BATF Classifies .223, 6.5 Grendel and 6.8SPC as Pistol Round

Private Joined: Dec 26, 2006 Posts: 285 Location: Harvard

BATF Classifies .223, 6.5 Grendel and 6.8SPC as Pistol Round

BATF and EA Recent Finding.

EA has had to remove our Trident bullets in .223, 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC. The BATF has ruled that all of these cartridges are now pistol cartridges. Since they are now pistol cartridges their construction now falls under the content and construction limitations of the 68 GAC and pistol cartridges.

Currently from other bullet makers like Barnes, solid .223 caliber bullets are still being manufactured and sold . We are working with our BATF IOI person to find out the following,

A) Is Barnes bullets and all other maker that constructs solid bullets in .223 going to have to stop.
B) If not then why do we have to stop since out basic shape and metallurgical content of our PFP bullets are the same as theirs?
C) Since they are now handgun caliber limited how does Magtech solid copper pistol bullets not fall under the 68 GAC as AP?
D) If Solid copper is not considered a violation of the 68 GAC in handgun bullets then it should also be not a violation of the 68 GAC to make EA’s PFP bullets from solid copper as Magtech does.

Those who have T6 ammunition and PFP bullets will be contacted by the BATF to recover any bullets or ammunition that have not been FIRED yet.

I apologize for this inconvenience and hopefully we can get this matter straightened out one way or another.

Jay Wolf
Pr. Elite Ammunition

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:05 am

Can you post up the documentation regarding the fact that 223/5.56, 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC are now pistol rounds.

It seems odd that those 3 are, but there are a whole host of other rounds that are in the same overall length category that are not also pistol rounds. Further, these 3 don't even come from the same 'parent' brass cases as the Grendel has a short fat case with a larger diameter case head while the others share 5.56 brass as their basis for formation.

I guess my question is why is the new 300 Blackout not included in this? Or the 7.62x39? Or 5.45x39? We can probably rattle off a dozen more rounds that are similar.

Private Joined: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 261

Just one more reason to totally destroy the BATFE as an agency in the Federal Government. They should not exist. Twisted Evil

Corporal Joined: Mar 07, 2010 Posts: 583

Maybe i'm missing something? They will not be able to produce SOLID bullets? Lead core is ok? I guess I just don't know enuff about the laws of mfg. I don't understand what it matters if they are for handgun or rifle.

Private Joined: Dec 26, 2006 Posts: 285 Location: Harvard

melensdad wrote:

Can you post up the documentation regarding the fact that 223/5.56, 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC are now pistol rounds.

It seems odd that those 3 are, but there are a whole host of other rounds that are in the same overall length category that are not also pistol rounds. Further, these 3 don't even come from the same 'parent' brass cases as the Grendel has a short fat case with a larger diameter case head while the others share 5.56 brass as their basis for formation.

I guess my question is why is the new 300 Blackout not included in this? Or the 7.62x39? Or 5.45x39? We can probably rattle off a dozen more rounds that are similar.

They produced an FTB but no copies for me and I was not allowed to copy it.

Private Joined: Dec 26, 2006 Posts: 285 Location: Harvard

Getzapped wrote:

Maybe i'm missing something? They will not be able to produce SOLID bullets? Lead core is ok? I guess I just don't know enuff about the laws of mfg. I don't understand what it matters if they are for handgun or rifle.

The rules for rifle bullet construction and handgun bullet construction are different. The limitations on content and construction are more limited in handgun bullet.

Lieutenant Joined: Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 2429

panzermk2 wrote:

melensdad wrote:

Can you post up the documentation regarding the fact that 223/5.56, 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC are now pistol rounds.

It seems odd that those 3 are, but there are a whole host of other rounds that are in the same overall length category that are not also pistol rounds. Further, these 3 don't even come from the same 'parent' brass cases as the Grendel has a short fat case with a larger diameter case head while the others share 5.56 brass as their basis for formation.

I guess my question is why is the new 300 Blackout not included in this? Or the 7.62x39? Or 5.45x39? We can probably rattle off a dozen more rounds that are similar.

They produced an FTB but no copies for me and I was not allowed to copy it.

you are not allowed to copy a law? boy is this country pfucked

Corporal Joined: Jul 20, 2007 Posts: 870

I'm missing it to can we have a synopsis of just what the different processes are / limitations and why we give a hoot?

Lieutenant Joined: Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 2429

SiliconSorcerer wrote:

I'm missing it to can we have a synopsis of just what the different processes are / limitations and why we give a hoot?

why we give a hoot is because it's another restriction on our right to bear arms Shocked

Corporal Joined: Apr 10, 2010 Posts: 408

If we don't remain vigilant, little by little the gun grabbers and 2A opponents, both in office and organizations, will work to remove - eliminate the one Amendment that guarantees the Constitution of the U.S. and our freedom.

All the more reason to call, write and remind those who we voted, or not, into office their obligation to "We the People" or they will be out of a job!!!!!

Corporal Joined: Jul 20, 2007 Posts: 870

6010rocks wrote:

SiliconSorcerer wrote:

I'm missing it to can we have a synopsis of just what the different processes are / limitations and why we give a hoot?

why we give a hoot is because it's another restriction on our right to bear arms Shocked

That's the point don't see how classifying a 223 and a pistol vs a rifle round has anything to do with our right to bear arms. Why do we care?

Lieutenant Joined: Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 2429

SiliconSorcerer wrote:

6010rocks wrote:

SiliconSorcerer wrote:

I'm missing it to can we have a synopsis of just what the different processes are / limitations and why we give a hoot?

why we give a hoot is because it's another restriction on our right to bear arms Shocked

That's the point don't see how classifying a 223 and a pistol vs a rifle round has anything to do with our right to bear arms. Why do we care?

thats just what politicans love to hear thanks alot

Private Joined: May 21, 2006 Posts: 122

I never noticed that pistols chambered in .223 were real popular. I guess I just missed them.

Corporal Joined: Jul 20, 2007 Posts: 870

6010rocks wrote:

SiliconSorcerer wrote:

6010rocks wrote:

SiliconSorcerer wrote:

I'm missing it to can we have a synopsis of just what the different processes are / limitations and why we give a hoot?

why we give a hoot is because it's another restriction on our right to bear arms Shocked

That's the point don't see how classifying a 223 and a pistol vs a rifle round has anything to do with our right to bear arms. Why do we care?

thats just what politicans love to hear thanks alot

Ok would be prefer a 9mm classified as a rifle round?

Or you saying we don't want ammo classified as ammo?

Do we care if they call it a pistol or a revolver? Does that matter to, or is that what politicians like to here too? Maybe we wanted it called a personal protection device?

I'm just missing the point here, why do we care if they call a round a pistol or a rifle round? Is it just scarier to the public to say a pistol round then a rifle round?

Lieutenant Joined: Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 2429

SiliconSorcerer wrote:

6010rocks wrote:

SiliconSorcerer wrote:

6010rocks wrote:

SiliconSorcerer wrote:

I'm missing it to can we have a synopsis of just what the different processes are / limitations and why we give a hoot?

why we give a hoot is because it's another restriction on our right to bear arms Shocked

That's the point don't see how classifying a 223 and a pistol vs a rifle round has anything to do with our right to bear arms. Why do we care?

thats just what politicans love to hear thanks alot

Ok would be prefer a 9mm classified as a rifle round?

Or you saying we don't want ammo classified as ammo?

Do we care if they call it a pistol or a revolver? Does that matter to, or is that what politicians like to here too? Maybe we wanted it called a personal protection device?

I'm just missing the point here, why do we care if they call a round a pistol or a rifle round? Is it just scarier to the public to say a pistol round then a rifle round?

going back to the original post

Quote:

BATF Classifies .223, 6.5 Grendel and 6.8SPC as Pistol Round

that is just a huge lie and can only be explained by an "under-lying" agenda

no way in hell are these pistol rounds. 223 AR-15 was built as a riffle

6.5 grendel was specifically designed to shoot out of a riffle as a intermediate cartridge as well as the 6.8spc.

more pressing is the matter that panzermic and his ellite ammuntion are not allowed to produce certain types of bullets and last time I looked bullets are part of the 2nd amendment.

to simplify I will ask you a question.

how do you classify a restriction the atf banning ammunition based on false facts and out right lies?

restrictions restrictions and more restrictions

Did you read the original post in full? if not re read it again or are you an expert in any field where you just read the title and skip all content?

it's not only wrongly reclassifying rounds into a category that they are not. it is banning the manufacture of very accurate and well made bullets.

panzemik if I read this right it bans ammuntion that you make am I correct? I looked at your catalog and my christmas wish items are no longer there