BATFE proposes to ban SS109 & M855 ammunition for civilian sales.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see where the ATF wants people to contact them with concerns. I had crafted an email to them explaining the concern for going down this slippery slope all in the name of protecting the police when I suddenly had a feeling of fear. Yes fear. I felt I was emailing the Gestapo and telling them I was a Jew. I am being sincere and honest.

So, instead I wrote my congressional representatives. Their job is to represent me and to protect me and my anonymity.

Sorry, but I suddenly had a real fear I was putting my name on a list. So, I did the best I can do.

p.s. See post below, I sent a letter and decided to let this ball get rolling.
 
Last edited:
Letter sent:

I am writing in regard to the proposed reclassification and resulting importation/commercial production ban on M855/SS109 ball ammunition.

The ammunition in question does not meet either of the criteria for "armor piercing" as defined under (18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)

(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.
(continued)

M855/SS109 has a core that is comprised 2/3 of lead. It is also a .22 caliber projectile with a jacket <25% of it's weight, and is designed and intended for use in rifles. In point of fact, it's design and specific performance requirements are predicated on a 20" rifle barrel.

Furthermore, the ammunition is heavily used in sporting events, such as service rifle competition, meaning that even if the ammunition did qualify as armor piercing under (i) and (ii), which it certainly does not, the sporting exemption would still apply.

Banning this ammunition will not only affect ammunition prices for scores of shooter as a widely available and economical surplus dries up, but the reclassification may very well turn many law abiding owners into felons overnight. Though ignorance is never an excuse, I submit that tens of thousands of shooter with 5.56mm handguns make no distinction between the various types of ball ammunition, their sole concern being price. If SS109 is reclassified, those same folks will be A) unaware of the reclassification and B) unaware that they are breaking a law by using the ball ammunition that they always had in their 5.56mm/.223 pistol.

In light of all the aforementioned, there is no possible way to reclassify SS109/M855 ammunition as armor piercing under title 18 statutes. There is also no good reason to do so considering actual terminal performance of the round; any high velocity centerfire rifle round, including expanding soft point bullets, will defeat NIJ Level III armor, while the next step up (NIJ Level IV) easily stops the same rounds, including M855 as well as actual armor piercing M995.

In summary, I strongly urge BATFE to leave M855 ball ammunition alone. There is no net positive from reclassification/removal of exemption. All it does is drive up ammunition costs and make criminals out of law abiding people.
 
One question: would the reclassification make *use* of the ammo illegal? I didn't think so in my reading of it, but you stated in your letter that it would..

In handguns, yes. That has long been the case, but actual AP rounds in rifle calibers are relatively uncommon and almost always sold at a higher price with an exclusive statement. Pretty easy to tell from the black tip that M61 7.62mm or .30-06 M2 is an AP round, and there also aren't many handguns so chambered; tons of 5.56mm pistols out there, and SS109/M855 is only green tipped if it's the "green" (lead-free) version. Much of the M855 on the market has no outward appearance that distinguishes it from M193 or any other ball load. The only way to know is with a magnet.
 
If you do not have the guts and fortitude to send the letter in, you do not have a reason to complain.
 
For those of you claiming paralysis due to a fear of getting on some "list" -

This is an irrational fear. You're already on a list just by posting here. You're already on a list by sending anything in to congress or signing on to whitehouse.gov petitions. What do you really think being on some list is going to do to you? You CAN NOT LET FEAR RULE YOUR LIFE or you surrender your rights before they're stripped from you. You must speak out and you must do it clearly and whenever the government does anything you consider questionable.
 
Last edited:
Why was post deleted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If this is a forum for peoples opinion why are posts being deleted.

Generally speaking posts which are not directly relevant to the issue at hand in the Activism forum will be deleted.

If a person wants to rant, there are a couple threads in General which are suitable.

Keep this thread on track so we can get the business we need to do, done.
 
Who has successfully sent a comment into BATF via email? What address did you use?
 
Who has successfully sent a comment into BATF via email? What address did you use?
I thought about it very long and hard, and I emailed the BATF at the address they recommended.

I did not use some anonymous email, and I put my name and location at the bottom of it.

However, I do feel that emailing the BATF is like shouting out to the Gestapo while writing my Congressmen is like a call to the Allied Commanders.

I did not send a chain letter, but I called them to task and expressed my distrust in their agency. Maybe if you all knew what I had to say you might not have encouraged me so. ;)

It is done. I have your back. I will stand alone if needed.
 
FWIW, my understanding of this thing (& I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong) is that this is a "definitional" matter. IOW, Congress said "bullets with Characteristics X, Y and Z are armor piercing, and armor piercing bullets are illegal." I say that because I suspect a great many gun owners will want to write in and cite statistics, studies, feet/second figures etc.

None of that makes any difference, unless it's included in the definitions under which BATFE is operating. If you're going to write to BATFE about this, look at the definitions that they're using and tell them why this round doesn't meet the definition. For example, if the regulation says "projectile entirely composed of . . . ," point out that the projectile is not "entirely" composed of that. If you argue whether or not the round actually can penetrate armor, based on fps, kinetic energy, or what have you, someone at BATFE will say, "so what? The definition of AP is based entirely on these other factors," which makes your letter eligible for the round file.
 
FWIW, my understanding of this thing (& I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong) is that this is a "definitional" matter. IOW, Congress said "bullets with Characteristics X, Y and Z are armor piercing, and armor piercing bullets are illegal." I say that because I suspect a great many gun owners will want to write in and cite statistics, studies, feet/second figures etc.

None of that makes any difference, unless it's included in the definitions under which BATFE is operating. If you're going to write to BATFE about this, look at the definitions that they're using and tell them why this round doesn't meet the definition. For example, if the regulation says "projectile entirely composed of . . . ," point out that the projectile is not "entirely" composed of that. If you argue whether or not the round actually can penetrate armor, based on fps, kinetic energy, or what have you, someone at BATFE will say, "so what? The definition of AP is based entirely on these other factors," which makes your letter eligible for the round file.
So, it is the old saying, "We know what you are, we just need to negotiate the price" comes to mind.

What you say is true, but thoughts have little to do with mincing words and everything to do with the never ending onslaught. I wrote my congressmen because I want the BATF reined in, redefined, or disbanded.

As Ray said, "Gozer the Gozerian? Good evening. As a duly-designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin, or to the next convenient parallel dimension."
 
The comments are purely supposed to address the proposed agency interpretation and implementation of federal laws. Pointing out that LEOPA doesn't apply to M855 or SS109 ammunition and that BATFE is over reaching by treating it as if the definition of armor piercing ammunition applies to M855 or SS109 ammunition is one argument against their banning the sale to the public. Another is the negative financial impact to the states and federal government if sale is prohibited. Yet another is that this ammunition has valid sporting purposes as it has been in use for decades in recreational, competitive, and hunting applications. Another is that some states make possession of armor piercing ammunition illegal and if BATFE classifies this ammunition as armor piercing and removes an exemption for it those citizens will be at risk of suddenly and unexpectedly violating state law.

We won't get anywhere sending comments in that we don't trust them or that they don't have any constitutional authority to regulate ammunition.

Here's what I sent to the comments email address.
SS109/M855 bullet composition is a copper alloy jacket (which does not exceed 25% bullet weight), with a compound projectile core composed of a mild steel (approx. 33%) tip and common lead alloy (approx. 66%).

The United States military designation for M855 is ball. The NATO designation for SS109 is ball. The military armor piercing ammunition is M995. The composition of the first two cartridges has 3 parts, a steel tip in the front 1/3 of the projectile, lead composing approximately 2/3 of the remainder of the body of the projectile, and a jacket around these components. The composition of the THIRD cartridge (what the US Military and NATO classify as armor piercing) contains a core composed 100% of tungsten. Clearly there is a substantial difference in these projectiles; our military and NATO designate M855 and SS109 as Ball ammunition; M995 is designated as Armor Piercing.

BATFE cites the applicable Federal Law (18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)) in the definition of armor piercing ammunition.

(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.

The BATFE has erroneously listed SS109/M855 ball ammunition as “Armor Piercing” as it doesn’t meet the military or 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) definition of armor piercing.


SS109/M855 ammunition has a widespread use in competitive shooting events, recreational shooting, and is legal in the majority of states for hunting. Clearly there is a sporting purpose for this ammunition. Considering the growth in the sale and use of the AR15 rifle the use of this ammunition in these activities has grown along with the sporting uses of it.


The BATFE recognized that;

“ATF recognizes that this ammunition is widely available to the public. Because it is legally permissible to possess armor piercing ammunition under current law, withdrawing the exemption will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition.”

This would be true for federal law, but would not for many states with prohibitions on the use of armor piercing ammunition. Removal of the armor piercing exemption of M855 would put the citizens in those states at sudden and unexpected risk of violation of state law should the exemption be removed.


The financial impact of BATFE classification of this ammunition as armor piercing is of importance considering the military, law enforcement, and sporting use. GOCO ammunition plants that produce this ammunition sell out of specification and excess ammunition to the public defraying the cost of destroying or "demilling" the ammunition at expense to the taxpayer. The plants themselves employ thousands of workers and the ability to sell this ammunition to the public helps ensure operation of the plants and continuation of those jobs and the taxes the facilities pay and those of the employees supporting the government of United States through their taxes. Banning the sale of M855/SS109 ammunition to the public would pose a finical burden on the government and the employees of the facilities manufacturing it.


The ammunition has been increasingly in demand as the AR15 type semiautomatic rifle has grown to be the most popular rifle in the US. While the AR15 has become the most common rifle sold in the US the violent crime rate reported by the FBI Uniform Crime Report has fallen to a 30 year low as have the rate of assaults on Law Enforcement Officers. LEOPA, the law BATFE proposes to ban the sale to the public under, has no functional need for BATFE to treat M855 as prohibited for public sale.


The sale of M855 and SS109 to the public should not be prohibited as:

it does not meet the U.S. military or 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) definition of armor piercing ammunition,

such a change in status would put citizens in various states at risk of suddenly and unexpectedly being in violation of state prohibitions on the possession of “armor piercing” ammunition,

the change would represent a financial hardship to the government of the United States and the States ammunition plants operate,

the ammunition has clear sporting purposes in recreational, competitive, and hunting,

LEOPA’s intent was to reduce the risk to law enforcement officers and during the entire period that M855 and SS109 ammunition has become in increasing demand the risk to the public and law enforcement officers has dropped to a 30 year low making the need to classify M855 or SS109 ammunition as armor piercing unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
After reading the ATF notice, it is crystal clear that they are only soliciting comment on how best to implement the ban with minimal impact...they are not asking for comment on how we feel about it. Seems the decision is made. Nonetheless, I submitted my own comments.
 
It is done. I have your back. I will stand alone if needed.

My comments to them were probably similar to yours. I expressed that they have proven in the past not to be trusted and needed more congressional oversight.
 
Folks may find information in this thread useful http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=773836

SS109/M855 bullet composition is a copper alloy jacket (which does not exceed 25% bullet weight), with a compound projectile core composed of a mild steel (approx. 33%) tip and common lead alloy (approx. 66%).

The United States military designation for M855 is ball. The NATO designation for SS109 is ball. The military armor piercing ammunition is M995. The composition of the first two cartridges has 3 parts, a steel tip in the front 1/3 of the projectile, lead composing approximately 2/3 of the remainder of the body of the projectile, and a jacket around these components. The composition of the THIRD cartridge (what the US Military and NATO classify as armor piercing) contains a core composed 100% of tungsten.
2h72bfa.jpg
Clearly there is a substantial difference in these projectiles; our military and NATO designate M855 and SS109 as Ball ammunition; M995 is designated as Armor Piercing.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m993.htm
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/556mm_ammo.html
556mm_ammo.jpg
556_ammo2.gif
M855 Ball 556mm_M855_ball.gif
M955 AP M995.gif

BATFE cites 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) in the definition of armor piercing ammunition.

(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.
 
I see where the ATF wants people to contact them with concerns. I had crafted an email to them explaining the concern for going down this slippery slope all in the name of protecting the police when I suddenly had a feeling of fear. Yes fear. I felt I was emailing the Gestapo and telling them I was a Jew. I am being sincere and honest.

So, instead I wrote my congressional representatives. Their job is to represent me and to protect me and my anonymity.

I also wrote to my representatives, but I don't think they have anything to do with this. It's designed to sidestep them.
 
Many people don't seem to understand how law/regulations work.

The legislative branch passes law and the regulatory agencies then have to interpret and implement based on the fact that the legislation is not always explicit for all instances/examples/changes over time.

The BATFE is responsible for interpreting and implementing this armor piercing ammunition aspect of LEOPA. If the agency changes how they interpret the law in such a way it impacts implementation they're required to open a comment period before implementing the change. During that comment period industry, individuals, organizations, and politicians have the opportunity to critique the proposed change. This is the case in every law and agency interpreting/implementing the law. If we don't like the change that is made we need our elected officials to make law specifying the narrower specifics of the law so the regulatory agency has no room for interpretation that we don't approve of. That's just how all of it works. Messy, but...
 
Last edited:
communication is needed but , the refusal to stop and pause and ask "why is the official email for commenting" non functional. particularly if public input has been asked for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top