brotherbill3
Master
OK - I have some actual in sight I found into this and since it is on the agenda tomorrow (2/1/17) for 1st committee hearing:
House Bill 1095:
Introduced by state Representative Woody Burton (R-58), would reform the definition of “armor piercing ammunition” to mirror the federal law. By doing so, it would update the current Indiana law which erroneously prohibits plastic coated ammunition. Coating a bullet in plastic does not make it armor piercing, but it does reduce fouling and wear on a firearm and reduces lead fumes without the higher cost of copper plated bullets. This would simply allow target shooters in Indiana to take advantage of the same advances in polymer technology that many others around the country enjoy when shooting recreationally.
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/house/1095#document-752712a6
Or from another source:
HB 1095: Harmonize Indiana’s Armor Piercing Ammunition Ban with Federal Law
▪ Ordinary lead bullets deform on impact, reducing effectiveness.
▪ Armor-piercing bullets have a penetrator core made of brass, beryllium copper, steel, or tungsten that retains shape on impact, allowing it to pierce hard surfaces.
▪ In the 1960’s, a line of bullets with a steel penetrator and hard brass jacket were sold to police departments. To reduce barrel friction, these bullets were Teflon coated.
▪ In 1982, a NBC television report claimed that these Teflon-coated bullets were a danger to police officers because they could penetrate ballistic vests.
o They failed to understand that it was the high-density penetrator – not the Teflon coating – that made them effective.
▪ Indiana Code 35-47-5-11 was adopted in 1983 and defines “armor piercing” ammunition as any cartridge that “has a metal core and an outer coating of plastic.”
o The statute focuses on the bullet’s outer coating and not the bullet core that actually determines its efficacy.
▪ Federal lawmakers properly focused on high-density penetrators when they passed the 1986 Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act, which banned “armor piercing” handgun ammunition composed of high-density materials like “tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.”
▪ This error is problematic with the introduction of new target shooting ammunition with a soft lead core and outer polymer coating.
▪ The polymer coating reduces fouling, barrel wear, and vaporized lead when fired, while doing nothing to improve the bullet’s penetration power. It also provides a safety benefit by reducing fragmentation and splash-back at close range.
▪ The current Indiana statute does nothing to protect police and the public from actual armor-piercing ammunition, and prevents the sale of ammunition that benefits shooters and the environment with no additional risk to public safety.
▪ Indiana should therefore amend its statute by adopting the federal definition of “armor piercing” ammunition.
There was early discussion about what is the point -
The point is the IC has the basis wrong on what makes it AP ... (IC says the "coating"; really it is the hardened metal core)
The federal code has this correct ... so This is just correcting the IC to mirror that.
seems OK to me ... The only thing better would to be to repeal all of it ... but ... it is a baby step in the proper direction.
House Bill 1095:
Introduced by state Representative Woody Burton (R-58), would reform the definition of “armor piercing ammunition” to mirror the federal law. By doing so, it would update the current Indiana law which erroneously prohibits plastic coated ammunition. Coating a bullet in plastic does not make it armor piercing, but it does reduce fouling and wear on a firearm and reduces lead fumes without the higher cost of copper plated bullets. This would simply allow target shooters in Indiana to take advantage of the same advances in polymer technology that many others around the country enjoy when shooting recreationally.
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/house/1095#document-752712a6
Or from another source:
HB 1095: Harmonize Indiana’s Armor Piercing Ammunition Ban with Federal Law
▪ Ordinary lead bullets deform on impact, reducing effectiveness.
▪ Armor-piercing bullets have a penetrator core made of brass, beryllium copper, steel, or tungsten that retains shape on impact, allowing it to pierce hard surfaces.
▪ In the 1960’s, a line of bullets with a steel penetrator and hard brass jacket were sold to police departments. To reduce barrel friction, these bullets were Teflon coated.
▪ In 1982, a NBC television report claimed that these Teflon-coated bullets were a danger to police officers because they could penetrate ballistic vests.
o They failed to understand that it was the high-density penetrator – not the Teflon coating – that made them effective.
▪ Indiana Code 35-47-5-11 was adopted in 1983 and defines “armor piercing” ammunition as any cartridge that “has a metal core and an outer coating of plastic.”
o The statute focuses on the bullet’s outer coating and not the bullet core that actually determines its efficacy.
▪ Federal lawmakers properly focused on high-density penetrators when they passed the 1986 Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act, which banned “armor piercing” handgun ammunition composed of high-density materials like “tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.”
▪ This error is problematic with the introduction of new target shooting ammunition with a soft lead core and outer polymer coating.
▪ The polymer coating reduces fouling, barrel wear, and vaporized lead when fired, while doing nothing to improve the bullet’s penetration power. It also provides a safety benefit by reducing fragmentation and splash-back at close range.
▪ The current Indiana statute does nothing to protect police and the public from actual armor-piercing ammunition, and prevents the sale of ammunition that benefits shooters and the environment with no additional risk to public safety.
▪ Indiana should therefore amend its statute by adopting the federal definition of “armor piercing” ammunition.
There was early discussion about what is the point -
The point is the IC has the basis wrong on what makes it AP ... (IC says the "coating"; really it is the hardened metal core)
The federal code has this correct ... so This is just correcting the IC to mirror that.
seems OK to me ... The only thing better would to be to repeal all of it ... but ... it is a baby step in the proper direction.