Sounds like that says the opposite of your point. For the purposes of this thread, only one of those calibers matters. And with ball ammo, it moved 4.5 inches in 10 yards and hit sideways. That difference is not trivial, and if you were hunting*, or using it in combat that could greatly effect the accuracy and damage of the round (for better or for worse I cannot say).
*Generally not legal with ball/FMJ, so I doubt M855 is unless for lack of a law. Hunt with HP/SP/etc.
If there’s brush that close to the shooter, he has no business shooting. If it’s that close to the animal, a few inches won’t matter that much if the hunter is actually capable.
At any rate, the bullets are not hitting a branch and flying of at extreme/unpredictable angles.
True, but I miss the part where it is mentioned that the brush is close by. You would be firing at a distance (50 yards on tBoT), whereupon it hits branches and travels 10 yards more. But the 50 could easily be 100 or 300, no?
Level III body armour is bulky as hell, though. And the ceramic plate that makes it work costs ~300 bucks a pop, and naturally once it has stopped one (1) bullet it’s no longer really dependable - whether it was rifle bullet or not.
You might say it’s not that expensive for a saved life, but the truth is few PDs can include that kind of expense in their overhead.
I suspect this is a solution in search of a problem. have any cops actually been killed by a criminal using this type of ammunition?
I don’t know, but I feel pretty comfortable saying AR-15 “handguns” probably aren’t the subject of most cops’ nightmares.
I recommend everyone who’s interested in this read the ATF’s notice on on this action. It covers a lot of the background and details their reasoning for moving forward with the ban.
In a nutshell (I may get some of this wrong and nobody nerds out over details like gun nuts and Star Trek fans):
Congress banned armor piercing handgun ammo back in the '80s at the request of law enforcement groups. Ammunition designed to be fired from a long gun can be exempted. Ammunition that may be fired from a handgun and has a soft core is exempted. Steel-core M855 was initially exempted as a rifle round under the “sporting purposes” clause. Surplus M855 ammo became very popular. As environmental concerns about lead-core hunting ammo mounted, additional rifle rounds were exempted for sporting purposes.
Then someone invented the AR-15 handgun, and now the ATF claims they can no longer honor the sporting purposes exemption for M855 because it may be used in a handgun.
Now, this is silly because lead core 5.56 may be used in those same handguns, and it will pierce armor all the same, but because of it’s material makeup no exemption is required. That means, in a nutshell, that this ruling is dumb. Really dumb.
However, I don’t see this as any political malarkey designed to secretly ban assault rifles by starving them of ammo, as (slight more expensive) lead core 5.56 ammo is readily available. Rather, I see where the ATF is coming from, and I think congress should move quickly to amend the LEOPA to address this issue and solve the problem with common sense legislation. I’m sure that will happen it short order </sarcasm>.
The sooner the “sporting purpose” language dies the better.
And none of this has anything to do with the exaggeration of ‘armor piercing’ ammo for ‘assault rifles’. You are talking about something totally different. I mentioned in my OP WHY people want the ammo (one of the many reasons, and one I figured the majority of non-gun folks here on the 'dope could easily grasp at an intuitive level).
I really have no idea of what your point is in all of this. Are you good with banning this ammo for the reasons it’s being demonized though your actual issue with it is that hunters might misuse it, in your opinion, when hunting in heavy brush? And that it’s all good because there are still other options out there (so far)? What IS your point in this discussion? Serious question, snark free.
First off, the round in question is a better penetrator of armor. In this test, both steel plate and aramid/glass combo.
However, I’m not aware of any actual use in the real world that would make banning this round a positive thing.
I was addressing the fact that gun owners were using a reason that encourages unsafe gun handling.
That gives the anti-gun side ammo for characterizing gun owners as unsafe and not to be trusted. (Added with their usual hysteria)
And today the ATF has officially backed down.
Nothing says they can’t do it later. Another reason gun rights advocates need to be perpetually vigilant in opposition of these tactics.
What “tactics?”
It was within their power to do a thing, and they listened to the people and chose not to do the thing, which is good because the thing was dumb. Let’s not pretend that this is anything other than an example of government generally being good.
The tactic is that of trying to find new ways to ban things. If people in congress try to ban assault weapons and retreat from that position because of various opposition, it’s still a tactic of trying to ban things. That they were unsuccessful does not make it an example of them being generally good. They still tried to ban something - and that is generally bad.
This sounds like a conspiracy theory.
It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. 
It’s not a conspiracy theory - the evidence is obvious and available to examine. ATF tried to ban a type of ammo. People complained so they backed off. You’re saying that’s an example of government being good. Right?
I’m saying, the initial action of trying to ban a type of ammo is bad. It’s consistent with the administration trying to ban other firearm related things. The consistent tactic is trying to ban things. That’s bad.
Cite that this was initiated by “the administration?” Was it Obama himself? Or one of his cronies?
Cite that this was motivated by a desire to ban “firearm related things” and not simply to enforce the plain wording of the LEOPA as written in 1986?
If Obama and his cronies were so intent on banning something, why did they back down so easily?
Who backed down? This is still open for comment. No decision has been made.
You’re asking for a cite for something I did not assert. Who said the ammo ban was initiated by Obama himself or the administration? It could have been. The Obama administration certainly supported it. The Obama administration tried to push other bans. The White House Press Secretary defended the proposal saying that the president has long believed there are “common sense” steps the government can take…and that this was one of them. (youtube video)
It’s odd asking for a cite for something I did not assert. I did not speak to the motivation of the current activity - just that it is consistent with their attempts to ban things in the recent past.
I don’t know. Do you need a cite for that?
See post #30.
Note that the ammo was already bannedby 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.