Posted on Jul 12, 2016
Plans to restrict armor-piercing 'green tip' ammo cues furor, rush to buy it up
2.06K
50
37
3
2
1
This article is from last year ((2015). Why is it a right to own armor piercing bullets? They 'are' only designed to kill people wearing armor. Opposed to 'sport' shooting. Unless of course you have a bear or moose wearing body armor.
These bullets pierced the armor of the Dallas cops.
These bullets pierced the armor of the Dallas cops.
Plans to restrict armor-piercing 'green tip' ammo cues furor, rush to buy it up
Posted from dallasnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Gun Control
Gun Control
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
6
6
0
How can people be so ignorant? First of all for the uneducated the M855 (Green Tip) IS NOT an Armor Piercing (AP) round.
First of all the Green Tip is used to be able to tell the difference between M193 ammunition and the SS109/M855 ammunition.
Secondly, the SS109/M855 was introduced as a round deemed to be more humane that the M193, and to be more effective against body armor.
Third, Anyone that believes that body armor is bullet proof, need to have their heads examined.
Fourth, Police body armor that is normally worn is NIJS Type IIIa, which is NOT rated for protection/resistance to Rifle rounds.
'Sport' rifle ammunition when used against NIJS Type IIIa will normally penetrate and incapacitate or kill the wearer.
I would suggest that anyone making the assumptions as outlined by the comment made by the individual posting this article educate themselves, and they can start by going to the NIJ site and go to the subject matter in discussion at - http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/body-armor/Pages/welcome.aspx
First of all the Green Tip is used to be able to tell the difference between M193 ammunition and the SS109/M855 ammunition.
Secondly, the SS109/M855 was introduced as a round deemed to be more humane that the M193, and to be more effective against body armor.
Third, Anyone that believes that body armor is bullet proof, need to have their heads examined.
Fourth, Police body armor that is normally worn is NIJS Type IIIa, which is NOT rated for protection/resistance to Rifle rounds.
'Sport' rifle ammunition when used against NIJS Type IIIa will normally penetrate and incapacitate or kill the wearer.
I would suggest that anyone making the assumptions as outlined by the comment made by the individual posting this article educate themselves, and they can start by going to the NIJ site and go to the subject matter in discussion at - http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/body-armor/Pages/welcome.aspx
Body Armor | National Institute of Justice
More than 3,000 police officers' lives have been saved by body armor since the mid-1970s when the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) began testing and developing body armor and performance standards for ballistic and stab resistance.
(6)
(0)
MSgt Michael Bischoff
So you are saying it is OK for anyone to own any kind of armor piercing ammo.
So why do law enforcement wear vests, because they like how heavy and hot they are!!
So why do law enforcement wear vests, because they like how heavy and hot they are!!
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
MSgt Michael Bischoff - That is not what I am saying or implying. Most body armor does not protect from regular rifle ammunition. Regular rifle ammunition is not Armor Piercing classified ammunition. Most individuals that do not understand how body armor works or know about ammunition would have most people believing that all rifle ammunition is Armor Piercing, that is a fallacy. As I suggested read up on the subject from the organization that provides the classifications on body armor.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Why do we need a car that can go 150 mph when the top speed limits are 1/2 of that? Why do we need motor cycles that can go 0 -100MPH in just a few seconds? Why do we need 110" TV's when 60" is big enough? Why do we need faster internet?
We have lots of things we don't necessarily need. One argument for armor piercing bullets is that the government will have them to use so why shouldn't the citizenry? 99.9% of us would never shoot a cop but body armor is becoming more prevalent (and inexpensive). Criminals do use it as they want protection from regular ammo. The Dallas shooter was wearing it. You will see more of it in the future.
We have lots of things we don't necessarily need. One argument for armor piercing bullets is that the government will have them to use so why shouldn't the citizenry? 99.9% of us would never shoot a cop but body armor is becoming more prevalent (and inexpensive). Criminals do use it as they want protection from regular ammo. The Dallas shooter was wearing it. You will see more of it in the future.
(5)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Agree. The fundamental difference is a belief that we are free men, citizens with EVERY freedom imaginable. Rather than having to defend every freedom by justifying it, the government must justify the REMOVAL of any freedom to its citizens.
(3)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Col Joseph Lenertz It is always amazing to me how folks feel like they need to justify to the government why they should have a freedom/right etc. You can make arguments about many things we have access to that we don't "need". Who defines the need? Who is the arbiter of what is acceptable? Does it change like the direction of the wind depending on who is in charge?
(2)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Cpl Jeff N. - Exactly. The direction of the wind is what seems to be sufficient cause for liberals to remove our in-borne freedoms. They have overcome the built-in difficulty of a constitutional amendment by simply re-defining words instead.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
The article is misleading. The "green tip" is not armor piercing anymore than any rifle bullet is. Its a heavier bullet and was designed to work better in the new versions of the M-16 (M-4) rifle barrels. In the technical sense it was not designed to pierce armor. Its armor piercing qualities are the same as any hunting rifle (30-6, .308, .243, 7mm Mag, etc). The police wear body armor rated from level II to III. They are designed to stop handgun bullets only. Only level IV plates (used by the military) are designed to stop rifle bullets. The weight of level IV plates alone make them incompatible with civilian police operations.
The problem is that someone designed a pistol that shoots a rifle bullet. If the government wants to do some proactive, they should ban pistols that shoot rifle bullets. However, that would only take them away from law abiding citizens and not crooks who, by their nature, don't follow the law anyway.
The problem is that someone designed a pistol that shoots a rifle bullet. If the government wants to do some proactive, they should ban pistols that shoot rifle bullets. However, that would only take them away from law abiding citizens and not crooks who, by their nature, don't follow the law anyway.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google