wow, i never thought gun control could get this dumb

[bossy22]

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A03447&sh=t

a ban on armor piercing ammunition

Section 1. Subdivision 18 of section 265.00 of the penal law, as added
2 by chapter 646 of the laws of 1986, is amended to read as follows:
3 18. "Armor piercing ammunition" means any ammunition {capable of being
4 used in pistols or revolvers} containing a projectile or projectile
5 core{, or a projectile or projectile core for use in such ammunition,
6 that is} constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other
7 substances) from one or a combination of any of the following: tungsten
8 alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, {or} uranium,
9 CERAMICS, OR POLYMER PLASTICS AND CAPABLE OF BEING USED IN PISTOLS AND
10 REVOLVERS.
11 S 2. Section 265.00 of the penal law is amended by adding two new
12 subdivisions 24 and 25 to read as follows:
13 24. "FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION" MEANS ANY AMMUNITION WITH A PROJECTILE OR
14 PROJECTILE CORE COMPOSED OF HYBRID MATERIALS, EITHER PRESSED TOGETHER AT
15 HIGH PRESSURE OR GLUED TOGETHER WITH ADHESIVES, WHICH IS CAPABLE OF
16 BEING USED IN PISTOLS OR REVOLVERS AND IS DESIGNED TO FRACTURE OR DISIN-
17 TEGRATE UPON IMPACT.
18 25. "DEVASTATOR AMMUNITION" MEANS ANY AMMUNITION WITH A PROJECTILE OR
19 PROJECTILE CORE WHICH IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED IN PISTOLS OR REVOLVERS
20 AND DESIGNED TO EXPLODE OR DETONATE UPON IMPACT.
21 S 3. Subdivisions 7 and 8 of section 265.01 of the penal law, subdivi-
22 sion 7 as added by chapter 807 of the laws of 1981 and subdivision 8 as

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
{ } is old law to be omitted.
LBD05587-01-7

A. 3447 2

1 added by chapter 646 of the laws of 1986, are amended to read as
2 follows:
3 (7) He {knowingly} possesses {a bullet containing an explosive
4 substance designed to detonate upon impact} ANY DEVASTATOR AMMUNITION.
5 (8) He possesses any armor piercing ammunition {with intent to use the
6 same unlawfully against another} OR FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION.
7 S 4. Subdivision 8 of section 265.02 of the penal law, as amended by
8 chapter 764 of the laws of 2005, is amended and two new subdivisions 9
9 and 10 are added to read as follows:
10 (8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding
11 device{.}; OR
12 (9) SUCH PERSON KNOWINGLY POSSESSES ANY DEVASTATOR AMMUNITION WITH THE
13 INTENT TO USE THE SAME UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON OR HIS OR HER
14 PROPERTY; OR
15 (10) SUCH PERSON KNOWINGLY POSSESSES ANY ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION OR
16 FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION WITH INTENT TO USE THE SAME UNLAWFULLY AGAINST
17 ANOTHER.
18 S 5. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
19 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.


okay...i was under the impression that frangible ammunition was designed to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what armour peircing ammunition does

armor peircing ammo is designed to keep its form so that it can penetrate the target further, not disentrage on impact.

it should be noted that frangible ammunition is required by many in door ranges because of its reduced risk of damage from over-penetration- the exact thing an armor peircing round would do





see this is why many of us are against these so called "common sense" laws- because they are arent commong- they give them an emotional name that makes it sound like it is a reasonable/common sense regulation- hiding the fact that in many instances it makes no sense or contradicts itself

[apocalypsehow]

1. You tell 'em, boss. It burns me up one side and down the other, too.

[madeline_con]

2. WITH INTENT TO USE THE SAME UNLAWFULLY AGAINST

So, I can have it, I just can't use it. :shrug:

[bossy22]

4. beats me

to me it sounds though that you cant even possess it

[Callisto32]

11. Note the explanation

that languages in brackets is "...to be omitted."

So: 5 (8) He possesses any armor piercing ammunition {with intent to use the
6 same unlawfully against another} OR FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION.

Becomes:

5 (8) He possesses any armor piercing ammunition OR FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION.

I think this would mean that it is now illegal to simply possess the ammunition.
Goodbye indoor ranges and steel plates in NY...

[bossy22]

3. add on

here is an excerpt from globalsecurity.com

"Frangible bullets are not armor piercing munitions. In fact, they are the exact opposite. Frangible bullets may represent an unconventional threat to personal body armor, when contrasted with traditional lead based bullets. The true scope and relevance of this threat was not known as of November 2002. At the request of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), staff of the Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES), located at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has conducted a limited series of tests evaluating the performance of frangible ammunition against body armor. This preliminary study was designed to attempt to establish the validity of claims that these types of rounds pose a potential safety threat to personal body armor."

[Howzit]

5. The way this bill is written doesn't make it clear if "frangible" ammo is seen

as a subset of "armor piercing". If so, it is laughable, but more seriously, if both frangible and armor piecing ammo is banned under "common sense regulations", that doesn't leave much room in the middle.

If you go further and ban lead ammo because it is toxic and ban solid copper ammo because it is "armor piercing", only the crooks and cops will have any ammo. A de facto handgun ban.

Time to stock up on bismuth futures...

[krispos42]

6. So, now frangible ammunition is banned as "armor-piercing".

Ummm.


So did they outlaw "assault pillows" in the same section as switchblades?

[Tejas]

7. Glaser safety slugs are "frangible".

Wonder if there would be an exemption so that only Law Enforcement would have access to this ammo?


After all, shouldn't LEO's be the only ones with the means to kill? :sarcasm:



summary: nothing out of the ordinary, just another daily waste of taxpayer money by our elected officials (more sarcasm)

[old mark]

8. You are correct! Frangible ammo is designed to break up

on impact to prevent ricochets and overpenetration. AP ammo is only available as military surplus, and there is not much around.
FWIW, most people who use military surplus ammo do so for one of 2 reasons - it is cheaper than commercial ammo, or they have a firearm that uses some obscure ammo not commercially made or extremely costly to buy.
Most surplus ammo is used by people who collect surplus rifles and handguns and shoot them at a rifle range. Most of these are bolt action rifles,WWI and WWII era, which are almost never used in a crime.

In effect you are passing a law that penalizes hobbyists.

This is another example of cheap politics, an attempt tpo score electorial points by passing a law that sounds meaningfu, but is actually bullshit, such as the old AWB of the '50's laws against switchblades.

Politics at its worst.

mark

[slackmaster]

9. That kind of word salad is typical of unqualified people attempting to do technical writing

Fools.

[SteveM]

10. Ignorance = culture war = prohibition (nt)

[iverglas]

12. and all this time I'd assumed people here could read

okay...i was under the impression that frangible ammunition was designed to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what armour peircing ammunition does

Okay ... and what seems to be your problem here then?

Let's tidy that up and remove the pointless line numbering. (I'm always amazed at how inaccessible US legislation is on line, because of the horrific formatting that does indeed make it virtually impossible to read.) I'll also remove the stuff in {} that is being removed from the legislation, and underline the introductory material in the bill (that isn't in the newly amended legislation).

Section 1. Subdivision 18 of section 265.00 of the penal law, as added by chapter 646 of the laws of 1986, is amended to read as follows:

18. "Armor piercing ammunition" means any ammunition containing a projectile or projectile core constructed entirely from one or a combination of any of the following: tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, uranium, CERAMICS, OR POLYMER PLASTICS AND CAPABLE OF BEING USED IN PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS.

S 2. Section 265.00 of the penal law is amended by adding two new subdivisions 24 and 25 to read as follows:

24. "FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION" MEANS ANY AMMUNITION WITH A PROJECTILE OR PROJECTILE CORE COMPOSED OF HYBRID MATERIALS, EITHER PRESSED TOGETHER AT HIGH PRESSURE OR GLUED TOGETHER WITH ADHESIVES, WHICH IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED IN PISTOLS OR REVOLVERS AND IS DESIGNED TO FRACTURE OR DISINTEGRATE UPON IMPACT.

25. "DEVASTATOR AMMUNITION" MEANS ANY AMMUNITION WITH A PROJECTILE OR PROJECTILE CORE WHICH IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED IN PISTOLS OR REVOLVERS AND DESIGNED TO EXPLODE OR DETONATE UPON IMPACT.

Seeing it now at all?

You have three separate provisions -- one old one being amended, and two new ones.

One defines "armor piercing ammunition".
One defines "frangible ammunition".
One defines "devastator ammunition".

If they weren't DIFFERENT things, there would not be three DIFFERENT definitions. Would there now?

The Criminal Code of Canada contains these definitions in section 2:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec2.html

“cattle” means neat cattle or an animal of the bovine species by whatever technical or familiar name it is known, and includes any horse, mule, ass, pig, sheep or goat;

“clerk of the court” includes a person, by whatever name or title he may be designated, who from time to time performs the duties of a clerk of the court;

Do you think it's saying that the clerk of the court is a mule?



see this is why many of us are against these so called "common sense" laws- because they are arent commong- they give them an emotional name that makes it sound like it is a reasonable/common sense regulation- hiding the fact that in many instances it makes no sense or contradicts itself

Well, I surely am seeing something.

Same old thing. People -- and I include everyone joining the chorus in this thread who has adopted the same complete misreading of this legislation -- talking about things they appear to be totally unequipped to understand.

[tburnsten]

13. So outlawing polymer-inclusive bullets is sensible?

And bullets that are designed to break up when they hit anything hard, to prevent injury from ricochets?

[iverglas]

15. take your nasty demagoguery somewhere else

I'm sick to the fucking eyes with it.

So outlawing polymer-inclusive bullets is sensible?

The person who started this thread wrote a gross misrepresentation of what the legislation in question said.

I corrected him. The legislation does not say what he said it says. He said that it defines "armour piercing ammunition" and "frangible ammunition" as being the same thing. It does not do that.

I said nothing about the merits of the legislation.

So your disgusting little bit of vilely deceitful rhetoric --

So outlawing polymer-inclusive bullets is sensible?

Is just ... well, a disgusting little bit of vilely deceitful rhetoric. Of the sort perfected by the right wing of your political spectrum in the last few years. So ... you're saying something you never said and I have no reasonable basis for believing you said or think, but I'm going to ask you whether that's what you think anyhow because if I do, somebody might believe that's what you said ...

Ask me whether I'm surprised.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. Flat out wrong.

[iverglas]

50. Lugubrious within tubercular

[57_TomCat]

51. Neet new word to play with...

bit dismal and gloomy though. :)

[iverglas]

52. you can make your own!

Just pick a post and reply to it with a blank message headed:

<adjective> <adverb> <adjective>

Which leads us to the fact that I did it wrong. Mine went:

<adjective> <preposition> <adjective>

It was late ...

[slackmaster]

14. It's still gobbledy-gook even with more readable formatting

I didn't have any problem reading it, but thanks anyway.

[iverglas]

16. if you didn't have any problem reading it

then why -- when you posted in this thread previously -- didn't you correct the flat-out wrong characterization of it stated in the opening post?

[slackmaster]

20. My main issue with it is that ANY kind of ammunition could be construed as armor-piercing

The way it is written. It seemed pretty obvious to me, and those of us who know jack shit about the subject.

[iverglas]

22. and my main issue is that corporations have taken over the world

but hey, that doesn't have any more to do with the opening post in this thread than your "issue" does.

[spin]

28. Wow, we agree on something....

I also feel corporations have taken over the world. Not that it has anything to do with the opening post.

[Howzit]

35. Who would you rather took over the world? The UN?

Seriously though, if corporations run the world they can only do that if government is corrupt.

Corporations become stronger by gobbling up smaller corporations, and the ultimate corporation might own everything. If this corporation was aided and abetted by a government of equal proportions we would be truly screwed.

[iverglas]

36. ha ha, very funny

Seriously though, if corporations run the world they can only do that if government is corrupt.

Or weak. Many governments in the world are weak. For a variety of reasons. And not just the weak ones are corrupt. The present US government, at least the executive branch, for instance, is corrupt to the core; it exists for one purpose, and everything it does is to further that purpose: to enrich its cronies and backers. Obviously at the expense of everyone else.

Imagine a strong, non-corrupt US government ...


Corporations become stronger by gobbling up smaller corporations, and the ultimate corporation might own everything. If this corporation was aided and abetted by a government of equal proportions we would be truly screwed.

On the other hand, if the earlier-generation corporations had been opposed by strong, non-corrupt governments, then the problem wouldn't exist.

Weak government really isn't the answer to corporate control.


The UN, of course, is not a government. It is a collective of nations, just as nations are collectives of individuals. And it is subject to the abuses of strong, corrupt governments just as nations are subject to the abuses of strong, corrupt individuals.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Whut?

It's amending the definitions section at the end. This doesn't ban frangible ammo at all.

This was all much ado about nothing.

Edit: It does appear to increase the penalty for using frangible illegally against another human.

15 (10) SUCH PERSON KNOWINGLY POSSESSES ANY ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION OR
16 FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION WITH INTENT TO USE THE SAME UNLAWFULLY AGAINST
17 ANOTHER.

I don't know many ways they could otherwise establish intent.

[slackmaster]

19. "Possession with intent" means the law is designed for selective enforcement

For example, a middle-aged white guy who possesses that kind of ammunition intends to use it for legitimate self-defense. A young black man intends to use it in a crime.

[iverglas]

25. can you back up your allegation with something?

Something like ... oh ... law?

[slackmaster]

31. It's so fucking obvious that if you can't see it, there is nothing I can say that would teach you

:hi:

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I think you may have misread it.

The original post does not read as a contiguous piece of legislation. It is inserting definitions and new law into select areas of existing legislation.

[One_Life_To_Give]

38. Intent only required for the Felony, 3rd degree possesion

The Class A Misdemeanor is expanded by this Bill to include the mere possesion of Frangible or Armor Piercing or Devestor Ammo into the same infraction as carrying a sawed off shotgun/rifle, carrying a gun on the Campus of NYU, Sword Cane, etc.

[spin]

29. Perhaps you could get a job as a consultant...

and help us format our laws so they are more understandable.

Sometimes I wonder if the laws are poorly written as a way to create jobs for lawyers and judges. Job security might be enhanced by legal arguments and appeals over just what the a law means.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution might be an early example of this approach as we are still arguing over its meaning two hundred years later.

[iverglas]

32. I just mean the online stuff

It mostly looks like it's been scanned from something typed up in the 1960s before electric typewriters were invented. ;)

Compare this:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec2.html

to this:

http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A03447&sh=t

Okay, to be fair, compare that last one (a bill) to this:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3087556&file=4

*and* we do it in both languages.

Now on the other side, the NYS style does identify what is being removed and what is being added, whereas the Cdn fed style means you have to consult the existing Act. But the NYS style seems to confuse enough people that it balances out. ;)

The NYS bill doesn't seem to be poorly written, just mangled in the formatting in the form in which it's made available on line.

Courier font. Ew.

[spin]

33. Like I said , maybe you could offer to help them out...

it doesn't look like they're computer literate.

You on the other hand have a flair for parsing words and meanings.

[Howzit]

34. I think everyone is on board that there were 3 separate definitions. The question is

why are they mentioned together and what is the intended legislation. It is like saying "we caught ourselves a suspect". The question is, suspected of doing what?

I am guilty of not researching this bill to find the original text, but since US lawmakers don't have time to list all behaviors that are allowed, they tend to list those behavior that are not allowed. The fact that armor piercing, frangible and devastator ammo is being addressed together means its possession and use by non military and police persons is being regulated. In this case the regulation is binary; govt and police, yes, law abiding public, no.

You may disagree, but disallowing the possession of a particular item is the same as banning that item.

If you ban ammo because the bullet material holds its shape when "armor" is struck, and also ban bullet material because the bullet flattens out and falls apart when "armor" is struck, you have just covered the range of possible bullet behavior. The concern is that this blanket ban makes any bullet material illegal for non military and police use. That means we can have guns, but not any ammunition.

Fat lot of good this law will do, other than effectively disarm law abiding citizens.

[jeepnstein]

18. In other words...

They just banned hunting in New York with that law. Oh well, it's not like we have too many deer these days anyway.

It's a ban. I don't see it passing a Heller test.

[One_Life_To_Give]

21. Does this Ban "Green" Ammo?

Would this effectively Ban all of the Lead replacement ammunition?

[tburnsten]

23. I think most of the green ammo is frangible

So yes, I think it does ban green ammo. Except maybe bismuth shot, which is incredibly expensive.

[iverglas]

24. read post 17

jeezushchristontheproverbialpogostick.

The Criminal Code of Canada defines "court clerk". It doesn't ban court clerks.

The fact that legislation defines something does not mean that it bans it.

It bans possession of it WITH INTENT TO USE THE SAME UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER. (Post 17 did get that slightly wrong.)

Just as typical criminal laws ban the possession of narcotics WITH INTENT TO SELL.

The INTENT in question is an essential element of the offence, and has to be PROVED.

I can't speak for New York State, but Canadian criminal law once provided that when the prosecution had proved possession of a certain amount of a narcotic, the onus shifted to the accused, who had to prove that s/he was NOT in possession with intent to sell. That provision was struck down by our Supreme Court long ago, as contrary to the presumption of innocence.

Would it be safe to assume that the same principles would apply in New York State?

[One_Life_To_Give]

26. Bill Summary states Possession is a Crime

Includes possession of armor piercing, frangible or devastator ammunition as
criminal possession of a weapon in the 4th degree and where possession is
knowingly with intent to use against another, it shall constitute criminal
possession of a weapon in the 3rd degree.

It would appear that possesiopn of a Green Round or some of the Russian ordinary Steel rounds would consitute 4th degree criminal possession.

Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is a class A
misdemeanor.

While 3rd degree is a class D Felony.
the D felony by a maximum of 7 years in prison, and the A misdemeanor by a maximum of 1 year in jail. Also, there is a theoretical 1 year mandatory jail sentence on any felony gun conviction.

[tburnsten]

37. I thought the words that were bracketed

were listed in the explanation as not having any meaning anymore? If that was the case, then the intent bit, which was in brackets, is irrelevant and it does ban all frangible ammo.

[iverglas]

39. aargh

What we need is a consolidation of this statute, incorporating the deletions/additions, but I couldn't seem to find one.

On close examination, it seems that what has happened is that the words in brackets have been moved to a later position, so that they refer to / encompass several definitions and not just the one they appeared in initially.

So they were deleted from that place, and added in another place. I think.

I think what's been pointed out in another post is correct: two kinds of offences, one a more serious felong requiring intent and one a less serious felony and one not.

I'm fairly adept at statutory construction (the interpretation of laws), but often find I need an actual statute to construe!

[tburnsten]

40. Good take on it

It looks like the statute now makes it a class A misdemeanor to possess those types of ammunition at all, where it was previously only a crime to possess them with intent to cause harm, and now possessing them with intent to cause harm is a felony. Is that a fairly accurate reading of it?

[jeepnstein]

27. Probably.

I'd venture to say you could put plain old hardball ammo out in front of a jury and make a case that it was intended to pierce "armor". Ball ammo is designed to penetrate and not expand.

Owning a single round of .22 hollow point could get you a ride up the river.

[spin]

30. Some pro gun organizations agree with you...

The NRA appears to agree with you:

Assembly Bill 3447, backed by Assemblyman David Koon (D-135), would outlaw many types of ammunition commonly used on shooting ranges and for safety and training purposes.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2964

As does SAFE (Sportsmen's Association for Firearms Education Inc.)

Assembly Bill A-3447, introduced by State Assemblyman David Koon (D-135), would ban the sale or possession of frangible ammunition. A-3447 passed by a vote of 85 to 40. OPPOSED! It is my limited understanding that this particular type of ammunition was created for the purpose of making sure that a bullet fired at someone would not pass through that person and continue on to an innocent third party. That using this type of ammo would break apart after hitting (in our case) any criminal aggressor or if missing the aggressor a wall so that no one would needlessly be injured. Once again there is no connection to a crime or this type of ammo being used in a criminal act. This bill creates an entirely new crime of simple possession even when owned and possibly used by a lawful person doing nothing more than defending themselves or their families or their business.

http://www.nysafe.org/LegisAl1.htm

[57_TomCat]

41. While I dislike the entire concept of banning ammunition...

I do know from personal experience in a LE training environment that several brands of commonly used frangible ammunition will penetrate some versions of soft body armor. We shot the vests issued by the agency with frangible training ammo also issued by the agency. The tests results indicated that the soft armor would be penetrated about 40% of the time. The metal trauma plate however never failed when hit by the frangibles.

The frangible ammo was used during training on the steel reaction targets as well as the shoot house. Officers were required to wear vests during this training. As a result of this in house testing all frangible ammo was proscribed from the training program and ball ammo substituted.

The consensus of the training staff and ballistic experts involved indicated that the light weight of the projectiles allowed then to be propelled at sufficiently fast enough speeds to defeat the soft armor. Heavier frangible rounds did not reach that speed threshold and are being evaluated as to their suitability for purchase and issue for training.

The GLASER Safety Slug had a bad habit of defeating armor early in its introduction many years ago. It was modified to change its performance envelope and the brouhaha went away. The newly offered sintered metal designs have some similar issues and will in time be corrected. Unfortunately this legislation bans the ammo as a class and not only that ammo with the armor defeating qualities.

[bossy22]

42. thanks for the info

my question is though- how does a standard ball round compare penetration wise?

[tburnsten]

44. I think

you should head on over to the Box O'Truth! they do lots of penetration testing, sort of unconventional and not particularly scientific but they are good about consistency within the individual test they are doing. ONe of them involves shooting the codpiece of a retired flak vest of some sort. Pistol rounds did very poorly against it, though the clay backing showed that you don't want to have to test the equipment the hard way!

I think a ball pistol round would penetrate far more in living tissue, the service calibers pretty much all get well into the mid twenty inches into gelatin blocks, while a frangible might have the speed to pierce a barrier like a low level soft vest but would not penetrate very far at all into tissue. At least the Glasers and similiar rounds only usually penetrate about six inches into gel. Not nearly enough to guarantee incapacitation, but very ugly shallow wounds.

[57_TomCat]

45. Standard handgun ball ammo...

is overly penetrative in routine use compared to jacketed hollow point ammo in most target mediums. The weight of the projectiles keep the velocity down to a level that a kevlar vest can contain. The ball rounds mass, when it strikes the vest, allows for a serious dent into the backing but the aramid fibers will cause it to expand and stop after penetrating only five to ten layers of the vest. The high energy and heat of the faster round tend to defeat more layers or in some cases the vest is compromised.

Using 9mm as an example the average ball or hollow point round will weigh 115 to 147 grains. The sintered metal frangible bullets will be in the 70 to 105 grain weight range. In order to provide sufficient power to function most semi-automatic handguns, the light bullet needs a more powerful kick out the barrel to provide sufficient mass to operate the action. This speed is where the ballistic penetration capabilities comes from. The energy levels and heat of light weight projectiles at high speed exceeds the same caliber's power using a lower speed, heavier bullet.

Ball rounds, when used on properly placed steel at a distance of about eleven yards will spall and fall while allowing some high speed lead and copper to be released and safely directed away from the shooter. The frangibles will simply explode into a dust cloud. That is why they are preferred for steel. The ability to occasionally pierce kevlar vests is something to consider but a law banning them outright is just wrong in my opinion.

[tburnsten]

46. Excellent description, thank you! N/T

[tburnsten]

43. I should hope the trauma plate stood up to it!

Wussy frangible pistol rounds? A steel or ceramic trauma plate (are yours as good as the SAPI plates we use? they are rated for at least two or three hits from an unspecified 7.62mm caliber before failing) had better not fail to a bullet made of powdered metal, designed specifically to disintegrate when it hits a solid object.

Strange that the frangible was deemed more hazardous than the ball, which could potentially bounce off a target and result in an injury for an officer, unlike the frangibles which would only be a threat if one officer shot another or him/herself. That wasn't the concern was it?

[57_TomCat]

47. The thought process was...

that a ball round would not penetrate a vest in any way if one unfortunately hit a vest but the frangible might. Since the shoot house had several officers and instructors solving a tactical problem with live ammo then the potential of a accidental shooting was there. Good safety protocols would eliminate most risk but the liability issue of using a round that would potentially defeat a safety vest was too much. Hopefully they will settle on a viable alternative for enhanced safety.

[tburnsten]

48. Makes sense to me now, I think

I was thinking about it a little too straighforwards, not envisioning something like the shoot houses (we never use live ammo in them, just blanks and paintballs) we have.