Should civilians have access to M855 ammo?

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:03:23 -0500

So given owning guns and joining the military have a relatively strong correlation of populations, I imagine a good chunk of you have heard about the ATF moving to ban M855 ammo, that same lovely green tip that we're all at least annually familiar with. The ATF is arguing that what makes up a good chunk of the surplus ammo market is magically now armor piercing ammunition because of the steel penetrator (which does not qualify the M855 for armor piercing status per Federal law) and because, like all rifle ammunition including .22 Mag, it can pierce a NIJ IIA vest (Rated to defeat low speed 9x19mm ammo and 40S&W). So from a legal and physics perspective this is rather out of whack, and the law under which the ATF is claiming authority to do this specifically omits centerfire rifle rounds, specifically because every rifle round made can defeat the vest used for the standard.

If you want more information, I've done some extensive writing with my coworkers here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/ [login to see] 03343/

So it comes down to this. Should civilians be able to purchase/own the M855/SS109 ball round?

A Rebuttal To Mike Weisser's Moronic Scrawl on the M855 Ban Controversy

The sheer amount of nonsense that comes out of HuffPo's "Gun Guy" is to say the least astounding. It's incredible that one person could be that full of shit. I can't dig through and debunk ALL of his horseshit, but let's hit it any way. I know by this point most of you are familiar with what's going on with the ATF's attempts to ban the M855 green tip round but let's run the full course over shall we?

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 5 at 2015 10:04 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:04:37 -0500

Yes.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 5 at 2015 10:09 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:09:53 -0500

Yes as long as they are legally allowed to purchase guns and ammo in other words not convicted felons but that is another issue. This is another ploy by certain parties to limit law abiding citizens their inalienable rights.

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member thank you for sharing this information although not all gun owners join the military and not all service members and veterans own guns.

Response by SSG John Erny made Sep 3 at 2015 5:56 PM

SSG John Erny — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:56:23 -0400

That little tiny piece of steel means nothing, 5.56 is not used in most of the crimes in the US and most people do not wear threat level 4 body armor. The police wear threat level II and III. As stated above a 22 can go through a lot of police body armor. If some one wants to use a weapon for the specific reason of defeating body armor not being able to get M 855 will not stop them. There are a lot of high powered hunting rifles that will make any body armor fail. The .300 ultra mag, .378 mag, .338 Lapua, etc. Even if the body armor stopped a round like that the kinetic energy is going to pass through; kind of like threat level 4 armor does not protect you from a car going 55 miles an hour. Body armor also does not do a whole lot to stop a shot gun if the shooter happens to aim towards the head.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Sep 3 at 2015 6:11 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 18:11:52 -0400

Yes. I will also repeat what some others have already mentioned: most rifle ammo will penetrate most police body armor. The level IIA that they used for the test if the lowest rating available. I wore level II. Level III is to hot and heavy to be comfortable for any length of time and level IV is even worse. Most guns that you encounter on the street are either 9mm or .38 Special and a level II vest will stop those. Of course none of them do much good if the bullet misses the vest which is often the case. Years ago many quit wearing white tee shirts because the white triangle at the neck was a perfect target.