Wednesday, February 25, 2015

M855 "Green Tip Ammo" Ban Blog Post

Recently the ATF has decided that with the influx of AR pistol variants out there, they now need to ban M855 “green tip ammo.” This is based solely on the idea that it is an armor piercing ammunition and that constitutes a higher threat to law enforcement officers.  At best, this is flawed logic and at worst, outright stupidity. While we have an excellent relationship with the ATF agents we work with, it would appear that the higher up you go in the organization, the more it is run by individuals with no practical experience in the fields they are supposed to legislate.  With the exception of alcohol, because the only way someone could make a decision like this is if they were blindingly hammered on 90 proof moonshine, confiscated from the backwoods of Appalachia by some poor field agent who put their life on the line to obtain it.

First off, all rifle ammunition (or any necked cartridge for that matter) is inherently “armor piercing” against all modern soft armor. On even the highest soft armor rating, IIIA, the manufacturer clearly states it is only rated for .44 Magnum ammunition.  The production, use, or implementation of a pistol capable of firing rifle ammo does not magically make it armor piercing. The CZ 52 fires 7.62x25mm Soviet ammunition and has been defeating soft body armor for years before anyone even considered making an AR pistol or since the Five Seven came to the market. Even some high velocity .22 ammunition has been known to slip through vests. My point: armor piercing is a very subjective term.

Secondly, the M855 is not the superior defensive round for 5.56. When the US Military switched over to M855 from M193, they did so because it performed better against barricades and windshield glass. This took place at the cost of terminal performance. This was brought about by the Hague Convention which addressed the issue of weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering or indiscriminate effects. Basically, at a velocity of over 2500 feet per second, the M193 will tumble, yaw and fragment. This was a distress for someone in Washington and it was decided that we needed to adopt a more “humane” round. On a side note, I will go on to point out how unbelievably ridiculous this is, considering we never signed the accord from that particular convention.

Third, the worry that the higher incident of AR pistol builds and purchase is somehow a greater threat to law enforcement is outright laughable. It typically seems that criminals who intend on committing violent crime with a firearm do so by procuring the least expensive one they can find, as they most likely will not be holding onto it after said crime is committed. While AR pistols are not all that expensive in the grand scheme of things, they are not exactly the cheapest pistol out there. They are also not nearly as concealable as the ATF would like to make them appear either. Now while the ownership and staff of A3 do not advocate this, should you try to conceal an AR pistol and walk into your local public establishment, I don’t think it will go over very well for you.  At best you get a few questions.  At worst you get shot.

In conclusion I will say this: this is just one more instance of a branch of the government justifying its existence and trying to impose rules on us in the name of public safety. It is our responsibility to reach out to our legislators, who are OUR voices in Washington and have them oppose such attacks on our freedoms. If they fail in this, it is our duty to find someone who will listen to their constituents. Reach out to yours here:


Thursday, February 5, 2015

Thorsden® Tube Cover: Product Review

Thorsden® Tube Cover: Product Review

If you have been paying close attention to the firearms world in the past 10 months or so, you will have noticed the introduction of the Sig SB15 Stabilizing Brace to the market…and the roller coaster that has followed.  During its brief time in the limelight it has generally confused the ever-loving hell out of nearly everyone in the market. Is it legal? Is it not legal? Well, in short: yes.

Basically, the ATF has issued an opinion letter stating that if you build an AR pistol with the SB15 on it with the intent of firing it from the shoulder, you have created an SBR.  It remains, however, completely legal for purchase, ownership, and use on a firearm as the manufacturer intended.  Now, the key word to look at in all this is: intend.  Intent is a very hard thing to prove and an even harder thing to enforce.  Given that, I built my AR pistol as an augment to my daily carry configuration.  I intended it to be used in accordance with all state and federal laws. That being said, sometimes things may need to be employed in ways they were not necessarily designed to be used. I believe as a responsible gun owner, you should practice for those eventualities.

All of these things aside, I have decided to step away from the Sig Brace. This decision is more personal than anything else and has to do with Sig’s decision as I see it, not to support shooters rights, but that is neither here nor there.  At this time, I have fallen completely in love with the Thorsden® Tube Cover. There is little to no confusion on its design and as of yet and Thorsden® hasn’t played the “what about now game” that has gone on with Sig.  For example, no one has mounted a Thorsden® on a grenade launcher and asked if it was still appropriate legally. Like Sig, Thorsden® explicitly states that it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder.  It does however provide a design which one can use as a cheek reference point, and with the addition of the CAA® Side Saddle Kit (see picture below), a storage options for batteries.

Another nifty feature is the fact that the Thorsden® Tube Cover can be mounted on a standard carbine buffer tube.  No need to buy a second tube if you are planning on making an SBR down the line, just throw a tube cover on it until your Form 1 or Form 4 comes back.