Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 10:58 AM Feb 2015

Regarding the BATF&E banning the M855 .223 ammunition as "armor piercing"

My response to the BATF&E AP ammo comment request.



There is much discussion on whether the M855 ammunition meets the definition of "armor piercing" due to it's construction. Such discussion is beside the point, the only salient question is,"Will this ammunition pierce body armor commonly used by police today?" If that answer is yes, then it is, by performance, armor piercing regardless of arcane arguments over a definition. As a holder of a Curio and Relic FFL I see no value in having this ammunition available to the general public for either pistol or rifle use.

While on the topic of armor piercing, the Romanian Tokorov TT33 fires a 7.62x25mm round that is available as military surplus and does meet the definition of armor piercing. This round will penetrate a 5 inch oak tree at 20 meters and judging from the exit splintering it is still traveling at near 800fps. No soft body armor I know of can withstand a hit from this round. Please look into banning the import and sale of this ammunition as well.

Neither of these rounds are allowed at any of the shooting ranges that I know of. It seems that the issue of armor piercing or not armor piercing is a settled question for the owners of these shooting ranges.

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx
Arlington, TX

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Regarding the BATF&E banning the M855 .223 ammunition as "armor piercing" (Original Post) flamin lib Feb 2015 OP
They've cross-posted this in the gungeon, and are claiming that would ban nearly all centerfire ammo Electric Monk Feb 2015 #1
i would not have included that line about clffrdjk Feb 2015 #2
 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
1. They've cross-posted this in the gungeon, and are claiming that would ban nearly all centerfire ammo
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 05:03 PM
Feb 2015

Here's the link if anyone feels like jumping into their discussion http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172160924

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
2. i would not have included that line about
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 05:06 PM
Feb 2015

M855 not meeting the legal definition of armour piercing.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Regarding the BATF&E ...