If you like your m855, you can keep your m855

[dennishoddy]

Times like this make me think we are our own worst enemies.

Yep. We are our own problem.

10/4.

Check.

If you think the Feds are the worst enemy, you might want to go to Walmart and look at the rows of .22 on the shelf....

 

[heat-ar]

If you think the Feds are the worst enemy, you might want to go to Walmart and look at the rows of .22 on the shelf....

Blaming us for the problem is like blaming M855 for this latest problem. Self preservation is very powerful thing.

 

[J.T.]

Where can a guy find green paint?

 

[SMS]

Fired off letters to Lankford, Cole, and Inhofe this morning over coffee.

F$ck the "Public Comment Period" sham…as if they will listen. Time to put pressure on Congress to put pressure on BATFE.

 

[HiredHand]

Blaming us for the problem is like blaming M855 for this latest problem. Self preservation is very powerful thing.

I think M855 is only the first step of this ban on "amor piercing" projectiles that can be fired from a handgun. Many of the current rifle hunting projectiles could be construed to fall under the same regulatory statute.

 

[SMS]

A few folks have asked. Here's a copy of what I fired off this morning. Use, modify, critique at will:

Good Morning Sir.

Thank you for your service to our nation and the Great State of Oklahoma.

I'm writing to you to bring to your attention the BATFE's recent proposal to ban the manufacture and import of M855 "green tip" rifle rounds using the SS109 projectile.

This particular round has been available to the public for many years. Surplus M855 constitutes a large portion of the 5.56mm/.223 civilian ammunition market and it does not meet the statutory definition of "Armor Piercing" ammunition. The BATFE is attempting to a) redefine it as AP and b) strip it of it's previous Sporting Use exemption under the guise of "officer safety" while failing to highlight any observed increase in risk to officer safety in the years since the round has been available to the public.

The ammunition market is already tight. Finding casual plinking and training ammunition is hard enough already. This latest proposal is perceived by many of us in the shooting community as an end-around method of gun control, and an abuse of BATFE's statutory authority.

Any time and attention you could pay to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[Glocktogo]

A few folks have asked. Here's a copy of what I fired off this morning. Use, modify, critique at will:

Great letter, thanks!

 

[IronMLS72]

Firearm Freedom Act 2015. Pretty long but interesting.

http://bearingarms.com/time-firearm...urce=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

 

[Glocktogo]

My email to BATFE:

To Whom It May Concern,

The current proposal to ban M855 ammo by BATFE for civilian sale raises several troubling points. To wit:

First, M855 has been unregulated on the civilian market since its introduction in the late 70’s. There are literally millions and millions of rounds in the hands of the public. Regulating it now is merely creating a black market with artificially inflated prices for the consumer and would do little to reduce its availability to those who would ignore the rules and laws of the United States in pursuit of criminal activities.

Second, it is designed for and intended to be fired in rifle barrels of 20 inches or longer. It is documented to be a poor performer in shorter barrels, such as the 14.5” barrel of the M4 carbine. Firing it in a pistol length barrel is counterintuitive, as there are many rounds exhibiting superior performance in shorter barrels. As such, the intent of this proposed rule is also counter-intuitive and does not accomplish any quantifiable objective.

Third, M855 ammunition does not even meet the definition of “armor piercing” ammunition as defined by BATFE’s own definitions, per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(b), which read:

(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.
This does not describe M855 ammunition, therefore it is excluded from the definition. M855 does not have a steel core, nor is it a steel projectile. It has a steel “tip”, over a base lead core, jacketed in copper. At velocities above 2,450 fps, it exhibits fragmentation, which is the opposite of a round intended for steel or body armor penetration. The round was designed to penetrate light intermediate barriers and still perform, not steel plate or body armor.
Fourth, this ammunition is routinely used for sporting purposes all across the country, from varmint and small game hunting to popular sporting competitions of various types. It is readily obtainable and inexpensive (currently) when compared to other available ammunition in this caliber of comparable performance. Removing it from the market places an unnecessary financial burden on the public for virtually no explainable benefit to public safety.

Fifth, and most disturbing is the appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of the federal government, when viewed in light of the recent court decision against The United States in Liberty Ammunition, Inc., v. United States, which the U.S. Dept. of Justice argued as the defendant. https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv0084-112-0
While this court order specifically covers M855A1 ammunition, one cannot help but question the timing and appearance of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to include whether this will financially impact Liberty Ammunition, LLC in any way.


If the BATFE intends to continue pursuing this NPRM in light of all the valid reasons not to, please address each of these concerns in a reply, and in the Federal Register. I appreciate your time and consideration regarding this most important issue.

Regards,

Jerry D. Biggs

Cc: The Hon. Senator James M. Inhofe; The Hon. Senator James Lankford; The Hon. Representative Jim Bridenstine

My emails to my Senators & Representative:

Honorable Senator Inhofe,

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding a recent NPRM from the BATFE, which seeks to ban M855, 5.56X45mm ammunition for citizen use. Please help us in combating this capricious and overzealous "power of the pen" backdoor gun control scheme. These are my concerns:

First, M855 has been unregulated on the civilian market since its introduction in the late 70’s. There are literally millions and millions of rounds in the hands of the public. Regulating it now is merely creating a black market with artificially inflated prices for the consumer and would do little to reduce its availability to those who would ignore the rules and laws of the United States in pursuit of criminal activities.

Second, it is designed for and intended to be fired in rifle barrels of 20 inches or longer. It is documented to be a poor performer in shorter barrels, such as the 14.5” barrel of the M4 carbine. Firing it in a pistol length barrel is counterintuitive, as there are many rounds exhibiting superior performance in shorter barrels. As such, the intent of this proposed rule is also counter-intuitive and does not accomplish any quantifiable objective.

Third, M855 ammunition does not even meet the definition of “armor piercing” ammunition as defined by BATFE’s own definitions, per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(b), which read:

(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.
This does not describe M855 ammunition, therefore it is excluded from the definition. M855 does not have a steel core, nor is it a steel projectile. It has a steel “tip”, over a base lead core, jacketed in copper. At velocities above 2,450 fps, it exhibits fragmentation, which is the opposite of a round intended for steel or body armor penetration. The round was designed to penetrate light intermediate barriers and still perform, not steel plate or body armor.

Fourth, this ammunition is routinely used for sporting purposes all across the country, from varmint and small game hunting to popular sporting competitions of various types. It is readily obtainable and inexpensive (currently) when compared to other available ammunition in this caliber of comparable performance. Removing it from the market places an unnecessary financial burden on the public for virtually no explainable benefit to public safety.

Fifth, and most disturbing is the appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of the federal government, when viewed in light of the recent court decision against The United States in Liberty Ammunition, Inc., v. United States, which the U.S. Dept. of Justice argued as the defendant. https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv0084-112-0
While this court order specifically covers M855A1 ammunition, one cannot help but question the timing and appearance of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to include whether this will financially impact Liberty Ammunition, LLC in any way.

If the BATFE intends to continue pursuing this NPRM in light of all the valid reasons not to, please address these concerns in a reply. I appreciate your time and consideration regarding this most important issue.

Respectfully,

Jerry D. Biggs

BATFE can eat a giant bag of gentleman sausages on this one.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Until something is done to stop crap like this it will continue to happen. In ever increasing proportions.