As you’ve probably heard by now, the diligent public servants at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced on Friday their intent to ban some common flavors of AR-15 ball ammo, ostensibly because of its “armor piercing” capability. This may or may not be a fait accompli, but gunnies have until March 15 to register comments with the ATF on the move. Instructions for how to do that can be found here. Pro tip: for maximum effectiveness, keep it simple, clear and cogent. As an example, here’s reader John D.’s missive:
Gentlemen –
BATFE does not have any statutory authority to prohibit civilian distribution or possession of U.S. M855 specification cartridges under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B), regardless of any ‘sporting purpose’ determination. Nor does BATFE have any statutory authority to prohibit civilian distribution or possession of NATO STANAG 4172 specification cartridges under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B), again regardless of any ‘sporting purpose’ determination. The statutory language supposedly authorizing such a prohibition, cited by Denise Brown on Page 3 of the BATFE text titled “ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (C)”, reads:
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means –
- 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
- 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.
I have highlighted the words ‘constructed entirely’ for a reason which will become clear.
The projectile specified in M855 specification ammunition, U.S. Army TACOM ARDEC Drawing 9342869, has a combined steel and lead metal core. 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B) (i) applies only to projectile cores:
….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….
The core of the M855 projectile is not constructed entirely of steel, nor is the steel in the core of the M855 projectile combined with “tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium”. Rather, the steel in the projectile core of TACOM ARDEC Drawing 9342869 bullet is at the front of a lead metal component. These two components together, both within the projectile jacket, constitute the M855 projectile core. You can confirm this combination by reviewing U.S. Army TACOM ARDEC Drawing 9349656, which establishes the engineering requirements for the M855 projectile core.
Please note the English language definition of the adverb ‘entirely’, as taken from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of ENTIRELY
1 : to the full or entire extent : completely <I agree entirely> <you are entirely welcome>
2 : to the exclusion of others : solely <entirely by my own efforts>
By any correct reading of the English language, the core of the M855 projectile is not composed entirely of steel, or a combination of steel with any of the other metals specified in 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B) (i).
18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B) (ii) applies only to projectiles larger than .22 caliber, designed and intended for a handgun, so the jacket weight percentage of the .22 caliber M855 projectile is not legally relevant to a determination of the M855 cartridge’s status as ‘armor piercing ammunition’. Also MIL-C-63989C (AR), the U.S. Army specification covering M855 cartridges, does not mention handguns. Further, the gas port pressure requirements established in Section 3.10.3 of MIL-C-63989C (AR) constructively exclude the ‘AR Type handguns’ cited in Denise Brown’s text as an application for M855 cartridges.
Before an 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (C) ‘sporting purposes’ exemption can be considered, BATFE must establish that the projectiles in M855 cartridges are indeed subject to ‘armored piercing ammunition’ regulation under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (B). BATFE has not made this case, nor can BATFE make this case without abusing the clear statutory language.
Please withdraw Denise Brown’s “ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE “PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (17) (C)” and terminate any further efforts to prohibit civilian possession or distribution of M855 projectiles and/or cartridges. Please extend all of these comments to cover any and all cartridges conforming to NATO STANAG 4172, which are functionally and constructively identical to U.S. Army M855 cartridges.
John D.