Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Black tips sure but then you need chromium plate barrels to reasonably use them.

And you lose a little in the accuracy due to the rifling not being as sharp. Not a lot, mind you, but it is there.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

It was designed to pierce steel, not body armor.

Steel being used as armor for a human body, specifically the head.

The SS109 was made to pierce steel helmets at long range from the Minimi, not improve terminal performance on soft tissue from rifles or carbines

 dogma wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

It was designed to pierce steel, not body armor.

Steel being used as armor for a human body, specifically the head.

The SS109 was made to pierce steel helmets at long range from the Minimi, not improve terminal performance on soft tissue from rifles or carbines

Yeah, back in the 70's. Helmets today aren't exactly made of steel anymore. (most of the modern world at least, I can't speak for to many of the less developed nations).

So we're arguing that we are banning a bullet today because it was designed to pierce 40 year old armor? And if that was the case 40 years ago, why was it given a pass when the bill was originally passed?

 djones520 wrote:

So we're arguing that we are banning a bullet today because it was designed to pierce 40 year old armor?

No, we're arguing whether or not the ATF should reclassify a round as armor piercing.

 djones520 wrote:

And if that was the case 40 years ago, why was it given a pass when the bill was originally passed?

NATO standardization.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

So we're arguing that we are banning a bullet today because it was designed to pierce 40 year old armor?

No, we're arguing whether or not the ATF should reclassify a round as armor piercing.

 djones520 wrote:

And if that was the case 40 years ago, why was it given a pass when the bill was originally passed?

NATO standardization.

The ammo's ability to penetrate armor has not changed in the last 45 years. So, no they should not reclassify it.

To answer the 2nd question, I brain farted, the reason it's being brought back up now was because it can be used in a "pistol".



If you want to call that a pistol.

 djones520 wrote:

The ammo's ability to penetrate armor has not changed in the last 45 years. So, no they should not reclassify it.

But it is still armor piercing.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

The ammo's ability to penetrate armor has not changed in the last 45 years. So, no they should not reclassify it.

But it is still armor piercing.

No it's not.

On it's face, the M855 does not meet the ATF's definition of armor piercing.

(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

It is not entirely made of steel, only having a steel tip with a copper jacketed lead core.

It was not designed for use in a pistol. It was designed for use in a rifle.

Those are the ATF's 2 qualifications, one of which has to be met. It doesn't meet either. They are saying that 45 years after the round was designed, some yahoo designed a "pistol" that you can put the bullet in, so now we need to take the bullet away from the entire public.

 djones520 wrote:

If you want to call that a pistol.

Yeah, well, there are a lot of questionable pistols in this world...


Waiting for someone to make a Fatmac pistol. Because we need something that shoots 20mm Oerlikon modified down to 50cal. For home defense.

I'd never fire that Thompson or Shotgun with one hand. Hello fractured wrist!

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'd never fire that Thompson or Shotgun with one hand. Hello fractured wrist!

Actually I've never had a problem with that. The TA5 has somewhat better recoil than a 1911 actually. Mind you, I never had one to shoot that was full auto, though, either. With the 100 round drum on it masses more than a 1911 so...

No, real monsters are when you fire an 75 or 80 cal dragoon pistol. Those hurt.

The real wrist breaker is specimen number 3. Fires .50 cal BMG rounds.

And they are only defined as "pistols" because of our wonderful friends at the ATF.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

The ammo's ability to penetrate armor has not changed in the last 45 years. So, no they should not reclassify it.

But it is still armor piercing.

Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.

On the flip side, a SLAP round probably is. (IIRC SLAP is basically APDS for pistols.)

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.

Doesn't the length of the barrel also factor into armor piercing capability via achievable mussel velocity? A "pistol" with an 8" barrel would have a harder time penetrating armor than one with a 12" barrel.

 Breotan wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.

Doesn't the length of the barrel also factor into armor piercing capability via achievable mussel velocity? A "pistol" with an 8" barrel would have a harder time penetrating armor than one with a 12" barrel.

Probably due to the fact that the bullet won't be as "accurate". It might gain more wobble or something.

 Breotan wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.

Doesn't the length of the barrel also factor into armor piercing capability via achievable mussel velocity? A "pistol" with an 8" barrel would have a harder time penetrating armor than one with a 12" barrel.

It doesn't factor into the definition of armor piercing by the ATF, which is all that matters here.

Been living under a rock for the last month, so I apologize. Is this real? >.> Looks like my little stock just shot up in price (no pun intended)

but....if the 5.56 is banned for punching body armor how much danger is my 7.62 (25,39 and 54)

The proposal only covers one form of 5.56, though it does present a slippery slope.

 djones520 wrote:

It is not entirely made of steel, only having a steel tip with a copper jacketed lead core.

The projectile, or projectile core, doesn't have to be entirely constructed from steel in order to fall under (i). It is vague legislation, I'll give you that, but the ATF is probably not out of bounds.

If I were arguing against the proposal I would argue that the SS109 is primarily used as sporting round, and therefore deserves the sporting exemption.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.

And the weapon which a bullet can be fired from.

 Breotan wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.

Doesn't the length of the barrel also factor into armor piercing capability via achievable mussel velocity? A "pistol" with an 8" barrel would have a harder time penetrating armor than one with a 12" barrel.

100% - longer barrel length generally means more efficient use of the powder (to an extent of course...after a certain point you're increasing drag on the bullet).

Barrel length has very little to do with accuracy though...a 7" barreled AR15 will be just as accurate, if not more accurate, than a 24" barreled AR15. What you lose though is muzzle velocity, so increased bullet drop could be perceived as inaccuracy. Weird no?

All that said, I can't think of a bullet that will pierce armor out of a rifle-length barrel (16") but won't do it out of a handgun. Maybe hot 9mm rounds out of a rifle, or .357 fired out of a lever action?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

So we're arguing that we are banning a bullet today because it was designed to pierce 40 year old armor?

No, we're arguing whether or not the ATF should reclassify a round as armor piercing.

 djones520 wrote:

And if that was the case 40 years ago, why was it given a pass when the bill was originally passed?

NATO standardization.

What does NATO standardization have to do with a law pertaining to American civilians?

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

It is not entirely made of steel, only having a steel tip with a copper jacketed lead core.

The projectile, or projectile core, doesn't have to be entirely constructed from steel in order to fall under (i). It is vague legislation, I'll give you that, but the ATF is probably not out of bounds.

If I were arguing against the proposal I would argue that the SS109 is primarily used as sporting round, and therefore deserves the sporting exemption.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.

And the weapon which a bullet can be fired from.

No it doesn't. The definition used by the ATF to define armor piercing specifies that the round must be designed for and intended to be used in a pistol, which is entirely different from speficying that it includes rifle rounds that may be fired from pistol versions of rifles. I don't think a single 5.56 round has every been designed for and intended to be used in pistols, certainly not by the US military. It's a rifle round.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

It is not entirely made of steel, only having a steel tip with a copper jacketed lead core.

The projectile, or projectile core, doesn't have to be entirely constructed from steel in order to fall under (i). It is vague legislation, I'll give you that, but the ATF is probably not out of bounds.

If I were arguing against the proposal I would argue that the SS109 is primarily used as sporting round, and therefore deserves the sporting exemption.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Almost ALL rifle ammo fired out of a "pistol" will pierce soft body armor and 40 year old steel helmets. It does NOT fit the ATF's definition of "armor piercing," which has to do with bullet construction.

And the weapon which a bullet can be fired from.

1. How is it vague. It says entirely made of (even puts a note in there excusing some impurities). It is not entirely made of it. Entirely is a pretty clearly defined word. Nothing vague about it.

2. No, the weapon that the bullet was INTENDED to be fired from. When it was designed, it was for the sole intended purpose of being used in a rifle.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

What does NATO standardization have to do with a law pertaining to American civilians?

NATO standardization has created a surplus of cheap ammunition that was previously given a special exemption under LEOPA.

Prestor Jon wrote:

No it doesn't. The definition used by the ATF to define armor piercing specifies that the round must be designed for and intended to be used in a pistol, which is entirely different from speficying that it includes rifle rounds that may be fired from pistol versions of rifles.

The ATF disagrees.

When LEOPA was finally passed by Congress in 1986, however, the final bill did not include a performance-based standard, or limit the definition of armor piercing ammunition to ammunition “designed” for use in a handgun

 djones520 wrote:

1. How is it vague. It says entirely made of (even puts a note in there excusing some impurities). It is not entirely made of it. Entirely is a pretty clearly defined word. Nothing vague about it.

A projectile or projectile core, which may be used in handgun, shall be considered armor piercing if it is constructed entirely from (or a combination thereof) a series of alloys; including brass, bronze, beryllium copper, steel, and any alloy including tungsten.

That's pretty damn vague.

 djones520 wrote:

2. No, the weapon that the bullet was INTENDED to be fired from. When it was designed, it was for the sole intended purpose of being used in a rifle.

The M249 isn't a rifle.

 dogma wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

What does NATO standardization have to do with a law pertaining to American civilians?

NATO standardization has created a surplus of cheap ammunition that was previously given a special exemption under LEOPA.

Prestor Jon wrote:

No it doesn't. The definition used by the ATF to define armor piercing specifies that the round must be designed for and intended to be used in a pistol, which is entirely different from speficying that it includes rifle rounds that may be fired from pistol versions of rifles.

The ATF disagrees.

When LEOPA was finally passed by Congress in 1986, however, the final bill did not include a performance-based standard, or limit the definition of armor piercing ammunition to ammunition “designed” for use in a handgun

 djones520 wrote:

1. How is it vague. It says entirely made of (even puts a note in there excusing some impurities). It is not entirely made of it. Entirely is a pretty clearly defined word. Nothing vague about it.

A projectile or projectile core, which may be used in handgun, shall be considered armor piercing if it is constructed entirely from (or a combination thereof) a series of alloys; including brass, bronze, beryllium copper, steel, and any alloy including tungsten.

That's pretty damn vague.

 djones520 wrote:

2. No, the weapon that the bullet was INTENDED to be fired from. When it was designed, it was for the sole intended purpose of being used in a rifle.

The M249 isn't a rifle.

How is it vague? Is it entirely made out of those components? No? Then it doesn't meet the definition.

The M249 didn't exist when the round in question was designed. The platform was built around the ammunition. And LMG's are generally nothing more then "upgunned" rifles.

why go after 5.56? 7.62 is superior at punching through most types of armor and vs ALL types of armor outside of 100 yards. They are just trying to keep antigun culture alive. Screw them, you really have to wonder if it's a revolution that they want.

The idea of a revolution over this is hilarious.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The idea of a revolution over this is hilarious.

The idea of doing it over any single item is usually laughable. Eventually though, a lot of single items add up.*

*This is not me in anyway, shape, or form, saying this justifies an act of revolution/overthrowing the US government, etc. Go away NSA people, don't tell me commanders that I'm advocating revolution.

SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) is a upgunned rifle..will....it can be mag feed but only at last resort..still though.....

 Jihadin wrote:
SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) is a upgunned rifle..will....it can be mag feed but only at last resort..still though.....

I dunno about your M249s, but our Negevs would never get through an M16 magazine without a jam. Then again, I never really saw one get through a belt without jamming either. Pile...of...gak.

 djones520 wrote:

How is it vague? Is it entirely made out of those components? No? Then it doesn't meet the definition.

You're focusing on the word "entirely" despite the leading, and undefined, terms of "projectile" and "projectile core"; as are the succeeding alloys.

 djones520 wrote:

The M249 didn't exist when the round in question was designed. The platform was built around the ammunition. And LMG's are generally nothing more then "upgunned" rifles.

But the Minimi did, and the SS109 was adopted to insure armor penetration at long range from that platform.