ATF: Reclassification of M855/SS109 ammo as armor-piercing - Page 9

alan · March 10, 2015, 05:01 PM

Bartholomew Roberts wrote:
The Sen. Grassley (Chairman of the Senate Judiciary) letter went out today with 52 Senators (all Republicans - including several squishy Republicans like Sue Collins and Pat Toomey) signing it. Sadly, unlike the House, not a single pro-RKBA Democratic Senator joined the letter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re the last comment, politics has been justly described as a sickening pass time, or occupation.

alan · March 10, 2015, 05:12 PM

Judging from some comments seen on the internet a few minutes ago, NRA being one source. It appears that, for the moment, this M855/SS109 BATFE sponsored ammunition ban is dead. I submit that it would be a very great mistake for "The Good Guys" to declare victory and go home,thinking that the battle had been won, for it hasn't been. Our side having won a skirmish. Better to win one than to lose one, but it must be remembered, we have won a skirmish, the war continues. Our side forgets that at it's peril.

rickyrick · March 10, 2015, 05:17 PM

I think this was click bait, a fishing expedition, a probe .....rattle the barn door and see what flys out ...
Get everyone riled up, see what their positions are and what legal avenues opposition to the ban might use...

Now they have the data they need to formulate a real plan of attack.

alan · March 10, 2015, 05:39 PM

A coupe of posters, perhaps several have waved the caution flag re what appears to be the administration and it's Fellow Traveler,the BATFE having "lost" the battle over this proposed ammunition ban. In-so-far as the thing goes, they will be back, for intentions and goals are unchanged. We won a skirmish, others will follow, the war will go on, I expect, for a very long time, the ultimate winners being undetermined at this point. That being said, our side must remember, and be prepared for a very long war, assuming our side wants to win.

thallub · March 10, 2015, 05:56 PM

Many thanks to everyone who contacted their congressman/women and wrote letters to the BATFE.

Political appointees and high level bureaucrats don't like to get caught with egg on their faces. Stay on your toes, this one may come back to life.

Kimio · March 10, 2015, 06:30 PM

May come back alive? Oh ho, it most assuradly will come back, though likely dressed in a different set of sheep's clothing.

Stay vigilant as others have said, tell BATFE and an ties have plenty more fight in them, and will likely continue to have much much more to throw at us. Patience is one of the virtues the have in spades, and the anti' are not stupid like how some pro gun folks like to portray them.

Then again I'm preaching to the choir here, so we'll done folks, but let's not pat ourselves on the backs just yet.

I suspect this us just yet another calm before the storm.

Jo6pak · March 10, 2015, 06:37 PM

To those that contacted the BATFE, your reps and senators, and generally stood up and opposed this ban.

THANK YOU
For you help

To those that did nothing but rant and rave and sit on you hands.

YOU'RE WELCOME
We've done all the work for you

Keep vigilant my friends

thallub · March 10, 2015, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Oh ho, it most assuradly will come back, though likely dressed in a different set of sheep's clothing.

This may be a hint of things to come:

Quote:

Last year, the ATF successfully banned Russian-made 7N6 bullets on the grounds they were armor-piercing. Some gun-rights groups objected, but that ruling stood.

"We didn't put it out to comment," Seward noted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rcing-bullets/

**44 AMP** · March 10, 2015, 06:38 PM

We didn't win a skirmish, we didn't even get into a fight. They marched troops along the border, and rattled sabers. We rattled back, and they have, for now retreated.

There was no fight! When they saw we would put up one, like any bully, they backed down.

This time. No doubt in my mind they will try and bushwack us again, and do it gleefully for presumed "revenge".

Mosin-Marauder · March 10, 2015, 06:49 PM

At least we might be able to rest easy ,even for a little while, at least. I think their weak points, as exposed already, will lose their battle for them If they try to ban it again.

Bartholomew Roberts · March 10, 2015, 07:05 PM

Instead of resting easy, we need to be using that momentum to make Congress put a halter on the ATF.

ETA:

Quote:

Originally Posted by thallub

This may be a hint of things to come:

ATF just promised the public a new proposal and a period for comment before any framework was enacted. I have to think that failing to do that would be especially hard on them - especially since they were already on the wrong side of a gray area in interpretive rulings vs. legislative rulings.

Jo6pak · March 10, 2015, 07:07 PM

^^Yes, this.

Mosin-Marauder · March 10, 2015, 07:15 PM

How would we about doing that?

steve4102 · March 10, 2015, 08:16 PM

Quote:

The agency said in a statement on Tuesday it would not seek to issue the final guidelines "at this time." The proposal pertained to M855 "green tip" ammunition, used in the AR-15 rifle, which regulators looked at banning because it can pierce police body armor.

The ATF said it would instead wait until Americans have finished commenting on the federal regulations and evaluate their comments and suggestions before "proceeding with any framework."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-ban-proposal/

Sorry, I see nothing to get excited about here. The ATF has not backed off, they have not surrendered and they certainly have not raise the white flag.

All they did was call a time out and extend the time needed to evaluate all the thousands of comments.

tirod · March 10, 2015, 08:27 PM

RE: using rifle ammo in a pistol.

There's a major disconnect in the logic - how does a cartridge fired from a 10.5" barrel even begin to have the penetration of the same one fired from a barrel 20" long?

A rifle round fired from a shorter pistol barrel is LESS effective and has LESS penetration. For that matter, M855 isn't adequately penetrative nor does it expand consistently in short barrels. So much so the Navy went looking for something more effective from short barrels and type approved the MK262 77gr OTM round to do a better job.

As for anyone claiming that rifle ammo should never be used in a pistol and that's the cause of the issue, turn in your .22 Long RIFLE handguns. Your position requires you to shoot Shorts.

As for rifle ammo being shot out of pistols, it's been done for decades, back to the Remington XP pistol in the early 60's. The AR wasn't the first and certainly isn't the most powerful. It's unfortunately revealing that some have no idea what the background on this is, and sides with the ATF with the interpretation.

Each one of these controversies only seems to bring to light there are far too many who quickly come up short with any real commitment or tenacity to stay in the fight.

Bartholomew Roberts · March 10, 2015, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve4102

All they did was call a time out and extend the time needed to evaluate all the thousands of comments.

If you'll read ATF's actual statement as opposed to news reports of the statement, you'll see they have acknowledged two things:

1) They are abandoning the current Proposed Framework for Sporting Purposes Exemptions to AP Ammo and will not move forward with it.

2) If ATF decides to revisit the issue after reading all of the comments, they have committed to A) Offering a new proposal and B) Holding a comment period on any new proposal

Kimio · March 10, 2015, 09:23 PM

Now, if only we could use this to lift the ban on 7N6 ammo, then it would truly be something.

One can dream right?

steve4102 · March 10, 2015, 09:48 PM

Quote:

If you'll read ATF's actual statement as opposed to news reports of the statement, you'll see they have acknowledged two things:

1) They are abandoning the current Proposed Framework for Sporting Purposes Exemptions to AP Ammo and will not move forward with it.

2) If ATF decides to revisit the issue after reading all of the comments, they have committed to A) Offering a new proposal and B) Holding a comment period on any new proposal

ATF Statement.

Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework.

Not at this time issue a final framework. This does not sound like total abandonment to me.

Evaluate and process the comments received and have another "Comment" period before proceeding with any framework. Seems like they are just taking a time out to me.

Bartholomew Roberts · March 10, 2015, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve4102

Not at this time issue a final framework. This does not sound like total abandonment to me.

It is abandonment of this particular framework. Given that it was the type of framework you can only get when you tell a subordinate "Pretend to create an objective test that creates this result.", I don't expect to see much better in the next proposal; but this particular one is done.

Quote:

Evaluate and process the comments received and have another "Comment" period before proceeding with any framework. Seems like they are just taking a time out to me.

Which is why we need to contact our Congresspeople and let them know that the underlying problem that led to this agency overreach is still there and we want to see that corrected. Now is certainly not the time to call it a day and go home.

Having said that, it was a really impressive if short-term victory. The last two major ATF regulatory proposals were talked about on Internet gun forums for months. They were published in the Federal Register and had 90-day comment periods. Combined, they had around 31k comments.

This "notice" wasn't published in the Federal Register at all and there was allowed only a 30-day comment period. With a week still remaining, we delivered over 80,000 comments on this issue - and not just "Cold dead hands!" type of Internet posing; but good substantive comments explaining the effects of the proposal and the problems.

ronl · March 10, 2015, 11:31 PM

I think the powers that be figured they could slide this one through without much opposition, especially if they used the correct spin on it. The limiting of response time of comments, and changing the site where comments are normally posted were blatant attempts to silence the public, which gets me rather miffed. I think it is time to start regaining some ground here. A good starting point would be to get suppressors off the NFA. It just makes good sense. Everybody wins in this case, especially the neighbors who don't like hearing the booms. It would also decrease some of the BATFE's funds, which certainly is a good thing. Then we can get to the SBR's.........

Webleymkv · March 11, 2015, 12:37 AM

Honestly, I really don't see how the ATF has a leg to stand on with this one. From the link in the OP:

Quote:

Specifically, the definition of “armor piercing ammunition” in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) provides:
(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.

emphasis added

Now, the core of M855/SS109 ammo does contain steel, but it is not composed entirely of steel as specified in the law and it does not contain tungsten, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or uranium. It seems to me that the ATF is trying to say that the law prohibits ammunition with any steel in it's core but, fortunately, the law is actually fairly specific about what constitutes an "armor piercing bullet" (specificity seems to be something of a rarity in federal gun laws). As anyone who has ever seen a cross section of an M855 bullet (and there's lots of pictures online) can tell you, a good portion of the bullets core is lead (about half) and the steel penetrator is basically a steel cone sitting on top of the lead core. Because of this, I really don't see how it could meet the definition that 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) specifies.

Honestly, I think that the degree of specificity outlined in the law makes the ban on 7N6 ammo pretty questionable. However, I suspect the argument there is that the lead inlay around the steel penetrator is thin enough that it's considered an inner jacket rather than part of the core. I also note that the ratio of steel to lead in 7N6 is much greater than in M855. Regardless, the construction of M855 is different enough from 7N6 to eliminate these vagarities.

Honestly, the fact that the ATF ever issued an "exemption" for M855 is something of a red herring. M855/SS109 is not and never was "armor piercing ammunition" per the letter of the law. The fact that the ATF even considered "interpreting" it as such strikes me as a blatant attempt to see just how far they can over step their bounds before anyone does something about it.

**Tom Servo** · March 11, 2015, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Because of this, I really don't see how it could meet the definition that 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) specifies.

It never did, which was one of the main concerns. A plain reading of the law should have scotched this proposal before it was even written.

My guess is that they decided to see how much they could get away with. The question on my mind at the moment is, "why did they withdraw it now?" They could have enacted it, let us spend the money on the lawsuit, then let the next administration deal with it.

The timing is just odd.

Webleymkv · March 11, 2015, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Quote:
Because of this, I really don't see how it could meet the definition that 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) specifies.

It never did, which was one of the main concerns. A plain reading of the law should have scotched this proposal before it was even written.

We are in perfect agreement, see the last paragraph of my previous post

Quote:

My guess is that they decided to see how much they could get away with. The question on my mind at the moment is, "why did they withdraw it now?" They could have enacted it, let us spend the money on the lawsuit, then let the next administration deal with it.

The timing is just odd.

Again, I agree that they were probably just trying to see how far they could push things. As to the timing of dropping it, I don't really have a good answer for that either. The only people likely to receive any sort of backlash over this would be the administration and that's kind moot at this point: President Obama is already more than halfway through his final term and his party will be in the minority in congress for the remainder of his term. Also, nobody in congress would have to have a voting record on the issue anyway.

The only thing I can come up with is that enough feathers were ruffled in congress that the ATF fears some sort of reprisal should they ramrod this through. DHS has already had their funding threatened over President Obama's executive orders on immigration and perhaps DOJ, of which ATF is part, fears the same thing befalling them if they stir up too much controversy. Likewise, Eric Holder's successor as AG has yet to be confirmed and perhaps DOJ doesn't want this controversy to overshadow that process.

johnelmore · March 11, 2015, 03:20 AM

It looks like the NRA declared victory on their Facebook page. Banning M855 or other such ammo is not politically popular or advantageous for the Democrats who want to recapture the seats they lost. It might have been a great thing if they did ban M855 because than the Democrats would drop some more in the polls securing seats for the NRA friendly Republicans and as I said before the M855 is not a good load anyway for civilians or law enforcement. I wouldnt load M855 either for home self defense or hunting. There are better loads which outclass it so I could do without it.

**Aguila Blanca** · March 11, 2015, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosin-Marauder

At least we might be able to rest easy ,even for a little while, at least. I think their weak points, as exposed already, will lose their battle for them If they try to ban it again.

No, we can't rest easy, not even for a little while.

I consider this faux proposal to be nothing more than a feint, to test out our defenses and see what weaknesses their probe exposes. When (not if) the BATFE comes back, do you really think they'll be using the same flawed arguments they have already exposed? Unfortunately, the professional gun grabbers are smarter than that. They now have over 80,000 comments, so what has been exposed is the arguments OUR SIDE brings to the table. That gives them a lot of valuable information in crafting new regulations intended specifically to overcome our objectives. They now know where our weaknesses lie.

Boy Scout motto: "Be prepared."

March 10, 2015, 05:17 PM	#203
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,238	I think this was click bait, a fishing expedition, a probe .....rattle the barn door and see what flys out ... Get everyone riled up, see what their positions are and what legal avenues opposition to the ban might use... Now they have the data they need to formulate a real plan of attack. __________________ Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!

March 10, 2015, 06:37 PM	#207
Jo6pak Senior Member Join Date: August 5, 2010 Location: West Coast...of WI Posts: 1,663	To those that contacted the BATFE, your reps and senators, and generally stood up and opposed this ban. THANK YOU For you help To those that did nothing but rant and rave and sit on you hands. YOU'RE WELCOME We've done all the work for you Keep vigilant my friends __________________ NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.

March 10, 2015, 06:38 PM	#209
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,839	We didn't win a skirmish, we didn't even get into a fight. They marched troops along the border, and rattled sabers. We rattled back, and they have, for now retreated. There was no fight! When they saw we would put up one, like any bully, they backed down. This time. No doubt in my mind they will try and bushwack us again, and do it gleefully for presumed "revenge". __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

March 10, 2015, 06:49 PM	#210
Mosin-Marauder Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2014 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,320	At least we might be able to rest easy ,even for a little while, at least. I think their weak points, as exposed already, will lose their battle for them If they try to ban it again. __________________ Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history! K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS. "You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..." William Tecumseh Sherman

March 10, 2015, 07:07 PM	#212
Jo6pak Senior Member Join Date: August 5, 2010 Location: West Coast...of WI Posts: 1,663	^^Yes, this. __________________ NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.

March 10, 2015, 05:01 PM	#201
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	Bartholomew Roberts wrote: The Sen. Grassley (Chairman of the Senate Judiciary) letter went out today with 52 Senators (all Republicans - including several squishy Republicans like Sue Collins and Pat Toomey) signing it. Sadly, unlike the House, not a single pro-RKBA Democratic Senator joined the letter. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re the last comment, politics has been justly described as a sickening pass time, or occupation.

March 10, 2015, 05:12 PM	#202
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	Judging from some comments seen on the internet a few minutes ago, NRA being one source. It appears that, for the moment, this M855/SS109 BATFE sponsored ammunition ban is dead. I submit that it would be a very great mistake for "The Good Guys" to declare victory and go home,thinking that the battle had been won, for it hasn't been. Our side having won a skirmish. Better to win one than to lose one, but it must be remembered, we have won a skirmish, the war continues. Our side forgets that at it's peril.

March 10, 2015, 05:39 PM	#204
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	A coupe of posters, perhaps several have waved the caution flag re what appears to be the administration and it's Fellow Traveler,the BATFE having "lost" the battle over this proposed ammunition ban. In-so-far as the thing goes, they will be back, for intentions and goals are unchanged. We won a skirmish, others will follow, the war will go on, I expect, for a very long time, the ultimate winners being undetermined at this point. That being said, our side must remember, and be prepared for a very long war, assuming our side wants to win.

March 10, 2015, 05:56 PM	#205
thallub Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Location: South Western OK Posts: 3,112	Many thanks to everyone who contacted their congressman/women and wrote letters to the BATFE. Political appointees and high level bureaucrats don't like to get caught with egg on their faces. Stay on your toes, this one may come back to life.

March 10, 2015, 06:30 PM	#206
Kimio Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2011 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,171	May come back alive? Oh ho, it most assuradly will come back, though likely dressed in a different set of sheep's clothing. Stay vigilant as others have said, tell BATFE and an ties have plenty more fight in them, and will likely continue to have much much more to throw at us. Patience is one of the virtues the have in spades, and the anti' are not stupid like how some pro gun folks like to portray them. Then again I'm preaching to the choir here, so we'll done folks, but let's not pat ourselves on the backs just yet. I suspect this us just yet another calm before the storm.

March 10, 2015, 07:15 PM	#213
Mosin-Marauder Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2014 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,320	How would we about doing that? __________________ Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history! K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS. "You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..." William Tecumseh Sherman

March 10, 2015, 08:27 PM	#215
tirod Junior member Join Date: January 21, 2009 Posts: 1,672	RE: using rifle ammo in a pistol. There's a major disconnect in the logic - how does a cartridge fired from a 10.5" barrel even begin to have the penetration of the same one fired from a barrel 20" long? A rifle round fired from a shorter pistol barrel is LESS effective and has LESS penetration. For that matter, M855 isn't adequately penetrative nor does it expand consistently in short barrels. So much so the Navy went looking for something more effective from short barrels and type approved the MK262 77gr OTM round to do a better job. As for anyone claiming that rifle ammo should never be used in a pistol and that's the cause of the issue, turn in your .22 Long RIFLE handguns. Your position requires you to shoot Shorts. As for rifle ammo being shot out of pistols, it's been done for decades, back to the Remington XP pistol in the early 60's. The AR wasn't the first and certainly isn't the most powerful. It's unfortunately revealing that some have no idea what the background on this is, and sides with the ATF with the interpretation. Each one of these controversies only seems to bring to light there are far too many who quickly come up short with any real commitment or tenacity to stay in the fight.

March 10, 2015, 09:23 PM	#217
Kimio Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2011 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,171	Now, if only we could use this to lift the ban on 7N6 ammo, then it would truly be something. One can dream right?

March 10, 2015, 11:31 PM	#220
ronl Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 2007 Posts: 1,100	I think the powers that be figured they could slide this one through without much opposition, especially if they used the correct spin on it. The limiting of response time of comments, and changing the site where comments are normally posted were blatant attempts to silence the public, which gets me rather miffed. I think it is time to start regaining some ground here. A good starting point would be to get suppressors off the NFA. It just makes good sense. Everybody wins in this case, especially the neighbors who don't like hearing the booms. It would also decrease some of the BATFE's funds, which certainly is a good thing. Then we can get to the SBR's.........

March 11, 2015, 03:20 AM	#224
johnelmore Senior Member Join Date: April 6, 2013 Posts: 456	It looks like the NRA declared victory on their Facebook page. Banning M855 or other such ammo is not politically popular or advantageous for the Democrats who want to recapture the seats they lost. It might have been a great thing if they did ban M855 because than the Democrats would drop some more in the polls securing seats for the NRA friendly Republicans and as I said before the M855 is not a good load anyway for civilians or law enforcement. I wouldnt load M855 either for home self defense or hunting. There are better loads which outclass it so I could do without it.