Where are my Gun Owners?

[mac5155]

Hopefully it drives the price of the XM193 down even more. I paid 33 cents a round last March or so. Would love to get it back under 20 cents per.

[Shyster]

SS109 (Armor piercing steel tip) and the M855. I could understand the SS109. But the M855 is a really weak and humane round. There is a reason the military uses it.

The M855 and the SS109 are the same projectile (lead core with steel tip). I think you have them confused with the M995 (the "black tip), which is the armor-piercing version.

Here's the story, which is a little convoluted. Armor-piercing rifle ammunition has been banned ever since the Gun Control Act of 1968. But there are exceptions to that ban, and the BATFE has held for decades that the M855 projectile is not covered by the ban on armor-piercing rifle ammunition. In the 1980s Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, which bans handgun projectiles made of certain metals because they might be "armor piercing." LEOPA bans “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…” There is an exception for "a projective which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes…” Handgun bullets used for sporting purposes are not banned, but what "sporting purposes" means is up to the BATFE to decide.

LEOPA comes into play for 5.56 ammunition because people starting making semi-automatic AR pistols. This new rule comes into play because the M855 is now a "handgun projectile" under LEOPA. The BATFE is proposing to sweep all of the precedent on the M855 aside and instead link the "sporting purposes" analysis to the handguns capable of firing the projectile in question. Specifically, the BATFE proposes the following:

[P]rojectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun.

So if there is a semi-automatic pistol capable of firing a rifle round (like AR pistols), and the bullet in that rifle contains one of the prohibited metals (like the steel tip in M855), then that bullet is not for "sporting purposes" because the BATFE is saying that the only rifle-round handguns that are capable of being used for sporting purposes are single-shots. The BATFE is saying that it doesn't matter what the projectile was originally designed to do. If that bullet can be fired in any sort of handgun other than a single-shot like a Thompson-Center Contender, then that bullet is not for sporting purposes, and if it's got steel in it, then it must be banned because it's now an armor-piercing handgun round.

IMO there are some huge problems with this proposed rule change. The email I sent to the BATFE is below.

I am writing on opposition to the “ATF Framework For Determining Whether Certain Projectiles Are “Primarily Intended For Sporting Purposes” Within The Meaning Of 18 U.S.C. 921(A)(17)(C).” The proposed Framework exceeds the BATFE’s authority and violates 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17) for two reasons, and consequently it must be withdrawn.

First, BATFE does not have any statutory authority to prohibit civilian distribution or possession of U.S. M855 cartridges, regardless of any “sporting purpose” determination, because § 921(a)(17)(b)(i) applies only to “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…” (emphasis added). This statute prohibits only projectiles constructed “entirely” of those specified metals. But the projectile in M855 ammunition is not constructed entirely of any of those metals. Neither is the projectile core in M855 ammunition constructed entirely of any of those metals. To the contrary, the projectile core in M855 ammunition is made of lead.

The proposed Framework impermissibly reads the word “entirely” out of § 921(a)(17)(b)(i). M855 ammunition contains a lead core, and therefore is not made entirely out of steel or any of the other listed metals.

Second, the proposed Framework exceeds the BATFE’s authority and ignores the plain language of § 921(a)(17)(C), which says that “The term ‘armor piercing ammunition’ does not include … a PROJECTILE which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes…” (emphasis added). The language of this subsection plainly indicates that the relevant question is whether the projectile itself is intended for sporting purposes. But the proposed Framework would completely ignore this clear statutory directive and instead apply the “sporting purposes” analysis to the operating mechanisms of the handguns used to fire the ammunition in question. There is simply no basis in § 921(a)(17)(C) for the BATFE to shift the focus of the “sporting purposes” analysis from the projectile itself to the handguns theoretically capable of firing that projectile.

As recognized by the BATFE in the proposed Framework, the projectile for M855 ammunition was designed long before there were any handguns capable of firing that ammunition. And the BATFE has recognized for decades that the M855 projectile “has been recognized as being suitable for target shooting with rifles due to its accuracy.” Because the projectile itself is the proper focus, and the BATFE has recognized for years that the M855 is used for sporting purposes, there is no basis to ban it.

Finally, and separate from the two objections above, I note that in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago the United States Supreme Court held that the core right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to use arms for traditionally lawful purposes, and particularly individual self-defense. The Court also stated that the right described in the Second Amendment applies to arms in common use for lawful purposes. To the extent the “sporting purposes” analysis in § 921 would result in a ban on the sale or possession of ammunition that is in common use for lawful purposes—a description that absolutely applies to M855 ammunition—I respectfully submit that ban would be unconstitutional.

[dodint]

Since all the ammo I ever fired for .223/5.56 was at work I don't follow it that closely. I was going by this passage from Wiki:

The SS109 was developed in the 1970s for the FN FNC rifle and the FN Minimi machine gun. To increase the range of the Minimi, the round was created to penetrate 3.5 mm of steel at 600 meters. The SS109 had a steel tip and lead rear and was not required to penetrate body armor.

So I was using 'armor piercing' rather loosely. Thanks for the reply.

[DelPen]

Turns out the ATF has already "banned" the steel core 5.56 round in January and this public comments session is a sham.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... n-n1966761" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This attempt at restriction is an attempt to remove cheap surplus ammunition making cost of ownership higher. I myself have never knowingly bought steel core 5.56/.223 and frankly I have no idea how cheap or available the M855 ammo was only that if this source is taken out of the market, the cheap stuff I usually buy will be more expensive. And I can't see how much cheaper they were because now every website is jacking up prices.

This thing just seems stupid and pointless either way though. I think there are companies still making steel core 5.56 so they could just switch the bullet and keep production levels the same. But it also shows the ATF has too much power and is accountable to no one.

[mac5155]

Can't take away the gun, they'll go after the next best thing.

[Shyster]

After receiving 80,000 comments and counting (the vast majority of them negative), the BATFE is withdrawing the "proposed framework" under which it would have banned the M855/SS109—at least for now. Any new proposals will come through "additional open and transparent process."

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2015- ... ework.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mac5155]

...while the NRA claims full responsibility

Good work Shyster et al.

[PensFanInDC]

How difficult is it to get a CCW in PA?

[count2infinity]

I have numerous friends that have them... I'm going to guess not very.

[Hockeynut!]

How difficult is it to get a CCW in PA?

Go to the county sheriff's office, fill out a form, wait 2 weeks, go in and get your pic/permit.

[PensFanInDC]

Fantastic. Thanks!

I looked up how to get one online but I wanted to know how likely it would be that I could get one. Not sure how long I need to be resident first though.

[Malkamaniac]

M855 isn't banned. People keep saying it, but it isn't banned and won't be banned at this time.

http://www.nssfblog.com/atf-to-not-move ... this-time/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Malkamaniac]

I have numerous friends that have them... I'm going to guess not very.

Sign up online and it's a 30 day wait or something like that. Real easy to get.

[BuckintheLou]

How difficult is it to get a CCW in PA?

Go to the county sheriff's office, fill out a form, wait 2 weeks, go in and get your pic/permit.

Much better than in IL. Here you must have 16 hrs of classroom training (prior military, etc are exceptions) a range session and fork out $125 U.S.
Still, much better than 'no CCW' as was the case since....ever.

[Shyster]

How difficult is it to get a CCW in PA?

Go to the county sheriff's office, fill out a form, wait 2 weeks, go in and get your pic/permit.

Depending on the county, it might take longer for that. I know a while back the sheriffs' offices were pretty much flooded with applicants, and I'm not sure if they're still that busy.

[mac5155]

Westmoreland county sheriff comes to various locations on given date of the month. for example he's in my boroughs office building the 4th Thursday of each month. Print and background check on the spot unless it's super busy

[Shyster]

The new Kahr Gen2 Premium Series:



I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want. I want.

[tifosi77]

Great Scott, it looks like something from RoboCop or Crysis.

How much would something like that cost??

[Shyster]

Prices haven't been released yet. The non-pimped versions of the TP9 are already something like $800–$900, IIRC, so I'm going to guess well north of $1,000. I don't think the Leupold optic will come with the gun, so that's another $350–$400 on top.

[DelPen]

That's a lot of money for a Kahr. Wonder how much my instructor discount can knock off the top because I can get the carry pistols for under $500 right now.

[Shyster]

I'm an unabashed Kahr fanboy, so I don't really think it's that much. They seem to be positioning the new premium series to be something akin to the S&W Performance Center, and PC handguns are pretty expensive as well. It would also still probably be cheaper than most of what H&K sells.

[mac5155]

Single stack Glock, who's in? I probably will be. My chubby short fingers hate the double stack.

[Shyster]

The new Glock 43? As an unabashed Kahr fanboy (see above), I must note that the "slim" Glock 43 is longer, wider, taller, and heavier than the Kahr PM9 / CM9, while not offering any greater magazine capacity. And I already own a PM9. It's also thicker than a Ruger LC9s. Although it is nice to see Glock make this gun; my own chubby short fingers also don't get along with Glock's double-stack guns.

[Shyster]

I ran across a tip I want to share: plastic wall anchors make great .22 snap caps. A lot of .22 guns say not to dry fire them, but at the same time dry-firing a fun is a good way to smooth the action (especially for revolvers) and practice trigger control. Unlike centerfire cartridges where snap caps are easy, you can't really make a snap cap for a rimfire. There are some companies that make .22 dummy rounds, but they are expensive and won't last long. For example, Pachmayr sells .22 dummy rounds for around $10 per 24. I ran across a reference saying that wall anchors can be used as .22 snap caps, and it totally works. I bought a box of #8-10 x 1" anchors, and the rim of the anchor is exactly the same size as a .22's rim. The 1" anchors are a little too long to fit into semi-auto magazines, but if you can find 7/8" anchors I bet they would fit. And the anchors cost just a couple bucks for a box of 100 at Home Depot. They will get chewed up as you dry fire, but the cost is minimal.

[mac5155]

Yeah. Won my choice of a glock 19 or 23 today at a gun bash. I went 23. I feel dirty for complaining about them just a few days ago, but I am pretty happy to have one.