Move to Ban a Bullet Adds to Its Appeal

[SecularMotion]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s administration has proposed banning the manufacture and sale of one of the most popular bullets used in AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, a move that has enraged gun-rights advocates and caused a run on the ammunition at gun shops across the country.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said this month that it planned to restrict the armor-piercing 5.56-millimeter “M855 green tip” rifle bullet because of new handguns that use the ammunition and pose a greater threat to the police. Previously, the millions of inexpensive green-tip steel and lead bullets sold each year were only for rifles typically used by target shooters and hunters.

“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,” the A.T.F. said in a highly technical 17-page submission on Feb. 13.

The proposal would allow people to use up the ammunition they have already bought. Gun shops and firearms organizations on Thursday said there had been a rush to snap up cases of the bullets since the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups sent out urgent alerts to their members.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/us/move-to-ban-a-bullet-adds-to-its-appeal.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[hack89]

1. Fortunately there are plenty of alternatives

let's hope the political fire storm is worth it.

[mwrguy]

2. one down...

Now ban the next most popular round. Eventually we'll nibble the gun industry to death.

[Travis_0004]

3. They didnt ban .223, just trying to ban one specific bullet

[mwrguy]

18. I know that.

62 grain green tip M855 down, now go after 55 grain M193.

[happyslug]

20. The key is what is an Armor Piecing bullets under US Law.

Last edited Fri Feb 27, 2015, 01:59 PM - Edit history (3)

18 USC 921(a)(17) Defines what is "Armor Piecing Ammunition"

(17)
(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—

(i) 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

(ii) 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.

(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.

The key wording is "may be used in a handgun". If the ammunition can NOT be used in a handgun it can NOT be banned. Thus till the recent introduction of Pistols capable of firing 5,56x45 ammunition, the M855 was legal for it was NOT usable in an handgun.

When an "Handgun" was introduced that could fire 5.56x 45 ammunition, then the first test of being an "Armor Piercing bullet" was met. Then and only then did the second test had to be even reviewed. That second test is in the list of materials that do NOT expand (tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium) or weight of the outside jacket of the bullet that exceeds 25% of its total weight (Common in Armor Piecing bullets NOT common even in Full Metal Jacketed bullets).

Thus the M193 bullet, bring a FMJ bullet but NOT a Core of banned materials OR an outer jacket that consists of 25% of the total bullet weight is NOT an "Armor Piecing bullet" as defined above, but the M885 having a steel core does meet that second test and can be banned but only once a pistol was made in that caliber.

Please note 18 USC 921(a)(17) (C) which gives the Attorney General the option of ruling a round is for MOSTLY sporting purposes, which can include target shooting. That is the law the NRA is trying to use to keep surplus M885 ammunition legal. Notice the statute uses the terms "Finds" thus it is up to the Attorney General to made a decision if the M855 is used mostly for sporting purposes.

The ATF report on banning the M855 ammunition:

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Library/Notices/atf_framework_for_determining_whether_certain_projectiles_are_primarily_intended_for_sporting_purposes.pdf

Senator Moynihan comment on the above Law:

Let me make clear what this bill does not do. Our legislation would not limit the availability of standard rifle ammunition with armor-piercing capability. We recognize that soft body armor is not intended to stop high powered rifle cartridges. Time and again Congressman Biaggi and I have stressed that only bullets capable of penetrating body armor and designed to be fired from a handgun would be banned; rifle ammunition would not be covered.

The report also points out the differences between 17 (B) (i) and 17 (B)(ii), in that when it comes to ammunition banned containing metals cores, 17(B)(i), the key phase in that ban is any ammunition that "may be used in a handgun". In 17(B)(ii), the 25% weight rule, uses the phase "intended for use in a handgun". Thus M855 which was NEVER intended to be used in a Handgun does NOT meet the definition of Armor Piecing ammunition under 17(B)(ii) but it does meet the definition of 17(B)(i) for today we have AR-15 pistols chambered for 5.56x45 mm ammunition. i.e. MAY BE USED IN A HANDGUN is the proper test for a bullet with a Steel Core (the M855), but if the outer jacket is more then 25% of the weight of the bullet the test is "Intended for use in a handgun".

Thus this ban can ONLY apply to M855 ammunition and its steel metal core. The only possible exception would be "primary sporting purposes" and the report handles that to mean what the ATF says is "primary sporting purposes" and that is limited to handguns capable of two shots or less. I have problems with that definition, but the ATF does point out most ammunition are fired at shooting ranges NOT on human targets and thus if the test was where such ammunition was mostly used ALL ammunition would fit under the Sporting Purpose use and that was clearly NOT the intention of Congress Congress wanted to ban SOMETHING. The Report also points out the other extreme was ALSO not want CONGRESS intended, i.e. all ammunition that could be fired in ANY pistol was also NOT the intent of Congress.

THE ATF then decided by its own regulation what Congress intended and came up with the rule that pistols that fires two rounds or less was the rule that fulfilled what was the intention of Congress. i.e. ammunition that could be fired by such pistols is ammunition exempt UNLESS such ammunition can also be fired from pistols that could fire three or more rounds before reloading.

I have problem with that ban, but it relates to the issue of "Short barreled" rifles, which are weapon with a stock that has a barrel less then 16 inches long (18 inches if the barrel is smooth-bore i.e. a shotgun). Variations of the AR-15 has come out with 14 inch or shorter barrels, but without a stock and thus are "Pistols" not "short barrelled rifles". If you see one being carried you will quickly see it is NOT what most people call a Pistol. The better way to deal would be to drop the whole concept of "Short Barrel rifles and Shotguns", and rule anything with with a rifled barrel less then 16 inches or a smooth bore barrel less then 18 inches but barrels longer then 7 inches (The length of Pistols used by the US Cavalry in the 1870s) are "Carbines" and special rules apply to them whether they have stocks or no stocks (which can include the present ban on such "short barrel rifles&quot . This work around the ban on "Short barrel Rifles" is the heart of the REAL problem. Either BAN them completely or legalize them and get it over with. The ban on Short Barrel Rifles and Shotguns is NOT effective UNLESS you address the issue of pistols with barrels longer then 7 inches.

Here is an AR-15 PISTOL with a 7 inch barrel:



http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/pistols.asp

The piece that looks like a short stock at the rear of the AR-15 "Pistol" is part of the action of the AR-15 (it is the "Buffer" system used in AR-15 actions). The short buffer is NOT intended to be used as stock. In a full length AR-15 rifle. that extension is inside the stock one uses on a AR-15/M16 rifle, but in these short barrel AR-15 "Pistols" the buffer is NOT considered a "Stock" and thus does not make these AR-15 with 7 inch barrels a "Short Barrel Rifle" as that term is used in Federal Law.

[Adrahil]

52. Kinda stupid, I agree.

Just about ANY modern center-fire rifle cartridge will penetrate soft body armor. And that steel penetrator will NOT penetrate modern ceramic armor. So M855 is a ridiculous and useless thing to ban.

[beevul]

85. "The key wording is "may be used in a handgun"."

"The key wording is "may be used in a handgun"."

With all due respect, that's NOT the key wording.

The key wording is this:

(i) 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

(ii) 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.


ATF is blatantly trying to pretend that when congress penned the words "Constructed entirely" in that law, that they really meant "constructed partially".

The ammo in question, does NOT have an inner core which is "constructed entirely" from any of those materials.

Far from it, in fact. See this video for a detailed view of the projectile in question, cut open:

[Adrahil]

104. IMO, our firearms laws are antiquated and silly....

Short barreled rifles don't represent a significant threat. They are, if anything, less lethal that a standard rifle, and they are still difficult to conceal. Many bull pup designs are shorter than a SBR, but are not covered by the NFA.

Also, they have the weird definition of pistols being designed to use with one hand. While that was true 100 years ago, the standard training today is to use two hands when shooting a handgun, so rules against thing like hand grips just seems stupid.

[hack89]

21. On what grounds? M193 is not armor piercing. nt

[former9thward]

23. It is not down.

The rule will never go into effect. Someone at ATF must own stock in the company that makes it.

[randys1]

51. Great idea. Just wish I could live long enough to see it

[DetlefK]

4. Why do people need armour-piercing bullets for self-defense?

[Exhibit A]

5. Indeed.

I am not anti-gun, but seriously, civilians do not need ammo like that.

[Kevin from WI]

22. But what if they were attacked by a robot?

[Blandocyte]

45. Some criminals wear ballistic vests while committing their crime

so I guess it makes sense that way. But most guns/ammo bought for self defense aren't ever used for self defense, so I'm not really seeing reasons for an uproar over this proposal. I guess it's the idea of it.

[Adrahil]

102. In that case, ANY center fire cartridge will do.

M855 doesn't do anything magic. It's a crappy cartridge designed to defeat a problem that doesn't exist.

[Lurks Often]

10. 99% of ALL rifle calibers invented since 1894 will penetrate

the "bullet proof" vests worn by the average police officer. Those vests were never meant to stop rifle rounds, one has to use the heavier vests used by SWAT or the military to stop rifle rounds.

I have no clue what the ATF is thinking since the regular .223/5.56 x 45, even out of a handgun length barrel, will still penetrate the standard police vests and I have seen no indication that this idea originated from the police in this country.

Mostly this is going to cause people to buy large quantities of the ammo in question, cause them to donate even more money to 2nd Amendment organizations like the NRA and give them another reason to vote for politicians, of both parties, that are 2nd Amendment supporters.

[Adrahil]

55. So very true! n/t

[Mojorabbit]

84. Yep. nt

[NickB79]

92. Yep. Even Great-grandpa's 100-yr old .30-30 Winchester would penetrate Kevlar

Will defeat police body armor:

Basically, ANY rifle cartridge invented since the rise of smokeless gunpowder in the 1880's will punch through what the police wear.

Only the military, SWAT teams, and bomb squads typically have vests hardened enough to stop any rifle shots.

[Munificence]

107. Yep

I'd rather tangle with an AR15 vs grandpa's 30-30. That round is a lot nastier than any M855.

That 3030 may not look as "intimidating" as an evil "assault rifle" but it is a lot nastier weapon when it comes to "killing power".

And before I get called a gun nut:

I am a combat vet and I do own guns vs weapons and I am for very responsible gun control.

And as far as the M855:

It's not that great of a round. It's simply popular because the military uses it. You can get a civilian round in 223 or 556 that's a lot nastier than the M855.

Banning the M855 is pretty crazy in my mind, it accomplishes nothing really. It's like saying "we are banning military issued ink pens from civilian use"....when just about any old ink pen replacement will do. I'd rather shoot the civilian equivalents to this round vs the M855 as it cleaner burning, better specs/tolerances and has polished brass (M855 is not polished in the military version).

Gotta run around doing crazy stuff like (trying to ban M855) this to "look good" I guess as it will not accomplish much besides for goof balls making a run to gobble up their "fair share" of it.

These efforts by President Obama and our base have really had the exact opposite effect in my opinion over the past few years. I'd say that President Obama is personally responsible for putting more guns in folks hands than any other president in history - He has been the best President when it comes to getting folks to arm themselves - Probably the #1 sales guy for the gun industry.

[hack89]

11. Non-military ammo is actually deadlier

Last edited Fri Feb 27, 2015, 10:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Because it is not governed by the Geneva Conventions on War. That is why police don't use military rounds.

The issue is police bullet proof vests. They only wear vest that stop pistol rounds. Any rifle bullet can penetrate them.

[former9thward]

24. They are used to hunt.

That is why it is popular.

[happyslug]

30. Not in my state....

Now, I am talking about M885 ammunition, being NOT expandable it is ILLEGAL for hunting in Pennsylvania and most other states. M885 can be used for target shooting but NOT for hunting. Expandable bullets do a better job of KILLING thus preferred. You can get 5.56x45 mm ammunition in Soft points and hollow point design, those ARE LEGAL for hunting, but you can NOT use FMJ, Armor Piecing or other NON expandable rounds to hunt with in Pennsylvania.

[Adrahil]

54. ANY modern center fire rifle bullet will penetrate soft body armor.

And this steel "penetrator" (designed to penetrate Soviet steel helmets of 1980's vintage...) won't penetrate ceramic armor plates designed to stop rifle bullets.

This "armor piercing bullet" stuff is nonsense in the case of M855.

[MosheFeingold]

73. Not a fan of guns, but:

The 5.56 is not armor piecing. It's a weak round, as these things go.

It's just a popular and cheap round. The goal is to make shooting economically prohibitive so all the stupid rednecks can't afford to have guns.

It's more about preventing revolution by idiots in Texas than gun violence.

[Scootaloo]

81. it's for aggressive and pre-emptive self-defense atop post offices and bell towers.

[Duckhunter935]

103. Any rifle cartridge will

go through the vests police use. This round is not special. Do a little research to verify this fact.

[PoliticAverse]

6. If you want to make something popular try to ban it. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

7. Will not happen

It is one of the most used surplus rifle rounds out there and I have already sent my comments in and received at least one request for comments from Brownells. this round has very little lead and is good for the environment.

[valerief]

8. And Congress will say NO and that will be that, except everyone will know

to buy the killer bullets.

[Bagsgroove]

9. What a weird country we are

The best thing in the world for the gun and ammo industry is the fear -- even if it's NRA manufactured fear -- that some kind of gun control might be in the offing. The sad irony is that the killings at 20 children and 6 teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School led not to any kind of sensible reform, it led to the biggest boom in gun sales in history.

[RKP5637]

12. It is, in these respects it's a very weird country. I guess it's innate primordial fear that drives

the sales of irrational weapons, survival of the fittest and all of that combined with weapons hoarding. How ridiculous we must look to advanced intelligence.

[notadmblnd]

13. I don't think bullets should be banned

I think the government should tax the hell out of them like they do cigarettes and use the exact same logic as they do as cigarettes for taxing them exorbitantly.

[Duckhunter935]

14. they are taxed

[notadmblnd]

15. I said tax the HELL out of them

when the tax on bullets makes them unaffordable for most, people will think a little harder about what they want to use them on. How many bullets are you going to buy and use if just one costs 15 or 20 dollars? How many are you going to use if one costs 50?

[hack89]

16. What you are proposing is unconstitutional.

Ammo is covered by the 2A.

[philosslayer]

25. Then by your reasoning...

What the President is proposing is unconstitutional. Is that what you think?

[hack89]

26. Absolutely not.

He is trying to ban one specific 5.56mm bullet in accordance with existing US law. There will still be plenty of options when it comes to buying 5.56mm ammunition.

What he can't do is ban all 5.56mm ammo. Or make it so expensive that nobody could afford it (your scheme to tax the hell out of it). There is plenty of case law on the subject.

[notadmblnd]

27. How so? Cigarettes carry exorbitant taxes and no one has questioned the constitutionality of it?

Bullets do at least as much damage if not more than cigarettes. And yeah, lots of people have quit smoking because they're no longer affordable

[hack89]

28. Because smoking cigarettes is not a right specifically mentioned in the Constitution

there are three different levels of judicial scrutiny that courts use to determine the legality of laws . As you can imagine, Constitutional rights get the highest level of scrutiny.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-laws-3-levels-of-scrutiny-explained.html

In the eyes of the law, ammunition and cigarettes do not have the same stature.

[notadmblnd]

31. The 2nd amendment does give one the right to own weapons

However, I don't recall anything being written about ammunition and whether one has a right to purchase bullets at a reasonable price. Can you show me where that is written?

[hack89]

36. Here is a court case that says the 2A covers ammunition.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1543809.html

The 2A talks about "arms". The definition of "arms" includes ammunition.

[lancer78]

29. LoL

Smoking kills more people in 2 weeks then guns will kill in a year.

[notadmblnd]

33. yeah, so?

[hack89]

32. Smoking kills 15 times as many people annually as bullets

so perhaps they warrant the higher taxes.

[notadmblnd]

34. You didn't answer my question. How is taxing bullets unconstitutional?

There indeed may be more deaths from cigarettes, it doesn't make guns shots less harmful. when a person dies as a result of a gunshot, it doesn't make them any less dead than someone who dies from smoking.

[hack89]

37. Because "arms" includes ammunition

what is the point of having the right to bear arms when the government can render them useless? Critical thought is allowed on this site you know.

[notadmblnd]

38. Taxing ammunition exorbantly would not render your arms useless

you would still be able to purchase ammo and use your gun, However, one would be forced to think (to use your word) more critically as to how and when to employ them.

Many people still smoke despite the costs of cigarettes. However, taxing them exorbitantly has discourage many from picking them up and has gone even further to encourage many to put them down.

[hack89]

40. I know disarming poor people and minorities is a dream of some

but not one that I support.

But go ahead a give it a shot - see what happens.

[notadmblnd]

41. Lots of poor people still smoke.

Lots of poor people would still obtain bullets too.

I'm just going to go ahead and conclude that your statement "taxing ammo is unconstitutional" was a result of emotions you possess in regards to the 2nd amendment and not a result of any actual facts.

[hack89]

42. I take it you didn't read the court case I sent to you?

the one that said the 2A covered ammunition?

[notadmblnd]

43. no, there is nothing in my inbox

[hack89]

44. It is a post in this thread.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1543809.html

[notadmblnd]

46. nothing in there I saw about taxing bullets.

it's about possessing bullets. As I said, I would not ban bullets. I would tax them.

[hack89]

47. You can tax bullets. Never disagreed with you about that

but because owning them is a constitutional right, you cannot tax them with the specific goal of restricting their availability - ie you cannot tax them like cigarettes where there is a stated goal of reducing cigarette use.

So you would have to prove that the tax rate you choose would not be burdensome to the average America. You would also have to explain the goal of your tax and prove that your tax is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.

So tell me - what is the goal of your tax?

[notadmblnd]

48. Taxing them would not restrict their availability.

The only thing that would restrict their availability is the limitations of your pocket book.

Take guns themselves, I'm fairly certain that there are corporations that produce firearms that are out of the average American's price range. There is no law that states that all guns sold must meet the affordability of average Americans because the 2nd amendment dictates that it is legal to possess them.

[hack89]

49. What is the stated goal of your tax?

what is it supposed to achieve?

You are not paying attention. The price that companies set for guns is irrelevant. What the law says is that the government can not tax the exercise of a constitutional right with the specific goal of restricting the exercise of that right.

[notadmblnd]

61. And still you haven't shown me that law

My goal? Just as it is with cigarettes- which is for gun owners to help share in the cost of the harm that gun violence causes. Cigarettes cause harm, smokers are required to share the cost of covering the health issues of those affected by smoking.

[hack89]

65. Cigarette tax money goes into the states general revenue funds

it is not use to mitigate the social effects of smoking. Fail.

[notadmblnd]

69. I do believe medicaid $$ come from a State's general fund along with some funding from the Fed Gov

so no, it is not a fail.

[hack89]

66. Think for a second why poll taxes are illegal and it will all make sense. nt

[notadmblnd]

67. re-read post 61

My goal has nothing to do with restricting use.

[hack89]

68. Except that cigarette taxes are not used to mitigate the harms of smoking

it is to make money for the states. Lets look at Massachusetts

Massachusetts has one of the highest cigarette taxes in the country – $2.51 on every pack. Last year that meant $562 million in state revenue. The big tobacco settlement brought in another $315 million. However, out of the nearly $900 million the state took in from cigarette taxes and settlement funds, lawmakers dedicated only $4.5 million to anti-smoking programs this year.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2010/10/01/curious-where-cigarette-tax-money-goes/

So you cannot point to cigarette taxes as an example - you would be laughed out of court.

[notadmblnd]

71. perhaps not directly, and yes, the tax on bullets could very well be set aside to defray costs

of victims of gun violence.

[hack89]

74. So bullets are taxed right now at 11% to support environmental projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

Lets simply divert that money to health care, public health programs and victim compensation. Problem solved.

[notadmblnd]

76. Somewhere in this thread, a poster said they could get 1000 rounds for 88 dollars

A thousand bullets should cost a hell of a lot more than 88 dollars.

[hack89]

78. Why? So the manufacturer can make bigger profits?

Ammunition is not expensive to make. Why should I have to pay more to enrich some CEO?

[Adrahil]

100. That's like saying we need a huge tax on cars....

To defray the costs of the victims of drunk drivers...

[hack89]

70. Show me a state that does not use cigarette taxes as a means to reduce the numbers of people smoking

are you going to deny that high cigarette tax is not a deliberate social policy to reduce smoking?

[notadmblnd]

72. no, it's an added benefit

[hack89]

75. So all you would have to do is calibrate your tax rate so there was no such "added benefit"

and you would be all set. Because that is what a judge will be looking at very closely - that you didn't fudge your numbers to ensure you got that added benefit.

[notadmblnd]

77. a conservative judge might.

[hack89]

79. Strict judicial scrutiny. The rock on which gun control founders time and time again.

there are several reasons why gun control is a smoking wreck in America. One of them is the inability to write laws that will pass judicial muster.

[hack89]

50. So putting a $1000 tax on an abortion would be ok?

they would still be available - no one ever said they must meet the affordability of average Americans.

You are using the same logic as anti-choice people. Abortion is still legal but we will make it impossible to get one by making them too expensive or by passing "safety" laws guaranteed to shut down clinics.

[notadmblnd]

53. Good to know that I'm right and you have no valid argument left

If you did, you wouldn't be twisting in the wind attempting to find something you can equate my position to.

Choice is about who decides what a woman can do with her own body. Unless one is going to use bullets on themselves, there is no way the same logic applies.

[hack89]

57. We are talking about using taxes to limit Constitutional rights.

you have yet to answer my question. What is the specific purpose of your bullet tax? Is it to make access to ammunition out of reach for a bunch of Americans?

[notadmblnd]

62. No, you are.

I just explained what my goal of the bullet tax would be in another post.

[Adrahil]

58. The SCotUS has LONG maintained....

... that taxing a right with the intent of making it harder to exercise is Unconstitutional.

That's why poll taxes are illegal.

[notadmblnd]

63. see post # 61

[beevul]

86. Charging the 100 million plus that aren't murdering anyone...

Charging the 100 million plus that aren't murdering anyone, to defray the costs of the damage being done by a tiny handful committing crimes against others, and presumably for the costs associated when the other 2/3 commit suicide. You guys claim suicide via firearm is gun violence right?


That will play well with the American electorate.


Any party stupid enough to push this and able to get it passed into law, would be relegated to minority status for decades.

[notadmblnd]

90. suicide via smoking is no different, it just takes longer.

there's millions of people who step outside to smoke and harm no one with it. Yet they pay the tax. It's no different.

[beevul]

91. Thats not a refutation of what I said. N/T

[Adrahil]

97. Every cigarette smoker smoker produces harmful second-hand smoke....

Very few gun owners ever shoot anyone. Heck, most of my guns are well over 100 years old.

[lancer78]

94. Wouldn't exorbinant taxes on ammo

be considered a SLAAP issue, and therefore illegal under current US law?

[Politicalboi]

59. How is not having enough money to buy bullets

Unconstitutional? I love that idea. I also want heavy insurance on guns, higher registrations fees, and a yearly gun class too. Make that precious too expensive to own.

[hack89]

64. Using taxes to specifically restrict the exercise of a constitutional right is illegal

how would a $1000 tax per abortion sound to you? A $100 tax to vote? To petition the government?

What is purpose of having civil rights in the first place if the government can make us pay to exercise them? You are basically saying that we have no real rights.

[Oktober]

96. Try it out on another amendment...

Government doesn't like what is being printed in the paper and enacts a $1000 per ounce tax on ink...

Silly, immoral and unconstitutional....

[Adrahil]

98. How is not having enough money to pay a poll tax

Unconstitutional.

The idea you "love" is blatantly Unconstitutional.

[Adrahil]

56. Actually, making cartridges so expensive that no one can afford to practice....

... will probably lead to MORE undertrained and practiced people accidentally shooting themselves or others. And the REAL gun nuts will just make their own ammo.

[Sunlei]

17. how much is the retail cost these days per round?

could have doubled!! an investment in ammo stocks in only 10 years

[ileus]

19. Pretty silly, I can buy FMJ regular copper bullets for 1/2 the price.

Why pay 170 bucks a 1000 for these super EXTRA DEADLY green tips, when normal 55gr can still be bought for 88 bucks a 1000.



I'm holding on to my 755's for unloading on some goofy dumbass later at 40x what I paid.

[Adrahil]

60. Some folks want M855....

because they think it MUST be awesome, since the Army uses it.

But there's tons of evidence that it's a pretty mediocre round for pretty much everything.

[Telcontar]

87. The Army HATES the.M855

Last edited Sun Mar 1, 2015, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Lethality of that round is far too low on first hit basis. That's why they are moving to the EPR round more likely to get first round kill. The M855 is a waste of money and folks stockpiling are idiots.

[greatlaurel]

105. Do you have a link to an article on this? I would love to send this to some rightwing politicians

Why are do sportsmen and conservatives fall for this type of consumer ripoff? This information really needs to be given much greater visibility to counteract the ridiculous anti Obama propaganda. The lazy news people just print the anti Obama propaganda about him taking away guns.

Thanks for the information. Very informative post.

[Telcontar]

106. I dont know of any articles in public domain

I have written a number of reports on the effectiveness of Army waepon systems based on post deployment unit evaluations. The so-called green bullet was introduced to replace lead bullets because killing people is okay, but don't leave lead in the environment... So the problem was the green bullet didn't provide the tumble and expansion a lead bullet has; the bullet would zip through a body losing little speed and leaving a small hole goi ng through. Unless you hit the heart, brain, or aorta, you didn't eliminate the target. Soldiers.reported enemy troops getting hit multiple times and continuing to fight.

The M855A1 EPR changed the alloy blend of the bullet, more closely replicating the lethality and first hit knockdown effect of leaded bullets.

[snooper2]

35. at first I thought this said Mullet

[Purveyor]

39. This stuff will get republicans elected in 2016.

Just saying...

[Hoyt]

80. The gunners will just stock up more than usual, they never know how many people they need to shoot.

Multiple gunz, thousands of rounds, hi capacity magazines, silencers, targets resembling humans, obstacle course training, playing army, gunz and ammo magazines to read when they can't fondle their lethal weapons, etc. That sounds a bit sick to me.

Hopefully, we'll wise up like Australia did in 1996. Until then, we'll watch innocent people get killed so that the gun fanciers can continue their bad habit.

[ileus]

82. I'll just keep buying the cheap walmart 100 round boxes of winchester.

and not that junky green junk anyway....

there are plenty of great FMJ plinking options for the AR's out there beside the super mean-n-deadly green tip trash.

[NickB79]

83. Ironically, M855 is the LEAST lethal of the 5.56mm rounds available. US servicemen HATE it

It's construction makes it less likely to fragment when it hits a human body, meaning it makes smaller, less traumatic wounds than a conventional full-metal jacket or hollowpoint bullet would. The alternative to M855 is the M193, a slightly lighter bullet with a thinner jacket, pushed several hundred feet per second faster. Inside 100 yards, it is devastating on impact. It's also CHEAPER than M855; the local Fleet Farm sells it for $350/1000 rounds, while M855 goes for $450/1000.

At the same time, conventional 5.56mm ammo like the M193 will still penetrate virtually all the types of bulletproof vests the police wear. Only SWAT teams typically have the hardened armor that will stop even a basic 5.56mm round.

The M855 was developed in the late 1970's for NATO to have a bullet that could penetrate through the sides of light vehicles or a Soviet helmet at 300 yards. However, because the 5.56mm round is so small compared to previous rounds like the 7.62mm, it doesn't have the power to penetrate as well as they'd like. Because bureaucracy is the same everywhere, the military decided all the troops should carry just one type of ammo, instead of lugging different rounds for different scenarios. The result is that you have a round that sucks at all it's jobs: it penetrates not quite enough to be a true armor-piercing round, yet doesn't kill as effectively.

Like I said, US servicemen hate the green tip in combat: http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20100215/NEWS/2150312/Corps-use-more-lethal-ammo-Afghanistan

[madville]

88. So more lead ammo will have to be sold to make up the shortfall

Yeah for more lead! This actually was a more "green" round due to the steel and not just because the tip is painted green.

[dembotoz]

89. I need to come up with some cheap gun thing that i could mark way up and then send out the word

that obama personally was going to ban it

the gun nuts would buy up 20 yrs of production and i could retire like a lottery winner

[greatlaurel]

95. We have a winner! It is really is just marketing to get people to buy outdated junk ammo.

Last edited Sun Mar 1, 2015, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Here is a quote from sir pball, which addresses why this particular type of ammo is getting the attention of the gun marketers.

"NATO and by extension the US armed forces have recently changed to a newer type of bullet, which leaves mindbogglingly huge stocks of M855 on their hands with no real use for it - what better way to get rid of it than make rumbles of a "ban", ???, profit!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6290663

What a brilliant scam to sell people something they do not need.

[Adrahil]

99. You may be kidding...

But I've SEEN the crap some of the gun store Bubbas are willing to buy because "Obammy's brown shirt is gunna confurscate all da guns."

[NickB79]

93. For fun, I went to Sportsman's Guide in West St. Paul, MN, today to see how the gun nuts were doing

It was PACKED with angry old white men frantically trying to find M855 ammo or anything similar. The guy at the ammo counter just laughed a few times at them.

I did see one guy walk out with 3,000 rounds of loaded greentip ammo, and 8,000 greentip bullets to reload his own rounds with, though.

I ended up handling a very nice German pellet rifle (for target practice and rabbit hunting), studied the English longbows on the wall, and bought a nice pair of fleece-lined jeans for next winter. Let the morons fight over their overpriced, inaccurate ammo.

[Adrahil]

101. A fool and his money.....

Meanwhile, I'll shoot the cheaper, more accurate, and if it comes to it, more lethal M193.