Ramsey Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I thought the video I posted did a good explanation of the what and the why... The video explained it. The video makes think they are going to push to ban pistols in rifle rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I thought the video I posted did a good explanation of the what and the why... Yes, thanks, I missed it but I found it helpful. I also finally read the PDF released by the BATFE and found that it answered all of my questions. It's a very thoughtful statement, I suggest everyone read it if they're curious. 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. Thank you, so for the consumer this mostly comes down to price. And, curiously, it seems like the allowed rounds are mostly lead, which have environmental implications (per the ATF), so it doesn't seem like there are many good alternatives. 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. The PDF explains the decision making process in full. They point out that the "handgun" market has changed in recent years, and they held hearings in 2012 on how to handle rifle rounds that can be used in these new "handguns." I think they understand how ridiculous it is to treat an AR-15 pistol as a handgun, but they claim to be bound by law to enforce the statute this way in order to protect law enforcement officers, which is the primary intent of the legislation they're enforcing. 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. The ATF makes the case, rather convincingly, that they are't overstepping the intent. The video that was posted accurately points out that many people in congress in 1986 clearly intended the law to cover handgun ammo, and not rifle ammo that can be used in a "handgun" but was actually designed for a rifle. However, the ATF points out that while the phrase "designed for" was in initial drafts of the bill, congress ultimately chose to use the phrase "can be used." Treating this logically, congress must have made that phrasing change consciously, so the ATF is enforcing the law as it's written and intended. 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. Congress needs to change the law. Republicans have the majority, and I'd like to think Obama would let this one through. So they should change it. This is the sort of thing that shouldn't be partisan and should just breeze through congress, if congress weren't such a gridlocked clusterfuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 bunch of info All correct. I'd like to think this is another push in the direction in getting some better oversight of the ATF as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 +1 I came here to post this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Yes, thanks, I missed it but I found it helpful. I also finally read the PDF released by the BATFE and found that it answered all of my questions. It's a very thoughtful statement, I suggest everyone read it if they're curious. Thank you, so for the consumer this mostly comes down to price. And, curiously, it seems like the allowed rounds are mostly lead, which have environmental implications (per the ATF), so it doesn't seem like there are many good alternatives. The PDF explains the decision making process in full. They point out that the "handgun" market has changed in recent years, and they held hearings in 2012 on how to handle rifle rounds that can be used in these new "handguns." I think they understand how ridiculous it is to treat an AR-15 pistol as a handgun, but they claim to be bound by law to enforce the statute this way in order to protect law enforcement officers, which is the primary intent of the legislation they're enforcing. The ATF makes the case, rather convincingly, that they are't overstepping the intent. The video that was posted accurately points out that many people in congress in 1986 clearly intended the law to cover handgun ammo, and not rifle ammo that can be used in a "handgun" but was actually designed for a rifle. However, the ATF points out that while the phrase "designed for" was in initial drafts of the bill, congress ultimately chose to use the phrase "can be used." Treating this logically, congress must have made that phrasing change consciously, so the ATF is enforcing the law as it's written and intended. Congress needs to change the law. Republicans have the majority, and I'd like to think Obama would let this one through. So they should change it. This is the sort of thing that shouldn't be partisan and should just breeze through congress, if congress weren't such a gridlocked clusterfuck. I agree with the ATF not overstepping their bounds with their decision, but they are overstepping by getting involved in politics. The whole reversal is politically motivated as in retaliation to republicans taking both upper houses through the support of the NRA, hunters, gun enthusiasts, manufactures etc. There is no real benefit in the reversal of the ruling. You can buy into the their argument all you want. Realistically, all of it is null. There isn't going to be any benefits to the environment and LEO isn't going to be any safer because of the ruling. M193, M855, and other 5.56/.223 rifle rounds will all defeat body armor worn by our LEO. Unless the LEO start wearing plate carriers, it is pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I'm not too concerned about this one. If the ATF does change their mind, I think they'll just get their asses reamed in court and it'll be overturned. The way I understand it, the GCA of '68 and its revision (FOPA) of '86 are what specifically ban AP rounds (in handguns). Per the law, the definition of AP is: Armor piercing ammunition 18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B) 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 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. So, according to the law (which neither the ATF, nor Obama can change by themselves), M855 does not fit their own definition. It's steel-tipped with a predominately lead core. Its the ATF, once again, attempting to push the limits of their authority. Theyll get smacked in the dick once again and shut up for a little while longer. So essentially, they can fuck off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I'm not too concerned about this one. If the ATF does change their mind, I think they'll just get their asses reamed in court and it'll be overturned. The way I understand it, the GCA of '68 and its revision (FOPA) of '86 are what specifically ban AP rounds (in handguns). Per the law, the definition of AP is: So, according to the law (which neither the ATF, nor Obama can change by themselves), M855 does not fit their own definition. It's steel-tipped with a predominately lead core. Its the ATF, once again, attempting to push the limits of their authority. Theyll get smacked in the dick once again and shut up for a little while longer. So essentially, they can fuck off. But in the short term the ammo nuts have gone crazy. common .223 and .556 is already sold out in most places...and where it isnt the price is inflated for the mongers. Guys are already selling green tips on arf com for ridiculous prices, its funny. And the sad truth is you know people are buying it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I read that M855 is steel core, M193 is lead core and will still be allowed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I read that M855 is steel core, M193 is lead core and will still be allowed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. M855 has a steel tip with a primarily lead core and thin copper jacket. I can't remember where I read it, but to be considered AP, 75% of the projectiles weight has to come from the AP components. Again, M855 does not meet this criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 M855 has a steel tip with a primarily lead core and thin copper jacket. I can't remember where I read it, but to be considered AP, 75% of the projectiles weight has to come from the AP components. Again, M855 does not meet this criteria. Hmm, thanks. The 25% thing is in the law that you yourself quoted, but that doesn't apply since the M855 round isn't designed for use in handguns. The ATF is citing the first part of the law, based on the steel core. My layman plain-text reading suggests that since the core is not entirely steel, it shouldn't apply. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if the ATF will just lose a court battle over this, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Hmm, thanks. The 25% thing is in the law that you yourself quoted, but that doesn't apply since the M855 round isn't designed for use in handguns. The ATF is citing the first part of the law, based on the steel core. My layman plain-text reading suggests that since the core is not entirely steel, it shouldn't apply. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if the ATF will just lose a court battle over this, then. I'm talking about the core, not the jacket. The jacket usually makes up very little of the entire projectiles weight; 25% would be a significantly thick jacket, which is why it's mentioned. Btw, I think these gun folks trying to skirt the laws by building these "pistols" need slapped in their dicks as well. No more 7n6 thanks to them and now (potentially) no more m855. Quit fucking around with this shit because you're fucking it up for everyone else. If you want an SBR, then build an SBR. If you don't like the current laws surrounding NFA registration, then work in changing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrodh Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 My comment was directed at Jerrodh saying it would not happen, when it indeed is. Don't forget your tinfoil hat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Meh, we'll see on March 16th, I hope you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radio Flyer1647545514 Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 Btw, I think these gun folks trying to skirt the laws by building these "pistols" need slapped in their dicks as well. No more 7n6 thanks to them and now (potentially) no more m855. Quit fucking around with this shit because you're fucking it up for everyone else. If you want an SBR, then build an SBR. If you don't like the current laws surrounding NFA registration, then work in changing that. This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjxlr8 Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 I read that M855 is steel core, M193 is lead core and will still be allowed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. This is true but unfortunately M193 prices and availability will be impacted. M855 surplus makes up fairly large part of the surplus 5.56 ammo supply. Without it, demand will increase for the M193. I expect 5.56 prices to creep up to the .55-.75/round range in the next few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lag wagon Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 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. Cool, thanks... I've wondered as much but never tested. Admittedly, most of what I own is xm855/ss109... but I'm really not sure I'd care if it disappeared (in a perfect world where the xm193 supply increased equally) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjxlr8 Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 It's just another incremental attack on your rights. What's next? Lead core? It's bad for the environment. You shouldn't be allowed to shoot lead core bullets and pollute the environment. Oh, darn, you can't have bullets made of other materials either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark1647545493 Posted February 18, 2015 Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 It's just another incremental attack on your rights. What's next? Lead core? It's bad for the environment. You shouldn't be allowed to shoot lead core bullets and pollute the environment. Oh, darn, you can't have bullets made of other materials either. Didn't the EPA already go after lead bullets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjxlr8 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Yes, in certain areas. They couldn't get AR15 rifles banned so they are trying to reduce the ammo supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Aim surplus sold 917,000 in 5.56 in 24 hours... Prepare for a short term run on ammo. And those of you that dont think this is legal or will pass...Its already a done deal, executive action style...So again in the short run we are going to see gougers and neckbeards loosing their minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 Bumping... Sometimes it's easy to think EVERYONE in .gov is worthless, but there are real common-sense people in there trying to fight the hilarity that is the federal government. No clear winner yet. http://cnsnews.com/video/cnsnews/rep-jordan-blasts-head-executive-rule-making-agency-over-atf-s-proposed-ammo-ban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dharris89 Posted March 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 There is intelligent life in our government but it's few and far between. Arguing to an agency that self-reviews and only asks for public feedback after they make a decision just points out how out of touch many agencies are. The public and vendors are not helping matters. This was in stock a few days ago. Now it's not and double the price. I bought this same item about 6 months ago for $50 shipped. http://www.gotammollc.com/LAKE-CITY-224-62-GRAIN-SS109-STEEL-CORE-BULLETS-p/lcs109pd.htm We will see what happens in a few weeks. I just hope more videos like this become available and more of our representatives fight this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 There is intelligent life in our government but it's few and far between. Arguing to an agency that self-reviews and only asks for public feedback after they make a decision just points out how out of touch many agencies are. The public and vendors are not helping matters. This was in stock a few days ago. Now it's not and double the price. I bought this same item about 6 months ago for $50 shipped. http://www.gotammollc.com/LAKE-CITY-224-62-GRAIN-SS109-STEEL-CORE-BULLETS-p/lcs109pd.htm We will see what happens in a few weeks. I just hope more videos like this become available and more of our representatives fight this. I'm still not too concerned. I think it will move forward from the ATF, because the ATF is a bunch of unregulated fuckheads and that's what they do. The NRA and multiple other gun groups are chomping at the bit to put a legal smack down on them, and will do so. In the end, you'll see m855 restored to the shelves and possibly 7N6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted March 6, 2015 Report Share Posted March 6, 2015 855 and ss109 are banned for good. Sneaky ATF. Unreal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 855 and ss109 are banned for good. Sneaky ATF. Unreal Won't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.