smokehouse Posted February 16, 2015 at 04:13 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 04:13 PM Perhaps I'm wrong...but i can't help but feel this is tied to the SIG brace thing. ATF allows SIG brace thinking the AR pistol is a small market, niche item.SIG brace causes a crap-storm of emails and letters throughout 2014.Everyone and their dog starts getting AR pistols (because secretly...they really want a SBR).ATF starts looking havily at the AR pistol thinking it is no longer a niche item.M855 comes up as some sort of QUASI AP round when fired through a short barrel. I may 100% off...who knows, this is just what immediately came to mind when all of this happened. I like the author of the original 1980's bill is now coming out against this stating it was only intended for common pistol rounds in AP form. The problem is, once you open the door to this crap, its game on. He sponsored the bill and now, in typical fashion, the ATF is manipulating that law. I especially love the panic buying crap...just when .223 was affordable and available again. I have putting away .223 for the summer '15 season...and now we have another retarded (and necessary) buying panic on our hands. Great, so another year or so our unavailable ammo and high prices...wonderful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted February 16, 2015 at 04:22 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 04:22 PM Petition - https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-batfe-banning-xm855-ammunition/XrvVh1cj You can also email the ATF directly and contact your reps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted February 16, 2015 at 04:28 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 04:28 PM its not tied tot he sig brace but a product of the "sig brace" issue. Word is that a person with another organization was pushing for an exemption on another type of ammo in another caliber. and kept citing the M855 as an example of why they should do it. This brought it up to some people in DOJ who looked at it and said well we never should have approved the M855 exemption, or now due to the proliferation of AR-pistols, we are recinding it. Some poeple can't leave well enough alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kk5 Posted February 16, 2015 at 04:43 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 04:43 PM I especially love the panic buying crap...just when .223 was affordable and available again. I have putting away .223 for the summer '15 season...and now we have another retarded (and necessary) buying panic on our hands. Great, so another year or so our unavailable ammo and high prices...wonderful.The price has only gone up on M885 not M193. I just bought some from Palmetto State. Federal xm193 $6.49 a box. I usually buy 250-300 rds at a time to stock up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kk5 Posted February 16, 2015 at 04:45 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 04:45 PM its not tied tot he sig brace but a product of the "sig brace" issue. Word is that a person with another organization was pushing for an exemption on another type of ammo in another caliber. and kept citing the M955 as an example of why they should do it. This brought it up to some people in DOJ who looked at it and said well we never should have approved the M855 exemptio, or now due tot he proliferation of AR-pistols, we are recinding it. Some poeple can't leave well enough aloneSo True in everything. New and Improved LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadroid Posted February 16, 2015 at 05:05 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 05:05 PM its not tied tot he sig brace but a product of the "sig brace" issue. Word is that a person with another organization was pushing for an exemption on another type of ammo in another caliber. and kept citing the M955 as an example of why they should do it. This brought it up to some people in DOJ who looked at it and said well we never should have approved the M855 exemptio, or now due tot he proliferation of AR-pistols, we are recinding it. Some poeple can't leave well enough alonethanks todd. this is really disappointing. I also heard about the other organization. I believe they were trying for 6.8 AP exceptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokehouse Posted February 16, 2015 at 05:07 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 05:07 PM its not tied tot he sig brace but a product of the "sig brace" issue. Word is that a person with another organization was pushing for an exemption on another type of ammo in another caliber. and kept citing the M955 as an example of why they should do it. This brought it up to some people in DOJ who looked at it and said well we never should have approved the M855 exemptio, or now due tot he proliferation of AR-pistols, we are recinding it. Some poeple can't leave well enough alone I can definitely see that. While I am personally against the banning of many items...I've always wondered about the M855. I actually had to look up and read the history of the round. (WARNING...below might contain some personal thoughts and some actual logic...which the ATF obviously ignores). This doesn't help much:http://www.texasgunworks.com/images/13376149906542031612634.jpeg Calling a round "penetrator" sets the idea that the round was made to be AP...which it isn't. I know I fell for this when I got my first AR...until I read up on the topic. I had plenty of people tell me that it was AP ammo... Funny enough, the M855 isn't even a strong performer in AR pistols. I find it odd the ATF would even go after this round unless they are basing their findings on purely public opinion of what the round really is. Todd, let me ask you this, and I fully understand this is personal opinion. The technical branch of the ATF seems to be somewhat neutral on things. I'm sure there is pressure to tighten regulations but with them, I don't feel this is some ultimate attempt to ban all ammo (or even 5.56 for that matter). Do you personally feel this is some "step 1 of 10" type of thing or is it pretty two dimensional and just another ATF blunder (like they've been known for doing in the past). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokehouse Posted February 16, 2015 at 05:33 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 05:33 PM I forgot to mention this in my emailings to our officials, but if others could include it I think it would help. Some states ban the possession of AP ammo so if the ATF reclassifies M855 it will make instant felons out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.Here is our particular version of Illinois state law "Armor piercing bullet" means any handgun bullet or handgun ammunition with projectiles or projectile cores constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium, or fully jacketed bullets larger than 22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile, and excluding those handgun projectiles whose cores are composed of soft materials such as lead or lead alloys, zinc or zinc alloys, frangible projectiles designed primarily for sporting purposes, and any other projectiles or projectile cores that the U. S. Secretary of the Treasury finds to be primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes or industrial purposes or that otherwise does not constitute "armor piercing ammunition" as that term is defined by federal law. - Now, depending on how you want to interpret all of the above, Illinois might say that if the BATFE declares them armor piercing then they are armor piercing regardless of whether they fit the technical definition or not. If they do, mere possession would be a Class 3 felony. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/ilstatutes/720/5/24/24-2_1 I forgot to touch on this...if the ATF does indeed reclassify M855 as an AP round...this could be bad things for many state residents. I'm sure that if it didn't automatically become illegal in Illinois, some anti-firearm a-hole from the machine will be pushing a bill to make it illegal within day of it being reclassified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WtJen Posted February 16, 2015 at 05:48 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 05:48 PM This round is a very popular round, being the result of military overruns and surplus. It made zero difference that someone brought up the legality of this particular round to ATF. The BATFE wants to ban popular rounds for the AR platform because they want to disarm us. Period. There is a move underfoot by the BATFE to make it difficult and expensive for the average AR owner to operate his rifle. How many people officers have been shot with an AR-15 pistol using the M855 round where it penetrated a vest? I've looked and can't find a single one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted February 16, 2015 at 05:55 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 05:55 PM Does this mean that all the Employees of a Walmart that has this in stock risk felony charges? If so it is entrapment. Does this mean that millions of people that owned this prior to it being made illegal would become instant felons? I hope Walmart and all other places that sell this sues them into oblivion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokehouse Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:09 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:09 PM Does this mean that all the Employees of a Walmart that has this in stock risk felony charges? If so it is entrapment. Does this mean that millions of people that owned this prior to it being made illegal would become instant felons? I hope Walmart and all other places that sell this sues them into oblivion. LOL...a store with M855/SS109 in stock at the moment? I didn't know that existed after this weekend... But, all joking aside, I know what you're saying...I personally feel this is the ONLY reason why the ATF didn't just come out an reclassify it instantly. They're not deciding "if" this should happen, they're deciding "when/how" it will happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:11 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:11 PM I can't get away from thinking it's related to this. http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/21/-liberty-ammunition-m855a1-m80a1/22103351/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokehouse Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:12 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:12 PM This round is a very popular round, being the result of military overruns and surplus. It made zero difference that someone brought up the legality of this particular round to ATF. The BATFE wants to ban popular rounds for the AR platform because they want to disarm us. Period. There is a move underfoot by the BATFE to make it difficult and expensive for the average AR owner to operate his rifle. How many people officers have been shot with an AR-15 pistol using the M855 round where it penetrated a vest? I've looked and can't find a single one. The anti-AR 15 stance has never been about actual data...it's always been based on a "scary looking" gun and "what-if" politics. I'd be willing to say the data on M855 use in ANY crime in America is so small (if it exists at all), its unusable. This came up time and time again in '12/13, the AR being statistically insignificant when it came to the actual data of it being used in crimes and the anti's just covered that one right up... The FACT is...ARs just aren't used in crimes in any significant, measurable amount. If this is true, the data one a single round such as the M855 is probably so small, it may not even have data collected on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:13 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:13 PM Does this mean that all the Employees of a Walmart that has this in stock risk felony charges? If so it is entrapment. Does this mean that millions of people that owned this prior to it being made illegal would become instant felons? I hope Walmart and all other places that sell this sues them into oblivion. LOL...a store with M855/SS109 in stock at the moment? I didn't know that existed after this weekend... But, all joking aside, I know what you're saying...I personally feel this is the ONLY reason why the ATF didn't just come out an reclassify it instantly. They're not deciding "if" this should happen, they're deciding "when/how" it will happen...As of 9 pm St. Chas Walmart had a few boxes of QUI SS109 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:20 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:20 PM Smokehouse -- Me thinks it is a target of opportunity. Holder is still out their whining about not getting gun control. So low and behold, a issue pops up, and a posteror lipsmacking lawyer in DOJ says hey, if we read it this way, we can ban this stuff. Holder being the bitter clinger that he is goes along with it as a parting shot out the door. So this numbskull wants a exemption for the 6.8 stuff, tries to use a past exemption to get his way, only to send up a red flag and muck it up for others inthe AR world. I have heard it could be the same bunch of yahoos that screwed the pooch on the CLEO sing off and trusts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kk5 Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:42 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:42 PM Smokehouse -- Me thinks it is a target of opportunity. Holder is still out their whining about not getting gun control. So low and behold, a issue pops up, and a posteror lipsmacking lawyer in DOJ says hey, if we read it this way, we can ban this stuff. Holder being the bitter clinger that he is goes along with it as a parting shot out the door. So this numbskull wants a exemption for the 6.8 stuff, tries to use a past exemption to get his way, only to send up a red flag and muck it up for others inthe AR world. I have heard it could be the same bunch of yahoos that screwed the pooch on the CLEO sing off and trusts. Me Thinks you are right. Still a crack in the Wall though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ccc2003 Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:49 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 06:49 PM ammosupplywarehouse.com armscor 223. 1000 rounds $299.00 no state sales tax They are in Pahrump,nv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted February 16, 2015 at 07:12 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 07:12 PM It may very well be retaliation against Liberty Ammunition for daring to oppose government patent infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted February 16, 2015 at 08:10 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 08:10 PM It may very well be retaliation against Liberty Ammunition for daring to oppose government patent infringement.This is my belief. The bullet tech that Liberty shared in confidentiality with Army in phase one of the M855A1 development was shared by Army with other vendors...led to the law suit and reward. Now I believe ATF is being used to trump up the armor piercing classification BS to destroy the market for any ammo using the same technology so that Liberty can't manufacture or sell what the ATF classified as AP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IH8IL Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:29 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:29 PM So if this passes, what happens to people that already have it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocFaberliss Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:31 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:31 PM So if this passes, what happens to people that already have it? Federally, nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IH8IL Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:37 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:37 PM So if this passes, what happens to people that already have it?Federally, nothing.IL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WtJen Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:40 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:40 PM So if this passes, what happens to people that already have it? Federally, nothing. IL? The possession of armor piercing bullets is a Class 3 felony in Illinois. See post#50 this thread. Do you think our legislators are going to let us grandfather our existing bullets in? I don't. If ATF declares it armor-piercing, I fully expect our Illinois politicians to jump right on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTX63 Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:43 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:43 PM Smoke em if you got em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IH8IL Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:50 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:50 PM So if this passes, what happens to people that already have it?Federally, nothing.IL?The possession of armor piercing bullets is a Class 3 felony in Illinois. See post#50 this thread.Do you think our legislators are going to let us grandfather our existing bullets in? I don't. If ATF declares it armor-piercing, I fully expect our Illinois politicians to jump right on board.Went back and read it. I can see why everyone is confused. It doesn't fit the description even in the IL law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WtJen Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:54 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:54 PM No it doesn't fit the description in Illinois law(which is a copy of federal law) but that won't matter. IF BATFE declares it armor-piercing, Illinois will not argue the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokehouse Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:56 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 09:56 PM I guess it's a good thing I don't own any M855... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoverGunner Posted February 16, 2015 at 10:09 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 10:09 PM No it doesn't fit the description in Illinois law(which is a copy of federal law) but that won't matter. IF BATFE declares it armor-piercing, Illinois will not argue the point.So by this proposed standard even Barnes Solid Copper projectiles could be classified as AP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WtJen Posted February 16, 2015 at 10:15 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 10:15 PM No it doesn't fit the description in Illinois law(which is a copy of federal law) but that won't matter. IF BATFE declares it armor-piercing, Illinois will not argue the point.So by this proposed standard even Barnes Solid Copper projectiles could be classified as AP Don't see why they couldn't. Obama knows that he can't get an assault weapons ban through Congress in his last two years. He is doing the second best thing by outlawing the ammo that feeds our rifles. If you think the BATFE is done with this by outlawing two types of ammo, you haven't been paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokehouse Posted February 16, 2015 at 11:00 PM Share Posted February 16, 2015 at 11:00 PM No it doesn't fit the description in Illinois law(which is a copy of federal law) but that won't matter. IF BATFE declares it armor-piercing, Illinois will not argue the point.So by this proposed standard even Barnes Solid Copper projectiles could be classified as APDon't see why they couldn't. Obama knows that he can't get an assault weapons ban through Congress in his last two years. He is doing the second best thing by outlawing the ammo that feeds our rifles. If you think the BATFE is done with this by outlawing two types of ammo, you haven't been paying attention.I will 100% agree with you that this is their eventual goal...but the issue of this ban wouldn't work. .223 is quite possibly one of the most generic carts out there. Lightweight bullet, lead core, used a ton for hunting (not saying this should be the case, but it follows their rules), works in many firearms outside the AR15. Banning the .223 would basically require completely ignoring any rules of firearms ammo and would probably sink all other rifle ammo because there really isn't any difference between them. Now...banning ballistic tips? Solid copper? Sure..I can see that possibly happening. Then again, solid copper is used heavily in match shooting and ballistic tips are used heavily in hunting. It would also tie that to all other calibers too though. Really...the only thing I can see at the moment...and this is a stretch...is 5.56. Again though...besides the name, slight case build and amount of powder...there isn't much difference between it and a 55gr .223. I think there is a longer, inside story to this stupidity. Some here have mentioned it being due to some inside stories and I buy that before I buy an all out assault on quite possibly one of the most generic rifle carts made. M855 is pretty unique in its build and is something they can ban without effecting other rounds...for now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.