People are seeing the domino effect starting to roll. 7n6 is gone for some nonsense about a mild steel core. Surprise, m885 (with a mild steel core) became the next target. Ideally, the fight should move to get 7n6 back on the shelves.
I believe the issue is specifically about metals used in the composition of the round. That's all. As I see it, this is a round that should have been banned in the 80s. An exception was written, and now the validity of that exemption is being called into question. We had an extra 3 decades of access to the round. Yay! Then they tried to make it go away. If we want to have access to the round, we should look into rewording the ban from the 80s rather than freaking out about just the specific exception, right? I mean, if you defeat the original ban you may get access to even more types of "armor piercing" rounds.
Again with the fundamental disagreement on the definition of armor piercing. You're not going to get me or anyone else to change their idea of what constitutes as armor piercing no more than we are going to get you to change your mind. If this is the root of your argument (and I believe it is) we'll have to agree to disagree.
The rest has been snipped due to the circular argument involving such definitions.
The far broader point is: the gun owning community is fighting back. This momentum needs to continue
I just wanted to point out the following:
A) It isn't my argument. I don't personally care about this ban one way or the other. I don't use the ammo. I have purchased some in the past. It was due to pricing rather than it M8555 being a thing I was looking for.
B) These aren't my definitions. I'm trying to use as official a definition as possible, so I'm using what the government uses. On more than one occasion a person has referred to it as "my definition of armor piercing." It isn't my definition, it is literally the definition of the US Government. I'm not making anything up as I go.
C) I want to understand the reasoning behind people who are against the ban. And most of the information I've gotten outside of this website has been asinine. I respect the opinions of many of the posters here, so I thought this would be a good place to talk about it.
I imagine all of this has been covered earlier in the thread (it's been a while since I've read the previous 8 pages), but I'll throw out the info.
https://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2014 ... ition.html
"The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, defines the term “armor piercing ammunition” as:
“(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.”
You mention the 7N6 ban, so here are the details:
https://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2014 ... ition.html
"When ATF tested the 7N6 samples provided by CBP, they were found to contain a steel core. ATF’s analysis also concluded that the ammunition could be used in a commercially available handgun, the Fabryka Bronie Radom, Model Onyks 89S, 5.45x39 caliber semi-automatic pistol, which was approved for importation into the United States in November 2011. Accordingly, the ammunition is “armor piercing” under the section 921(a)(17)(B)(i) and is therefore not importable. ATF’s determination applies only to the Russian-made 7N6 ammunition analyzed, not to all 5.45x39 ammunition. Ammunition of that caliber using projectiles without a steel core would have to be independently examined to determine their importability.
In 1968 there was a ban against projectiles or projectile cores that can be used in a handgun
constructed entirely from one or a combination of: tungsten alloys, steel, iron, bronze, beryllium coper, or depleted uranium. The ban included any full jacketed projectiles larger than .22 and made for handguns and with a jacket with a weight of more than 25% of the total projectile weight.
There were many types of 5.45x39 ammo. The Russian ammo had a steel core. That by itself isn't the end of the world according to the 1968 law. In 2011 a 5.45x39 pistol was improved for importation in the US. The import of these pistols made the Russian 5.45x39 steel core ammo illegal.
Here is a lot more info than you likely care to read:
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files ... rposes.pdf
I did some more digging and found the following about the M8555 construction:
The core doesn't ban the round outright because it doesn't use any of the materials on the ban list. The jacket, while steel, isn't full and doesn't constitute more than 25% of the bullet's weight. While the round was specifically created for improved penetration, and there are effectively imported pistols that can fire the M8555 round, the M8555 round does not meet the government's standards for the ban due to the construction of the round.
That's the information I needed. Being told "yeah but we want it" and "but we don't agree on what 'armor piercing' is" wasn't explicit enough for me.
I understand the argument now. I still think it's disgraceful that the head of the ATF is stepping down over the issue. While I don't agree that the round should be banned, opening the idea up for conversation is the only way we can really learn if older definitions are becoming outdated.