Has anyone heard, has there been any movement from the ATF yet? Sure would like to see Barnes producing solids again.

I was glad to see the flat nose solids back. I haven't heard of the ATF issue.

You can buy 50 BMG APIT (Armor Piercing, Incendiary, Tracer) online and pull the bullets ...

The ATF concern is specifically related to AR15 pistols and the calibers they are chambered in.

quote:

Originally posted by viperidae:
The ATF concern is specifically related to AR15 pistols and the calibers they are chambered in.

If that is the case, why has the ATF banned Barnes from making the Banded Solid in 375 (H&H and others) as well as the .410 (450/400NE)?

They probably just stopped all production of the bullets in question to be safe until the issue was resolved.

Just another reason to hunt with a 505 Gibbs.
Sincerely,

quote:

Originally posted by viperidae:
The ATF concern is specifically related to AR15 pistols and the calibers they are chambered in.

458 SOCOM?

quote:

Originally posted by viperidae:
They probably just stopped all production of the bullets in question to be safe until the issue was resolved.

Who stopped "all production"? "To be safe"? Barnes? No sir. The ATF very specifically shut Barnes DOWN on production of certain monometal solid bullets in specific calibers deemed capable of being loaded in a pistol! Barnes did not stop making anything "to be safe" from the ATF. The ATF allowed, for the time being, production of some calibers to continue such as the .416, .474., and .510. But rest assured, this was an ATF action that may very well spread to other bullet manufacturers if not resolved quickly. Personally, I don't have much faith in the current administration's ability or desire to provide reasonable direction to the ATF in getting this settled in our favor.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by viperidae:
They probably just stopped all production of the bullets in question to be safe until the issue was resolved.

Who stopped "all production"? "To be safe"? Barnes? No sir. The ATF very specifically shut Barnes DOWN on production of certain monometal solid bullets in specific calibers deemed capable of being loaded in a pistol! Barnes did not stop making anything "to be safe" from the ATF. The ATF allowed, for the time being, production of some calibers to continue such as the .416, .474., and .510. But rest assured, this was an ATF action that may very well spread to other bullet manufacturers if not resolved quickly. Personally, I don't have much faith in the current administration's ability or desire to provide reasonable direction to the ATF in getting this settled in our favor.

Todd,

100% Correct on Every Count!!!

This is exactly why when someone like Gerard says "Not copper bullets."

I always respond

"Not YET"

How have these bans gone ...

Ban lead ... already happened/happening

Ban brass ... already happened/happening

Ban copper ...

and there you have it ...

I've written my congressmen and senators.

The powerful gun/sportsman/hunting lobbies to which we belong should be stepping up to the plate on this and swinging for the stars ...

The title of this thread is misleading...

Barnes never produced APB...

Their flat nose solids are sporting bullets for use on thick skin dangerous game animals...

Someone has done something to cause the whole "use in a pistol" shit storm...

So...someone uses or could potentially use a product not as intended and the manufacturer gets shut down...

I'm not an alarmist but this is foreboding...

quote:

Originally posted by trophyhunter5000:
The title of this thread is misleading...

Barnes never produced APB...

Their flat nose solids are sporting bullets for use on thick skin dangerous game animals...

Someone has done something to cause the whole "use in a pistol" shit storm...

So...someone uses or could potentially use a product not as intended and the manufacturer gets shut down...

I'm not an alarmist but this is foreboding...

Exactly my point - but the people behind these decisions never seem to need a valid argument to push these decisions through.

It all started with one brand of loaded ammo that had a particluar brass bullet that "looked like" and was similar to one of the Barnes bullets (not the BBS either FN or RN) ...

And the rest is now history ...

Look at this thread for more info:

Click here: BATFE vs. Barnes

And here:
Click here for more

quote:

This is exactly why when someone like Gerard says "Not copper bullets."

I always respond

"Not YET"

The definition of 'armor piercing' has been in existence in law for a long time. This definition is not ambiguous or difficult to understand and it is written in plain English:

17(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.
(18) The term "Attorney General" means the Attorney General of
the United States

There is no way that copper, that contains no other alloying metals, can be included in that definition.

The ban on lead took 15 years, from talking about it, to reality in one state in the US. Lead is poisonous in some forms, so there was a foot in the door. If there is a move to ban copper as a bullet material, there will be other issues. It will not be a ban on copper but a ban on the object itself.

The point is: There are no legal issues around copper bullets. That is reality. The armor piercing brass issue is a political one and it is being exploited by a political group. Whether that group is supported or laughed out of the house(s) is not for me to do, only Americans can do that.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
The armor piercing brass issue is a political one and it is being exploited by a political group.

This is the only legitmate and applicable point in your post.

And all anyone needs is a "foot in the door".

So, what is the foot in the copper door?

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
So, what is the foot in the copper door?

You're right, Gerard, I am wrong, my sincere apologies.

The media, anti-gun crowd and the liberal leftists will never stoop so low as to argue to the Attorney General (an appointee of the President and therefore likely to have the same political agenda) something to the effect of:

1) "Well, beryllium copper can have as little as 0.5% beryllium in it and that is armor piercing so any solid copper projectile can be armor piercing"

nor would the argument be made that "if 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, wouldn't a projectile made entirely of jacket material make it even more effective?"

No, those arguments could never be effective nor actually get past the US Attorney General. I mean aside from "Fast and Furious" and a slew of other anti-sportsman/gun industry/hunting things our US Attorney General has had a hand in, why would he do such a thing?

WAKE UP! YOU and every other bullet manufacturer should be very wary as you will be next.

But again, I apologize, Gerard, you are right and I am wrong. It would never happen ...

The arguments you hold as examples are naive in the extreme. Beryllium copper is a very specific alloy that is arrived at through the use of beryllium in the treatment process of almost pure copper.

The armor piercing qualities of the alloys and metals listed in the law can be demonstrated and that is how they got there. To imply that a simplistic argument can be used to convince is an irresponsible scare tactic. Mere argument of this nature is too easily refuted by demonstration.

Example: A bullet made entirely from jacket material will not be made from copper because jacket material is not pure copper.

As I said, any attack on bullets will be political and not aimed at the material if that material is copper. It does not matter what a bullet is made from if the attack is political and I can do nothing about a political attack.

Cut the dramatics and stick to fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
So, what is the foot in the copper door?

Attorney General Holder--he has never let facts stop him yet.

SSR

So an attack on bullets will be political and not because of the construction from copper?

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
So an attack on bullets will be political and not because of the construction from copper?

That is correct Gerard, this administration is very anti-gun but they know its a political disaster for them so they are sneaking around the edges--see also any and everything on "Operation Fast and Furious" same players breaking their own laws to hurt gun-owners.

SSR

Gerard,

I try very hard to not be petty in my comments and interactions with others. But I must say your comments on this thread and a few others on threads that addressed this same issue with Barnes and the Brass solids are not leaving a favorable impression on me (a potential customer). Instead of rallying to the defense of a fellow bullet manufacturer that is being wrongfully targeted by the ATF, you immediately jumped in with the "other benefits" of Copper bullets and assurances that the ATF could never go after Copper. I would think it more beneficial to all concerned, to call out the ever more encroaching government agency that is working to take away all our rights instead of touting the virtues of the material used in your company's bullets. It smacks of taking financial advantage of the situation at Barnes's misfortune. Realize, that the guns (no pun intended) of regulatory power of this out of control administration and agency, can easily be pointed in your direction. Considering the lack of interest and knowledge of the masses concerning guns, shooting, ammo, and specifically "solid" projectiles, do you think it to be a monumental leap to amend the current law to add copper to the list of bad materials such as lead and brass. In the eyes of the general public and most non-informed legislators, as well as the very well informed legislators of the liberal persuasion, what's the difference? Not much!

I don't for one moment believe this brass bullet / pistol caliber / AP issue is what we are observing on the surface. This thing smells of a deliberate attempt to chip away at the edges of our rights. How many hunters are going to get upset over the banning of bullets most often used for Elephant hunting? This forum notwithstanding, the ratio of elephant hunters within the hunting community is pretty small. Once this is safely under the belt, they'll move to the next edge issue to chip away at.

Just look at viperidae's first comment on this thread. He is under the assumption that this only affects AR15's and pistols. When questioned about it, he thinks Barnes just stopped making the bullets so as not to offend the ATF. It's all OK to him. It doesn't affect him. Sorry Viperidae, you're getting thrown under the buss here a bit, but I'm not trying to offend, just making a point. Just because it doesn't affect you at this point, don't believe for a minute that is the end of it.

And anyone within the industry that appears to be taking advantage of the situation instead of standing up for the long term protection of the industry at large, is not a company I would want to give my business to should we loose the brass option completely. North Fork; I hear pretty good things about them!

Gerard- do you think Attn General Holder is actually intelligent enough to know the difference between a brass bullet and a copper one? I don't. Yes this is purely political and Barnes has a major govnment contract. kapishe?-Rob

I dont get involved in these discussions but Its pretty simply once one goes, its only gonna be a matter of time till the next,

Off topic but look at the nj bear hunt it was banned for how many years, till common sense came into play and how many problems with property damage and attacks.

We should be all swinging back on this one, its all bs,

I can make any bullet AP, just let me choose the steel..lol

Here is what I am saying and I am sorry if guys have read something else into what I say: The armor piercing legislation has been in place for a long time and the ATF is acting on what has been in place. Of course it is political, petty, stupid, political and fabricated from thin air, but the reality is that the mechanism for this harassment was in place. No such mechanism exists for copper as a bullet material. Any move against copper as a bullet material, will have to be fabricated. Given the time that will take, it will be easier to uncloak the political motive, stop hiding behind existing legislation and 'studies of lead bullets' and simply move forwards with a political agenda.

The bullet material motive has been political all along but the mechanism existed to act against brass. Here is what I am saying: No such reason exists for copper and the move against copper will be against bullets and not against the material.

So when it is implied that a reason will be found to ban copper bullets, that is not true. A reason will be saught to ban bullets. It has been a political thing all along, not material type.

Todd Williams,
Instead of playing the 'I am a potential customer and I am offended by you taking advantage of the situation' card, read my comments in context and then tell me I am not defending all manufacturers.

In this thread I said about the ATF/brass issue: http://forums.accuratereloadin...111073861#9111073861
We all know that the whole issue is utter nonsense and that it must be fought tooth and nail
It was said that the whole thing is BS not based in reality and I replied: Of course it is.

With the attempt to ban lead bullets I mentioned numerous times that this is a political thing and unfounded. I recommend lead core bullets in certain applications in preference to monometal bullets. Is this the action of a person wishing to take advantage of a situation?

I have said all along that the actions against brass and lead are political but the mechanism exists to make it look otherwise. The mechanism does not exist to do the same with copper and any move against copper will have to be openly political.

The ATF needs thier teeth pulled, one at a time.

Cheers, John

I don't know if you guys know this or not but the NRA had significant input into this definition of the "armor piercing bullet". Back in the day, they felt the 1st proposed definition of this type of bullet was way to inclusive. It was but this is the language they settled on with NRA input. Since then there has been a quantum leap in bullet technology. Perhaps that's the reason we haven't heard much from the NRA on this issue.

If this is successful, many of our better solids like the copper clad steel bullets from Hornady and Woodleigh as well as the bronze solids from CEB could wind up on the hit list. I don't have much need for solids and frankly, I think conventional bullets have become so good that there is not much need for solids anymore except for the guys that hunt elephants. However, I am very concerned. If they take away our solids, what's next?

Gerard,

You also posted the following among others:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There may be some misunderstanding about brass, copper alloy and copper. Note that the only bullets involved in this back and forth are brass and other copper alloy bullets. Bullets made from pure copper are not affected and manufacturing continues undisturbed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only after a few of these comments did I start to see your comments condemning the ATF. Even now, it appears you think copper is safe when most of us here believe the AG will take the next step if things do not change in November.

I may very well be taking your statement wrong as I said, I try not to be petty. But something about this statement and the other one where you stated "There are other benefits to copper" when this first hit the news, just doesn't sit well with me. But not to worry, I don't purchase enough solids to be of any consequence to your company anyway.

Maybe I am taking it wrong, but if I was in the bullet making business, I would have expected more outrage against an attack on my industry instead of "you can still get solids from my company" type of comments (quotation mine not Gerard's in this statement).

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
If they take away our solids, what's next?

Dave,
That is exactly the point and why the NRA needs to step (again) up on this and cut the legs out from under it. Like the cough ignored too long, what could have been easily addressed early on costs life instead due to amibivalence.
Thanks for some historical background.

The NRA won't touch the "armour Piercing" bullet issue with a 10ft pole. They see it as a losing position anyway you turn it around. They were not even "aware" of the Barnes situation when I brought it up to them. I've lost a great deal of faith in the NRA over this issue in fact.
Attn General Eric Holder is not a man who is concerned one whit with truth or law and he'd ban all bullets in a heartbeat if he could. We need to concentrate on getting him and Obama out of office then fix the rest of this government. If that isn't going to happen then we need to neutralize their ability to do more damage politically.

The definition of 'armor piercing' includes this:

quote:

(C) The term "armor piercing ammunition" does not include..... a projectile which the Attorney General finds is
primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,

It would be a matter of taking some money, starting the legal process and proving that 100% of brass solids, made for rifles, are used for sporting purposes. If the ATF or Holder tries to prove otherwise, how will they do it?

So, the ATF and Holder may be in the left wing pocket but, will they take on a fight they cannot win?

Todd Williams,
That quote and every quote where I essentially said that we remain unaffected, followed a discussion where the participants assumed that ALL solids were out of production.

The question we should be asking is: Why has this dragged for so long? There is a clearly defined law, written in English with no ambiguity contained in it. All that is needed is that it be acted upon, the ATF opened the door and the affected manufacturers should walk through it. There are no gray areas here, it is black and white.

As for the other advantages: If I were convinced that brass is better as a solid bullet material, I would forsake copper for brass in a heartbeat. Brass is easier on tooling than copper. Brass is easier to machine than copper. Brass is cheaper than copper. It has many manufacturing advantages over copper and the finished product even looks better. But we make our solids from copper because we have tried both extensively, over several years, on game.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
The definition of 'armor piercing' includes this:

quote:

(C) The term "armor piercing ammunition" does not include..... a projectile which the Attorney General finds is
primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,

So, the ATF and Holder may be in the left wing pocket but, will they take on a fight they cannot win?

A couple of points, Gerard. Firstly, they don't have to "win" it. All they have to do is outlast the plaintiff. Considering that they can operate on a multi-trillion dollar deficit and the plaintiff cannot, that would be a slam dunk for them. You probably haven't had to take on a government entity that can drive the financial side of litigation. It isn't pretty. Without a champion committed to a lot of pro bono hours, it won't be feasible.

Secondly, they have to realize they can't win. That is neither obvious to them nor should it be. Americans suffer many government impositions any rational reading of the law would prohibit. This is politics, not critial thinking.

The primary purpose of these exercises it to keep a segment of the voting base satisfied that the administration in power is representing their particular issue in a manner consistent with their desires. It has nothing at all to do with factual issues.

Guys, this is very distressing. The first part of the definition of armor piercing bullets includes any of the indicated bullets "which may be used in a handgun". One of the definitions of "may"is "expressing poaaibility". In other words, as I read this, if it is possible to design a handgun to shoot it in... well, you get the idea.

I think you guys have been way too tough on Gerard. He's a good guy and has a good company. We really need to stick together on this.

Can someone answer a question for me. Wouldn't a solid made from pure copper similar to the TSX be just as good or perhaps wouldn't simply adding a lead core like Belt Mountain to the Barnes solid get around the prohibition? I support Barnes in pursuing their appeal but isn't this just a question of a simple redesign. Just asking.

It's very distressing. The Obama administration has said on record that they are doing things "behind the scenes" to implement addition limits on firearms, ammunition and owners. It will be no surprise that ATF re-defines things to further reduce accessibility. Eventually they'll have a spiderweb of regulations and re-definitions that individually seem practical (to the public at large) but when combined will put a real burden on shooters and manufacturers.

What really worries me is that we have so few champions in Congress and/or government agencies that even if we succeed in sweeping this trash from the Whitehouse they will leave a legacy that will be ignored by the next administration.

quote:

Secondly, they have to realize they can't win. That is neither obvious to them nor should it be. Americans suffer many government impositions any rational reading of the law would prohibit. This is politics, not critial thinking.

The primary purpose of these exercises it to keep a segment of the voting base satisfied that the administration in power is representing their particular issue in a manner consistent with their desires. It has nothing at all to do with factual issues.

Correct. anyone who thinks one material is more protectable than another, and that there is some sort of relationship between materials and banning times needs to have their head read.

What powers bans is a hardcore of activists and they are doing a lot more than just what you see by their effects with the ATF. They move on many fronts,coercion, bribes, blackmail, even death threats to the lower level flunkies they need to bulldoze. It is a real militant operation and way beyond what the average gunowner has any idea of. He is writing nice calmly worded letters and getting caught up in fucking irrelevant semantic arguments about copper/versus lead and naturally loses the battle before it starts.

In fact its a favourite method to give gun owners a few red herrings to fight over to divide us...

Our opinion and behaviour is generally irellevant to the anti's anyway as they understand if a small group can create enough noise they don't have to actually win any rational arguments. They create an inflated view of their own numbers and scare politicians into making changes.

No different from a tiny core of rabid anti-abortionists getting the laws changed or what happened here in Australia in 96 with losing our guns to a group we essentially still don't know the size and indentity of.

This entire thread especially waffling about copper versus AP is another example of why the anti's eventually get their way.

The real winning angle should be everyone including the NRA saying we LOVE AP bullets, even the discarding sabot tungsten penetrator types and we should be allowed to own them.

Karl- Right on Brother! Instead of the NRA deciding which battles are winable, they should be fighting this tooth and nail. There are millions of gun owners in the US, however, most are apathetic hand wringers who just want to believe that the "Angle of Death" will somehow pass over them. Oh yes lets intellectualize the copper vs lead vs AP bullet issue with people who simply want to ban bullets period. Yup thats a sensible approach! NOT! What we lack is the leadership to send the message to the Whitehouse of "JUST SAY NO to any infringements on our gun owning/shooting rights! My approach is simple and I let the politicians know it repeatedly.
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!-Rob

I believe Barnes was purchased by the Freedom Group, that also owns Remington..what do you think is more important to them-the sales of Barnes solids or their military contracts???