This is the most common rifle ammunition. Just because someone has made a handgun that can use this round doesn’t change the fact that it is primarily rifle ammo. The unintended consequence of this rule would be to dramatically increase the use of lead ammunition by sport shooters, putting more lead into the environment. This kind of rule making plays into the worst paranoid fears of the gun owners and drives gun owners who might be open to reasonable restrictions on firearms deeper into the arms of the NRA.

That would make sense. It would be more logical than banning one specific type of 5.56. Also, even a pure lead bullet on a 5.56 cartridge will go through body armor so I don't see the point.

In my home town Marysville WA, a police officer left his 2 young children and his unsecured gun alone in his car. His 3 year old son shot and killed his 7 year old daughter. That officer is still a cop and still carrying his gun around my town. I want to see background checks and real- no-exception consequences for negligent gun owners. The proposed rules will not prevent 1 accidental or intentional gun death. It will just strength the NRA and make ammo manufactures a lot of money (the price of M855 green tip is up 40%). If this rule is adopted, I expect that congress will act to quash this rule, with the support of a majority of Democrats. I also suspect that will the only action the congress takes on gun control in the next 2 years. I wish we could get the King-Thompson bipartisan bill to expand background checks on gun sales passed, but this useless rule will suck all of the oxygen out of the debate.

KellyW .. This is the most common rifle ammunition. Just because someone has made a handgun that can use this round doesn’t change the fact that it is primarily rifle ammo... This kind of rule making.. drives gun owners who might be open to reasonable restrictions on firearms deeper into the arms of the NRA..

I can't buy into your reasoning Kelly; NRA membership hasn't changed that dramatically, from a couple millions in 70's to allegedly 5 million today, out of around 90 million gun owners; and most all gun owners who 'dives deeper into the arms of the nra' wasn't about to accept reasonable gun restrictions in the first place, and probably just got a raise in salary so as to afford it.

The problem with the AR15 rifle bullet - the 0.223 - being able to be fired from a handgun is not just simple pie, as being popular. A 0.223 FMJ (full metal jacketed bullet) is essentially a deceiving 22 caliber but with lotsa gunpowder & thus lots of kinetic energy on impact. An armor piercing 0.223 green tip up close - as handguns can be sneaked in closer where a rifle cannot be - well if the bullet hits an unprotected soft target area it's generally either a death sentence or an amputation.
Am also discussing this on rkba. I'm hypothetically talking of a handgun shooter shooting 0.223 bullets, while bracing his handgun against a wall or something, holding it steady while rapid firing into one spot on a police officers bullet vest, to penetrate the vest:

Concerns over a handgun being able to shoot 0.223 bullets, bullets which were designed for m16 (semi as well as automatic) and AR15 semi-auto assault rifles:
.... true, handgun muzzle velocity is less {than AR15 rifle} & kinetic energy about 65% of one coming off an AR15, but with precision impacts several handgun .223s could still pierce the bpv;
.. additional fear is that with a handgun an undetected shooter can get much closer to police (& all soft targets), thus compensating somewhat for the less energy on impact from the AR15.
It seems that up close, repeated braced pistol .223s would be more accurate than repeated braced .223s from an AR15 fired from a distance, due external ballistics from distance (or could be).
The interval between braced rapid fire handgun bullet hits could be what, a fifth of a second to a half second? momentum transfer from one or two 55 grainers usually isn't enough to push a man off, mainly his own reflex reaction, so dunno about much change in a stationary, perhaps sitting, target, after a second or two.
And up close, shooter's aim is better &, as with all pistols, makes for a better shot for unprotected parts; solid hitting an unprotected part up close with a .223 is generally either a delayed death sentence or an amputation.

You don't need the hypothetical of "rapid firing into one spot on a police officers bullet vest, to penetrate the vest" - even with the reduced energy of a short barrel, at any kind of reasonable shootout range, all commercially available .223 ammunition, utterly regardless of bullet design, is going to penetrate soft body armor with a single hit. It (the armor) is simply not designed nor marketed as any kind of proof against rifle fire; it's intended to stop lower-velocity larger-caliber pistol rounds and that's the long and the short of it.

That being said, I think any repeating rifle-caliber firearm with a barrel less than 16" should be immediately and retroactively classified as a Short-Barreled Rifle under the NFA regardless of the absence of a stock - that will meaningfully ensure the safety of law enforcement. I don't support the proposed restriction not out of any nuttery (frankly, SS109 is pretty crap ammo), but because it has absolutely no positive effect whatsoever on public safety (it might actually be negative, if people start to believe that soft armor is some magical proof against rifles), while whipping up the frothing "DEY TUK OUR GUNZ" crowd seemingly even more effectively than a proposed AWB.

Ranges won't let it be used because it tears up the backstops and ricochets. Not good for hunting as it goes through the game without the tissue damage necessary for a clean kill.

There is no civilian use for it.

This was rated MOSTLY FALSE: Says "President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country ... with a ban on one of the most-used" assault rifle bullets. — Paul Bedard - wapo reporter http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/04/paul-bedard/columnist-obama-presses-gun-control-t/

(politifact): ...{bedard's} talking about the ATF’s plan for one particular type of bullet -- a 5.56 mm "green tip." It is found in SS109 and M855 cartridges, and it’s one of the more popular types of ammunition in America, experts told us. But this February, the ATF announced a proposal to remove an exemption that allowed gun owners to use this particular kind of ammunition. The agency’s reasoning? It can pierce the sort of body armor often worn by police, and it can be fired from a handgun.
The ammunition isn’t new, nor is its ability to pierce body armor. What is new is that gun manufacturers are making handguns that use a 5.56 mm "green tip."
That, ATF says, violates the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1985 that aimed to ban armor piercing bullets.
"The AR-based handguns and rifles utilize the same magazines and share identical receivers," the ATF wrote.. "These AR-type handguns were not commercially available when the armor piercing ammunition exemption was granted in 1986. To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm "green tip" ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges."

as of this afternoon. The wording indicates they will review internally and may reintroduce it later.

Might be for the best. This got a lot of attention, and a detailed review of this policy could have opened the door to sale of other ammo currently prohibited under the same statute that also fails to meet the 'entire core' definition.

From the ATF's facebook:

Notice to those Commenting on the Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemption Framework
Thank you for your interest in ATF's proposed 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 informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable. Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework.

To make anyone, including cops, safer. Any .223/5.56mm cartridge will penetrate soft body armor. ANY.

The only way to fix this is to define a maximum muzzle energy that a handgun can shoot. Any handgun capable of firing a cartridge that delivers muzzle energy greater than that should be NFA'd like Short Barreled Rifles.

Do you want to argue with facts and actually do something useful, or do you want to just rage away without any useful effect?

I mean, Jeebus forbid you learn something about the topic....

And yes, I am serious. You will continue to fail to have any real impact if you advocate spending political capital on issues that do NOTHING to increase public safety.

In the above post, I told you why this is the wrong way to approach the issue: because it will not achieve what you wish to achieve. Spending political capital on it is foolish.

If you want to do something about handguns capable of penetrating soft body armor, then you need to do as I suggest, and look to regulate handguns capable of firing a cartridge powerful enough to do so. THAT could potentially make a difference, if you can make it happen. Although AFAIK, these AR-15 "pistols" have not been used in crimes. They are too big to conveniently conceal.

You can insult me. You can call me Bubba. Go right ahead.

It won't change the simple facts.

... then you will validate the NRA talking points.

Good luck with that.

And no... I don't know of ANY "right wing gun lobby" that would advocate restricting powerful handguns as I have. If you can find it, point it out.

As for attitude... you've done nothing but insult me since I posted. I have have not reciprocated. And so far, you're the only one who has responded like this.

But hey, take my suggestion, or don't. Doesn't matter much to me either way.

See ya.

What is the best approach to achieving some sort of meaningful gun control? The whole green-tip ban has collapsed and was a needless distraction. I think our focus should be on the closing the gun show loophole and more effective background checks. My own personal focus is that gun owners need to be held responsible for what happens with their guns (see my post above) accidental shootings are not “an unfortunate accident” as these tragedies are often dismissed. It is criminal negligence.

Don’t be discouraged by the likes of billh58. Those comments are almost a caricature of what the NRA says gun control advocates are like. The responses that are; “you don’t accept my orthodoxy 100%, so I am going to insult you repeatedly” is all too common on DU these days. It is painfully true that the signal-to-noise ratio has become somewhat unfavorable here. But there are still people who are interested in having thoughtful and productive conversations.

yet. Owning a gun or understanding how they work aren't blockable offenses, and you've been acting ruder than I think is deserved in this case. I think Adrahil's suggestion of restricting designs of pistols from firing rifle bullets would be a good step. Another approach would be defining pistols that can fire rifle ammo as rifles with barrel lengths shorter than are already currently allowed.

In this thread, you've been the one acting disruptive, and I really would not want to block you, so please don't make me. Putting Adrahil on ignore will help your blood pressure, and I want you to know that if they DO step out of line, I'm still here. This Group is not un-hosted any more, as it was for awhile.


/GCRA host

Muzzle energy wouldn't be ideal, without going into unnecessary "technical detail" (everything in moderation), these AR "pistols" only deliver about half the energy of a .44 Magnum, but the former will penetrate soft body armor, while the latter is the specified standard to be stopped.

There's many other factors at play besides ME in terms of a round defeating soft armor; I'd advocate for simply lumping any repeating-action firearm that uses a cartridge designed for a rifle, with a barrel less than 16", to be classed as an SBR regardless of presence/absence of a stock. It seems to me it would rather tidily wrap up this whole mess without getting into murky gray areas (ME isn't a fixed number, after all).