Regarding the BATF&E banning the M855 .223 ammunition as "armor piercing"

[flamin lib]

My response to the BATF&E AP ammo comment request.



There is much discussion on whether the M855 ammunition meets the definition of "armor piercing" due to it's construction. Such discussion is beside the point, the only salient question is,"Will this ammunition pierce body armor commonly used by police today?" If that answer is yes, then it is, by performance, armor piercing regardless of arcane arguments over a definition. As a holder of a Curio and Relic FFL I see no value in having this ammunition available to the general public for either pistol or rifle use.

While on the topic of armor piercing, the Romanian Tokorov TT33 fires a 7.62x25mm round that is available as military surplus and does meet the definition of armor piercing. This round will penetrate a 5 inch oak tree at 20 meters and judging from the exit splintering it is still traveling at near 800fps. No soft body armor I know of can withstand a hit from this round. Please look into banning the import and sale of this ammunition as well.

Neither of these rounds are allowed at any of the shooting ranges that I know of. It seems that the issue of armor piercing or not armor piercing is a settled question for the owners of these shooting ranges.

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx
Arlington, TX

[Electric Monk]

1. They've cross-posted this in the gungeon, and are claiming that would ban nearly all centerfire ammo

Here's the link if anyone feels like jumping into their discussion http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172160924

[clffrdjk]

2. i would not have included that line about

M855 not meeting the legal definition of armour piercing.