and were specifically exempted in the past from the list of armor piercing bullets by the ATF due to their construction. If words and laws have meaning then this bullet should not be banned. If politicians want to make political points while doing nothing to enhance police safety then go ahead and ban them.

Armor piercing bullets are not banned.

Only armor-piercing HANDGUN bullets are banned.

And someone is saying that now you can buy a hand-gun in .223 (5.56mm) caliber, so they should be banned as well.

That's simply stupid.

Yes, you can buy rifle-caliber armor-piercing rounds today from many places.

For example:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=472627802

Its no big deal .

Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2015, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is the definition used to classify them as AP:

Senator Moynihan said the following when debating the ban on Armor Piecing bullets:

This comment is contained in the Report issued by the BATFE in regards to the proposed ban:

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

(17)(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

The key paragraph is (i) for its uses the term MAY which can includes rounds design for RIFLE use only, but someone sometime, someplace made a pistol in that Caliber.

7.62x51 NATO Rounds and 7.62x39 Russian rounds are generally Rifle Rounds, but there are (or have been) "pistols" design for their use.

This is a "Pistol" in 7.62x39mm Russian, as the term "Pistols" is defined in the Federal Statutes (i.e. barrel less then 16 inches but NO Shoulder Stock). It fires 7.62z39 Russian Ammunition. It is LEGAL in the US:



http://www.centuryarms.com/manuals/pdf_flipbook/c39%20pistol/files/assets/seo/page16.html

This is an ILLEGAL Short barrel Rifle, they have been ILLEGAL since 1938 unless registered with the Federal Government after paying a $200 registration fee:

http://arsenal-bg.com/images/defense_police/5,56ar-sf.jpg

US AR-15 (M-16) fired 5.56x45 Ammunition here is a photo of a LEGAL 5.56x45 Pistol and an ILLEGAL 5.56x45 Short barrel Rifle:

Here is a photo of a Legal "Pistol" and an illegal "Short barrel rifle" marked SBR in the photo:



http://emptormaven.com/2014/04/ar-15-pistol-pdw/

Now, in the 1980s when this ban was adopted, Thompson Center was producing various single shot PISTOLS, Shortly after the ban on Armor Piecing Bullets was passed, Thompson Center started to single shot Pistols capable of firing 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition. It does NOT look like Thompson Center is doing so today. The Statute was clear that it covered Pistols and given that Thompson Center had a Pistol that MAY fire 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition, that was enough to ban 7.62x51mm Armor Piecing Ammunition.

Now, present REGULATION says the ban on Armor Piecing Ammunition only applies to Pistols capable of two or more shots without reloading, but the underlying STATUTE makes no such distinction. This Regulation was adopted to get around the Thompson Center Pistols which was then expanding beyond 7.62x51mm NATO rounds. Thus BATFE adopted the ban on 7.62x51mm ammunition but then did NOT expand that ban to other caliber of ammunition (and did not drop the ban on 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition more through bureaucratic inertia for no one was really pushing to end the ban). The BATFE did NOT want to hear the complaints that a ban on a 30'06 ammunition (the most popular rifle round in the US to this day) would cause, thus the Regulations that exempts Single Shot Pistols (Which, like the Thompson Center were target pistols with 7 inch or longer barrels).

Thus ALL of those caliber have had PISTOLS chambered for them. The 5.56x45 should join the list, but my point is the key term is PISTOL.

Here is the 1992 US Supreme Case involving Thompson Center and its Pistols (and that they could be made into "Short Barrel Rifles" without any work). The Court rules that the mere ability to exchange parts between different weapons did NOT meet the definition of manufacturing a Short Barrel Rifle, when a Pistol Barrel could be fitted onto an Action that included a Rifle Stock, both of which was in one person's possession (i.e. have a short barrel pistol stock able to be put on a rifle stock).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7459670978537001150&q=United+States+v.+Thompson/Center+Arms+Co.+504+U.S.+505&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39&as_vis=1

as is steel- and tungsten-core AP ammo in 7.62x39mm, 5.45x39mm, etc. and other smaller rifle calibers up through .308 Winchester. The law was originally written to exempt rifle calibers, but has been interpreted to include rifle ammo having the core made from tungsten, steel, or hardened bronze. I believe the core of M995 is a solid piece of sharpened tungsten carbide, which is much denser than lead and is harder than tool steel.

M855 is technically regular ball (green-tip) and has a mostly lead core, with a small cap of mild steel under the brass tip.

The problem is since the 1980s we have HAD handguns in 7.62x51 (Thompson Centers, through I do NOT know if they are making them anymore) and various makers who have made "Pistols" that fires 5.45x45 AND 7.62x39 Ammunition. Remember a pistol is any weapon without a Shoulder Stock.

Here is a photo of a Legal "Pistol" and an illegal "Short barrel rifle" marked SBR in the photo, these are in 5.56x45 but they are AK knockoffs that does the same thing for 7.62x39 Ammunition:

That's why the other qualification in the statute is so important: "...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."

That's one reason why the proposed M855 ban is was so controversial, because not only is inexpensive M855 very popular as a civilian target round, but M855's core is mostly lead, so it is not "constructed entirely" of the banned AP metals, and the military considers it non-AP.

What is "Intended"? A handgun is well defined, it is a firearm without a shoulder stock. Thus what is meant by the word "intended"? Thus the debate in the BATFE, it was the point of law the BATFE were using is their proposal. See the BATF proposal in the following PDF format:

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

In that report the BATFE found that the endangered Condor was a leading factor in requests for exemptions from the above Stature, for lead was a leading cause of Condor deaths and ammo makers were looking at alternatives and those contain metal on the list of ban substances:



The BATFE then goes into the main purpose of the ban:



The report then goes into what "Intent" means, and cites the US Supreme Court:



Thus the proposed ruling was based on (B) (ii) not (B)(i) that it is the INTENT of the USERS of the Ammunition that is most important AND that does NOT mean ALL users, or even most Users, but users of 5.56x45mm Pistols AND that such pistols MAY provide enough power to penetrate low level body armor that Police carry (i.e. pistol grade NOT rifle grade body armor). Intent is an "Objective Standard" and its meaning must be taken when reading the Statute as a whole. The INTENT of the Statute was to protect Police Officers, thus if a round of Ammunition MAY be used against such Officers it can be banned if it meets the definition of (B) (ii) of the Statute.

The report does mention 30'06 Armor Piecing Bullets and said, the ban will NOT apply to them for there are no pistols for such ammunition. Single Shot Pistols are NOT to be considered as Pistols for they are rarely used in criminal activities. On the other hand if a Pistol exists that can take Rifle Ammunition and can fire more then two rounds before reloading AND such Ammunition is Armor Piecing, it can be banned for the purpose of the law was to protect law enforcement officers from such ammunition. The "INTENT" is to protect Law Enforcement Officers and given that "Intent" M885 ammo can be banned for it is capable of firing from a "Pistol" AND is Armor Piecing.

back in the 80's they were only rifle bullets and the whine back then was that they were simply used for target practice. Regardless of "legal definitions" these do penetrate commonly used police vests, but, until recently, assholes carrying rifles around in the mall was not a problem.

Now that the rounds are usable in pistols, cops with vests can be easier targets, and so the proposed dropping of the exemption.

I'm not entirely comfortable with cops having these, but can't think of any conceivable legitimate use for civilians to have them. Shooting it out with cops or as Viagra replacements are not legitimate uses.

Definition

They have a lead core. They had a steel tip added to them but it was not to make them armor piercing - the Army had lethality issues when the standard round was fired with a Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) during long range engagements.

Even with the short barrel, any commercially available .223 ammunition fired from one of these will hole a soft vest. 55 grain ball, 60 grain Interlock, 69 grain Matching, 62 grain SS109, meaningless distinction.

Much better would be to just call these things what they are, short barreled rifles, and regulate them accordingly (i.e. under the NFA).

how are we going to control these guns?

Stock design or absence is irrelevant, it's an action originally developed as a rifle with a barrel under 16". I think that would be a legally more solid case (M855 is mostly lead, doesn't meet the statute definition of AP) and probably get more support; a lot of even RWNJs don't much like the idea of rifle-caliber handguns precisely because of the potential for banning cheap Eastern-bloc surplus ammo that tends to meet the legal definition.

In fact it will cost lives because it will help keep republicans and their policies in office and in power. The homophobic, anti-choice, anti-science, pro-carbon, pro-mass-incarceration people.

are killed with it annually. It also doesn't penetrate the lowest level of police body armor rated to stop rifle rounds, and the number of police officers killed with it annually is zero. All rifle rounds will penetrate non-rifle-rated armor, BTW.

Hard numbers here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172161113

For "non-partisan" gun control groups (for simplicity sake we'll call them Mike Bloomberg) to target Democrats who don't show enough enthusiasm in supporting gun control laws that have marginal chance of passing and minimal benefit if they do.

If you recall, Mark Pryor (D) was one targeted by Bloomberg for being too weak on gun control. Bloomberg and gun control proponents were successful and he lost his election.

Who is it that now holds that seat? Why the Honorable Senator ( ) Tom Cotton. That name might ring a bell...

Rhetorical question- are we (Democrats) better off having one less poor Democrat in D.C.?

"“Armor-piercing rounds like green tips should only be in the hands of military personnel or police officers, period,” Engel said. "


Excuse me, but would someone please tell my why ANYONE would think the POLICE need to have armor-piercing ammo?

I cannot think of a single reason why any United States Police Officer would be using an armor-piercing bullet. There are no robberies being done using heavy-armored vehicles that I am aware of. No concrete block walls that must be penetrated in order to capture a fugitive felon.


No- you do NOT need armor-piercing ammo to perform police work in the U.S.A.


Rant off-

( I would just note that the "green-tip" M855 round is really no differnet than most other high-powered rifle round when it comes to pentration power against kevlar vests. All large high-power rifle bullets are equally destructive to a Kevlar vest-

A .30-06 round, a 7mm Remington Mag, or a .300 Winchester punches through a Kevlar vest at exactly the same lethality as does an M-855 round. Unfortunately, those wishing to ban M855 rounds don't usually understand anything about weapons.

I think it's a good idea to get this crud off the streets just because of the type people attracted to them.

A little "feel good" legislation would be a good start on the ultimate goal to relegate gun nuts to the back woods and compounds.

Is it really going to change your life to give up your "armor piercing" bullets, however they are defined?

The only good gun law is one that punishes gun owners, right?

I think you guys can live without a few bullets..

M855 is expensive junk that I'd never buy even if I did have a semi auto .223, which I don't - I've proven to my satisfaction that it's even less accurate than ultra cheap Russian stuff, so from a practical standpoint banning it wouldn't bother me in the least.

On the other hand, banning it would have absolutely no effect on public safety whatsoever since any round of any type is going to chew up a vest, but is very effectively whipping the RWNJs into an absolute frothing rage which has already managed to shut the proposal down and certainly won't be forgotten about come election time. Is that a change you want in your life?

It's quite an effective fear mongering tool to get the crazies who normally wouldn't vote for the more mainstream nationally acceptable Repub to come out and punch the cars anyway because OTHERWISE THE DEMZ WILL TAKE MOAR GUNZ N BOOLITZ!!

Sort of like how the more-left progressives would be coaxed into voting HRC if it came to it, but at least THEY'LL TAKE OUR ABORTIONS is actually a reasonable thing to monger fear over.

The only .223 I own is a target gun, wouldn't put that greentip crap through it if you paid me. Wouldn't bother me at all if it were somehow banned, certainly didn't write to the ATF over it.

That said I certainly don't see it as odd...I keep an eye on gun and RWNJ sites for education and entertainment and while they really want Cruz, they'd hold their noses and vote for Bush or whomever if it came to it, solely out of the perception he'd defend their guns better. Never underestimate low-information single-issue voters, friend-o.

gun safes full of the latest in NRA endorsed gun crud.

BTW, you don't know what I have in my 3, yes, count them, 3 safes, it could be modern weapons, it could be antique weapons, it could be memorabilia, it could be anything, but I won't tell you, it's probably driving you nuts.

Though I must admit I haven't bought much since silver went thru the roof. Now when I add to the collection it's mostly "modern junk" and the once in a while nice silver coin.

I noticed last weekend common morgans and peace dollars were "down" to 25. Still not worth it IMHO.

But hey, we can live in hope!

But ANY 5.56 mm ammo will penetrate body armor. This ban is useless.

I hate headlines like this.

Disclaimer, I'm not a gun nut, I think we need regulation, but not elimination.

This stupid headline will make stupid people on both side of the argument rabid. The end of AR15's !!11!1! . The fucking sky is falling.

No, the round that is used by an AR15 is a common round manufactured by the billions yearly. They are used in many, many, many, (ah one more) many weapons worldwide.

The title should read The House Proposes Bill that Bans Armor Piercing Ammunition.

Fuck, there is gonna be a storm of hate due to this headline. The writer and editor should serve out the rest of their damn careers flipping burgers for minimum wage.

That its just a liberal attempt to get rid of all automatics...more gun control...

I'd promote it just like it should be promoted..to protect our law

enforcement officers..

gun control, which is a two-word phrase that makes one hell of a lot of sense to me, the alternative being guns out of control, somehow a monolithic group that can be simply described as 'liberal?' Think about it - what's 'liberal' about wanting to do something to reduce the exceptionally liberal ease of access in your country to highly dangerous high-speed metal projectile devices?

There's nothing 'liberal' about that at all. However, 'sensible,' 'concerned about public safety,' in fact, 'conservative' is probably much more appropriate. I'd like to conserve a reasonable level of public safety in my country to pass on to later generations. Who would willingly walk into a room with lots of small metal projectiles zipping around at a couple of thousand feet per second? There is nothing 'conservative' about wanting even more of them to be zipping around just about everywhere.

Not one automatic weapon has been manufactured for civillians in almost 30 years.

That's what some nutty right wing congress said about the last proposal.

I am willing to concede that perhaps Shooting sites could keep and use on the site. But would need to account for each bullet --like nurses need to count each narcotic at end of shift. Just saying--the logistics many be too demanding but so be it.

unlike military rounds, they are not governed by the Geneva Conventions on War. It would be a war crime to use your civilian hunting rounds as a soldier.

and the little .223 Remington is the #1 centerfire target caliber in the United States. Since we're talking about a proposed ban on non-AP FMJ, not already-banned M995 AP, the details of the proposed framework (which went far beyond banning M855 ball) were certainly worrisome to a lot of us who shoot recreationally or competitively.

By the way, .243, 7mm-08, and .308 are just as "armor piercing" as M855 is, are used just as often to murder police officers (i.e. almost never), and AR "pistols" can be had in those calibers as well. Or do you only hunt with a shotgun?

Nobody need that kind of ammo.

Armor-piercing .223/5.56mm (M995 tungsten-core, black-tip) is already banned, and is not the subject of this proposal. Regular M855 lead-core ball (green tip) is, even though it doesn't penetrate body armor any better than any other .223, .243, 7mm-08, or .308 Winchester.

M855 is stopped by the lowest level of rifle-rated body armor, NIJ Level III. Non-rifle-rated armor (NIJ IIIA or below) won't stop rifle rounds regardless of construction.

increasing margins.

Secondary impact will probably be an increase in firearms and ammunition in general sold.

Tertiary outcome, more rebs fired up to vote red and a few Democrats softening be it enthusiasm or not voting or even a few flips.

If you feel it is the right thing and a high priority then fight for it but the people that vote this issue are going to break big time against. It is of some value to understand that support is mostly very, very, very soft as in it doesn't play a practical part in voting decisions. The people that actually are fervently in favor are either already voting Democratic or never will at this point.

There is no actual upside for this.

The police already spoke on their own behalf and said "This is dumb"...

we should write legislation to further restrict weapons less than xx dimension (Pistols) which can penetrate level 3 body armor with commonly available or a defined test construction bullet.

Seems that is the real issue at hand. Is about an easily concealable weapon that can pierce the typical body armor worn by Law Enforcement, with commonly available ammunition.

It will never pass the House and the bullets are no more armor piercing then any other center fire rifle round invented after 1894. The simple, blunt fact is that soft body armor will NOT stop rifle cartridges regardless if they are fired from a rifle or pistol length barrel,

By "cop killing" he means ammo that can't be tied to a single vest penetration police officer fatality.

By "armor piercing" he means ammo that can't penetrate armor plating.

It's going to cost democrats votes and do almost nothing to reduce crime. Who still thinks this is a good idea?