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

[woodweasel58]

A few years back I was taking an upper level technical writing class and was talking with the instructor about writing to congressmen, nothing to do with the class, he said that I should print the letter on high quality paper with a laser printer and to sign the letter myself. Even though email is the normal way of communicating the extra effort and cost however small may demonstrate to them that you take this issue that little bit more serious enough to put the extra effort in. Maybe they will as well.

 

[greyghost01]

I may be off the point here and if so excuse me, But this whole thing about being shot in a hand gun is the big issue right? Well if that's the case a T/C Encore is a hand gun, You can hunt with it in the Hand gun season, So they could then classify all calibers that T/C makes a barrel for. And I think that is a much bigger problem than we are looking at? And they would love to get every rifle caliber included, I guess they could make one but I have not seen any AR 308 pistols, Be sides Bullet proof vest are not bullet proof, They are resistant to some bullets, But will not stop all hand gun bullets, They never have. This is clearly just a way to screw the legal gun owner, That's why some country's you can only have a up to a 380 pistol and a shotgun, You can still protect yourself and hunt, I don't think it can be a pump or semi in the shotgun either. That would put us closer to what the United Nations is demanding, Also closer to open the borders from Canada to Mexico, This if not stopped is just the beginning, They are just testing the water so to speak!!
MHO

 

[tcoz]

I just heard on Fox News that Rand Paul is launching a national campaign against the "Bullet Ban". He's encouraging citizens to write the ATF to protest the ban.

 

[F-111 John]

Well if that's the case a T/C Encore is a hand gun, You can hunt with it in the Hand gun season, So they could then classify all calibers that T/C makes a barrel for. And I think that is a much bigger problem than we are looking at?

In the ATF's "proposed definition of sporting purposes," they exempt single shot, break open handguns from their determination of "readily available handguns," but they exclude derringers. So we need to get on Heizer Defense to stop making rifle caliber derringers. They have a .223 and a .308, and if they ever come out with a .30-06, then the exemption for .30-06 black tip would be withdrawn.

From the ATF's letter:

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.

The term “single shot handgun” means a break-open or bolt action handgun that can accept only a single cartridge manually, and does not accept or use a magazine or other ammunition feeding device. The term does not include a pocket pistol or derringer-type firearm.

 

[tcoz]

IMO, their contention PUBLICLY is that the ban is justified because M855 can pierce soft body armor worn by law enforcement and that appeals to the public. The ability for it to be fired from a handgun is just the means being used to conveniently justify the ban because it's specified in the law. Since all center fire rifle rounds can penetrate Type III body armor, our biggest concern is that if successful with M855, they'll move on to the M193 or whatever they want to ban next and find another law somewhere to twist in order to ban it again under the auspices of "law enforcement officer safety" because it too can penetrate body armor.

 

[F-111 John]

As of now, the only thing that the ATF can hang their hat on is the fact that M855 contains a steel core. There are currently no laws defining armor penetration as a criteria for identifying armor piercing ammunition. Only that the projectile contains one or more of the magic ingredients listed in the statute.

Since M193 has a lead core, and the jacket does not constitute more than 25% of the total bullet weight, there is no legal criteria to ban M193.

 

[tcoz]

Since M193 has a lead core, and the jacket does not constitute more than 25% of the total bullet weight, there is no legal criteria to ban M193.

That's exactly the point I was referring to in the last three lines of my post. They'll try to find one.

 

[climbnjump]

Well, I don't think it's really a taboo subject. Every bill has to go through the WH. So that makes this a non-starter and congress knows it.

Oh, there is a way to get the Prez to sign it. It would not be a standalone bill but an amendment to a bill that he wants to sign, or a must-pass bill of some sort.

Remember that he legalized carry in National Parks. He certainly wasn't in favor of that, but it was attached to a bill that he did want to sign.

The national park gun law change was included in an amendment to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009, authored by Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and signed into law by President Obama on May 22, 2009.

I don't know how likely this amendment scenario is at this point in time, but it remains at least a possiblity.

 

[hso]

the fact that M855 contains a steel core

M855 ball projectile does NOT have a steel core. It has a lead core with a mild steel penetrator tip designed to penetrate helmets when fired from the SAW or full length M16. It is not M995 armor piercing ammunition which has a tungsten core.


This misinformation pumped out by the Antis needs to be countered with the facts every time it pops up in conversation or whenever we can comment on a news article.

The military has used the following ammo types in 5.56mm (excluding blanks and specialty rounds):

M193: 55gr FMJBT Ball, plain tip.
This cartridge is intended for use against personnel and unarmored targets from 5.56×45mm weapons with a 1-in-12-inch (1:12) or faster rifling twist rate (M16 family rifles and other compatible systems). Its ballistic coefficient is typically .243

M196: 55gr Tracer, short range, red-painted tip.

M855: 62gr FMJBT Ball, green-painted tip.
This cartridge is intended for use against personnel, unarmored and material from 5.56×45mm weapons with a 1-in-10-inch (1:10) or faster rifling twist (Machine guns: M249 Minimi; Rifles: M16A2 and other compatible systems). The M855 cartridge is based on the FN-designed SS-109 bullet, and has a gilding metal-jacketed, lead alloy core bullet with a steel penetrator. The primer and case are waterproof. It was adopted by NATO in 1980 as the standard small arms ammunition for NATO forces. Its ballistic coefficient is typically 304.

M856: 61gr Tracer, long range, orange-painted tip.
This cartridge uses the FN-designed L-110, 63.7 grain tracer bullet, which has no steel penetrator. (Note that while FM 23-14 lists this bullet weight for the M856, IMI lists the weight of the L-110 tracer bullet which tops the M856 round as 61.7 grains. At least one AR15.com member reports 60.8-61.3 weights for a variety of M856 rounds that were pulled). The long projectile requires a barrel with a 1:8 or faster rifling twist.

M995: 62gr FMJBT AP, black-painted tip. This FN-designed bullet uses a hardened tungsten-carbide penetrator, and is only available on special-issue SAW belts.

Our military will be fielding the M855A1 enhanced performance ball ammunition as soon as practicable because it performs better at longer ranges than M855, but all AR ammo has always gone through LE vests because they are rifle ammunition and the vests are designed for pistols.

At close ranges (up to 40-50 yards), M193 will penetrate thicker steel than M855, due to its increased velocity. Beyond 100 yards, M855's bullet construction starts paying off and it will penetrate better than M193. M855 also loses velocity more slowly than M193, with a cross-over point between 200 and 300 yards, beyond which M855 will have more velocity than M193. The M855A1 will perform better at longer ranges than either the M855 or the M193.

None of that performance information is relevant to this discussion other than to say none of the ball ammo is AP and ALL of the AR ammo goes through LE vests and always has because LE vests are designed to defeat pistol ammo. So banning any AR ammo is irrelevant.

 

[F-111 John]

That's exactly the point I was referring to in the last three lines of my post. They'll try to find one.

And, not to be argumentative, that was exactly the point of my post. Currently, the ATF has a statute that says "steel in bullets - bad." They see M855, they see AR pistols, and they say "hmm, ban good."

Fortunately, currently the ATF doesn't have a statute that says "if a projectile can penetrate a Level IIIA ballistic vest using NIJ Standard-0101.06, it is considered to be armor piercing," and until congress gives them one, worrying about M193 getting banned is non-productive behavior.

 

[F-111 John]

M855 ball projectile does NOT have a steel core. It has a lead core with a mild steel penetrator tip designed to penetrate helmets when fired from the SAW or full length M16. It is not M995 armor piercing ammunition which has a tungsten core.

M855 and SS109 have two cores. One is made of lead, one is made of steel.

Unfortunately, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) does not make any distinction between mild steel and hardened steel. There is no Rockwell harness number that a projectile core must exceed before it is considered legally (not militarily) "armor piercing." The statute simply states that if a projectile or projectile core is made entirely of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium, it is banned as "armor piercing." M855 has a projectile core made entirely of steel, so it was banned as meeting the legal definition of "armor piercing." It also happens to have a second projectile core made of lead.

Fortunatly, a specific round can be given an exemption from the ban if it is deemed to be mostly used for "sporting purposes." M855/SS109 have a core composed of substance #2 on the verboten list, but were given exemptions because of general sporting purpose use. M995 Black Tip was never given an exemption.

The ATF is currently attempting to codify a specific definition of "sporting purposes" and in so doing automatically rescind the exemption for M855/SS109.

Now, one could argue that the statute says "a projectile or projectile core" and says "constructed entirely," that the statute would not include M855/SS109 because it's "core" is not "constructed entirely" of one or more of the listed banned metals. It also contains a significant amount of lead.

However, the legal meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will ultimately only be settled in a court of law if the ban on M855/SS109 happens and is challenged.

I personally don't see the logic of banning one type of ammunition that can be fired from a handgun under the guise of "officer safety," when any round fired from that same AR handgun will penetrate officer's soft body armor. Banning M855/SS109 does not increase officer safety, but it does add additional burden to the shooting public.

 

[tcoz]

I personally don't see the logic of banning one type of ammunition that can be fired from a handgun under the guise of "officer safety," when any round fired from that same AR handgun will penetrate officer's soft body armor. Banning M855/SS109 does not increase officer safety, but it does add additional burden to the shooting public.

Also on Fox this morning, I watched a debate between Katie Pavlich, an outspoken gun-rights activist and Fox News contributor and some lady representing the other side. Katie was talking about back-door gun control and this other woman's entire argument was that we shouldn't have a problem with banning the ONE type of AR ammunition that will penetrate law enforcement body armor. She must've said "the ONE type" about five times. I kept screaming into the television for Katie to make this exact point that F-111 made and I quoted above, which would have contradicted the other woman's basis of her argument. Finally, I had to leave the room disappointed and feeling like she had left a straight flush on the table.

 

[hso]

Ignorant ideologues do not make good arguments for our side. We want to focus on the argument that makes the average American notice what's happening, but we need to be able to debunk the Antis that make the "gimme just a little and I won't come back for more" argument.

F-111, there is only one core to the M855 ball projectile. It is a lead alloy. The projectile is a lead alloy core, a mild steel penetrator on top of that core and a jacket containing these parts. Don't fall into the Antis' trap of calling the core the penetrator and the lead core the "core". The ammunition terminology is very specific and shouldn't be dumbed down so that we fall prey to the Antis' redefinition for their nefarious purposes.

 

[RX-178]

Now hso, correct me if I'm factually incorrect about any of this, but my understanding of this is also as following.

Even under the other definition of armor piercing, IF the steel penetrator were to be argued to be a component of the 'jacket', the steel and copper combined would STILL not account for 25% of the total bullet weight.

AND

The .224 bullet is not greater than .22 in caliber, nor is any bullet until it reaches .230?

 

[hso]

Instead of getting into derailing discussion here where we need to focus on fighting the Antis about what is and isn't a "core" or "armor piercing" , go through this thread on the ammunition itself http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=773836&highlight=penetrator and look at the cross sections found here http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/ammo_cross_sections/ for the penentrator tip ammunition (M855 and SS109 vs. the armor piercing M995) and here for the history http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/hist_milammo.html.

What is vitally important for us here and now is to destroy the argument being made by the BATFE that M855/SS109 ball rifle ammunition should be banned from public sale under the guise of GCA and LEOPA definitions of armor piercing handgun ammunition.

 

[F-111 John]

Hso, how you or I define "projectile core" is illrelevant. The fact remains that M855 is banned as armor piercing ammunition, but was granted an exception under the sporting purposes clause, and it has been thus since 1986 when Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law.

This is not an attempt by ATF to classify M855 as armor piercing. That was done thirty years ago. This is an attempt to rescind the exception.

 

[crazysccrmd]

Hso, how you or I define "projectile core" is illrelevant. The fact remains that M855 is banned as armor piercing ammunition, but was granted an exception under the sporting purposes clause, and it has been thus since 1986 when Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law.

This is not an attempt by ATF to classify M855 as armor piercing. That was done thirty years ago. This is an attempt to rescind the exception.

True, but when M855 was classified as AP it was done so illegally/in error since it does not meet the ATF definition of AP ammo. What its current classification is doesn't matter since that classification was falsely assigned. It just means the ATF has wrongly called M855 AP for 30 years and gave it an unnecessary exemption.

 

[F-111 John]

True, but when M855 was classified as AP it was done so illegally/in error since it does not meet the ATF definition of AP ammo.

It was done so illegally in your and my opinion, but it was done so legally until overturned in a court of law. Time for SAMMI or NSSF or SAF or NRA to challenge the ATF ruling in a court of law, or to have congress change the underlying law. But until one of those two things happen, the fact remains that M855 is currently classified as armor piercing under the law, and has been granted an exemption under the sporting purposes clause. If that exemption is rescinded by the ATF, FFLs will cease to sell M855. Those are the facts that we must deal with.

This is not the first time the ATF has gone after rescinding M855's exemption. Here is an article from December of 2012 dealing with the same issue: https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...to-armor-piercing-ammunition-law-until-dec-31

 

[tcoz]

If it ends up in court (IMO it will), I can't help but think the facts are on our side and the ban would be overturned. This might be wishful thinking but a number of cases have been decided in our favor in the courts recently.

 

[woodweasel58]

In my letters to BATFE and everyone else, I point out how M855/SS109 was missclassified as AP, included the AP definition. The NATO and U.S. 5.56 classifications which all clearly spelled out each version of M855 Green Tip, 856,855A1,etc. they all said Heavy Ball, for use in the M16A2 and SAW, for use in M16A1 only in an emergency under 90 yards. M193 55 gr. Ball, for use in M16A1 , and M995 52gr Tungsten core Armor Piercing Black Tip. I believe we are dealing with a herd of non shooters or minimally educated at best, therefore we need to go through the historical development of the AR/M16 and it's ammo and go through step by step like you would a complete beginner. I'll bet this whole problem could have been avoided in 1986 if the reason for FN developing the SS109 Projectile, the M855 is the U.S. loading of that projectile, which is hotter than others I think. If I remember correctly M193 was fragmenting and unable to penetrate then Soviet Bloc Helmets, also some complaints about nasty wounds M193 was inhumane. I believe also to penetrate glass better. So rather than getting excited get factual and concise and show them how very simply wrong this is. Congressman Goldlatte and 236 more Congressmen have questioned the original "classification" of SS-109/M855 as AP. He required a clarification from BATFE, by March 13, which goes directly to disqualifing the SS109 projectile from being Armor Piercing, by definition. Which should make them admit to the incorrect classification to begin with, I hope.

 

[barnbwt]

"Hso, how you or I define "projectile core" is illrelevant"
I sure hope that isn't your attitude at the ballot box. Our opinions (not to mention the law's language) are hardly irrelevant.

"The fact remains that M855 is banned as armor piercing ammunition"
No, it was held to be armor-piercing under their regulatory authority (not the same as legal authority, btw)

"but was granted an exception under the sporting purposes clause"
Proof positive why we all need to be darned careful at accepting mere "exceptions" for what we feel is wrong behavior by bureaucrats. "Sporting purposes" itself is nothing more than a subjective exemption, with the entirety of its subject items permitted solely by the ATF/Executive's pleasure. Considering that they are now trying to rescind permission for one of the more popular types of ammo there is, it is no longer "illogical" to think the same will happen to other NATO rounds, or even shotgun gauges (after all, 20ga will get the job done)

"...and it has been thus since 1986 when Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law."
No one claims that man a saint on gun issues. Far from it. Granted, he had a pretty good excuse in the end, but he'd been either ambivalent or plainly anti-gun/anti-liberty for a good chunk of his career. What he was, was nationalist, at a time when that was more productive than anti-nationalist sentiment (then as now)

"This is not an attempt by ATF to classify M855 as armor piercing. That was done thirty years ago. This is an attempt to rescind the exception."
Potato, potato <pronounced the same way>. The exemption was in place because it was not felt they could get away with this back in the day, and likely also due to pressure from congressmen certain that the ruling was outside the intent of the statute (refer again to the above in bold; we absolutely cannot trust anything these people will retain control over). Their ruling was as clearly wrong then as it is now, but obviously gun owners weren't nearly so attentive or mobilized.

Congratulations, everyone: this is the exact type of maneuver we'd have been helpless against even a decade ago. I suspect the lack of information and coordination among our members is what allowed the ATF to make the armor-piercing ruling without opposition in the first place.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"The statute simply states that if a projectile or projectile core is made entirely of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium, it is banned as "armor piercing.""

"M855 has a projectile core made entirely of steel, so it was banned as meeting the legal definition of "armor piercing." It also happens to have a second projectile core made of lead."
The odd thing though, is the statute omits a second "a" before "projectile core." Utter semantics, I know, but that is how singular items are denoted in a legal list, right? Sort of like "state" and "State" in the current Supreme Court Case that some claim means everything and nothing. The language seems instead to refer to the core as a single object; as though everything inside the jacket material is "the core" --we should really have pictures in some of these laws, I swear, since verbiage is a horrible medium to convey technical information of this sort.

I personally think it far more likely that a bunch of ignorant and unimaginative lawmakers (for evidence, I present the '34 NFA) drew up a statute aimed at regulating mono-core jacketed ammunition*, and that the very concept of a bi-metal core like M855's was beyond their understanding (and by extension, beyond the intent of the law). Not to mention the argument that if even a single component of the core elements within the jacket being a banned metal would render the whole "armor piercing," then what is the purpose of the first list item regarding complete projectiles? Especially in light the fact that jackets themselves are often composed of several of the metals listed afterward (a portion or all of the jacket could be argued as being a 'core component')

There's also the very popular viewpoint that the law binds us as much and in as many ways as can be tenuously argued, that strangely enough seems to find traction among those executing the law. The real 'solution' here, if there is one, is to revise that section of the statute to simply ban certain metals/alloys above a set hardness from being used in bullets. Lead, brass, copper, zinc, steel, and iron are so common/ubiquitous that they couldn't possibly be included, so we civvies would be giving up Uranium, Tungsten, and Beryllium. Pretty lame that Polonium is legal to use in bullets and not Uranium, but it's not an arbitrary restriction that would have any measure of broad impact on the vast majority of shooters (therefore, a 'narrowly tailored' law regulating the 2nd Amendment)

I still can't get over the notion that once bullet proof armor was invented, police magically gained the right to be impervious to bullets of their choosing (why only pistol bullets, again?), even as bullet technology once more took the lead in surpassing armor's capability (thus restoring the balance of nature, one might say). When that happened, suddenly it was our (the civilians') problem. Now we've even got folks trying to ban civilians from using body armor themselves. Can't say I'd ever wish harm on any peace officer outside a judge's sentencing, but it sure seems like there's a lot cowardice, at least in the profession's upper reaches and representation. It's hard to claim moral superiority if you strive to be physically and legally impervious to the consequences of doing your job.

TCB

*Gee, like the type of steel-core jacketed 9mm pistol ammunition the law was written to address in the first place?

 

[HorseSoldier]

Some say it's being replaced with a new round. Propose a ban and emidiately clear out the millions of obsolete rounds in inventory. Obama sure can sell guns and ammo.

855 has been replaced by 855A1 in military service, though there's still tons of 855 in inventory. Google the two rounds and, design wise, it's unclear why they called the new round 855A1 -- completely different bullet design and construction more or less ballistically matched to 855.

In a world where the BATFE sticks its nose back out of things, there should still be mil surp 855 (SS109 really) ammo coming in from other NATO nations, keeping it affordable bulk ammo, but 855 is on its way out in US .mil service.

 

[woodweasel58]

I can't remember why they wanted to develop the M855A1 other than to be lead free, it does seem to fit into the BATFE incorrect classification of Armor piercing easier, is it still being issued? I recently ordered M855 that had a 2013 date, is it still being produced or is 855A1 replacing it, maybe there is about to be a very large amount of M855/SS109 available that could be sold to us and our president doesn't want it in the hands of right wing extremests who hold on to their god, guns and bibles. The M855A1 is not an SS109 projectile and it only has one core making it closer to the armor piercing definition of LEOPA. So it might fall under the BATFE ban, if the military quits using M855/SS109 then M193 may be the only surplus ammo we ever see again.

 

[tcoz]

Re: M855A1...
http://www.army.mil/article/48657/