# Proposed ban on 'armor piercing' 'assault rifle' ammo **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2015, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639 "2015-03-09T21:31:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/41 "2015-03-10T23:09:48Z")
I hope they do ban the damn stuff-as I said before:_After so many lying cries of “wolf!”- not only do we stop caring but we actually applaud the wolf when he shows up._ Obama is taking our guns away!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/42 "2015-03-11T00:03:26Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Note that the ammo was [already banned](http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/atf-crumbles-to-pressure-from-gun-lobby-on-armor-pierci-1690538799/+adamweinstein)by the Gun Control Act with a teeny tiny loophole: the was a “sporting” exclusion covering hunting ammunition. > > To take advantage of that loophole gun maker started manufacturing pistols that accept the rounds (not typically what most hunters use). In response to this the ATF wanted the sporting exclusion removed. Ok, then I counter with [this](http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/foghorn/the-truth-about-m855-5-56-nato-ammunition/): > [@](#): > > The Truth About M855 5.56 NATO Ammunition > By Nick Leghorn on March 3, 2015 > > 556 > > The White House has said recently that banning “armor piercing” ammunition like the wildly popular M855 round is “common sense” and would make our police officers safer, which is a bold claim. Given the quality of journalism on display among the major networks these days, its no surprise that the facts of the matter have been muddled and obfuscated to the point where the details being presented bear little to no resemblance to the actual facts. Some hyperbole is expected, but in an age when the talking heads on TV start claiming that common rifles can shoot down airplanes and blow up railroads you know that fact checking isn’t high on the priority list. I wanted to take a minute and discuss the truth about the M855 round, what it is, what it does, and why it is being targeted. > > P1050627 > > When the M-16 was first fielded by the U.S. military, the ammunition that accompanied it was designated the M193 cartridge — a standard “ball” 5.56 round. The 55 grain projectile was of the same construction that had been used in similar projectiles for close to a century, namely a solid lead core surrounded by a copper jacket. > > The original specifications for the M-16 rifle were that it needed to penetrate the steel helmet of an enemy soldier at a given distance, and while the lighter overall weight of the projectile reduced the penetration power of the projectile at long distance the designers of the ammunition compensated with increased velocity. Increased velocity meant increased muzzle energy, and provided the power to meet the specifications. That faster yet lighter bullet meant that the cartridges were lighter, and therefore the soldier on the field could carry more ammunition into battle than ever before. Even with the lighter projectile, that “armor piercing” capability was still maintained throughout the design process. > > After the Vietnam war, there were some deficiencies that needed to be addressed. Soldiers in the field reported issues with the projectile when it penetrated glass or other intermediate barriers, and wanted a heavier projectile to aid in energy transfer to targets downrange (putting down enemy soldiers more efficiently). While the military did adopt a 77 grain lead projectile for long range shooting, they developed the M855 projectile specifically for hitting targets behind light barriers (like glass and tin and heavy clothing). > > m855 > > The internal construction of an M855 round differs from the standard “ball” M193 cartridge in one very important way: there’s a steel core at the tip of the projectile. The solid steel tip added much needed stability to the projectile when traveling through barriers since there was no longer any soft lead to deform upon impact, and increased the stability and accuracy of the round when traveling over long distances due to the increased mass of the projectile. > > There were still some major issues, though. As the barrel length of commonly used firearms continued to decrease, the velocity of the round when it exited the barrel decreased as well. The 5.56 NATO cartridge is highly dependent on velocity to generate the energy it transfers to targets, and lower velocity means a much lower muzzle energy. Some of the most recent studies indicate that with a common 16″ barrel, M855 ammunition has severely degraded performance past 150 yards and is only effective to about 500 meters (versus the 600 meters at which it was designed to penetrate a steel helmet with a standard M-16). > > Another issue was the lack of expansion. The lead core in normal “ball” ammunition expands upon impact, which increases the diameter of the projectile and aids in transferring energy from the moving projectile to the target. The more energy is transferred, the greater the wound in the target and the more likely it is to stop that target. Using a steel tip meant that the bullets no longer deformed, and therefore the energy transferred to the target was less than with “ball” 5.56. In other words, the M855 ammunition is actually considered to be less effective against living targets than “ball” 55 grain 5.56 ammo. Or, put another way, standard lead ammunition is considered more deadly than M855. > > Wile the Army has moved on to an improved version of the M855 projectile, the cartridge has become popular with long range shooters and hunters. Especially for those hunting hogs in the thick brush of the American south, the M855 cartridge has proven to be capable of accurately and effectively hitting a target even after passing through a couple layers of leaves and underbrush. Its also popular among helicopter hog depredation expeditions for the same reason: it punches through the trees and hits the target. And since the cartridge was developed and produced for the military, a massive quantity of the ammunition is produced every year which leads to low prices for recreational shooters looking for a cheap way to feed their firearms. In short, what was once a “military” round has transitioned very well to civilian life. > > In recent days, the projectile has come under increased scrutiny as the ATF prepares to ban it based on the existing prohibition on “Armor Piercing” ammunition. As for what exactly constitutes “armor piercing” ammunition, there is a very specific legal definition that is being used. The following is directly from 18 U.S. Code § 921: > > ``` > (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. > > ``` > > What is important to note is that the defining feature of “armor piercing” ammunition is not the actual function of the projectile, but instead the construction. It is possible to construct a cartridge using an “armor piercing” projectile that can’t even pierce skin, but if the construction meets the above criteria then it is illegal. > [@](#): > > Technically, M855 ammunition fails to meet the criteria for an “armor piercing” projectile. The requirement of the law is that the projectile be comprised entirely of steel (with trace elements allowed) in order to be classified as “armor piercing,” but as you can see nearly 80% of the mass of the M855 projectile is comprised of standard lead — not steel. However, due to the imprecise wording of the statute it is possible for the ATF and the Attorney General to interpret the law in such a way that M855 meets the required criteria. The core of this round isn’t solid steel…it’s a mix of steel and lead. So, basically, it’s all about interpretation…something that pro-gun folks are very familiar with, since it’s the standard tactic used by anti-gun types to grab at will. Again, it’s all sophistry and smoke and mirrors on the part of the folks trying to ban this stuff. It’s what allowed them to try and ban this round in '86 except for the ‘sporting’ loophole…a loophole they had hoped to close when no one was looking. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/43 "2015-03-11T00:07:19Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Note that the ammo was [already banned](http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/atf-crumbles-to-pressure-from-gun-lobby-on-armor-pierci-1690538799/+adamweinstein)by the Gun Control Act with a teeny tiny loophole: the was a “sporting” exclusion covering hunting ammunition. > > \*\*To take advantage of that loophole gun maker started manufacturing pistols that accept the rounds (not typically what most hunters use). In response to this the ATF wanted the sporting exclusion removed. \*\* You seem to have inside knowledge regarding the intents of gunmakers. Do you have a cite that shows manufacturers starting making AR pistols in the '90’s to specifically shoot ammo that had been around since the 70’s? You realize that there are other “sporting” uses of ammo than hunting, right? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/44 "2015-03-11T00:14:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > See post #30. Yeah, I saw that. I guess I just read: > [@](#): > > The ATF said it would instead wait until Americans have finished commenting on the federal regulations and evaluate their comments and suggestions before “proceeding with any framework.” That the ATF just decided to wait to make a decision until the time for open comments has passed. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/10/atf-shelves-controversial-bullet-ban-proposal/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/10/atf-shelves-controversial-bullet-ban-proposal/) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/45 "2015-03-11T00:23:50Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Yeah, I saw that. I guess I just read: > > That the ATF just decided to wait to make a decision until the time for open comments has passed. > > [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/10/atf-shelves-controversial-bullet-ban-proposal/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/10/atf-shelves-controversial-bullet-ban-proposal/) I think that needs to be interpreted with the rest of the statement: > [@](#): > > 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. They’ve made their decision already - that they will not seek to issue a final framework. They are going to let this comment period conclude and evaluate the results. If they move to make the change again, they will need to have an additional comment period. That’s my take anyways - it’s consistent with your link. I grant the ban is not ruled out for the future, either the distant or near future. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/46 "2015-03-11T00:38:18Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think that needs to be interpreted with the rest of the statement: > > They’ve made their decision already - that they will not seek to issue a final framework. They are going to let this comment period conclude and evaluate the results. If they move to make the change again, they will need to have an additional comment period. That’s my take anyways - it’s consistent with your link. I grant the ban is not ruled out for the future, either the distant or near future. I see where you are coming from. I’m still scratching my head as to why the ATF in 2015 wants to ban ammo that has been around since the 70’s that is being fired from a few guns that have been around since the 90’s. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/47 "2015-03-11T19:40:50Z")
> [@XT](#): > > it was noted that a standard ball M-16 round tended to tumble if it hit a leaf or branch). > Anyone have any thoughts on this? Wait. WHAT!!?!?!?! Greentip didn’t tumble after hitting a branch!!! But seriously. My understanding was that there is a restriction against armor piercing handgun ammo. The prohibition against short barreled rifles (SBR) combined with people trying to get around stupid rules led to the SIG AR wrist brace which is supposed to act as a hard brace for an AR pistol but is a functional stock for a short barreled AR-15. The ATF ruled that the wrist brace was not a stock and a bunch of gun owners went out there and bought the damn things and you suddenly had a large stock of privately held ar-15 pistols firing guns that could pierce armor. As XT says, all this stuff pierces cop armor (except the stuff with ceramic or metal plates). Frankly we should amend the NFA to ease the regulation of short barreled rifles (seriously no one buys these except gun geeks like me who buy impractical novelty guns. You’re much better off with a bullpup (like the Israeli Tavor) if you want something compact. I don’t remember the last time a criminal was caught sawing off a rifle for use in his criminal enterprise. The strict regulation of suppressors is also heavy handed. Technology may one day get us to the point where s silencer will make a gun go thwip thwip. [Gun "Silencers" Don't Make Them Anywhere Near Silent](http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/gun-silencers-dont-make-them-anywhere-near-silent/) If we wanted to set a lower limit on decibels, we could do that but a silencer on a hunting rifle or a home defense firearm makes a lot of sense and making it as difficult as they do to purchase them does not make very much sense at all. Short barreled shotguns or sawed off shotguns are in fact used for criminal enterprise but I can’t believe that tight regulation of sawed off shotguns will make it any harder for a criminal to saw the end off his shotgun. If you want to have them registered, that’s fine by me, but the tax and registration process are far more onerous than they need to be to serve the purported purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/48 "2015-03-11T19:48:39Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > You stated in your OP that this round is desired because of it’s long range and heavy brush performance. There’s plenty of other versions of 5.56/.223 to be had. > > If you want to hunt, get closer and wait until the target is out in the open. > Otherwise, the shooter is an irresponsible asshole who shouldn’t have a gun at all. Here’s how a hunter might shoot through brush. They see a deer’s head poking out over some very light bush. They can see the heart lung area but at that range a slight breeze might push the bullet into a leaf or something. This keeps the bullet straight as it goes through a few leaves or twigs (not branches 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/49 "2015-03-11T20:05:10Z")
People are overthinking the whole “shooting through brush” stuff. Sure, it was developed for that since it was developed for the military. But people buy it because they like shooting their AR 15s and there is a lot of this stuff around since so much of it is made for the military. This ammo is very light hitting stuff. It’s powerful enough for deer, but just barely and most hunters would opt for something larger. Most hunters aren’t using this ammo. Of the ones that are, I doubt anyone is specifically choosing it for it’s brush busting powers. Maybe a nuisance hog hunter might. But my anecdotal experience at gun ranges is that this ammo is used to put holes in paper by cigar smoking AR owners 99.9% of the time. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/50 "2015-03-12T01:26:58Z")
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi] The strict regulation of suppressors is also heavy handed. Technology may one day get us to the point where s silencer will make a gun go thwip thwip. [Gun "Silencers" Don't Make Them Anywhere Near Silent](http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/gun-silencers-dont-make-them-anywhere-near-silent/) If we wanted to set a lower limit on decibels, we could do that but a silencer on a hunting rifle or a home defense firearm makes a lot of sense and making it as difficult as they do to purchase them does not make very much sense at all. [/QUOTE] The restrictions on silencers were specifically related to hunting. Silencers allow hunters to poach more easily, to hunt at night where illegal, to hunt in restricted or off-limits areas, etc. Hunting regulations are easier to enforce when the hunters make loud bangs with each shot. The original bans on suppressors had nothing to do with murder or violent crime, and everything to do with stopping poachers. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/51 "2015-03-12T01:34:49Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > The M855 **A1** (aka “green tip”) was developed to replace the M855. M855A1 has a forest green tip, not a bright green tip. Nobody calls M855A1 “green tip”. If anything, it is referred to as EPR or “enhanced performance rounds”. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/52 "2015-03-12T19:50:34Z")
ATF finally realized the obvious fact that pretty much all .223/5.56 can penetrate soft body armor, just like practically every single rifle caliber. Now they are thinking about banning all 5.56, not just green tip. The future consequences for every other rifle caliber are obvious. > [@](#): > > In a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, ATF Director B. Todd Jones said all types of the 5.56 military-style ammo used by shooters pose a threat to police as more people buy the AR-15-style pistols. [![](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/efa13145b5ac6369c64a8654efee12de.jpg) ](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/efa13145b5ac6369c64a8654efee12de.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/53 "2015-03-12T19:59:36Z")
I didn’t think the ATF and the administration would tip their hand so soon to their obvious ploy. Once the M855 is banned, the same logic would apply to all .556 and then to .223 ammo, effectively banning the use of the typical AR-15 pattern rifle platform. I knew it would be pushed in the future, just didn’t think it’d be so soon. ---
**Author:** ![GaryM](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garym/32/241_2.png) [@GaryM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaryM)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/54 "2015-03-13T00:58:40Z")
Lots of ARs in basic 223, but lots of other calibers available. 22lr all the way up to 50 Beowulff. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2015, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639/55 "2015-03-13T01:17:48Z")
Some countries banned “military calibers.” That means that the ballistically similar .222 became popular all of a sudden and it just makes things more expensive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-ban-on-armor-piercing-assault-rifle-ammo/714639.md?page=2)