1. Check out the Hot Deals section of the Marketplace forum to view and order an official Mossbergowners.com hat.

Goodbye "Ole Green Tip"...

Discussion in 'Ammunition' started by SHOOTER13, Feb 14, 2015.

  1. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 Guest

    Another executive action by Obama and Holder...:mad:

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/batfe-to-ban-common-ar-15-ammo

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

    BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

    Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles:

    Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles
    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.

    Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles
    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.


    BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015 on this indefensible attempt to disrupt ammunition for the most popular rifle in America.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO


    Well...looks like I'm in violation...big time !! :rolleyes:
  2. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    14,402
    SHOOTER13 likes this.
  3. LAZY EYED SNIPER

    LAZY EYED SNIPER Overwatch Staff Member Global Moderator Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    21,106
    Handgun ammo?

    Ok...

    [​IMG]
    TravisM.1, oli700 and SHOOTER13 like this.
  4. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 Guest

  5. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    14,402
    Yes.

    It is important to remember that as soon as there were a few handguns chambered in 7.62x39, it is well known that the Chinese x39 was banned from importation because they said it fit their definition.

    This is really no different.

    Shooter13, the first link you posted had a quote worthy paragraph.

    "It is our opinion here at Bearing Arms that as the explicit and implicit purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the citizenry be armed with weapons and ammunition of contemporary military utility. We hold that a ban on the most common forms of ammunition for the most common contemporary rifles for militia service is a gross and blatant violation of the letter and the spirit of the Second Amendment.

    ...the on-going absurdity of the laws that the ATF is trying to enforce show a compelling need for the House and Senate to consider a drastic re-working of federal firearms laws, particularly sections of the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the striking of the Hughes amendment from Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
    This must not stand."
    SHOOTER13 and LAZY EYED SNIPER like this.
  6. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,806
    This can be challenged and won.

    There's a discussion on another board I'm on.

    1) the ban is on ammo that's comprised entirely of steel. M855 does not meet that definition.

    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.
    SHOOTER13 and LAZY EYED SNIPER like this.
  7. mingaa

    mingaa Raconteur

    Messages:
    2,187
    The bill attempting to do away with trusts owning SBRs etc got dropped - this can be turned as well. Time to go to the big box and write the letters!!! Grrr.

    Also time to buy some green tip today!
    SHOOTER13 likes this.
  8. GunnyGene

    GunnyGene Racist old man BANNED

    Messages:
    4,005
    Who here has read the entire official proposal linked to by the OP at atf.gov? If you haven't, I recommend you do. I have, and it makes some interesting reading insofar as their reasoning, what they are basing this decision on, and some insight into what the future may hold. This is not about .22 or .223 nor is it about AP ammo in particular. They just happen to be the low hanging fruit. If this goes into effect, they will be going after any and all ammo at some point in the future that has the potential to be lethal to LEO, etc. There are many large caliber handgun bullet configurations right now that will penetrate Level III and IIIA armor, and I have no doubt that the AG (current and future) will tighten up on what is considered "sporting purposes".
  9. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,806
    They are interpreting it outside of the legal definition of AP ammo.

    It can be challenged and defeated.
    LAZY EYED SNIPER likes this.
  10. GunnyGene

    GunnyGene Racist old man BANNED

    Messages:
    4,005
    I hope so.
  11. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 Guest

    The ATF is attempting to stretch and pervert the language of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (LEOPA) of 1986 to ban rifle ammunition using the argument that:

    When LEOPA was finally passed by Congress in 1986, however, the final bill did not include a performance-based standard, or limit the definition of armor piercing ammunition to ammunition “designed” for use in a handgun. Instead, the definition has two alternatives: the first focuses on the composition of the ammunition, and whether it “may be used” in a handgun; the second focuses on size, jacket weight, and the design and intention for the ammunition. 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.

    Yes, the ATF seemed quite pleased with itself that it’s anti-gun lawyers found a loophole in the language of a 29-year old law in order to undermine the intent of the men who wrote it.

    Fortunately, it is very easy for the current Congress to remedy this corrupt ATF attempt to cut off common rifle ammunition with a simple amendment to any bill, changing the existing definition of “armor piercing ammunition” cited above as follows:

    (B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
    (i) a projectile or projectile core designed for use 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;


    Sometimes striking down tyranny is as simple as the stroke of a pen.

    We expect the Republican-controlled Congress to make this correction (or a very similar one) almost immediately.

    Such bureaucratic tyranny must not be allowed to stand.​

    ==================================

    http://bearingarms.com/atfs-proposed-ammo-ban-perverts-federal-gun-laws-heres-congress-must-fix/
  12. dieselmudder

    dieselmudder .30-06 Elite Member "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    2,120
    But remember, it can be just as easily changed in the other direction.....
  13. Mossbergman

    Mossbergman .410

    Messages:
    81
    the 7.62X39 will be next if this sticks ~~MM~~
  14. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,806
    Is it comprised entirely of steel?

    I'm not going to keep repeating myself. But the bafte is loosely interpreting the law which can be challenged.

    It's not that it can go through level 2 body armor which makes it armor piercing. It's the actual composition of the bullet per the law.
  15. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 Guest

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is attempting to reclassify and ban the most common ammunition for the most popular rifle sold in the United States as “armor piercing,” in what appears to be a spiteful attempt by the Obama administration to cripple the supply of ammunition to AR-15 firearms that the President has long sought to ban.

    M855 ammunition is very popular as a practice and target round for AR-15 shooters, and is used in some kinds of hunting.

    Yesterday we discussed one way to strip the ATF of the power to ban common rifle ammunition that they are dishonestly attempting to reclassify as pistol ammunition, which is to make a simple change to the definition that the ATF is abusing.

    Some very sharp people have noted that we might not even need to go that far, as the M855 doesn’t meet either part of the two-part definition that the ATF is perverting.

    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.

    Let’s look at a picture of a cutaway M855 bullet. There are several variants of M855 bullets with slightly different steel insert base shapes, but they all follow this same basic design.

    [​IMG]

    A cutaway of the M855 bullet shows that it does not meet the definition of an “armor-piercing” bullet.

    There are two parts to the definition that ATF is perverting in application to the M855, the first part being, “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…”

    You’ll note that the definition requires the projectile or projectile core to be “constructed entirely” of one or a combination of hardened metal alloys. But as out cutaway clearly shows, the M855’s prjectile is constructed of a lead core (darker, denser metal in the rear) and a steel insert in the front of the bullet (lighter colored, lighter weight metal in the front). The M855 fails to meet the criteria to be classified as armor-piercing under part one of this two part definition.

    Attorney Dave Hardy of firearms law blog Of Arms and the Law also notes that the M855 likely fails the second part of the definition:
    …the M855 isn’t designed or intended for use in a handgun, its jacket is less than 25% of the weight of the projectile, and it’s debatable whether .223 can be called “larger than .22 caliber.”

    [​IMG]

    A diagram of 7N6 5.45×39 ammunition.

    The April 2014 ban on 7N6 ammunition for 5.45×39 caliber rifles also clearly fails to meet the second part of the definition, as the jacket is not designed or intended for use in a handgun, its jacket is less than 25% of the weight of the projectile, and the bullet diameter is precisely .22 caliber (.220″).
    Does the 7N6 meet the first part of the definition of “armor piercing?” It does only if the ATF goes against the express desires of the authors of the legislation, which clearly stated that it should not be applied to rifle ammunition.

    As we noted previously, the ATF’s clear perversion of the intent of the law can easily and permanently be fixed with a simple amendment added to any bill presently before Congress.

    This must not be allowed to stand.

    =========================

    http://bearingarms.com/atf-lacks-le...bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

    =========================
  16. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 Guest

    On a lighter note...

    [​IMG]
    ripjack13 and MikeD like this.
  17. GunnyGene

    GunnyGene Racist old man BANNED

    Messages:
    4,005
    Shooter, I'm still hung up on some of the fine print in the ATF proposal. For example the reference to revolvers, which they state: "Consequently, it is not possible to conclude that revolvers and semi-automatic handguns as a class are “primarily intended” for use in sporting purposes."

    I know they admit that there are currently no known revolvers, etc. that accept this ammo, but that doesn't mean there won't be tomorrow or the next day. It makes me nervous that they are preparing the ground for what could be further more restrictive rules in the future.
    ripjack13 likes this.
  18. oli700

    oli700 12g Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    9,268
    McFly ? .......every freaking thing they do !.......holy crap put GunnyGene back on the phone
    ripjack13 likes this.
  19. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 Guest

    To leave your comments for the BATFE:


    VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

    ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments.

    Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

    ATF website: APAComments@atf.gov. (Follow the instructions for submitting comments).

    Fax: (202) 648-9741.

    Mail:

    Denise Brown
    Mailstop 6N-602
    Office of Regulatory Affairs
    Enforcement Programs and Services
    BATFE
    99 New York Avenue, NE
    Washington, DC 20226

    ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.

    ====================================================
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown telephone: (202) 648-7070.
    ====================================================
  20. GunnyGene

    GunnyGene Racist old man BANNED

    Messages:
    4,005
    My LGS has a lot of M855 stacked up for 45cents/rd. Mitch's Gun Shop in Hamilton, MS.
    MikeD and SHOOTER13 like this.

Share This Page