Yes, but the pivotal caveat is that it is purely aimed a LAW ABIDING gun enthusiasts (like all gun control) that would only use these rounds for target shooting, sporting purposes, or legal self defense. It is another jab at what this Administration calls the American "gun culture", and is further example of the reduction in the freedom of legal choices.
ATF: Reclassification of M855/SS109 ammo as armor-piercing
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but the pivotal caveat is that it is purely aimed a LAW ABIDING gun enthusiasts (like all gun control) that would only use these rounds for target shooting, sporting purposes, or legal self defense. It is another jab at what this Administration calls the American "gun culture", and is further example of the reduction in the freedom of legal choices.
Well put. I don't know the background with respect to interpreting this situation, but if what you're saying is true, I find it very interesting that it matches the pattern of their recent SIG brace re-reasoning. Perhaps it may even be a pattern we see get applied elsewhere soon too. Please send a well-articulated comment about this to them!
People should flood the comments. Here's the NRA-ILA directions. Note the remark about not sending the same comment through multiple avenues.
Source: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo
Oh, I know. This all goes back to the Moynihan hearings:
The ATF has run with that, though their grounds for doing so are shaky.
However, when I step back and look at the situation, it seems really odd that they're going after M855 now. It's been around for forty years.
The fact is that AR-15 pistols were recently the subject of controversy and scrutiny (because of the pistol braces), and now they're going after one of the most popular loadings for those pistols. I could be wrong, but the historian in me finds that coincidence too glaring to ignore.
Buzzard Bait
New member
Realy
Where in the second amendment is the 'for sporting use clause' ?
Where in the second amendment is the 'for sporting use clause' ?
Last edited:
Buzzard Bait
New member
interpret the law to saw what ever they want it to
It's not a matter of if it will pass or not, this is interpreting current enforce law and saying we interpret it to say this or that, so no one gets to vote it doesn't have to pass anything.
bb
It's not a matter of if it will pass or not, this is interpreting current enforce law and saying we interpret it to say this or that, so no one gets to vote it doesn't have to pass anything.
bb
Last edited:
ihctractor
New member
This is ATFs response to manufactures selling SBRs without registrations by calling them "pistols" and saying that stock thingy is a "brace". Did they really think they were fooling anybody. Apparently the ATF wasn't.
The latest Obama/Republican battle, not funding the not needed Homeland Security stupid invention.
Why not add BATF to that thought pattern (Ruby Ridge/ The Branch Divider?sps compound burned up!!) De-fund, close down.
Let us go back to the Local/State Police. And the FBI. Save billions.
Every big City has a bomb squad. And if you do not have one, cordon off, till you borrow one.
Why not add BATF to that thought pattern (Ruby Ridge/ The Branch Divider?sps compound burned up!!) De-fund, close down.
Let us go back to the Local/State Police. And the FBI. Save billions.
Every big City has a bomb squad. And if you do not have one, cordon off, till you borrow one.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Congratulations Mississippi shooters! Thanks to this regulatory change, you could be criminals as soon as March of this year.
You'd best get to shooting that M855 you've saved up. Any other states affected besides IL and MS?
You'd best get to shooting that M855 you've saved up. Any other states affected besides IL and MS?
SPEMack618
New member
I hunt hogs with it on occasion. That's a sporting use right?
Crankgrinder
New member
If I saw the barrel off of my slug gun then it's an nfa item. Then I saw the buttock off of it too, does this make it a "handgun"? Are the 12games slugs then a "threat to public safety"? These ar pistols are not pistols at all IMO they're a joke. A pistol with a long buffer tube hanging out the back of it. A toy only a mall ninja would love.
livingintx
New member
The ATF's entire argument is centered around firing M855 from a handgun, which is where AR pistols come into play. They either don't know about the following study results, don't believe it, or don't care.
"Velocity drops rapidly as the barrel length decreases, especially below 10 inches where the velocity drops below 2,500 fps. M855 bullets traveling below 2,500 fps when impacting a target will not produce a lethal wound channel."
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093
I'm wondering if anyone has tested it's "armor piercing" capabilities out of 10" or shorter barrels. If M855 isn't capable of piercing armor out of such short barrels then their entire argument could be thrown out.
"Velocity drops rapidly as the barrel length decreases, especially below 10 inches where the velocity drops below 2,500 fps. M855 bullets traveling below 2,500 fps when impacting a target will not produce a lethal wound channel."
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093
I'm wondering if anyone has tested it's "armor piercing" capabilities out of 10" or shorter barrels. If M855 isn't capable of piercing armor out of such short barrels then their entire argument could be thrown out.
NONE of this makes any difference.
The only question is whether the M855 projectile meets the DEFINITION of an armor piercing projectile under the law. That definition uses the construction of the projectile NOT the performance.
If you constructed a magic .223 projectile out of lead that would blow through 6 inches of steel, it would not be an armor piercing projectile under the law.
If you have time to read this forum and complain; then you have time to take action.
How to comment – ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):
ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
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: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.
Also, contact your congressional reps to make them pressure the BATFE to stop it's over reaching interpretation of the laws.
How to comment – ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):
ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
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: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.
Also, contact your congressional reps to make them pressure the BATFE to stop it's over reaching interpretation of the laws.
i have a 300blk pistol and I can buy steel tipped bullets.... or is that just next on the list?
https://www.upammosupply.com/node/325
https://www.upammosupply.com/node/325
livingintx
New member
"NONE of this makes any difference."
Their position is based on:
"To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute" from -
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
They seem to be using handguns that can chamber M855 ammo. If a it's not capable causing a fatal wound channel from pistol-length barrels then it's possible that it may not be able to penetrate the armor they are concerned with. So the next question becomes "has anyone tested this?".
Their position is based on:
"To protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute" from -
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
They seem to be using handguns that can chamber M855 ammo. If a it's not capable causing a fatal wound channel from pistol-length barrels then it's possible that it may not be able to penetrate the armor they are concerned with. So the next question becomes "has anyone tested this?".
ah, Excuse me. but which of you guys swallows this line?
At least this one starts with "If". From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter what they penetrate, or don't. Period. All that matters is if they are built in the manner described in law, or not.
From a purely practical point of view, can anyone explain to me HOW, the first quote can be true, other than throwing the bullet by hand? If that's what they mean then ok, I can buy that.
But if you fire the thing from a gun, its going to be lethal. 2,500fps is some kind of magic number? or is it just a magic number for that special bullet?
Or are we playing the semantic game "when impacting a target" means a paper target, and so, obviously no wound channel?
Ok, I finally found the reference in the link, and this is what was actually said,
NOT REMOTELY what was given as a quote first, is it?
. I see just a bit of difference.
Oh, and there's an error in the first part of the linked article. They say the 62gr bullet was the result of going to shorter barrels. It wasn't. It predated the shorter than 20" AR guns by a considerable amount.
livingintx
New member
I'm not posting that to get into a legal debate or tit-for-tat with you. My reason for posting the article and quotes from it was to hopefully help give gun owners something to help fight off these infringements on our rights. I guess someone has to be the expert on everything and I'm always willing to concede that it isn't me. I don't waste my time on closed minds so this will be my last comment on this particular thread.
jrinne0430
New member
Who has successfully sent a comment into BATF via email? What address did you use? I used APAComments@atf.gov and it came back as undeliverable almost 12hrs after sending it.
Last edited:
- Status