Joined
·
12,336 Posts
From www.atf.gov site:
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CARTRIDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION:
5.56MM (.223) SS109 and M855 Ammunition, Identified by a green coating on the projectile tip. 8)
See here for others:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/legal/armor.htm
Does this mean that we can have frank discussions about the SS109 now? :grin:
OK due to all the "We need to be careful, and I don't know, and it is ect ect..." I decided to go directly to the horse and get it from them.
This afternoon, I called the ATF Firearms Technology Branch in Virginia and spoke with Special Agent (duty agent - I have a name but will not release it for her/his safety, so I'll call the Special Agent BOO) Boo specifically about the SS109 bullet and its use in both the PS90 and the Five-seveN handgun. I re-itterated to SA Boo the news on the ATF website that the SS109 (M855) is no longer on the armor piercing list.
I informed SA Boo that I had both the PS90 and Five-seveN handgun and that I reloaded my own ammunition. My question to SA Boo was "If I reload a 5.7X22mm cartridge with a SS109 bullet, is it considered armor piercing if it is in either my PS90 or my Five-seveN handgun?"
Special Agent Boo's response was "armor piercing rounds are designated by the characteristics of the BULLET and not the CARTRIDGE therefore it is NOT an armor piercing round in either case."
As the bullet (SS109 M885) was designated by the ATF as NO LONGER ARMOR PIERCING, it can be loaded into any firearm (rifle or pistol) and not violate Title 18, UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 44 as amended by Public Law 103-322
The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (enacted September 13, 1994) 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 44 § 921(a)(17)(B)
I will be sending the ATF a request that this be put in writing and placed on their website as well as a written response to me so that I have an official copy of this on file.
I hope that this finally puts this debate of whether the SS109 is AP or not because according to the ATF, IT IS NOT.
WARNING: YOUR STATE LAW MY STILL CONSIDER THE SS109 AS AP!
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CARTRIDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION:
5.56MM (.223) SS109 and M855 Ammunition, Identified by a green coating on the projectile tip. 8)
See here for others:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/legal/armor.htm
Does this mean that we can have frank discussions about the SS109 now? :grin:
OK due to all the "We need to be careful, and I don't know, and it is ect ect..." I decided to go directly to the horse and get it from them.
This afternoon, I called the ATF Firearms Technology Branch in Virginia and spoke with Special Agent (duty agent - I have a name but will not release it for her/his safety, so I'll call the Special Agent BOO) Boo specifically about the SS109 bullet and its use in both the PS90 and the Five-seveN handgun. I re-itterated to SA Boo the news on the ATF website that the SS109 (M855) is no longer on the armor piercing list.
I informed SA Boo that I had both the PS90 and Five-seveN handgun and that I reloaded my own ammunition. My question to SA Boo was "If I reload a 5.7X22mm cartridge with a SS109 bullet, is it considered armor piercing if it is in either my PS90 or my Five-seveN handgun?"
Special Agent Boo's response was "armor piercing rounds are designated by the characteristics of the BULLET and not the CARTRIDGE therefore it is NOT an armor piercing round in either case."
As the bullet (SS109 M885) was designated by the ATF as NO LONGER ARMOR PIERCING, it can be loaded into any firearm (rifle or pistol) and not violate Title 18, UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 44 as amended by Public Law 103-322
The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (enacted September 13, 1994) 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 44 § 921(a)(17)(B)
I will be sending the ATF a request that this be put in writing and placed on their website as well as a written response to me so that I have an official copy of this on file.
I hope that this finally puts this debate of whether the SS109 is AP or not because according to the ATF, IT IS NOT.
WARNING: YOUR STATE LAW MY STILL CONSIDER THE SS109 AS AP!