• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

ATF intends to reclassify and ban "armor piercing" ammo including M855

Status
Not open for further replies.
vicorjh said:
Agree,

"A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge. "

"Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes. The term “single shot handgun” means a break open or bolt action handgun that can accept only a single cartridge manually, and does not accept or use a magazine or other ammunition feeding device. The term does not include a pocket pistol or derringer type firearm."

Expect more bans if this is enacted. Apparently they claim they only have to "objectively" classify the intent (e.g. if available for use in a handgun) and "it may be reasonably inferred" the round is not primarily for sporting. You'll only have 22 rimfire available after they're done. Any evidence in their eyes is will be substantial evidence for a ban...
Click to expand...

Kevin_NH said:
How is that supposed to work?

Even with the "intent" test, BATFE can't just pick rounds at random to ban, the bullet construction still needs to meet the specific constraints in 18 USC §921(a)(17)(C) , either fully or core made 100% out of one of the 'exotic' metals, or FMJ and 25% of projectile weight is the jacket.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that in order for the 25% jacket weight clause to be applied the round must have been "designed and intended for use in a handgun."

No modern rifle round was ever designed and intended for use in a handgun. Can you use some of those rounds in a "handgun?" Sure. But in order for the AP law to apply it has to have been "designed and intended for use in a handgun." And furthermore, the "Sporting use" exemption only applies to those rounds that meet the AP law. M855 has never met explicitly met the AP law, only the law that the ATF has made up.


18 USC § 921(a)(17) states:

(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.
 
soloman02 said:
You are forgetting that in order for the 25% jacket weight clause to be applied the round must have been "designed and intended for use in a handgun."

No modern rifle round was ever designed and intended for use in a handgun. Can you use some of those rounds in a "handgun?" Sure. But in order for the AP law to apply it has to have been "designed and intended for use in a handgun." And furthermore, the "Sporting use" exemption only applies to those rounds that meet the AP law. M855 has never met explicitly met the AP law, only the law that the ATF has made up.


18 USC § 921(a)(17) states:

(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.
Click to expand...

Maybe the ATF is applying the same illogical reasoning that they used with the sig brace? By putting the rifle round into a pistol it was "redesigned". [rolleyes][puke]
 
exodious said:
Maybe the ATF is applying the same illogical reasoning that they used with the sig brace? By putting the rifle round into a pistol it was "redesigned". [rolleyes][puke]
Click to expand...

Most likely. But sadly, we already knew the ATF is FOS and making up law.
 
There are two ways to control the ATF. One is to have an executive that orders them around. The other is to change their funding. This is true for just about every element of government. Law is next to irrelevant. Poorly written and almost always lacking in specifics, legislation has long left interpretation (i.e., actual writing of the law) to the executive branch and the courts. Hence, the executive branch is generally unencumbered, and uses power arbitrarily. The only power retained by lawmakers is the power to defund. This is why the only law worth the time is law that cuts taxes or cuts spending. Everything else is secondary, by far.
 
Contacted Rep. Guinta and I also made sure to let Guinta's Director of Community Relations know about this and to forward this info on since I am friends on FaceBook.

Hello Honorable Frank Guinta,

I hope you are aware but if not I am bringing it to your attention. The ATF has "decided" that the 5.56mm ammunition variant M855 constitutes an "armor piercing round." The law this falls under is 18 USC § 921(a)(17)(B) and in no way does the M855 round meet this definition. M855 contains a steel penetrator with a lead core. Thus this bullet does not meet section (i) of the law since the core is not made up entirely of one of the listed metals. Further, M855 still does not meet section (ii) for two reasons: The jacket is not over 25% of the total weight of the projectile, and even if it were the projectile was NOT "designed and intended for use in a handgun." The intent for the projectile was for use in the M249 SAW and in the civilian market to be used in a semi-automatic rifle (the AR15), just like every other variation of the 5.56mm caliber.

So what this means is that this proposal is in violation of the law. Only congress has the legal authority to designate M855 as "armor piercing" since it requires changes to the wording of this statute to do so.

The ATF is making up the law for the sole purpose of reducing ammunition supply. I would not be surprised in the least to find out that this is a direct order from Obama. The comment period is open until March 16th. I have already sent a letter to the ATF regarding this but more action is needed. I would appreciate it if you were to take the lead against the ATF for making up law. Between this and the "gunwalking" scandal there should be more than enough reasons to withhold some or all funding from the ATF in the budget.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

soloman02

P.S. Your speech at the RED Dinner that I attended last November was well spoken.
Click to expand...

Rep. Guinta's contact: https://guinta.house.gov/contact
 
Last edited:
This is the same type of shenanigans the EPA tried to use with banning lead ammunition. It's just another way to get around the 2nd amendment to get to gun owners.
 
Just went through my "expendable" 5.56 cans and pulled out all the green tip and moved it to the "save for later cans"

I also discovered that a can I had bought a few months ago was actually m193 not m855.. Doh.
 
economist said:
There are two ways to control the ATF. One is to have an executive that orders them around. The other is to change their funding. This is true for just about every element of government. Law is next to irrelevant. Poorly written and almost always lacking in specifics, legislation has long left interpretation (i.e., actual writing of the law) to the executive branch and the courts. Hence, the executive branch is generally unencumbered, and uses power arbitrarily. The only power retained by lawmakers is the power to defund. This is why the only law worth the time is law that cuts taxes or cuts spending. Everything else is secondary, by far.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Silken Prey

The most powerful aspect of any bureaucracy, in Kidd’s eyes, was the same thing that gave cancer its power: it was immortal. If you didn’t seek it out and kill it, cell by cell, it’d just keep growing. Bureaucracies could chase you forever. You could defeat them over and over and over again, and the bureaucracy didn’t much care, though some individual bureaucrats might. The bureaucracy, as a whole, just kept coming, as long as the funding lasted.
Click to expand...
 
Just for the record, Wally World in Framingham still has plenty of 855 in stock at $0.46 a round. If you really wanted it.
 
economist said:
There are two ways to control the ATF. One is to have an executive that orders them around. The other is to change their funding. This is true for just about every element of government. Law is next to irrelevant. Poorly written and almost always lacking in specifics, legislation has long left interpretation (i.e., actual writing of the law) to the executive branch and the courts. Hence, the executive branch is generally unencumbered, and uses power arbitrarily. The only power retained by lawmakers is the power to defund. This is why the only law worth the time is law that cuts taxes or cuts spending. Everything else is secondary, by far.
Click to expand...

^
This a thousand times.
Want to get their attention, let them know this little escapade has put them on the radar of the folks holding the checkbook.
O may issue the marching orders but he still doesn't sign the paychecks.
Kissing O's ass or out looking for work in the private sector after a serious cutback in funding?
Hmmm, tough choice.
 
I'm trying to remember, what is M855 actually good for? Better accuracy at long range? Its penetration and wound characteristics at normal ranges don't seem special.

I mean, I bought a can of XM855 because of the ban too, but I don't have a good reason other than it's banned.
 
Machines said:
I'm trying to remember, what is M855 actually good for?
Click to expand...

I can't remember either. I never found the stuff especially accurate.

I guess if you're aiming at a soviet helmet, it works. Beyond that, i'd much rather have a soft point .223 for a soft target and a bigger caliber for a hard target.
 
Hoon said:
I can't remember either. I never found the stuff especially accurate.

I guess if you're aiming at a [STRIKE=.]soviet[/STRIKE] BLUE helmet, it works. Beyond that, i'd much rather have a soft point .223 for a soft target and a bigger caliber for a hard target.
Click to expand...

FIFY.

I ordered xm193, just becuase I expect that all 5.56 variants will be spiking in cost
 
JayMcB said:
FIFY.

I ordered xm193, just becuase I expect that all 5.56 variants will be spiking in cost
Click to expand...

So, about this...

From a practical perspective, what are the implications of a ban on M855? Is that the most common 5.56 cartridge or the least expensive? Aside from M193, what other 5.56 ammo is readily available?

Similarly, most (all?) commercial .223 ammo works in a rifle chambered for 5.56, right? So assuming M855 is banned, could someone who regularly shoots 5.56 just buy .223?

Leaving aside the "slippery slope" argument for a moment, I'm just trying to understand the .223/5.56 discussion a bit better. I was toying with the idea of buying my first AR - in 5.56, as I understood I had more ammo options - but maybe that's not the case?
 
KodiakFan24 said:
So, about this...

From a practical perspective, what are the implications of a ban on M855? Is that the most common 5.56 cartridge or the least expensive? Aside from M193, what other 5.56 ammo is readily available?

Similarly, most (all?) commercial .223 ammo works in a rifle chambered for 5.56, right? So assuming M855 is banned, could someone who regularly shoots 5.56 just buy .223?

Leaving aside the "slippery slope" argument for a moment, I'm just trying to understand the .223/5.56 discussion a bit better. I was toying with the idea of buying my first AR - in 5.56, as I understood I had more ammo options - but maybe that's not the case?
Click to expand...

The government doesn't want you to have it. The ammo AND the gun.

This means you NEED to buy it.

Whatever the government doesn't think I should have I WANT.

Because it means if I have it they are afraid of me.

I want the government to be afraid of me. That is how it is supposed to ****ing work!

So the TLDR is buy an AR15 and buy as much ammo (M855 and M193) as you can.
 
KodiakFan24 said:
So, about this...

From a practical perspective, what are the implications of a ban on M855? Is that the most common 5.56 cartridge or the least expensive? Aside from M193, what other 5.56 ammo is readily available?

Similarly, most (all?) commercial .223 ammo works in a rifle chambered for 5.56, right? So assuming M855 is banned, could someone who regularly shoots 5.56 just buy .223?

Leaving aside the "slippery slope" argument for a moment, I'm just trying to understand the .223/5.56 discussion a bit better. I was toying with the idea of buying my first AR - in 5.56, as I understood I had more ammo options - but maybe that's not the case?
Click to expand...

.223 vs 5.56: the only difference is the radius coming off the head into the neck angle. .223 has a 2.5mm radius that blends into the same 46deg inclusive angle on their necks, whereas 5.56 effectively has no radius.

ALL other dimensions are identical.
 
From a practical perspective what you are buying is Xm855, meaning these are the castoffs from .mil contracts. The amusing part of this "ban" is that the cost to produce M855 will rise bc Federal can no longer supplement production costs by unloading their mistakes on the commercial market.

What does this mean for .223/5.56 in general? Probably not much. Your average shooter already buys .223 for his AR and very few shooters sought out xm855 specifically. Plinkers go for the best deal and if it's 855 then so-be-it but that usually isn't the case.

Will this reduce the available supply of .223/5.56 in the marketplace? In the short term yes but long term the market will adjust.

I wouldn't be terribly afraid that the xm855 ban will make AR's much more expensive to shoot than they already are. If you are really concerned about that, build yourself (or buy) a 9mm AR.
 
KodiakFan24 said:
So, about this...

From a practical perspective, what are the implications of a ban on M855? Is that the most common 5.56 cartridge or the least expensive? Aside from M193, what other 5.56 ammo is readily available?

Similarly, most (all?) commercial .223 ammo works in a rifle chambered for 5.56, right? So assuming M855 is banned, could someone who regularly shoots 5.56 just buy .223?

Leaving aside the "slippery slope" argument for a moment, I'm just trying to understand the .223/5.56 discussion a bit better. I was toying with the idea of buying my first AR - in 5.56, as I understood I had more ammo options - but maybe that's not the case?
Click to expand...

M855 has slightly better ballistics at long range out of long barrels. That's about it. If you're not shooting at targets behind soft cover at 400m with a 20" rifle, you won't care about not being able to buy M855. In fact, at normal ranges or out of carbines M193 is better.

M193 and commercial 55gr 5.56 is cheaper and more common. Budget steel ammo like Wolf .223 is nearly half the cost. Quality target or hunting ammo is more accurate.
 
Ringworm said:
.223 vs 5.56: the only difference is the radius coming off the head into the neck angle. .223 has a 2.5mm radius that blends into the same 46deg inclusive angle on their necks, whereas 5.56 effectively has no radius.

ALL other dimensions are identical.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you can fire .223 in 5.56 chamber, just not the other way around or you risk maiming yourself or death as 5.56 has higher pressures (62,366 psi) than .223 (55,114 psi).
 
RImike said:
Yes, but you can fire .223 in 5.56 chamber, just not the other way around or you risk maiming yourself or death as 5.56 has higher pressures (62,366 psi) than .223 (55,114 psi).
Click to expand...

You can fire 5.56 in a .223 chamber ONLY if the manufacturer states you can. This information is most often contained in the manual. New Ruger mini-14's do state in the manual that you can fire 5.56 in them.
 
Machines said:
M855 has slightly better ballistics at long range out of long barrels. That's about it. If you're not shooting at targets behind soft cover at 400m with a 20" rifle, you won't care about not being able to buy M855. In fact, at normal ranges or out of carbines M193 is better.

M193 and commercial 55gr 5.56 is cheaper and more common. Budget steel ammo like Wolf .223 is nearly half the cost. Quality target or hunting ammo is more accurate.
Click to expand...


I can only speak from personal experience, but I think the allure of M855 was that it was cheap, effective, reliable, ubiquitous, and came in a neat package (ammo can on strippers for the most part). The best way to ensure you will always have lead to throw down range is to get a firearm that fires a round that .mil uses...The gov't will ensure its' availability and thus a better chance of trickling over to the civilian market should anything go even more ass-backward than it already is.

Ive always been a XM193 guy myself, but have a stockpile of M855 for the aforementioned reasons...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Import ban extended to ♾️
Replies
17
Views
775
Animal357
A
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
14
Views
327
powerman
powerman
ATF Redefines All Private Sales & Who Has To Have A FFL
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Flint
F
ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert
Replies
9
Views
483
pastera
pastera
ATF Cries They are to Small
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
Back
Top Bottom