barnes bullets. anyone seen this.

[Lloyd Smale]

no sweat off my back as i dont care for them anyway but its just another shot by the antis




January 23, 2012
Dear Customer:
There has been speculation regarding certain component and ammunition products within the
shooting community. The purpose of this letter is to inform our valued customers of the status of
Barnes Banded Solids’ availability as components, and in Barnes VOR-TX Safari ammunition.
In October 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) classified
twelve individual Barnes Banded Solid projectiles as armor piercing ammunition. Following
these classifications, Barnes submitted individual “exemption request” petitions to ATF. If the
petitions are approved, the projectiles will be removed from the statutory definition of armor
piercing ammunition, and therefore Barnes will have clearance to continue manufacturing and
selling these projectiles.
As of today’s date, ATF has not ruled on any of the petitions requesting the removal of the
Banded Solid projectiles from the statutory definition of armor piercing ammunition.
Accordingly, the following eleven Banded Solid projectiles (currently listed in the 2012 Barnes
Catalog) are subject to exemption requests that are pending with ATF. Please note that Barnes is
not pursuing an exemption for the .223 caliber Banded Solid projectile at this time. The .223
caliber Banded Solids are not listed in the 2012 Barnes catalog or on the Barnes website:
25 Cal 243 Cal 264 Cal 270 Cal
284 Cal 308 Cal 338 Cal 375 Cal
410 Cal 458 Cal (45-70) 458 SOCOM
While we await determination from ATF on these calibers, and in compliance with the original
classification by ATF, the projectiles listed above will not be available for purchase from Barnes.
However, if and when the exemption requests are approved, the projectiles at issue will become
available for purchase at that time.
We are confident that most, if not all, of our removal requests with ATF will be successful, and
that we will soon be able to provide these calibers to our hunting and sport-shooting customers
around the world. In the meantime, we will be happy to answer questions regarding these
projectiles and/or the VOR-TX Safari ammunition loaded with these projectiles. Please note the
Banded Solids components and VOR-TX Safari ammunition products loaded with Banded
Solids not included in the aforementioned calibers (e.g. 416, 470 and 500) and TSX bullets are
not subject to the current armor piercing classification and continue to be available for purchase.
We at Barnes recognize the inconvenience caused by lack of access to the appropriate products
for individual sporting or hunting purposes. We will continue to aggressively seek immediate
resolution to this issue, and inform our customers as further information is provided by ATF.
Please refer to www.barnesbullets.com/products/rifle/banded-solids/ for future updates.
We look forward to your continued business and wish you the best in the New Year.

[nanuk]

that is just plain stupid...

next thing they will ban lead, cause a 22-250 will put a soft point through 1/2" hardened plate at our gun range.

[zuke]

that is just plain stupid...

next thing they will ban lead, cause a 22-250 will put a soft point through 1/2" hardened plate at our gun range.

They've banned lead for migratory bird hunting,WW and some range's.
Lead itself will become illegal sometime in our lifetime.
It's a slow steady war against us.

[Hardcast416taylor]

I`ve heard it before and I keep hearing it more often. The gov`t doesn`t need to outlaw our guns, just make the ammo for it impossible to get! Look at the price of loaded ammo, componets price, the growing difficulty of finding scrap leads. I can only accomadate just so many friends requests for ammo and componets on my meager pension seeing as how they have no jobs to be able to buy shooting ammo.Robert

[ReloaderFred]

The state south of me has already banned any bullets containing lead within the California Condor range. They've expanded the condor range to areas where they were never seen in the past, which means hunters down there have to use bullets that don't contain lead to hunt everything from ground squirrels to deer. Now the ATF has classified the bullets most used in those areas as "armor piercing", and not available in Calif., since civilians are prohibited from purchasing AP bullets there.

Talk about a catch 22.............

Hope this helps.

Fred

[Whiterabbit]

the banded solids were never allowed. They contain over 1% lead, and are as prohibited as cast lead in the condor zone.

I like Barnes bullets, but these regulations are dumb. I bought a box of banded solids when I found out about this (284, and subject to this nonsense). I hope I will be able to get more. The accuracy in my gun is awesome.


-----------

As for no sweat off your back, I think that's sad. I'm not a fan of black rifles at all, but I support them in all the **** they have to take form the antis. They are taking one for the team, so that I don't have to take pressure from those guys. I'm glad they are fighting the good fight.

[Firebricker]

This might explain why my buddy just paid $40 for a box of 50. Since its for a 30-378 Weatherby That's not a drop in the bucket to factory rounds just seemed high to me. FB

[Don Purcell]

ATF, Government and Dumb menioned in the same sentence is redundant.

[SquirrelHollow]

that is just plain stupid...

next thing they will ban lead, cause a 22-250 will put a soft point through 1/2" hardened plate at our gun range.

This isn't an issue of rules being made after the product was on the market. This was an instance of Barnes ignoring Federal regulations that deem many steel-jacketed, solid steel, steel-cored, solid brass, and solid copper designs to be armor piercing.

Barnes has had such good luck with many of their other bullets that fall into the "grey area" (they're for sporting purposes, but technically AP), that they pushed their luck when they expanded the line up.

The ATF noticed, and did their jobs.
I don't like the ATF, but they are not in the wrong. The regulations Barnes ignored have been on the books for a very long time. As a manufacturer of solid copper projectiles, they were VERY well aware of the regulations and the consequences of their actions.

This is Barnes' fault, pure and simple.
If you don't think the AP ammunition issue should even be a consideration, that should be taken up with your Congressmen, so the regulations can be changed.

[Whiterabbit]

solid copper is NOT "legally" AP. It's just the brass rounds that are under question. Presumably in combination with AR pistol type cartridges. I noticed "rifle only" projectiles (416, for example) were not subject to the exemption.

Remember, AP in a rifle is not subject to regulation, just pistol...

[Hardcast416taylor]

solid copper is NOT "legally" AP. It's just the brass rounds that are under question. Presumably in combination with AR pistol type cartridges. I noticed "rifle only" projectiles (416, for example) were not subject to the exemption.

Remember, AP in a rifle is not subject to regulation, just pistol...


Another reason I like my .416`s.Robert

[StratsMan]

solid copper is NOT "legally" AP.

With all due respect to Whiterabbit, that statement is not correct, which is why Barnes got a call from the ATF...

According to 18 USC., 921(a)(17)(B), armor piercing ammo is defined:
"A projectile or projectile core... which is constructed entirely... from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium..."

Beryllium hardens copper. While it is a common form of copper, and we may not believe it rises to the job of an armor piercing material, Congress nonetheless defined it as an armor piercing substance. So bullets made from beryllium copper are legally AP... Sort of like "Antique Firearms" are legally defined; if your 1894 Winchester was made before the cutoff date, it's an antique and exempt from modern firearms rules; the same gun made after the cutoff is a modern firearm...

[Whiterabbit]

thank you for the clarification. Now, how much beryllium is in barnes tsx bullet copper? And if that value is greater than 0, why are they still selling tsx projectiles while not seeking exemption while jumping hoops for their banded solids? Especially when sales of tsx MUST outstrip banded solids?

perhaps it would have been better to suggest that "barnes bullet solid copper" is not considered AP. That would eliminate the confusion. It would be just as important for people writing about copper AP projectiles to revise their writing to say "beryllium copper".

[Whiterabbit]

and all of this is moot, as I am pretty sure the regulation states that it is only illegal to shoot AP in a pistol. So, loading a banded solid 308 into a rem 700 is OK, but in a condtender becomes a problem. Same with 45/70 in a BFR. I think about all the calibers available in an AR pistol that the handloader could load and shoot.....

and what about steel cored surplus ammo? If atf cracks down on barnes, shouldnt they ban surplus ammo?

[Whiterabbit]

finally stratsman, with due respect, in adressing legal issuessurrounding copper and AP, I was adressing post #5 which stated california cant sell barnes AP products while forcing their use in the condor zone.

I've commited a federal offense no less than three times with the blessing of CA DFG then since this news came out. I think its just as important to distinguish the difference between the tsx and AP asit is to distinguish the banded solid and "lead-free" (they arent)

to those of us who do not live in free states, the distinction is very important!

[Storydude]

With all due respect to Whiterabbit, that statement is not correct, which is why Barnes got a call from the ATF...

According to 18 USC., 921(a)(17)(B), armor piercing ammo is defined:
"A projectile or projectile core... which is constructed entirely... from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium..."

Beryllium hardens copper. While it is a common form of copper, and we may not believe it rises to the job of an armor piercing material, Congress nonetheless defined it as an armor piercing substance. So bullets made from beryllium copper are legally AP... Sort of like "Antique Firearms" are legally defined; if your 1894 Winchester was made before the cutoff date, it's an antique and exempt from modern firearms rules; the same gun made after the cutoff is a modern firearm...

But you can buy any number of surplus ammo that fits into one or more of those classes. I know my mosin ammo is steel jacket, 5.45 is steel jacket and steel core surrounded by lead, Wolf X39 is steel jacket, Herters ammo is steel jacket...................

[stubshaft]

I have a bunch of the original solids without the bands so I am safe.

[L1A1Rocker]

First, Barns solid banded bullets are NOT solid copper. From their own web site:


Barnes’ Banded Solids™ stop dangerous game right now! In life-threatening situations, you can depend on Banded Solids to put the largest animal down. Machined from homogenous copper/zinc alloy, these indestructible bullets won’t disintegrate or deflect on heavy bone.
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/rifle/banded-solids/

For those that don't know, an alloy of copper and zinc (in any combination) is brass. Making pistol projectiles from brass has been a statutory no no for a long time.

Now I'm suspect on a lot of ATF rulings on what a "pistol" cartridge is, and some Barns bullets fall in that gray area, but there is no debate IMO that barns IS in fact making brass pistol bullets. Are they armor pearcing (as in, are they designed to, or will the perce armor)? Absolutly not, they are designed for controlled expansion using the best alloy for the job. The problem though, is that the are a blatant violation of the law and I'm suprised that they have gotten away with it as long as they have. Barns needs to face facts here, the ATF does not have any more power to grant a waiver for making pistol projectiles from brass than they do for commiting murder. What we need is a change to a very archaic law that is out of times with todays bullet technology.

[SquirrelHollow]

Now I'm suspect on a lot of ATF rulings on what a "pistol" cartridge is, and some Barns bullets fall in that gray area, but there is no debate IMO that barns IS in fact making brass pistol bullets. Are they armor pearcing (as in, are they designed to, or will the perce armor)? Absolutly not, they are designed for controlled expansion using the best alloy for the job. The problem though, is that the are a blatant violation of the law and I'm suprised that they have gotten away with it as long as they have. Barns needs to face facts here, the ATF does not have any more power to grant a waiver for making pistol projectiles from brass than they do for commiting murder. What we need is a change to a very archaic law that is out of times with todays bullet technology.

First, thank you for backing me up, in a much more concise way.

Second... the emphasis I added to your closing statement is the issue here. You summed it up well.

[nicholst55]

L1A1 Rocker wrote: What we need is a change to a very archaic law that is out of times with todays bullet technology.

Common sense? Involving gun laws, Congress, and the ATF? Never happen.

[Whiterabbit]

Now I'm suspect on a lot of ATF rulings on what a "pistol" cartridge is, and some Barns bullets fall in that gray area, but there is no debate IMO that barns IS in fact making brass pistol bullets. ....... What we need is a change to a very archaic law that is out of times with todays bullet technology.

I agree absolutely about the archaic law. Did you know last Feb CA tried to ban mail order (internet) sales of ALL pistol ammo? We got it thrown out on a technicality (now just what IS pistol ammo these days?)

But I disagree with you that there is "no debate"

My question for you is how can you say there is intent to make pistol bullets? I would 100% agree if they were available in .357 or .451. But none of the other calibers are "classic" pistol size, are they, with the exception of 410? Aren't they only pistol bullets on a technicality, based on (mostly, not all) cartridges that can now be fired from AR-15 pistol configured black rifles?

I want debate!

[L1A1Rocker]

I agree absolutely about the archaic law. Did you know last Feb CA tried to ban mail order (internet) sales of ALL pistol ammo? We got it thrown out on a technicality (now just what IS pistol ammo these days?)

But I disagree with you that there is "no debate"

My question for you is how can you say there is intent to make pistol bullets?


Because it is not a matter of intent, it is a matter or results. Barns is making brass bullets in pistol calibers. Has the lineup of pistol calibers expanded? Yes it has, and we need a change in the law to keep up with the changing times and technology. But to just say that you don't intend to get a girl pregnant does not change the results.

[Whiterabbit]

Hi Rocker,

I'm still not getting it. Can you tell me exactly which banded solids are made in pistol calibers? Not by projectile size, but by exact firearm caliber. I'm still not getting it.

Not unless you count something like 45/70 as a pistol caliber. Again, in CA we had that law thrown out, and so could the NRA if they wanted to.

[hunter2]

The rest of the story - well part of it anyway. Some people were posting on u-tube how to defeat a bullet proof vest using Barnes solids. "DA" and the ATF noticed. There is no end to stupidity! We have been protecting these people for so long they are starting to breed!

[calinb]

This isn't an issue of rules being made after the product was on the market. This was an instance of Barnes ignoring Federal regulations that deem many steel-jacketed, solid steel, steel-cored, solid brass, and solid copper designs to be armor piercing.
<snip>
This is Barnes' fault, pure and simple.
<snip>


Great attitude, SquirrelHollow. Just keep pointing fingers at our allies (Barnes, in this case). More of it will get us more civilian disarmament ("gun control").

It appears that the ascendant mullahs at the ATF reclassified the bullet:
http://www.57forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11562

Not that any of these rules forced upon us via our government are consistent with the Second Amendment, common sense, or even each other!