Originally Posted By akaf47:
Can we please just let this thread die already? I wish the moderators would ban the "5.45 pistol" discussions like on some of the other forums.
I'm sorry Surly, but you really have no idea what your talking about.....you keep ranting on and on about how the fact that the bullet is under .22 in caliber makes it somehow exempt, have you really read the statute?
I can't believe that you can't grasp it's meaning? It simply states that any bullet larger than .22 caliber DOES NOT EVEN NEED A STEEL CORE, it just needs to have a jacket weighing more than 25% of the bullets total weight. ANY peojectile with a steel core can and probably will be considered AP by the ATF, irregaurdless of caliber. Even a .17 Hornet could be considered AP if it had a steel core. NO WHERE in the statute does it state that a bullet needs to be larger than .22 to be considered AP.
Please people, let this go away!
I used to be one of the guys who thought like this, but Surly actually is correct if you read the statute carefully and you understand what the ammo in question is made out of.
The law contains two sections that can be used to determine if ammo is armor piercing.
If the ammo meets the requirements in either one of those sections alone it is considered armor piercing.
If the ammo does not meet the requirements of either section then it is not armor piercing.
Lets break it down by sections. We'll start with section (ii) of the law since that's what seems to have everyone all worked up.
- If the ammo is smaller than .22 caliber than section (ii) does not apply. (This is the point Surly keeps making and other people seem to be mis-interpreting)
- There is no other reasonable way to interpret the wording of this section.
- 5.45 ammo is smaller than .22 caliber and therefore section (ii) does not apply to any 5.45x39 ammo regardless of it's construction.
That only leaves section (i).
- Section (i) says the ammo has to have a core made entirely out of one or a combination of specifically listed metals (excluding traces of other metals). I think everyone can agree on the definition of the word "entirely".
- Lead is not one of the metals listed in section (i)
- All of the 5.45 ammo that people are worried about (7n6 for example) has at least some lead in the core. The lead is an intended part of the core construction and not just simple "trace" contamination.
- This means that the core contains more than trace amounts of a metal that is not listed in section (i).
- Therefore section (i) does not apply because the core is not made entirely of one or more of the listed metals.
If neither section (i) or (ii) apply to the ammo in question then it is not armor piercing ammo by the definition set out in the law.
The commonly imported 5.45x39 military surplus ammo that everyone is worried about losing access to is therefore not armor piercing, according to US law.
This is the only logical conclusion I could come to after examining all of the relevant information.
however, I have not been able to find sufficient evidence to believe that the career politicians and bureaucrats who will be interpreting and applying this law are capable of coming to logical conclusions.
From the applicable law on the subject.... 18 USC section 921: Definitions
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(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.
(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.