I'm not sure exactly how the BATFE codifies things, but I imagine there's a difference between their little letters and internal memos and actually enforcing such things as law. The 2013 paper is them talking to themselves. The 2015 letter is them taking action on that conversation. I'll agree that at the moment it seems that action doesn't extend beyond 40mm cartridges.I read it. I saw it was from 2013. I noted tracers continue to be available. I noted that .223 and .308 are smaller than .50.
So...What confiscation of tracers under .50?
I'm not sure exactly how the BATFE codifies things, but I imagine there's a difference between their little letters and internal memos and actually enforcing such things as law. The 2013 paper is them talking to themselves. The 2015 letter is them taking action on that conversation. I'll agree that at the moment it seems that action doesn't extend beyond 40mm cartridges.
If atf is confiscateing 40mm shells why are they still available from all the internet sales company's. ????????
And why is there not a mad rush to buy all you can if you at play with 40mm ??????
My brother just texed me and said, Sturmgewehr and subguns are deleting any threads on this topic. I wonder why ?????
All the websites I have looked at are still selling 40mm smoke / parachutes and less lethal shells.
Also the 50 bmg online suppliers are still selling 50 bmg spotter,tracer,
ap tracer, incendiary and incendiary tracer.
I think it's all internet BS.
I'm not sure exactly how the BATFE codifies things, but I imagine there's a difference between their little letters and internal memos and actually enforcing such things as law. The 2013 paper is them talking to themselves. The 2015 letter is them taking action on that conversation. I'll agree that at the moment it seems that action doesn't extend beyond 40mm cartridges.
If atf is confiscateing 40mm shells why are they still available from all the internet sales company's. ????????
And why is there not a mad rush to buy all you can if you at play with 40mm ??????
Even the letter linked to the original TTAG article addresses exactly one type of flare, some IR flare invented in 2011 called the M992. I don't know if its radically different from other flares for some reason, but the letter is very specific about that flare and doesn't say flares in general. I'm thinking perhaps this is being blown out of proportion to generate clicks, but we'll see.
Wtf.... Thanks Arron for the nfa lessons, but they are not nessessery. I have been in the nfa game since 1979 my friend, I guess I should have used some purple in my last post..
Point 1: This is not uncommon, individual BATFE rulings and seizure letters are always very specific. I'll see if I can find someone with the same seizure letter that references the M781 chalk round instead; likely they would simply substitute one round designation for the other in the letter.
Point 2: The M992 (infrared para flare) is not any different from any other mil-standard 40mm parachute flare round. It uses a propellant known as M9 flake to eject the flare from the casing at it's apogee, exactly the same as the M583A1 (white para), M661 (green para), M662 (red para), and M663 (yellow para). FWIW, the M781 chalk round uses approximately 5 grains of M9 flake as the propellant to send the projectile downrange, but the 2013 explosives branch ruling and the 2015 seizure letter have nothing to do with M9 flake and do not reference it at all. M9 is similar to other commercial fast-burning flake powders and was once available as surplus.
Specifically the rumor is that all tracer, incendiary, API, and APIT ammunition is no longer considered small arms ammunition, but is instead considered a low explosive and illegal to possess without an FEL (Federal Explosives License) and a proper explosives storage magazine. Well, it's not a rumor, official documentation here:
Which is still a far cry from:
That got everyone worked up about their .223 and .308.
I'm sorry BBI, but the 2013 letter explicitly applies to ALL calibers including .223 and .308. They are NOT seizing that stuff at the moment, but the illegality stands none the less. Do we want to wait until they are enforcing it on <.50 BMG calibers before we act?
Time will tell I suppose. I'll revisit this thread in a year or so and see if the fuss was what it was made out to be.