JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
M855 Ammo Ban
- Thread Starter TastyWheat87
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,010
- Reactions
- 1,640
I have plenty.
- Messages
- 1,865
- Reactions
- 1,245
That's a good start.
Member 3687
- Messages
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 3,160
Besides voting at the whitehouse.gov be sure to write the BATFE and let them know your not happy with this. Here is the letter I sent them, feel free to copy and send or cut and paste parts
and do your own but please let your voice be heard. I stole the top part and added the bottom section.
ATF email: [email protected]
To BATFE,
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed change to current law that would make it illegal to manufacture, import or sell on the open market M855 / SS109 ammunition.
The claimed purpose of this change is 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".
As the Technical Branch well knows, all rifle ammunition of a common caliber such as .223 / 5.56 is capable of penetrating threat level IIA and IIIA body armor regardless of the firearm that is used to fire it. M855 / SS109 are not any more of a threat to law enforcement than M193 or Horandy VMAX loads are.
Before starting this letter I wanted to know all the facts I could find so I started with the definition of Armor piercing ammunition so I taken the information from your web page seen below and as well as the letter with your intent.
I found a couple things I feel are wrong with your reasoning to ban said M855 and SS109 ammo.
First by your definition per 18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B) M855 it is not Armor piercing ammunition as it has a lead core making up 2/3 of the projectile and 1/3 solid core. Per 18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B) it would have to be 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.
A 2/3 lead core is not considered the presence of traces of other substances as it makes up most of the core.
The second is the M855 and SS109 per 18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B) was never designed and never intended for use in a handgun and in 1986, ATF exempted 5.56 mm (.223) SS109 and M855 "green tip" ammunition containing a steel core. The fact that 24 plus years later that companies started to make AR15 hand guns did not change the designed and intent of the ammunition. You are doing that.
Per the last section on your webpage The term "armor piercing ammunition" does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
In 1986, ATF exempted 5.56 mm (.223) SS109 and M855 "green tip" ammunition containing a steel core.
So as there have been no issues with the M855 and SS109 ammo and said AR pistols have been around for a number of years with no concerns I am asking that you reconsider your stance on this subject and allow us to continue using the M855 and SS109 ammo.
Thank you
NAME
CITY/STATE
From the BATFE web page
http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/guides/gun-control-act-definition-ammunition
Armor piercing ammunition
18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B)
•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
•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 term "armor piercing ammunition" does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
and do your own but please let your voice be heard. I stole the top part and added the bottom section.
ATF email: [email protected]
To BATFE,
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed change to current law that would make it illegal to manufacture, import or sell on the open market M855 / SS109 ammunition.
The claimed purpose of this change is 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".
As the Technical Branch well knows, all rifle ammunition of a common caliber such as .223 / 5.56 is capable of penetrating threat level IIA and IIIA body armor regardless of the firearm that is used to fire it. M855 / SS109 are not any more of a threat to law enforcement than M193 or Horandy VMAX loads are.
Before starting this letter I wanted to know all the facts I could find so I started with the definition of Armor piercing ammunition so I taken the information from your web page seen below and as well as the letter with your intent.
I found a couple things I feel are wrong with your reasoning to ban said M855 and SS109 ammo.
First by your definition per 18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B) M855 it is not Armor piercing ammunition as it has a lead core making up 2/3 of the projectile and 1/3 solid core. Per 18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B) it would have to be 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.
A 2/3 lead core is not considered the presence of traces of other substances as it makes up most of the core.
The second is the M855 and SS109 per 18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B) was never designed and never intended for use in a handgun and in 1986, ATF exempted 5.56 mm (.223) SS109 and M855 "green tip" ammunition containing a steel core. The fact that 24 plus years later that companies started to make AR15 hand guns did not change the designed and intent of the ammunition. You are doing that.
Per the last section on your webpage The term "armor piercing ammunition" does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
In 1986, ATF exempted 5.56 mm (.223) SS109 and M855 "green tip" ammunition containing a steel core.
So as there have been no issues with the M855 and SS109 ammo and said AR pistols have been around for a number of years with no concerns I am asking that you reconsider your stance on this subject and allow us to continue using the M855 and SS109 ammo.
Thank you
NAME
CITY/STATE
From the BATFE web page
http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/guides/gun-control-act-definition-ammunition
Armor piercing ammunition
18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B)
•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
•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 term "armor piercing ammunition" does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 3
- Reactions
- 5
Since when does sporting purposes have anything to do with Second Amendment Rights...?
Ever since 1968 [emoji35]
- Messages
- 1,865
- Reactions
- 1,245
With a letter like that the ATF will probably ban ANY and every projectile that could penetrate body armor. Poking the hornets nest...
- Messages
- 2,946
- Reactions
- 5,024
This is probably closer to the truth.
The same people that are contributing to the ammo panic and (AGAIN) scarcity are often times the same ones that stir up the pot. Same group of folks who flooded the ATF with letters on "well, if I use my SIG brace THIS way, I'm legal, right?" that led them to clarify and restrict its usage.
Gun owners biggest enemy are other gun owners more often than not.
Member 3687
- Messages
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 3,160
I will not post the BATFE letter as it is 17 pages but if you have not read it you might want to. I am answering questions they not only state but base their opinion on and are changing to do what they want.
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
If the EPA gets its way and bans lead core ammo and the industry has to go to a solid core say in polymer, copper or ceramic then the BATFE could state this is armor piercing per this decision and band it according to this letter and you will have no ammo at all, then what will you do.
So yes the BATFE is setting itself up to ban all ammo they deem non sporting so you have two choices you can grab your ankles and take it or fight for your rights.
You may not like my letter and that is your right as we live in AMERICA and still have some freedoms (although slowly going away) but by not doing anything to stop it is no different than thinking my letter will do harm.
All I ask is get involved. If you don't want to write a letter then call them, fax them or email them (as I did) just let them know you are not happy or they will assume you have no problem with it and all is well.
Washington and Oregon is in a fight for their gun rights at this moment as well and I seen some post about the folks that carried rifles to the Washington capital as being idiots and morons but all I ask is where you there, did you do your part or just complain.
Send the same message to your Federal Representatives as well to stop the BATFE madness and put them in check.
Rant over
· ATF website: [email protected]. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
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.
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
If the EPA gets its way and bans lead core ammo and the industry has to go to a solid core say in polymer, copper or ceramic then the BATFE could state this is armor piercing per this decision and band it according to this letter and you will have no ammo at all, then what will you do.
So yes the BATFE is setting itself up to ban all ammo they deem non sporting so you have two choices you can grab your ankles and take it or fight for your rights.
You may not like my letter and that is your right as we live in AMERICA and still have some freedoms (although slowly going away) but by not doing anything to stop it is no different than thinking my letter will do harm.
All I ask is get involved. If you don't want to write a letter then call them, fax them or email them (as I did) just let them know you are not happy or they will assume you have no problem with it and all is well.
Washington and Oregon is in a fight for their gun rights at this moment as well and I seen some post about the folks that carried rifles to the Washington capital as being idiots and morons but all I ask is where you there, did you do your part or just complain.
Send the same message to your Federal Representatives as well to stop the BATFE madness and put them in check.
Rant over
· ATF website: [email protected]. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
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.
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf
- Messages
- 2,946
- Reactions
- 5,024
Send your letter if you want. I don't think I said you should stop. I think, however, more often than not the actions that are taken create more problems than they solve. Just like the hoards of idiots that mailed in about the SIG brace - *everyone* knew how that thing was intended to be used and it was a nod and a wink from ATF to let it live in the gray. Then a bunch of people wrote letters to where they had to respond.
Didn't really impact me (we have SBRs here after all) but I know quite a few people in less-friendly states that it screwed over. So yes, as an AMERICAN you have a right to send in whatever it is you want (1st Amendment) and it's also your right to not think through your decision and screw over other Americans.
Didn't really impact me (we have SBRs here after all) but I know quite a few people in less-friendly states that it screwed over. So yes, as an AMERICAN you have a right to send in whatever it is you want (1st Amendment) and it's also your right to not think through your decision and screw over other Americans.
Member 3687
- Messages
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 3,160
The BATFE is asking for your input before they make their final determination so it is not pushing their buttons. This is your opportunity to state your point of view.
They gave us until March 16, 2015
They gave us until March 16, 2015
- Messages
- 1,865
- Reactions
- 1,245
I would focus more on the ammo currently in question doesn't even fall into their own guidelines. Your letter as wit sounds like well. ... if you ban that you'd might as well ban "X" and "Y" and "Z" because they are just as bad. YMMV.
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reactions
- 466
Would anyone mind, explaining to me in small words, like I'm a marginally functioning lawnmower man...
If M855 lacks the components outlined in the law cited by the OP, how can it be classified and banned as AP, under that law?
Also, M855, that's just a standard steel jacketed lead core for 223, right?
If M855 lacks the components outlined in the law cited by the OP, how can it be classified and banned as AP, under that law?
Also, M855, that's just a standard steel jacketed lead core for 223, right?
Member 3687
- Messages
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 3,160
Well I hate to tell you but all rifle hunting ammo solid core or not will go through soft body armor including 30-30, that is a fact, it is the velocity of the ammo not the bullet type or make up.
As the Technical Branch well knows, all rifle ammunition of a common caliber such as .223 / 5.56 is capable of penetrating threat level IIA and IIIA body armor regardless of the firearm that is used to fire it. M855 / SS109 are not any more of a threat to law enforcement than M193 or Horandy VMAX loads are.
They all ready know this but are choosing to ban it because Sig and others now make pistols in this caliber and so if it is classified as armor piercing that can be shot in a pistol that the BATFE approved, they can ban it.
M855 ammo is made up of a lead base core with a solid tip and not a solid core per 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B). So because it has a solid tip the BATFE says it is armor piercing even by their on definition it is not.
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)
(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
Lead core in the 2/3 of the bottom of the projectile and the 1/3 solid core on top
As the Technical Branch well knows, all rifle ammunition of a common caliber such as .223 / 5.56 is capable of penetrating threat level IIA and IIIA body armor regardless of the firearm that is used to fire it. M855 / SS109 are not any more of a threat to law enforcement than M193 or Horandy VMAX loads are.
They all ready know this but are choosing to ban it because Sig and others now make pistols in this caliber and so if it is classified as armor piercing that can be shot in a pistol that the BATFE approved, they can ban it.
M855 ammo is made up of a lead base core with a solid tip and not a solid core per 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B). So because it has a solid tip the BATFE says it is armor piercing even by their on definition it is not.
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)
(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
Lead core in the 2/3 of the bottom of the projectile and the 1/3 solid core on top
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reactions
- 466
Did they seriously write depleted uranium?
Who the hell fires depleted uranium at anything?!
Who the hell fires depleted uranium at anything?!
Member 3687
- Messages
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 3,160
The military uses depleted uranium in anti tank rounds and did some playing around with it in rifle rounds to see if it could be use to penetrate light armor plate. Don't think they ever used it, just did testing.
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reactions
- 466
Well that's chilling.
- Messages
- 618
- Reactions
- 366
AR pistols are on the market now and have been for a few years now.
- Messages
- 21,571
- Reactions
- 61,392
Done!!!
- Messages
- 3,053
- Reactions
- 1,935
EXACTLY! My letter to the ATF was just that...rifle rounds are SUPPOSED to go through IIIA and below armor!
This whole, "rifle bullets fired from pistols that can go through armor" is a pandora's box that we don't want opened...hell, just wait until they hear about 7.62x25!
If the ATF truly cared about pistol calibers going through armor, FMJ 7.62x25 would be non existant. Nevertheless, they made a ruling on the 5.45x39 and are now trying with the 5.56...SO BE PREPARED FOR THIS TO PASS BUT FIGHT IT UNTIL IT DOES!
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
Central Wyoming Machine Gun And Cannon Shoot
- Laramie, WY
Ladies only beginning trap shooting
- Albany, OR
Classic Sportsman Gun & Knife Show
- Monroe, WA
New Classified Ads
-
Trijicon AGOG 3.5x35 TA11H Red Horseshoe .223 Ballistic
- Started by gun_dude
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
3 Glock 19 Ban era LE/MIL marked 15rd magazines $95 shipped- Started by aljames
- Replies: 0
-
12.5 Geissele Barrel with CMT Tano Rail
- Started by BeardedLegend
- Replies: 0
-
Staccato xl never fired with bag, paperwork and original mags- Started by AlaskinAssasin
- Replies: 0
-
-
-