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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just added my .02 to the atf open comment address, not that I believe they do anything but instantly delete every message in there....

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
 
While i am no ballistics expert think about this..
IMO with m855 it's AP abilities are directly related to velocity just as much as projectile composition.
While we all know scary black rifles are bad and should be banned.Since that didn't work out they'll come after the ammo.
SO now they want to ban m855 do to AR pistols... when fired from a 7.5" barrel the volocity is drasticly lower than say from a 20" barrel. thus limiting it's it's ability to penetrate armor.

it seems to me they are banning m855 ammo because of pistol, when in reality they want to ban it's use in rifles without congress having to make changes to the current federal AP laws.

This will take place with many other type of ammo. FN FAL 5.7 ANYONE???? when it first came out the sold some gnarly 5.7 that could be use in PS90 or the 5.7 pistol
 
MGnoob said:
While i am no ballistics expert think about this..
IMO with m855 it's AP abilities are directly related to velocity just as much as projectile composition.
While we all know scary black rifles are bad and should be banned.Since that didn't work out they'll come after the ammo.
SO now they want to ban m855 do to AR pistols... when fired from a 7.5" barrel the volocity is drasticly lower than say from a 20" barrel. thus limiting it's it's ability to penetrate armor.

it seems to me they are banning m855 ammo because of pistol, when in reality they want to ban it's use in rifles without congress having to make changes to the current federal AP laws.

This will take place with many other type of ammo. FN FAL 5.7 ANYONE???? when it first came out the sold some gnarly 5.7 that could be use in PS90 or the 5.7 pistol
Click to expand...

I have some regular 5.7 for my FN and my PS. The AP 5.7 can be had IF you buy the primed brass and AP bullets separately, then load your own
 
crazymjb said:
5.56 from even a 7.5" sbr will go through soft armor like paper.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Click to expand...


soft armor is a low standard since many things defeat it,i would think with a 20" barrel it would go through both the front and out the back of soft armor(like in the front through the person and through the armor once again.Also i don't think this proposed rule change has anything to do with it's ability to penetrate.


the_shootist said:
I have some regular 5.7 for my FN and my PS. The AP 5.7 can be had IF you buy the primed brass and AP bullets separately, then load your own
Click to expand...
good point, I make all my own projectiles. The 5.7 AP i have seen was factory. the fact you can buy all the components and make your own 5.7 is funny i hadn't thought it out that far.
 
MGnoob said:
soft armor is a low standard since many things defeat it,i would think with a 20" barrel it would go through both the front and out the back of soft armor(like in the front through the person and through the armor once again.Also i don't think this proposed rule change has anything to do with it's ability to penetrate.



good point, I make all my own projectiles. The 5.7 AP i have seen was factory. the fact you can buy all the components and make your own 5.7 is funny i hadn't thought it out that far.
Click to expand...

I have [wink][smile]
 
I'll say it again, stop bitching to us - we know this is ridiculous - let's get a few million comments into the ATF and make them wade through them.

Then let's get a few million calls into Congress/Senate reps of those states still qualifying for membership in the USA. To do that, people need to know they only have 30 days. They need to know this is not a fabricated/hyped concern, the ATF's own words make clear that M855 was previously exempted and will no longer be. Lastly, they need to know HOW to comment:

Spread it like the flu:
There is a public comment period open now (until March 16th) - please write the ATF and let them know how you feel about banning M855 5.56 ammo.
From the ATF notice:
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):
- [email protected]
- 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
Click to expand...
 
CWulf said:
No, I meant I emailed ATF saying the ban was a lousy idea and I placed an order with PPF's M855 group buy.
Click to expand...

Why can't i access the group buy, membership lvl or post count? Not that i want to buy, i'd like to be able to atleast look at it.
 
MGnoob said:
IMO with m855 it's AP abilities are directly related to velocity just as much as projectile composition.
. . .
it seems to me they are banning m855 ammo because of pistol, when in reality they want to ban it's use in rifles without congress having to make changes to the current federal AP laws./QUOTE]

If you read the ATF document linked on page 1, the justification isn't on performance standards, M855 qualifies because the jacket weight is more than 25% of the total bullet weight. So even if it were dead slow, they can put it on the naughty list.
Click to expand...
 
Kevin_NH said:
MGnoob said:
IMO with m855 it's AP abilities are directly related to velocity just as much as projectile composition.
. . .
it seems to me they are banning m855 ammo because of pistol, when in reality they want to ban it's use in rifles without congress having to make changes to the current federal AP laws./QUOTE]

If you read the ATF document linked on page 1, the justification isn't on performance standards, M855 qualifies because the jacket weight is more than 25% of the total bullet weight. So even if it were dead slow, they can put it on the naughty list.
Click to expand...



Right, but the AP effectiveness of M855 is directly tied to its terminal velocity not to the jacket. It's a copper jacket anyways so who the fk cares? Steel core surplus garbage does a better job of penetrating steel plate at lower velocities.
Click to expand...
 
Kevin_NH said:
M855 qualifies because the jacket weight is more than 25% of the total bullet weight. So even if it were dead slow, they can put it on the naughty list.
Click to expand...
Thank you, i must have missed that. I just read and article that said exactly what i did and when i thought about it, i started to question if i had made a stupid statement.


Also thanks for pointing out the membership info. The only other forum i am truly active in doesn't do it that way. I find it surprising that's the way it is.
This isn't a complaint, just an observation. With all the traffic here it might be best to weed out trouble.

*edit" i just joined, i never read the membership info. only the TOS, i thought all forums where basically set-up the same way, i'm see more and more that's not the case.
 
Last edited:
its all bullshit... batfe exempted m855 for at least like 20 years and suddenly its a "problem". This is obviously the work of an Obama admin rumpswab.
 
So, has the NRA released a statement yet on how they are going to help fight this? Isn't that why we donate?
I am composing a letter and mailing it to the office, emails to me are too easily overlooked.
 
Last time I bought M855 (last summer or fall) it was at Four Seasons. They had a large ~100+ gallon cylinder (looked like the original shipping container) of bulk, loose M855 in the middle of the room. They sold it by the quart scoop. would get 100-115 rounds per scoop for $38.
Are these monster bulk containers available on the market? If so, could we/someone get one for another group buy. figure out how to divi it up somehow. The scoop method seemed a little marginal.
 
Definitely write to the ATF, that's the only thing we can do for now. **** the ATF, but don't put this in your letter.
 
Let the neckbearding commence !!!!

fbY0GEd.png
 
Last edited:
A good letter from another forum. Author says use and abuse as you see fit.

Just copy, paste and email to : [email protected]

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


To Whom it May Concern:


I am writing to comment on the proposed determination regarding SS109/M855 .223/5.56 ammunition.


Based on the language used within 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B), I believe that this ammunition is, in the first place, improperly classified as armor piercing:


(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.*




First, the core is NOT constructed ENTIRELY of any of the listed materials, but instead consists of a two-part core comprised of lead and steel.




Secondly, the projectile is NEITHER (1) fully jacketed OR (2) has a jacket that comprises more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.


Because of this, the ammunition does not fall into the definition of “armor piercing ammunition.”


In addition to not falling within the definition above, the primary civilian use of this ammunition is for sporting purposes, and, even if it fell within the definition of “armor piercing ammunition,” should enjoy an exemption as outlined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C).


Competition shooters (which the ATF has consistently classified as falling under sporting purposes) prefer this ammunition due to its improved ballistic characteristics and availability when compared to other bullet types, particularly commonly available 55 gr and less available commercial 62 gr bullets. The fact that a small percentage of the population, criminals, might utilize this ammunition outside of this use does not change its PRIMARY use: competition shooting.


For these reasons, I do not believe that SS109/M855 ammunition should be banned under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(7).


Thank you for your time.
 
I had checked one of the large online ammo and reloading component vendors this morning. They still had M855 in stock, as well as SS109 bullets for reloading.

When I checked again this afternoon, they were sold out of both.

For anyone who wants M855 right now, your window to acquire it for a reasonable price is closing rapidly, or may have already closed.

I am hoping that because this affects so many more people than the 7n6 ban that the ATF will be stymied, at least for awhile. They are required to respond to comments. They are not required to listen to us. Short of revolution, long term the only fix is legislation or litigation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Biden's LEAD AMMO BAN?
Replies
8
Views
480
MGnoob
MGnoob
Import ban extended to ♾️
Replies
17
Views
908
Animal357
A
ATF Seizing Muzzle Brakes Made By "Lethal Eye"
Replies
0
Views
133
Zappa
Zappa
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
14
Views
362
powerman
powerman
3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
33
Views
771
40 Creedmoor fan
4
Back
Top Bottom