Why aren't we blaming the pistol manufacturers who gave the AFT M855 ban ammunition?

[Jim K]

But why is no one discussing the deliberate action by a few gun makers to produce handguns in rifle calibers, knowing that AP ammo in those calibers will then become handgun ammunition and be banned. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I don't see how a chopped off AR-15 makes a practical handgun.

Jim

 

[Thermactor]

I excoriated Heizer Defense for making their pathetic 223 pocket pistol but nobody listened.

 

[HOOfan_1]

I excoriated Heizer Defense for making their pathetic 223 pocket pistol but nobody listened.

You are totally barking up the wrong tree....

This isn't the fault of the manufacturer....this is the fault of the ATF. I couldn't care less if the ATF specifically said they are making this move because of Heizer Defense...that is just an excuse for something they want to do anyway.

So your argument is that a gun shouldn't be made because it may make ammunition illegal?

 

[hso]

What's the functional difference between an XM177 with a 10" barrel and an AR pistol with a 10" barrel? The presence of the stock or absence makes little difference in close quarters other than the improved accuracy inherent in using a stock, and you can still shoulder a 10" barreled AR pistol (just not as comfortably). Would it have been better if the twist on these was optimized for the 55 grain projectile?

There are any number of SBRs out there that the BATFE has granted a stamp for without making M855 illegal so how are their manufacturers to blame?

The short AR barrel has been around a long time without a problem with the ammunition fired from it having been stigmatized out of existence.

Gentlemen, there's no logical argument to say that firearms manufacturers are somehow to blame for the ATF's proposed ban of M855 when short barreled versions of ARs and AKs have been around for decades. This move is simply using the AR pistols as an excuse to limit the shooting community AND to create turmoil and division in it.

 

[hatt]

The people producing "handguns" in rifle calibers are heroes in my book. A lot better than the guys walking around on egg shells.

 

[BadKarma0617]

Who's to blame?

Why would we blame the manufacturers of pistols? M855 should never have been on thee list of AP rounds to begin with. To be considered AP, the round must have a core comprised ENTIRELY from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium.

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fi..._primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

The majority of the core is lead. So, the problem is, if the ATF can ban the M855 round not because of what it is made of, but what it can do, THEN THEY CAN BAN ANY BULLET THAT IS NOT MADE ENTIRELY FROM LEAD, since ALL rifle bullets can defeat body armor. Then, when the EPA bans lead for pollution, WHAT WILL BULLETS BE MADE FROM?

The fact that we now have pistols is irrelevant. The fact that a pistol can fire the M855 does not make it fall under the ban, it never should have been even mentioned in 1986, since it doesn't meet the ATF's own criteria.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

Why aren't we blaming the pistol manufacturers who gave the AFT M855 ban ammunition?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But why is no one discussing the deliberate action by a few gun makers to produce handguns in rifle calibers, knowing that AP ammo in those calibers will then become handgun ammunition and be banned. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I don't see how a chopped off AR-15 makes a practical handgun.

I am opposed to the possible ban as much as anyone. With that being said, the reason is because guys who call the ATF hypocrites for reading the law to make it sound like what they want it to sound like, are hypocrites themselves. I haven't gotten in on the numerous threads on this issue, and there are new ones every day with the same old arguments from the same people pointing the finger at the ATF. They don't realize there are three fingers pointing right back at them. Now let the ATF bring up banning the AR-15 "handguns" instead of the M855 and watch the circus.

 

[Trent]

The people producing "handguns" in rifle calibers are heroes in my book. A lot better than the guys walking around on egg shells.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue.

"Handgun" rifles raises awareness of SBR's, and how ridiculous those laws really are. It paves the way for acceptance of SBR to make them mainstream - a required step before the process is eliminated entirely at some future junction through legislation.

Heck, my overtly anti-gun state of Illinois legalized SBR's *mainly* because of the sheer volume of AR-15 pistol owners who wanted to have the real deal.

I was an early adopter of AR-15 pistols, owning one of the original Professional Ordinance carbon 15 pistols (which eventually tore itself apart, but that's another story). To me it was a fun, VERY loud, grown up toy. Fun to play with at night, too, the muzzle flash.. oh my. I also own a couple of Klashnikov type pistols. Those are even louder and brighter at night. And a lot more sturdy!

The point here is - if you always live safely within the envelope, then the envelope never gets pushed, and you never gain anything new.

The other option? Divide and tear the community apart? What is the advantage to gain? You can't dis-invent rifle caliber pistols.

So push the envelope.

 

[hatt]

So push the envelope.

This.

The same thing with open carry. Gun owners need to get out of the closet. The first step is the scariest.

 

[JVaughn]

same old arguments from the same people pointing the finger at the ATF. They don't realize there are three fingers pointing right back at them.

We point at the ATF because they are a useless organization whose very existence is unconstitutional. In any situation where the ATF does anything but cease to exist it is at fault. Shall not be infringed my friends. This is the very definition of infringement.

 

[MachIVshooter]

people pointing the finger at the ATF. They don't realize there are three fingers pointing right back at them.

Care to expound on this statement? To whom do these "3 fingers" belong? Sounds like you're attempting to use a platitude without really understanding it if you ask me.

As BadKarma has already pointed out, M855/SS109 is not statutorily an armor piercing round anyway. So of course we're pointing the finger at ATF; they're completely rogue, making up the rules as they see fit with zero regard for due process. This ban comes on the heels of a ridiculous ruling regarding the Sig SB-15 brace and another attempting to regulate how the owner of manufacturing equipment may use it-definitely wayyyyyy outside the scope of this alphabet soup agency.

ATF is charged with interpreting firearms laws where ambiguity may exist; no such ambiguity is present in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

But why is no one discussing the deliberate action by a few gun makers to produce handguns in rifle calibers, knowing that AP ammo in those calibers will then become handgun ammunition and be banned. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I don't see how a chopped off AR-15 makes a practical handgun.

Jim

A better question would be "why is the government legislating/regulating ammunition at all, much less AP ammunition?"

AP rounds out of a rifle are much more powerful and capable of penetrating things than the same AP rounds chambered in a pistol. So WHY legislate/regulate AP ammunition this way, if they're going to do so? Their logic fails.

And for rifles and pistols that are functionally and practically identical...again the logic fails. What's the difference? None, except the handgun isn't built like a rifle based on not having a stock.

The answer is "because it's politics, and politics is all about the gathering of power over people and the exercising of that same power over the people. Control.

They need to quit infringing.

 

[JohnKSa]

Without coming down on one side or the other of the fence, I will point out that it is a good (pertinent) question.

When Olympic Arms started making an AR-15 pistol in 7.62x39 they were warned that it would likely result in restrictions on steel-core ammo in that caliber. It did.

http://www.thegunzone.com/762x39.html

It's interesting that a lot of the response at the time was decidedly negative towards OlyArms (as internet searches will verify)--at least in light of the fact that the response this time doesn't seem to be focused on the AR-15 pistol manufacturers at all.

The real question is: Why is anyone surprised that making AR-15 pistols in .223 has resulted in ammo restrictions when we saw ammo restrictions result from making AR-15 pistols in 7.62x39?

 

[USAF_Vet]

But why is no one discussing the deliberate action by a few gun makers to produce handguns in rifle calibers, knowing that AP ammo in those calibers will then become handgun ammunition and be banned. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I don't see how a chopped off AR-15 makes a practical handgun.

Jim

Since M855 does not meet the requirements of Armor Piercing as outlined by federal law, having a handgun in that caliber makes ZERO difference. M855, in fact all 5.56 and .223 ammo performs worse in a shorter barrel than it does from a rifle. It's actually less efficient at piercing armor when fired from a handgun. But ATF went and decided that armor piercing must mean police body armor, not armor plating used on vehicles (like the Presidential Limo) as initially intended.

Actual, bona fide armor piercing rounds like the solid tungsten core M995 is extremely expensive, and restricted for civilian sale. The proposed M855 ban has got zilch to do with AR-15 style pistols, just like the 7n6 ammo ban had zilch to do with AK-74 style pistols. This is simply government infringement because they don't want citizens (i.e. subjects) armed.

 

[hatt]

The real question is: Why is anyone surprised that making AR-15 pistols in .223 has resulted in ammo restrictions when we saw ammo restrictions result from making AR-15 pistols in 7.62x39?

The real question is actually: When has ceding Rights/money/privileges over to someone in hopes they don't do something to you ever resulting in everyone living happily ever after? I've never heard of the stories. Yet with regards to gun Rights that's been the entire strategy for decades.

 

[Tirod]

If the ATF can ban ammo because it's a rifle round in a pistol format, then here goes: http://chuckhawks.com/handgun_rifle_cartridges.htm

If it's a cartridge that is used in a rifle, then it's ability to be used in a handgun is apparently the issue. Too much power. A Ruger rifle that can use .44 means the corresponding pistol is using a 'rifle' round. Same for .22 most of all. It's called .22 LONG RIFLE for a reason, therefore, following the OP's line, it therefore is an illegal use of ammunition because of it.

You .22 LR guys shooting from pistols are the real cause of the problem.

Or, we can accept the ATF is just a tool of the current administration and following their agenda, along with it's own. Their definition of "armor piercing" isn't based on the military construction or use, it's based on bullet resistant vests worn by LEO's.

The White House has ALREADY responded to the cries of gun enthusiasts by issuing a statement: http://www.guns.com/2015/03/03/white-house-supports-ammo-ban/ Which basically restated is that anybody who supports the use of M855 wants to see dead cops in the streets. The gauntlet has been thrown down.

The fact is even the president of an LEO union doesn't support it - because no cop has ever been killed by it. This is an anti-gun agenda item meant to keep the NRA and us busy fighting another brush fire, with the predictable results that there is now ANOTHER panic buying spree going on.

That seems counter productive, but the result of one guy buying 500-1000 rounds of ammo and hoarding it means five other guys can't buy 100 to 200 rounds themselves. Win for the Administration, we now have another wedge between the traditionalists and the modern sporting arms groups, which only causes more friction. And - "less ammo on the streets."

Those who own M855 in an anti AP state will either have to sell it or shoot it, to eliminate the risk of enforcement for illegal possession. Another win!

The fact is that many traditional firearms are based on military actions and cartridges. Those traditionalists who point a finger DO have the others pointing back.

Do I need to list all the military cartridges, milsurps, and C&R's out there? Or that this has been going on a long long time? Anybody own a .30 carbine revolver? Oops, shoots issue AP ammo, dude. Fail.

And a .22 LR pistol? OMG. A rifle round in a pistol. Not. Let's agree that it's ludicrous to accept the argument that is the cause.

 

[VThillman]

They wouldn't be making them if folks weren't buying them. Go blame the People. It's them or the ATF, your call.

 

[Tirod]

What's the functional difference between an XM177 with a 10" barrel and an AR pistol with a 10" barrel? The presence of the stock or absence makes little difference in close quarters other than the improved accuracy inherent in using a stock, and you can still shoulder a 10" barreled AR pistol (just not as comfortably).

Let's add some math - a human target in combat 100m away has a 18" hit zone, or about 18 MOA.

You can't hit 18 MOA?

The stock is just an accuracy enhancement device same as a red dot. Aim small hit small.

Adding a brace is just admitting a certain level of skill. The army included it for centuries in recognition of the fact they won't train soldiers to the skill level needed to eliminate it.

Entry teams who use handguns are. Some guy named Miculek hits targets much further out with even smaller and shorter guns.

While the NFA is certainly the same intent as the AWB, even earlier, it doesn't mean that a shooter can't take up the challenge and learn how to shoot the AR pistol as is.

He will be MUCH better at it for overcoming the handicap. Said handicap is NOT that bad for a short range gun meant for fighting from 21 feet to 100m.

You can't hit 18MOA at 21 feet? Quit pretending it's a gun issue and focus on the real problem.

 

[JohnKSa]

The real question is actually: When has ceding Rights/money/privileges over to someone in hopes they don't do something to you ever resulting in everyone living happily ever after? I've never heard of the stories. Yet with regards to gun Rights that's been the entire strategy for decades.

I'm not in favor of the law that's being used to justify the ban nor how it's being interpreted, but that's a separate situation unless there's a real-world possibility of getting the law repealed, constructively altered or functionally constraining the way in which the BATF interprets the law.

The law is a fact, it's been in place for many decades and we have had the opportunity to see how the ATF reacts to manufacturers chambering "non-sporting" pistols in a caliber with AP loadings available.

I'd like to get the law changed/repealed--that would be my first choice by a HUGE margin. If that's not a realistic option and ONLY if that's not a realistic option, I'd settle for having people not do things that are highly likely to restrict my ability to buy good quality ammunition at reasonable cost.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I will state it again plainly: I am not in favor of the law and I think we should work to get it repealed, or at the very least constructively altered.

 

[akarguy]

I'd be cautious about blaming the handgun makers. That could be a calculated side effect that just results in dividing the gun lobby. Keep in mind there were old fashioned hunters and the like who were on board with the AWB in 2013 and pols like Cuomo showcased these ideas and people to demonize evil black rifle proponents while trying to convince the general public that it had a right to hunt