JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
No logic in banning m855 to protect officers. A M193 fired from a AR pistol will also penetrate a 3A vest.
And do more damage than a M855.

So where is there logic? Well maybe whey will ban m193 next? Even though it dose not meat the ATF's description of armor piercing, any more than the now banned 855 ammo. It is even more dangerous to vest wearing Cops than 855 was! And banning non armor piercing 855 opened the door.

Wait. All 5.56 is military ammo? Ban it all! But wait again? All .223 is the same as 5.56 in performance on 3A vests. Ban that too!

You see. There building the slope were gona slip on.;)
 
We will write the ATF and our politicians, to oppose this ban and more infringements sure to come. Do you think they really care? If we truly lived in a free country, the ban wouldn't even have been proposed.
I'm afraid you may be correct. They're playing games with the process to eliminate discussion and force through an unnecessary rule.
Disheartening isn't it?
 
US Code 921

(17)

(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.


So dose m855 fall under the description of Armor Piercing?
The only way I can see is if it's copper jacket is over 25% of it's total weight?

If it doesn't fall under the ''AP'' Term. Then why was it given an exception in the first place?
And what good is the ''AP'' definition if they can just call any round ''AP''.

I fear I know the answer.:(
 
My comments to BATFE via email:

To Whom it May Concern:

I am against the proposed regulation of M855 surplus military ammunition as "armor piercing" ammunition.
This ammunition is not classified as armor piercing by the military, but rather as ball ammunition.

Moreover, it does not qualify as armor piercing by your own previous definitions:

18USC Sec921a (bold added for emphasis)

(17)(A) The term "ammunition" means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

(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.

The bullet (projectile) must also have a core made entirely out of the metals listed above, or be a full jacketed bullet with a jacket weighing more than 25% of its overall weight. This means that the SS109/M855 bullets wouldn't be covered, as their cores are partly steel, and partly lead. Lead isn't listed in the metals above.

Since, this round does not qualify as armor piercing (by your own previous definitions as well as by the us military), I see no reason to ban it other than attempting to restrict the public from a widely available and relatively inexpensive form of ammunition (for primarily political purposes). This ammunition can certainly be used both for hunting and other sporting purposes, as well as self defense.

Finally, I would like to know how you plan to deal with existing stores of this ammo already in private possession. Are you planning on having owners turn in their stores of it and reimburse them for the costs? Otherwise you would be depriving them of property without due process (see US Bill of Rights).
 
Is this old news, or not? he wants to ban thr 5.56 round. just ammo. not guns yet. I kind of find this hillariuos. Ban a Round?/

You should take it a bit more seriously. Both Brownells and Cabelas have serious concerns about it. More importantly, it dries up a major source of surplus ammo, which was selling for around 30 cents a round. Now totally dried up.
 
Is this an all out ban on 556 or is it a lack of knowledge on the reporter's part that is translating the M855 ban into all 556? Because given bubblegumty reporting everywhere (and I do mean everywhere) it would not surprise me if they didn't realize the difference.
 

Upcoming Events

Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Arms Collectors of Southwest Washington (ACSWW) gun show
Battle Ground, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top