Jump to content

Is it time to stock up (more) on 223?


Dharris89

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did not read do not need to read. WILL NOT HAPPEN.

 

will a mod close this discussion is over. Seriously though they couldn't even pass a magazine count limit nationally. Do you think banning an entire cartridge style would happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did not read do not need to read. WILL NOT HAPPEN.

 

will a mod close this discussion is over. Seriously though they couldn't even pass a magazine count limit nationally. Do you think banning an entire cartridge style would happen?

 

Maybe you should read it. It's not something that needs to "pass" or be voted on. This is the BATFE redefining what they consider armor piercing ammunition. The BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015. There will be no vote on this, they've already stated their intent and it will be law. 5.56 ammo will still be available, just not m855/ss109

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should read it. It's not something that needs to "pass" or be voted on. This is the BATFE redefining what they consider armor piercing ammunition. The BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015. There will be no vote on this, they've already stated their intent and it will be law. 5.56 ammo will still be available, just not m855/ss109

 

That was why I posted it. I don't like CTD but it was where I saw the article. The point was Mr. Pres wants to bypass any vote. I know all 223 will not go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been getting more talk over the last few weeks. It's nothing any of us are going to change or know how to. We can just hope it does not go into effect. If the base of the argument is armor piercing, that is going to be pretty vague and could include many other calibers. I understand the M855's ability. If they get this to happen, look for the 5.7x28 and 7.62x39 to be targeted next.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see current ammo prices getting much cheaper than it is now, there is nowhere for it to go but up.

I'll be stocking up, if a ban happens it'll be worth a lot, just like during the Sandy scare. If it doesn't happen, it'll be worth what I payed for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously though...

 

Does anyone have a compelling argument for XM855 against XM193 (55gr)?

 

Do you have one for Xm193? Ive shot both into similar light body armor, they go through. The link above shows it as well. I can show you a 3/8th metal plate the xm193 cuts through like butter.

 

As the link says, the ATF is over stepping the intended phrasing of the bill. The guy says to contact the ATF and make them explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading up on this today, but I'm still too much of a layman to understand the repercussions. Can someone educate me on some things? What's the difference between SS109/M855 and the other kinds of 5.56 rounds that won't be banned? Why is there currently an exemption (there is, right?) for SS109/M855, but no exemption (because it's not needed?) for other rifle rounds that can pierce standard body armor and can be fired from these sorts of "pistols." That is to say, what I'm hearing is that because there are AR-15 pistols, any rifle round can potentially be banned because they'll all go through armor, but the SS109/M855 is currently being discussed because it's sale has been permitted under some kind of exemption. Why was an exemption required for this round and not for any other rifle rounds? Presumably an AR-15 pistol can be chambered for pretty much any size, right? Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SS109/M855 has been USGI for quite awhile now, and is designed with a mostly lead core with a hardened penetrator in the tip of the bullet to give better performance. A bulk of the surplus ammo available is this type, and banning it significantly reduces the amount of ammo available to the public.

 

It still goes bang when you shoot it, but if shooting steel plates will dimple the target slightly instead of just splatting against it. It is generally high quality ammo and recently sold around 32-35 cents/round.

 

The underlying issue is that the BATFE is changing its mind on something it already ruled on, and not for the first time in the last few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The underlying issue is that the BATFE is changing its mind on something it already ruled on, and not for the first time in the last few months.

 

Agreed. I could not find any mention of a vote. If this goes through it is a slippery slope of what comes next? Plus no one "wins" if this succeeds. Consumers, hunters, etc lose a good product. Businesses that count on the surplus market suffer and so do retailers who will no longer be able to sell it. Even if it was not 223, this is a bad sign with a gov't agency gets so big it goes back on its own ruling with minimal to no accountabiity for the fall out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the video I posted did a good explanation of the what and the why...

 

Can you please summarize in eleventeen words or less?

 

http://claimyourjourney.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/screen-shot-2013-01-20-at-10-26-50-pm.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...