the country. They will then back away from the plan, while trying to preserve as much of their effort as possible; a “tactical withdrawal” if you will. If even one segment of legislation, regulation, or executive order survives the public’s backlash, then they’ve still made some progress. In this case, they won’t succeed in banning this ammunition, but they will come back with something less concerning. They will say “be reasonable, let’s meet halfway on the issue.”"

And they'll call this a compromise. Like we're gaining something out of it.
 
That's exactly the line Jones took in the hearings "Well, we would have eventually exempted more ammunition than we would have banned; but nobody is getting an exemption now."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top