ATF tries the back door....

ATF tries the back door.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 12:05:19 AM)
ATF Framework for Determining whether Certain Projectiles are "Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes As explained above, in 1986, ATF held that 5.56mm projectiles in SS109 and M855 cartridges were exempt. Further, in 1992 , ATF held that 30-06 M2AP cartridges were also exempt. In each case, ATF found that, "it is well documented" that the respective ammunition "has been recognized as being suitable for target shooting with rifles due to its accuracy." These cartridges were originally produced for the military and were only later adopted by civilians for sporting purposes. When assembled into a complete cartridge, the projectiles were exempt, but ATF did not exempt the projectiles before the cartridges were assembled. Applying the sporting purposes framework set-forth above, the 5.56mm projectile that ATF exempted in 1986 does not qualify for an exemption because that projectile when loaded in to SS109 and M855 cartridges may be used in a handgun other than a single-shot handgun. Specifically, 5.56 mm projectiles loaded in to the SS109 and M855 cartridges are commonly used in both "AR-type" rifles and "AR-type" handguns To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemption s for 5.56 mm "green tip" ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges... ATF recognizes that this ammunition is widely available to the public. Because it is legally permissible to possess armor piercing ammunition under current law, withdrawing the exemption will not place individuals in criminal possession of armor piercing ammunition. However, with few exceptions, manufacturers will be unable to produce such armor piercing ammunition, importers will be unable to import such ammunition, and manufacturers and importers will be prohibited from selling or distributing the ammunition. But hey, if you like your AR you can keep your AR. K.

DaddySatyr -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 12:35:24 AM)
[image]local://upfiles/1271250/43AA8FB271354D4DB3E961D20DE880C8.jpg[/image] That is all. Michael

MercTech -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 4:48:25 AM)
Um, well, that store is about a half mile from where my RV is parked at the moment. Sign out front, "Fuel, Ammo, and Bait" is the main sign with "discount cigarettes" in the window. Grab a glock with your morning coffee.

joether -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 5:05:39 AM)
What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops?

Kirata -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 5:41:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? Don't start hyperventilating, joether... just about any hunting rifle will go through body armor. The question is, why are they exempting the 30-06 and other rifle rounds, but not the widely popular 5.56? Hint: Read the link. K.

KenDckey -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 5:42:02 AM)
what I found interesting is the fact that the military round has a 62 gr bullet while the nonmilitary round has a 55 gr bullet. There is a difference in performance. Both are commercially available. Is the ATF saying that the 55 gr bullet is also a military round?

joether -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 8:50:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? Don't start hyperventilating, joether... just about any hunting rifle will go through body armor. The question is, why are they exempting the 30-06 and other rifle rounds, but not the widely popular 5.56? Hint: Read the link. How many terrorists use hunting rifles over assault rifles? One is typically semi-auto if not single shot (i.e. bolt action). When the other is full-auto if not semi-auto? Helps the body count grow. That's why they often have firearms the spew bullets rather than accurate shots. How many school shootings involved hunting rifles? How many criminals use hunting rifles over all other types of firearms? Ok, I'll grant you, they are used more often than muskets..... Hunting rifles are not used to kill people in quite the same manner as other firearms. Because if they were, they would be ...EVEN MORE RESTRICTED...than they are now. That's what we call 'logic', Kirata. Yes, people have used them to kill people. Not because of their 'armor defeating' abilities of the ammo either! Why not the 5.56? Maybe they haven't gotten around to it. Maybe its for the legislative's branch of government to do ITS FUCKING JOB. Why don't you go ask those NRA-bought Republicans why they aren't creating laws to restrict or ban the 5.56....

joether -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 8:52:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey what I found interesting is the fact that the military round has a 62 gr bullet while the nonmilitary round has a 55 gr bullet. There is a difference in performance. Both are commercially available. Is the ATF saying that the 55 gr bullet is also a military round? Why not ask them direction?

Aylee -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 10:17:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? Any round capable of being used for hunting large game is going to be functionally "armor piercing." The whole concept behind the ban is nonsensical. Body armor is labelled "bullet resistant," not bullet-proof. Almost any solid round fired from a long gun will penetrate the light armor used by most police officers. The armor needed to stop most rifle rounds is too heavy to wear on routine patrol. The theory here, is that there are now handguns that could fire the 5.56 ammunition and this somehow makes it more dangerous than it was. This points up something that Obama would hate to have waved around: obviously there are very few attacks against police officers using "assault rifles" and 5.56 rounds. I dunno how effective a 5.56 round from a handgun is really going to be. The bullet itself is a .22 on steroids, helped along by a muzzle velocity of 2200 to 3000 feet per second from a long gun. The muzzle velocity from a handgun is going to be a good deal less. It still might be better at punching through a Kevlar vest than a 10mm hollow point. And this joether, is why you should not talk about firearms.

BamaD -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 11:21:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? Don't start hyperventilating, joether... just about any hunting rifle will go through body armor. The question is, why are they exempting the 30-06 and other rifle rounds, but not the widely popular 5.56? Hint: Read the link. K. I really doubt that he knows that a 30-06 hunting round will make an exit wound in body armor.

BamaD -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 11:24:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? Don't start hyperventilating, joether... just about any hunting rifle will go through body armor. The question is, why are they exempting the 30-06 and other rifle rounds, but not the widely popular 5.56? Hint: Read the link. How many terrorists use hunting rifles over assault rifles? One is typically semi-auto if not single shot (i.e. bolt action). When the other is full-auto if not semi-auto? Helps the body count grow. That's why they often have firearms the spew bullets rather than accurate shots. How many school shootings involved hunting rifles? How many criminals use hunting rifles over all other types of firearms? Ok, I'll grant you, they are used more often than muskets..... Hunting rifles are not used to kill people in quite the same manner as other firearms. Because if they were, they would be ...EVEN MORE RESTRICTED...than they are now. That's what we call 'logic', Kirata. Yes, people have used them to kill people. Not because of their 'armor defeating' abilities of the ammo either! Why not the 5.56? Maybe they haven't gotten around to it. Maybe its for the legislative's branch of government to do ITS FUCKING JOB. Why don't you go ask those NRA-bought Republicans why they aren't creating laws to restrict or ban the 5.56.... Maybe it is a backdoor ban of ARs, which, by the way is semi auto matic. True assault weapons aren't legally owned anyway. The ak47 the preferred weapon of our enemies, it makes a distinctive sound when fired upon you.

BamaD -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 11:27:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? Any round capable of being used for hunting large game is going to be functionally "armor piercing." The whole concept behind the ban is nonsensical. Body armor is labelled "bullet resistant," not bullet-proof. Almost any solid round fired from a long gun will penetrate the light armor used by most police officers. The armor needed to stop most rifle rounds is too heavy to wear on routine patrol. The theory here, is that there are now handguns that could fire the 5.56 ammunition and this somehow makes it more dangerous than it was. This points up something that Obama would hate to have waved around: obviously there are very few attacks against police officers using "assault rifles" and 5.56 rounds. I dunno how effective a 5.56 round from a handgun is really going to be. The bullet itself is a .22 on steroids, helped along by a muzzle velocity of 2200 to 3000 feet per second from a long gun. The muzzle velocity from a handgun is going to be a good deal less. It still might be better at punching through a Kevlar vest than a 10mm hollow point. And this joether, is why you should not talk about firearms. For every inch you reduce the barrel you reduce muzzle velocity by about 100fps. I would expect a 5.56 pistol to be wimpy.

BamaD -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 11:29:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? Any round capable of being used for hunting large game is going to be functionally "armor piercing." The whole concept behind the ban is nonsensical. Body armor is labelled "bullet resistant," not bullet-proof. Almost any solid round fired from a long gun will penetrate the light armor used by most police officers. The armor needed to stop most rifle rounds is too heavy to wear on routine patrol. The theory here, is that there are now handguns that could fire the 5.56 ammunition and this somehow makes it more dangerous than it was. This points up something that Obama would hate to have waved around: obviously there are very few attacks against police officers using "assault rifles" and 5.56 rounds. I dunno how effective a 5.56 round from a handgun is really going to be. The bullet itself is a .22 on steroids, helped along by a muzzle velocity of 2200 to 3000 feet per second from a long gun. The muzzle velocity from a handgun is going to be a good deal less. It still might be better at punching through a Kevlar vest than a 10mm hollow point. And this joether, is why you should not talk about firearms. A 10mm through normal body armor can kill without penetrating. More so a .44 magnum. For the unenlightened it will brake bones and cause internal injuries.

BamaD -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 11:31:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? The fact that they claim it is armor piercing rounds doesn't make it true.

joether -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 11:44:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? Any round capable of being used for hunting large game is going to be functionally "armor piercing." The whole concept behind the ban is nonsensical. Body armor is labelled "bullet resistant," not bullet-proof. Almost any solid round fired from a long gun will penetrate the light armor used by most police officers. The armor needed to stop most rifle rounds is too heavy to wear on routine patrol. Yes, it is sort of a 'misdirection' to call it 'bullet proof'. I was on the belief people would understand it. Since I took so much flak when I stated it as 'bullet resistant' last time. There are a bunch of other variables that would determine if a bullet could penetrate into the human body or not. A medical topic for another day? quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee The theory here, is that there are now handguns that could fire the 5.56 ammunition and this somehow makes it more dangerous than it was. This points up something that Obama would hate to have waved around: obviously there are very few attacks against police officers using "assault rifles" and 5.56 rounds. Call it an educated guess, but I think....ANY....US President would dislike someone waving around a firearm aimed in their direction by someone hell-bent on killing them. Even those Republican presidents that like the NRA..... If handguns are being made to handle such ability as a hunting rifle, would it not be fair to discuss the issues that could crop up from it? Not talking just the President, but other public officials. Since there are a fair number of conservatives that dislike Democrats in the nation. Of those, a small percentage whom.....REALLY HATE....Democrats. Of those, (hopefully) a small percentage that would take violent action. It only takes one conservative gun nut, doing this towards a Democrat and succeeding for all sorts of gun laws to erupt from nowhere! Imagine if Gabby Giffords was shot by one of these people, rather than the unstable guy that did it? Can you prove to me it won't happen? You know and I know you cant. So a better discussion might be "Who would use this firearm, given its abilities'? A fair question, yes? quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee I dunno how effective a 5.56 round from a handgun is really going to be. The bullet itself is a .22 on steroids, helped along by a muzzle velocity of 2200 to 3000 feet per second from a long gun. The muzzle velocity from a handgun is going to be a good deal less. It still might be better at punching through a Kevlar vest than a 10mm hollow point. I've never really gotten involved in 'bullet physics' element in science. Its a sub-section off 'ballistics' in Physics. I suppose if I did the research, I could give you quite the volume of text for you to learn as well. For now, lets table it. Unless your physics skills have a college degree behind it? quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee And this joether, is why you should not talk about firearms. I talk about firearms from the legal, medical, and human perspective. I talk about it from the historical viewpoint as well. If I wanted to learn the science that goes into firearm manufacturing, testing, and production (along with all that goes with it), I know where to look. As I stated, I'm not big on the 'bullet physics'. But that doesn't mean I couldn't research and learn it. The Law of Kinetic Energy is different from the 2nd amendment. Yes, they are both 'laws'. But one is a scientific law and the other is a legal law. You want to talk about the physics of bullets fired from these guns? Which guns are we talking about? What is the question(s) being asked? But I think we'd have to ask the ATF why its going about its action, rather than create a side-long topic.

joether -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 11:54:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? The fact that they claim it is armor piercing rounds doesn't make it true. Yes, as I was mentioning to Aylee above, 'armor proof' is not exactly the best terminology. Its easier than saying 'bullet resistant'. I've gotten odd looks from the liberals when I say 'bullet resistant' rather than 'bullet proof'. Of course that begs the question: "What bullet, fired from what gun, under what condition(s)"? I guess there are several questions being asked here.... What sort of firearm(s) and ammunition types is the ATF considering removing? Why? Are these combination of products 'armor piercing' enough in most situations to defeat most types of body armor? If the above question is 'not enough', which types of body armor could be defeated? Who typically wears this sort of body armor that can/could be defeated by the products the ATF wishes to ban/restrict? As you can see, these are just questions I thought up 'off the top of my head'. I dont have answers right now. I suppose I could research it with time. Besides, you fire more ammunition in one month that I do. What's your 'take' on the questions I give above?

BamaD -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 11:55:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: joether What is the purpose of having amour piercing/defeating ammunition if not to kill law enforcement? I dont know to many bears running around in full body armor. Nor rabbits, deer, and dragons. Likewise, most civilians would not be armored during their daily job, unless it was one that might require violence (i.e. courier, guard, bodyguard). So really what is armor piercing/defeating ammo for, if not to kill cops? Any round capable of being used for hunting large game is going to be functionally "armor piercing." The whole concept behind the ban is nonsensical. Body armor is labelled "bullet resistant," not bullet-proof. Almost any solid round fired from a long gun will penetrate the light armor used by most police officers. The armor needed to stop most rifle rounds is too heavy to wear on routine patrol. Yes, it is sort of a 'misdirection' to call it 'bullet proof'. I was on the belief people would understand it. Since I took so much flak when I stated it as 'bullet resistant' last time. There are a bunch of other variables that would determine if a bullet could penetrate into the human body or not. A medical topic for another day? quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee The theory here, is that there are now handguns that could fire the 5.56 ammunition and this somehow makes it more dangerous than it was. This points up something that Obama would hate to have waved around: obviously there are very few attacks against police officers using "assault rifles" and 5.56 rounds. Call it an educated guess, but I think....ANY....US President would dislike someone waving around a firearm aimed in their direction by someone hell-bent on killing them. Even those Republican presidents that like the NRA..... If handguns are being made to handle such ability as a hunting rifle, would it not be fair to discuss the issues that could crop up from it? Not talking just the President, but other public officials. Since there are a fair number of conservatives that dislike Democrats in the nation. Of those, a small percentage whom.....REALLY HATE....Democrats. Of those, (hopefully) a small percentage that would take violent action. It only takes one conservative gun nut, doing this towards a Democrat and succeeding for all sorts of gun laws to erupt from nowhere! Imagine if Gabby Giffords was shot by one of these people, rather than the unstable guy that did it? Can you prove to me it won't happen? You know and I know you cant. So a better discussion might be "Who would use this firearm, given its abilities'? A fair question, yes? quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee I dunno how effective a 5.56 round from a handgun is really going to be. The bullet itself is a .22 on steroids, helped along by a muzzle velocity of 2200 to 3000 feet per second from a long gun. The muzzle velocity from a handgun is going to be a good deal less. It still might be better at punching through a Kevlar vest than a 10mm hollow point. I've never really gotten involved in 'bullet physics' element in science. Its a sub-section off 'ballistics' in Physics. I suppose if I did the research, I could give you quite the volume of text for you to learn as well. For now, lets table it. Unless your physics skills have a college degree behind it? quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee And this joether, is why you should not talk about firearms. I talk about firearms from the legal, medical, and human perspective. I talk about it from the historical viewpoint as well. If I wanted to learn the science that goes into firearm manufacturing, testing, and production (along with all that goes with it), I know where to look. As I stated, I'm not big on the 'bullet physics'. But that doesn't mean I couldn't research and learn it. The Law of Kinetic Energy is different from the 2nd amendment. Yes, they are both 'laws'. But one is a scientific law and the other is a legal law. You want to talk about the physics of bullets fired from these guns? Which guns are we talking about? What is the question(s) being asked? But I think we'd have to ask the ATF why its going about its action, rather than create a side-long topic. First the second is not a law. It is part of the framework that laws must fit into. Second, nobody wants a gun pointed at them, I also wasn't too happy when a deputy for no reason other than trying to be tough pulled a knife on me and putting it near my throat. Instead of demanding that no one have knifes I responded by pulling a bigger knife and putting it at his throat. Third, you can't prove a negative. Forth your question about firearms is based on ignorance. And no it doesn't justify the conversation you want. The .357 magnum which can go through body armor was developed in the 30's. The .44 magnum in the 50's. The time for hysteria about how powerful hand guns have gotten has long since passed.

Kirata -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 12:20:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I would expect a 5.56 pistol to be wimpy. A 62 grain 5.56x45 will achieve between 2400fps and 2500fps at the muzzle of a 9" barrel. The cartridge was designed for a 20" barrel. When fired through a 9" barrel it produces hellacious sound and flash levels and has marginal stability. But a 5.56 pistol isn't anything the average person would think of as a handgun. It's basically a short-barrel rifle without a shoulder stock (see here and here). Additionally, it would appear that the green tip M855 isn't even technically an armor-piercing round, because it has a lead-alloy core (see here). Even leaving that aside, Level III ballistic armor with a chest plate will stop 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO rounds. K.

BamaD -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 12:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I would expect a 5.56 pistol to be wimpy. A 62 grain 5.56x45 will achieve between 2400fps and 2500fps at the muzzle of a 9" barrel. The cartridge was designed for a 20" barrel. When fired through a 9" barrel it produces hellacious sound and flash levels and has marginal stability. But a 5.56 pistol isn't anything the average person would think of as a handgun. It's basically a short-barrel rifle without a shoulder stock (see here and here). Additionally, it would appear that the green tip M855 isn't even technically an armor-piercing round, because it has a lead-alloy core (see here). Even leaving that aside, Level III ballistic armor with a chest plate will stop 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO rounds. K. Yes it will, but cops, with the exception of swat teams wear the soft vests which don't provide nearly as much protection.

BamaD -> RE: ATF tries the back door.... (2/27/2015 12:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I would expect a 5.56 pistol to be wimpy. A 62 grain 5.56x45 will achieve between 2400fps and 2500fps at the muzzle of a 9" barrel. The cartridge was designed for a 20" barrel. When fired through a 9" barrel it produces hellacious sound and flash levels and has marginal stability. But a 5.56 pistol isn't anything the average person would think of as a handgun. It's basically a short-barrel rifle without a shoulder stock (see here and here). Additionally, it would appear that the green tip M855 isn't even technically an armor-piercing round, because it has a lead-alloy core (see here). Even leaving that aside, Level III ballistic armor with a chest plate will stop 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO rounds. K. Doesn't the AR-15 also come in .308.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875