Fox
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives(ATF) seeks to ban certain types of 5.56mm/.223 caliber ammunition. The bullets are commonly used with the popular AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle for sporting purposes, such as target shooting.
In a 17 page document released earlier this month the ATF proposed the reclassification of “5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges” from the category of “primarily used for sporting purposes” to that of “armor piercing ammunition.” The agency fears that the ammunition used in AR based handguns can penetrate bullet proof vests worn by law enforcement officers.
Commonly available steel-core, “green tip” M855 and SS109 rifle ammunition that is primarily intended and regularly used for “sporting purposes,” like target shooting, has been exempt from federal law banning armor piercing ammunition for decades. A ban would have far reaching implications for target shooter, hunters and outdoor enthusiasts.
To read the entire 17 page ATF document proposing the ban click here. The ATF is taking public comment on the proposed ban of commonly available steel-core ball ammunition until March 16.
I wondered when you'd pick up on this. This article gets a couple of things wrong. For one thing, this is not steel core ammo in the same sense as most steel core rounds where the entire core is made of steel. This is lead core ammo with a small piece of steel in front of the lead. This distinction means that the round actually doesn't qualify as armor piercing under the language of the statute, and shouldn't have needed the original exemption in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ATF's supposed fears about the round penetrating bullet proof vests, sure, it can do that, and it doesn't need the steel core to do so. The regular lead core 55gr. rounds this rule won't touch can do that too--maybe even at a greater range because of their increased velocity.
The main goal of this is to close off the market for the military's surplus ammo and cause all AR ammo to go up in price as a result. It does nothing for officer safety, and is only motivated by the same emotion that led to the labels for this post.
Mike,
Nice of you to make it clear for everyone that the reason you support laws regarding ammo and its composition is that you want to put in a piecemeal ban on ammo to eliminate various types of guns that use that ammo. You usually try to hide that as well as claiming that you don't have a problem with the guns, just the people. Guess we can put that one to bed now.
I don't try to hide anything.
DeleteNormally you accuse us of paranoia for suggesting that you and others have this motive and you try to hide behind things like concern for officer safety or concern for the environment rather than admitting that you just want to choke off the ammo supply
DeleteActually, I've never called for any such thing.
Delete"ban the ammo, ban the guns" ?
DeleteYou've never called for choking off the ammo supply?
Never. I admit I like the idea very much, but I'd never thought of it until this story came up. (Right now the gotcha twins TS and Kurt are frantically searching my archives).
DeleteMy ideas are all included in the Proper Gun Control post.
(Right now the gotcha twins TS and Kurt are frantically searching my archives).
DeleteI don't presume to speak for TS, but in my case, you are, as is your hallmark, quite wrong. My searches aren't "frantic," and in this case, no such search is happening. As far as I can remember, you are new to advocating this particular heinous infringement on that which shall not be infringed.
Uh, why would I "frantically search the archives" when you are saying it right here?
DeleteThis is an atrocity. For one thing, the M855 round does not meet the statutory definition of "armor-piercing," because the following does not describe the M855:
ReplyDeletea 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.
Yes, it has a steel tip, which could, I suppose, be considered part of the core, but the rest of the core (more than half the core's weight) is good old lead, so the projectile core is not (my emphasis added) "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."
The ironic part is that the .223 Remington/5.56x45mm NATO rounds that will remain legal will also easily defeat police body armor, because a round's penetrative ability rests far more on velocity and energy than on bullet construction. That's why anti-Constitutional lawmakers keep trying to pass legislation that defines "armor-piercing" based on performance, rather than on bullet construction.
This is how we punish these sick sacks of shit: someone needs to complete the development of the .224 Boz cartridge (and with the original 10mm Auto case, not the watered-down 9mm Parabellum-based version), with a projectile featuring none of the restricted metals. Sure, when the cartridge was first being developed, it was intended for the exclusive use of the government's hired muscle, but as long as the bullet is all lead and/or copper (plus the jacket), there's no statutory reason that it could be kept off the civilian market.
Besides, the need for we the people to have access to ammunition that can defeat body armor grows greater all the time, as more and more criminals use body armor. That is apparently such a problem that Congressman Mike Honda (D-CA) wants to ban sales of some body armor to private citizens. He wants to ban the Type III and Type IV body armor that stops most rifle rounds (including the M855). If the "problem" of criminals equipped with such rare, expensive, heavy, bulky armor as that is so great as to justify a law banning it, then criminals' use of the vastly more common soft body armor must be epidemic, meaning we must be equipped better to fight back against such miscreants (this, of course, is also a good argument in favor of private citizens' need for "large capacity" magazines).
Finally, let us not forget the increasingly shrill calls to restrict (or even ban) lead ammunition. Can't have lead, steel, bronze, brass, tungsten, etc. What do they intend to leave us with, rubber?
Yeah, Kurt, "more and more criminals use body armor."
DeleteHahahahahahaha. you are truly paranoid - either that or you're lying again to justify your opposition to gun control.
Yeah, Kurt, "more and more criminals use body armor."
DeleteHero of "gun control" Congressman Mike Honda clearly thinks the "problem" has grown enough to justify bans, to the enthusiastic approval of the Violence Policy Center. The U.S. News and World Report goes so far as to refer to the (mostly) unrestricted status of body armor as "The Other Loophole." That article, in fact, quotes the VPC's Josh Sugarmann as arguing that easy access to body armor is the reason to dismiss arguments that people armed with handguns can stop a shooting rampage:
Gun control advocacy groups like Sugarmann's say the body armor worn by the shooters in Newtown and Aurora undermines the argument made by gun advocates that shootings can be stopped by someone with a handgun.
So, nope, Mikeb--you still haven't caught me in a lie yet. I recommend getting used to that.
"more and more criminals use body armor." And your justification is what a gun control politician says?
DeleteWhenever you say stupid shit, and I call you on it, you dig yourself in deeper and deeper. It's sad really. You should have simply admitted that "more and more" was a bit over the top, but you're not capable of that, are you?
And now decency, sanity, morality, and logic triumph over heinousness, lunacy, immorality, and illogic. Or, to put it more succinctly, over the Obama administration's depraved obsession with forcible citizen disarmament.
DeleteArmed citizens win, therefore liberty wins, therefore the American people win, therefore humanity wins. And, obviously, all those who "like the idea [of forcible citizen disarmament through the 'ban the ammo'/'ban the guns' approach] very much," lose, just as losers are born to do.
I'm also very interested in the .22 TCM. A 40 grain, .224 caliber bullet sailing along at 2100 feet per second packs about 392 ft. lbs. of energy, and perhaps more important in gauging penetrative capacity, 9938 ft. lbs./in². That's considerably more kinetic energy divided by cross sectional area than anything Type IIIA (the heaviest "soft" body armor) is rated to stop, and this 1911 can carry 18 of them (17 in the mag, one in the chamber).
ReplyDeleteIf there were more than one ammunition manufacturer, I'd be buying one for sure.
You do realize, Mike, that a gun can fire this ammo independent of the shape of its grip, whether or not the barrel is shrouded, or of the flash is suppressed, etc.?
ReplyDeleteAnother attempt at an over reach by the ATF...Nothing new
ReplyDeleteWOW ! Gun loons go ape over one kind of bullet. More proof of their irrationality.
ReplyDeleteIt surprises you that we would dislike being told that the cheapest practice ammo is now verboten when the same document explicitly admits that the still legal ammo has the same ability to pierce armor? That they're going to increase our costs with, according to their own expectations, NO benefits to LE safety?
DeleteWhy would that bother us at all?
It surprises me that one kind of bullet makes you go ape shit. An irrational response if there ever was one. Oh, I already said that.
DeleteNo doubt you think guns and bullets should be exempt from the thousands of idiotic decisions made by government bodies everyday, because you gun loons are so special. Grow up, you sound like a spoiled child.
Ah, so you're unable to follow a conversation. I'm sorry for you and that your only communication skills are insults and straw men you can't differentiate from real people.
DeleteInsults, "Gotchas", and straw men is ALL you gun loons are about.
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteInteresting bit on this from the Huff Po.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-santiago/executive-order-m855_b_6773274.html
This guy gives a good breakdown of the use of different types of AR ammo and where this falls. He's exactly right about who this will affect the most--plinkers and competitive shooters except for the extreme long distance guys. He also gives a good description of the supply chain issues involved and a good estimate on how long thins will affect the market. The one thing he leaves out, though, is the compounding effect of ignorance. Some people will think that All 5.56 ammo is affected either by not understanding the new rule or by being told the wrong thing as a national game of telephone is played with this. These folks will strip the shelves of many other bullets, leading to more inconvenience for more shooters and exacerbating the supply chain problems.
He also verifies what Kurt and I have said about this bullet not outperforming others. If you want more proof of that, go read through the actual proposal by ATF. It basically admits that other ammo will penetrate armor just the same and won't be affected.
I think he is right in his point that this produces no gain for officer safety and just gives our side fuel by pinching people's wallets and producing posts like yours above which show a desire to ban the ammo for their guns, and then the guns.
It appears that Congress may be gearing up to defy this regime's evil with regard to the ammunition ban:
ReplyDeleteHouse Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, working with the National Rifle Association, has collected the signatures of 172 House members in just two days on a letter questioning the surprise proposal targeting the 5.56 M855 used by gun enthusiasts, associates told Secrets Saturday.
And in the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is spearheading a new drive to collect signatures from his chamber to stop the move.
The shocking swiftness at building opposition to the proposal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is the latest display by many in Congress to leave Second Amendment issues alone, and it also is a testament to sportsmen and pro-gun groups like the NRA to derail the president's gun-control efforts.
Capital punishment for the sick authority freaks behind this abomination of a ban is probably not in the cards, tragically, but simply stopping them will have to be good enough.
By the way, I see that a legislative solution is also on the table.
ReplyDeleteBob Owens makes a compelling argument for the possibility that the end result of the backlash against this heinousness could be an advancement for gun ownership.
Now that would be a big helping of truly delicious irony, wouldn't it?
A simpler solution would be to eliminate the AP ban outright, though that would probably send the other side into appoplexy. Owens' suggested change sounds like a true compromise and would simply be a return to the language the ATF's new framework notes was part of the original bill. It would make more logical sense and would still ban the ammo that freaked people out in the past--e.g. those funny shaped South African ones. It would also remove the problem for the hunting ammo made of soft brass that led to the ATF reviewing their sporting purpose exception and indicate a little more leeway for them to approve more soft alloy hunting ammo for large bore pistols used for hunting.
DeleteThe interesting thing is that this may be a lose-lose for the anti-gun side since Bob's suggestion might lead to more interest via cheaper ammo and because the ATF's current actions are drawing more attention to and interest in these guns and the pro-gun side as the Huff Po piece noted. 'Course, ATF doesn't really have a reputation for taking unintended consequences into account, do they?
'Course, ATF doesn't really have a reputation for taking unintended consequences into account, do they?
DeleteI see what you did there. Well played, sir, well played.
I see, by the way, that BATFE head-thug B. Todd Jones is stepping down, to pursue his dream of a career in professional sports, or something.
ReplyDeleteThe guy, Thomas E. Brandon, stepping in to take his place, is supposedly "very amendable to working with federal firearms licensees," so perhaps part of the federal war on guns will take bit of a break. A short one.