ATF to ban popular ammo for AR-15

[autigeremt 6,599]

The courts will decide it. Most people I know who have AR's reload their rounds. This will only increase the demand for powder, lead heads, e

And on top of that....most AR platform firearms that I've seen around here come in .22 or .308 cal. This new rule will do nothing. Personally I would rather have the .308 anyway.

Don't get bogged down in the details. It's not the particular gun or ammo that is the issue. It's about the hubris and attitude of the left and this administration in particular toward the 2nd amendment. Gun ownership is the essence of self reliance and that is anathema to the left. The left despises gun ownership and some members of congress even have just advocated scrapping it altogether. They won't ever do that but at least that would be honest. No they just incrementally encroach on your freedom. Make you jump through a few more hoops take away one firearm or piece of ammo at a time. It's like the old frog and a pot of water on a stove. If they did it all at once there would be a revolt. If they do it a little at a time and make it for the children or to protect the police or some such something they can move a little further down the road until you wake up one day and wonder what happened to your freedom. By that time it's too late. Rest assured they will not stop here. Even if a court strikes it down, they'll just adjust tactics. They'll use tools like making it near impossible for gun and ammo manufacturers to get financing to run their businesses. Oh wait they've already done that with operation choke point. They make the move ahead of time and by the time it eventually gets struck down by the courts the damage has been done.

Oh I know.

[Strychnine 1,802]

The courts will decide it. Most people I know who have AR's reload their rounds. This will only increase the demand for powder, lead heads, e

And on top of that....most AR platform firearms that I've seen around here come in .22 or .308 cal. This new rule will do nothing. Personally I would rather have the .308 anyway.

Any serious shooter has no other viable alternative. Even when cheap, ammo still costs too much to shoot as much as anyone would like. When you shoot regularly, reloading is so much cheaper that it is ridiculous. The only real exception to that rule is AK rounds. The steel cases of the cheap surplus ammo (which works well enough) cannot be reloaded. I just wish the Yugo M67 (best AK round I've found) was cheaper and more widely available.

[AUTUmike 79]

In s breathtaking act of hubris the ATF now wants to ban the 5.56 mm ammo by classifying it as armor piercing. This is supposed to protect police but that's just the talking point since criminals don't use this. Anybody still think this administration isn't anti 2nd amendment and anti constitution? http://m.washingtone...article/2560750

I've seen this statement made and it certainly appears to be baseless. Can you explain?

The handguns that use this ammo are around a grand each so your average street criminal isn't going to get one. They'd rather go with something else cheaper. The ammo isn't exactly cheap either. Police have often said they worry more about the small gun that is easier to hide.

Exactly. I don't think a criminal is going to go out and buy a $1500 FN 5.7 either. Another gross encroachment on the second amendment.

That makes sense. Is this ammunition armor-piercing though? To me, no ammo should be legal that is armor-piercing regardless of the price of the weapon.

In order to address that question, you must first define what type of "armor" you are talking about. If you are talking about the standard body armor / ballistic vest worn by police officers, then basically all centerfire rifle rounds are "armor-piercing" in street engagement ranges.

The 5.7 mentioned above was indeed designed for higher velocities, flatter trajectory, less ammo weight, and yes, to penetrate ballistic vests. Standard 5.7 duty load (SS190) is classified as armor-piercing, and is not commercially available. 5.7 is also limited in that the ammo is not as widely available as standard calibers, it is more expensive than standard calibers, and there are not many weapons that use it.

Great info, thank you. And yes, I was referring to armor worn by law enforcement.

[selias 2,398]

In s breathtaking act of hubris the ATF now wants to ban the 5.56 mm ammo by classifying it as armor piercing. This is supposed to protect police but that's just the talking point since criminals don't use this. Anybody still think this administration isn't anti 2nd amendment and anti constitution? http://m.washingtone...article/2560750

I've seen this statement made and it certainly appears to be baseless. Can you explain?

The handguns that use this ammo are around a grand each so your average street criminal isn't going to get one. They'd rather go with something else cheaper. The ammo isn't exactly cheap either. Police have often said they worry more about the small gun that is easier to hide.

Exactly. I don't think a criminal is going to go out and buy a $1500 FN 5.7 either. Another gross encroachment on the second amendment.

That makes sense. Is this ammunition armor-piercing though? To me, no ammo should be legal that is armor-piercing regardless of the price of the weapon.

I disagree. The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting & sporting arms. It was about being able to defend oneself against a tyrannical government.

That said, I don't have any M855 ammo because less than acceptable performance.

[homersapien 11,366]

In s breathtaking act of hubris the ATF now wants to ban the 5.56 mm ammo by classifying it as armor piercing. This is supposed to protect police but that's just the talking point since criminals don't use this. Anybody still think this administration isn't anti 2nd amendment and anti constitution? http://m.washingtone...article/2560750

I've seen this statement made and it certainly appears to be baseless. Can you explain?

The handguns that use this ammo are around a grand each so your average street criminal isn't going to get one. They'd rather go with something else cheaper. The ammo isn't exactly cheap either. Police have often said they worry more about the small gun that is easier to hide.

Exactly. I don't think a criminal is going to go out and buy a $1500 FN 5.7 either. Another gross encroachment on the second amendment.

That makes sense. Is this ammunition armor-piercing though? To me, no ammo should be legal that is armor-piercing regardless of the price of the weapon.

I disagree. The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting & sporting arms. It was about being able to defend oneself against a tyrannical government.

That said, I don't have any M855 ammo because less than acceptable performance.

Yeah, back when a muzzle loading firearm put you on an equal basis armaments wise.

Kind of a quaint notion today.

[AUTUmike 79]

In s breathtaking act of hubris the ATF now wants to ban the 5.56 mm ammo by classifying it as armor piercing. This is supposed to protect police but that's just the talking point since criminals don't use this. Anybody still think this administration isn't anti 2nd amendment and anti constitution? http://m.washingtone...article/2560750

I've seen this statement made and it certainly appears to be baseless. Can you explain?

The handguns that use this ammo are around a grand each so your average street criminal isn't going to get one. They'd rather go with something else cheaper. The ammo isn't exactly cheap either. Police have often said they worry more about the small gun that is easier to hide.

Exactly. I don't think a criminal is going to go out and buy a $1500 FN 5.7 either. Another gross encroachment on the second amendment.

That makes sense. Is this ammunition armor-piercing though? To me, no ammo should be legal that is armor-piercing regardless of the price of the weapon.

I disagree. The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting & sporting arms. It was about being able to defend oneself against a tyrannical government.

That said, I don't have any M855 ammo because less than acceptable performance.

The 2nd Amendment was included because at the time we did not have a national guard (source: the only [but entire] sentence in the 2nd Amendment)

[Mikey 16,577]

The idea that there might be an armed resident in a house gives the authorities pause and changes their actions significantly. Just think how much the knowledge that 50% of households have weapons and people willing to use them affects any weird ideas governments, both domestic and foreign, may be contemplating.

The first action any potential dictator must take is to disarm the populace in order to gain control. When some jerk starts spending millions to promote gun control, view his intentions with great suspicion.

[homersapien 11,366]

Yep. Lot's of cops shot in domestic calls alright.

[Mikey 16,577]

Yep. Lot's of cops shot in domestic calls alright.

Link?

[AUTUmike 79]

The idea that there might be an armed resident in a house gives the authorities pause and changes their actions significantly. Just think how much the knowledge that 50% of households have weapons and people willing to use them affects any weird ideas governments, both domestic and foreign, may be contemplating.

The first action any potential dictator must take is to disarm the populace in order to gain control. When some jerk starts spending millions to promote gun control, view his intentions with great suspicion.

Of the many factors marking a developed society as susceptible to authoritarian takeover, the presence of arms is not one. The strength and type of political institutions have been shown, time and time again, to be the prevailing factor here.

[Mikey 16,577]

The idea that there might be an armed resident in a house gives the authorities pause and changes their actions significantly. Just think how much the knowledge that 50% of households have weapons and people willing to use them affects any weird ideas governments, both domestic and foreign, may be contemplating.

The first action any potential dictator must take is to disarm the populace in order to gain control. When some jerk starts spending millions to promote gun control, view his intentions with great suspicion.

Of the many factors marking a developed society as susceptible to authoritarian takeover, the presence of arms is not one. The strength and type of political institutions have been shown, time and time again, to be the prevailing factor here.

Every time a dictator starts the process of taking over a country, one of the first things that's done is taking their firearms away from the citizenry. It's not a coincidence.

[homersapien 11,366]

The idea that there might be an armed resident in a house gives the authorities pause and changes their actions significantly. Just think how much the knowledge that 50% of households have weapons and people willing to use them affects any weird ideas governments, both domestic and foreign, may be contemplating.

The first action any potential dictator must take is to disarm the populace in order to gain control. When some jerk starts spending millions to promote gun control, view his intentions with great suspicion.

Of the many factors marking a developed society as susceptible to authoritarian takeover, the presence of arms is not one. The strength and type of political institutions have been shown, time and time again, to be the prevailing factor here.

Every time a dictator starts the process of taking over a country, one of the first things that's done is taking their firearms away from the citizenry. It's not a coincidence.

I think AUTUMike's point is that the strength and type of political institutions are far more important in preventing an authoritarian takeover than guns.

In fact, one could argue that by the time guns are being confiscated, it's already too late. Your chances of thwarting the military are even lower than your chances of successfully resisting your local sheriff's department. In fact, they are non-existent.

[homersapien 11,366]

Yep. Lot's of cops shot in domestic calls alright.

Link?

Well, in a 13 year study period, 109 officers were killed in "domestic violence" calls.

http://www.policechi...&issue_id=52011

But domestic calls are still not as dangerous as robberies and break-ins.

Presumably, armor piercing ammunition is more relevant in "stand-offs" or situations in which police are wearing body armor.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I disagree. The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting & sporting arms. It was about being able to defend oneself against a tyrannical government.

That said, I don't have any M855 ammo because less than acceptable performance.

Indeed. It only works properly in the 20" barrel of an M16 (not very popular with AR's in my experience), or the LMG's it was designed for. In the common 16", the best choice for bulk ammo remains M193.

I have seen many articles discussing the issue of reclassifying M855 as armor-piercing, and a common justification seems to be "saving cops' lives", which I personally find rather ridiculous. The ballistic vest worn by police officers is likely to be penetrated by ANY 5.56mm round in street engagement ranges, regardless of whether it is M193, M855, or Winchester white box from the local Wal-Mart. Those ballistic vests are designed to provide a level of protection against what police encounter far more often: pistols. The velocities of basically all centerfire rifle rounds are beyond their design specifications.

[MDM4AU 332]

Don't mean to take this thread completely off the tracks but, has anyone tried out the G2 RIP ammo yet?

http://g2rip.com/

[Strychnine 1,802]

Don't mean to take this thread completely off the tracks but, has anyone tried out the G2 RIP ammo yet?

http://g2rip.com/

From what I have seen of it being tested independently, it is an underperforming waste of money. You can often get two boxes of Speer Gold Dot for the cost of one box of RIP. Frequent practice with ammo you can afford to practice with AND carry is more useful than any "magic bullet" you can find.

[MDM4AU 332]

Yeah, I saw it at Mark's Outdoors and noticed it wasn't cheap.

[MDM4AU 332]

Bill introduced to do away with ATF.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/234811-republican-bill-would-abolish-atf

[cooltigger21 0]

Bill introduced to do away with ATF.

http://thehill.com/b...uld-abolish-atf

That'll go nowhere fast. More bluster. Likely won't ever even come up for a vote. I appreciate the efforts of people like that but true patriots like that are far and few between in that town.

[DKW 86 7,419]

http://townhall.com/...istake-n1967168

Yesterday I exclusively reported that common AR-15 "green tip" ammunition has already been banned in the new 2014 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Regulation Guide, which was published in January. After the story received wide public attention, which you can read in full here, ATF released a response Friday night at 9:12 p.m. blaming a publishing error for stripping out the "armor piercing" and ban exemption for AR-15 "green tip" ammunition.

I have to admit, this is the first time i have ever felt the need for a "masturbation" emoticon. the American People are getting jerked off on this story.

If you are sssooo stoopid you believe that the ATF "just happened" to release this at 2112 on a Friday Night, you need some serious help.They released this at 2112 on a Friday Night because that is what they do in DC when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Releasing a Friday nite Document Dump is a tried and true standard in DC for getting out the most embarrassing info so the story will be dead by Monday morning. Read below, the author thinks was a behind the scenes attempt at removing ammo the WH wants removed but cant because they need Congressional Approval. The rerites on these documents is every 10 years and the approval process takes months.

Despite ATF saying there's "nothing to analyze here folks," this simple "publishing mistake" deserves scrutiny. Considering the Office of Management and Budget must approve new Regulation Guides, which come out approximately every 10 years, are difficult to change and take months to review, that's quite the "publishing mistake." As ATF references, the exemption for AR-15 "green tip" ammunition is in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide. For this "publishing mistake" to occur, someone would have had to delete an entire section from the guide, which just happens to be the section about ammunition the Obama administration is currently trying to ban.

2005 Regulation Guide with the exemption for AR-15 "green tip" ammunition:

2014 Regulation Guide, which was published in January, without the exemption for AR-15 "green tip" ammunition:

Somehow this "publishing mistake" looks a lot like "deleting" ammunition ATF is trying to ban without the consent of Congress or a proper public comment period as required by law. Also, keep in mind what ATF Director B. Todd Jones says about the 2014 Regulation Guide, that it "contains new and amended statutes enacted since publication of the 2005 edition, as well as updated regulations and rulings issued by ATF." Was this a "publishing mistake," or an updated regulation or ruling issued by ATF to quietly and unilaterally ban AR-15 "green tip" ammunition? It certainly looks like the latter.

[quietfan 233]

The idea that there might be an armed resident in a house gives the authorities pause and changes their actions significantly. Just think how much the knowledge that 50% of households have weapons and people willing to use them affects any weird ideas governments, both domestic and foreign, may be contemplating.

The first action any potential dictator must take is to disarm the populace in order to gain control. When some jerk starts spending millions to promote gun control, view his intentions with great suspicion.

Of the many factors marking a developed society as susceptible to authoritarian takeover, the presence of arms is not one. The strength and type of political institutions have been shown, time and time again, to be the prevailing factor here.

Every time a dictator starts the process of taking over a country, one of the first things that's done is taking their firearms away from the citizenry. It's not a coincidence.

I think AUTUMike's point is that the strength and type of political institutions are far more important in preventing an authoritarian takeover than guns.

In fact, one could argue that by the time guns are being confiscated, it's already too late. Your chances of thwarting the military are even lower than your chances of successfully resisting your local sheriff's department. In fact, they are non-existent.

My feelings lie along this line. I'm not a "recall the 2nd Amendment" proponent. Frankly, the only changes I'd like to see in the Constitution would be to include more freedoms or for mere procedural issues.

Obviously, tyrants will attempt to disarm a population. I would too if I had dictatorial ambitions. By the time they have the power to accomplish that, however, it may be too late as homer suggested.

But I do feel the strength and type of existing political institutions are more significant in determining the success of totalitarian movements, as well as the strength of economic institutions, the level of social justice, and the general stability of the existing society. Think of the major totalitarian revolutions of modern history: The French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon, the Fascist governments of Mussolini and Hitler, the Marxist takeovers by the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Chinese communists, even the regimes of Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, The Ayatollah Khomeini, and Saddam Hussein. All those dictatorships arose in the face of existing chaos, weak democratic institutions, social injustice, and/or economic turmoil. The American Revolution might be the only modern revolution that arose in a climate of relative economic and social stability and it did not produce a dictatorship. Strong modern democracies do not fall to totalitarian regimes, unless through outside conquest.

[WarTim 3,456]

The idea that there might be an armed resident in a house gives the authorities pause and changes their actions significantly. Just think how much the knowledge that 50% of households have weapons and people willing to use them affects any weird ideas governments, both domestic and foreign, may be contemplating.

The first action any potential dictator must take is to disarm the populace in order to gain control. When some jerk starts spending millions to promote gun control, view his intentions with great suspicion.

Of the many factors marking a developed society as susceptible to authoritarian takeover, the presence of arms is not one. The strength and type of political institutions have been shown, time and time again, to be the prevailing factor here.

Every time a dictator starts the process of taking over a country, one of the first things that's done is taking their firearms away from the citizenry. It's not a coincidence.

"Fly over territory" is taking note and is way ahead...

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

ATF has backed down. Won't issue the proposed ban after all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/10/atf-shelves-controversial-bullet-ban-proposal/

[DKW 86 7,419]

Funny how the MISTAKE is now a backed off policy...

[Strychnine 1,802]

Funny how the MISTAKE is now a backed off policy...

I was kinda hoping they would reclassify the rubbish ammo that is M855 as armor-piercing. While such a move waited to go in effect, M855 sales would shoot up (along with the price), and M193 sales would go down (along with the price). I was looking forward to possibly picking up some cheaper M193. The mere scare of it was already making it head in that direction.