Another Ammo Buying Frenzy?

Here we go again, another ammo buying frenzy evidently is well underway (and please note I did not say definitely underway but the evidence seems to support that such is the case).

BATFE recently announced that it is moving to remove the exemption for 5.56x45mm M855 ammunition as armor piercing ammunition which would in effect make it illegal to manufacture, import or sell within the USA (at least in the commercial market). I got that wonderful news at three different sources:  Knuckledraggin My Life Away, at Nobody Asked Me and at their source: the NRA/ILA. (I obviously was behind the times on that one since the NRA/ILA alert came out this past Friday; I have since resigned-up for alerts from them.)

That news spurred me on to check to see if I could find any available M855 at online retailers. I checked with 17 different online ammo dealers. Almost all of them that I checked were already out of stock although three (3) dealers had it at (one of them appeared to have it but did not list it as M855). In my opinion, all offered it at very over inflated prices – one for as much as about .72 cents per round (which would work out to about $720 plus dollars for 1K rounds). Here are the results of my search for 5.56x45mm M855 ammo, as of 1730 hours, on February 15, 2015:

AIM Surplus sold out of M855 

Able Ammo M855 out of stock

Ammo Man – while they have 5.56x45mm 62g, FMJ ammo, none of it is M855 

Ammo Supply Warehouse out of stock 

Cheaper Than Dirt none in stock although they offer 62 grain 5.56x45 

Classic Firearms – no M855 in stock 

Keep Shooting sold out M855 

Lucky Gunner M855 out of stock 

Midway USA M855 shown as out of stock or temporarily unavailable depending on brand 

Military Shooters no M855 in stock 

Natchez Shooter’s Supplies out of stock M855 

PSA M855 out of stock 

Surplus Ammo - ammo labelled M855 not available in bulk 

U.S.A.C. M855 none in stock 

Some of the above sites were indexed on www.gunbot.net as having M855 in stock within the last few hours prior to my checking the actual sites; however, when I checked with the actual sites they were almost all out of it. A few sites had it in stock but at inflated prices: 

Ammunition Depot had 150 round boxes of Federal American Eagle 5.56 NATO 62 Grain XM855 FMJ Ammo at $67.47 per 150 rounds (about .45 cents per round) see this link.  
 

Cabela’s has Winchester 62 grain, green tip ammo, for $12.99 per box of 20 (about .65 cents per round), see this link. Note: I am not certain if this is actually M855 spec ammo or not but it is shown as 62 grain, green tip.

J&G Sales has, what I think is, the outrageous price of $649.80 for 900 rounds (about .72 cents per round) of Australian Defense Industries M855, see this link.

Good luck finding any at a reasonable price within at least the next month. BATFE is accepting comments on the proposed change up until mid-March. Please see the NRA/ILA article on how to contact BATFE to oppose this change.

 

All the best,

Glenn B

Rocks Can't Hurt Law Enforcement Officers - Yeah Right!

I remember, it was way back when I was a Border Patrol Agent, the agency head (or possibly one of the heads of the I&NS in general) came out with a statement that in essence said the agents were not justified to use deadly force against someone throwing rocks at them because rocks could not hurt us. A new policy came out that we should not shoot at rock throwers. If I remember correctly, it was less than a month later that a Border Patrol helicopter was flying low to the ground in the Chula Vista Sector of California when illegal aliens started to throw rocks at it. A rock evidently hit the rotor blade breaking it and that caused the helicopter crashed (source). Note, that as I recall this was in 1980 and not in 1979 asstated in the linked article but that is my memory speaking just as the article relied on another agent's recollection for the date. Also note that, in 1979 I was not in the field yet, I was at the academy, but my recollection is vivid as to the point that this took place while I was already actually working in the field in Calexico, CA. Then again my little grey cells are not as sharp as they once were once upon a time in the west.

Regardless of the time frame, I do not remember if the pilot or passenger were injured but the potential for them, or for anyone else in the chopper or on the ground under it, to be killed or badly injured was certainly there (just look at the photos in the above linked article). As I recall, the new policy about being unable to defend yourself against a rock thrower, by using deadly force, was rescinded almost immediately after the downing of the chopper.

I also remember having the windshield of my Border Patrol vehicle smashed by a rock thrown at me and glass winding up all over my face and in my eyes. That was because a group of wetbacks threw several rocks at me in an ambush for which they had set me up. I fired on a guy in the group, who was winding up to throw another rock at me, and was subsequently fully justified for having done so (too bad I missed). In another case, a brother agent, in Calexico, was afoot chasing an illegal alien and when he reached a blind corner. The illegal he was chasing ambushed him and a relatively large rock at him striking him in the testicles. They blew up to the size of grapefruits and the doctors at the time considered that injury to have been life threatening and believed he would possibly be sterile after the incident. There are many other cases of people being injured and even killed by rocks that have been thrown at them.

Yet for some reason today - just like with the head of the agency back then - politicians, bureaucrats, race baiting individuals and groups, and sometimes even the public in general seem to think that rocks being thrown at a law enforcement do not constitute deadly force being used against the officers. I just don't get it because they certainly are deadly weapons and when a deadly weapon is used against you it definitely constitutes deadly force. I suppose it is mostly political correctness gone amuck, ignorance or even anti law enforcement sentiment that would make someone believe a rock thrown at an officer cannot seriously injure or even kill the officer.

Such sentiments seem to be in play if the suspect in this linked article was throwing rocks at the police, as claimed by police and witnesses, then ran from them, then turned and appeared as if he was about to throw another (or even grab another to throw). However, the police involved are now the subject of a multi-million dollar lawsuit and the potential for criminal charges against the officers is being weighed. Tell me though, why would the police have been wrong to have shot him if the facts, as I just mentioned them, are correct? Of course, the actual facts could conflict with those I just stated; they are what I have gathered from news reports but my guess is that people are all to ready and willing to hang law enforcement officers even when they were justified in doing whatever it was they did that led to the controversy.

I would prefer to wait for all the facts to be presented and reviewed in an objective manner, unaffected by political correctness, police cronyism, racism and or money grubbing mud-shark lawyers, before anyone makes a decision on this one. I would also prefer that people wake up and realize that if you are going to attack a law enforcement official with deadly force, law enforcement officers involved are likely going to take appropriate defensive measures to stop you and those will include the use of deadly force to defend themselves. Just as you have a right to defend yourself against the unlawful use of deadly force, so too do law enforcement officers have the right to defend themselves.

All the best,
Glenn B

Saudi Arabia Calling Killings Heinous Terrorist Act

Of course, they are not calling the killings committed by Muslim terrorists that. Wouldn't it be something noteworthy and a step in the right direction if the nation of Saudi Arabia condemned every killing of a Jew, Christian, Hindu, Muslim (or anyone else) by Islamic terrorists? Sure it would but that is not the case. What they did, by way of their official press agency, was to condemn the killings of the three Muslims in North Carolina as a "heinous terrorist" act. The killings they condemned were apparently motivated by a dispute over a parking spot and not by terrorist ideology. Whether or not that was a so called hate crime, and whether or not their religion was a factor, that played a part in the motive for their murders - the act was not terrorism per se. Yet, in Qatar, Muslims are marching in protests by the thousands and an Egypt based Muslim institute, al-Azhar, has called the killings of the three people in NC a "cowardly terrorist act." (Source.)

Even if it winds up being classified as terrorism by investigating authorities, what about all those other terrorist killings on which Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world have remained mum - the ones committed by Muslims. Sure, they have spoken out now and again on a few of them but for the most part they ignore them and by their silence are, in essence, supporting them.

Isn't Mecca in Saudi Arabia - if we nuked it until it glowed - wouldn't that give the Saudis and all of Islam a good reason to call something a heinous terrorist act and this time they would be right! (Yes, the sarcasm alert should be on, or on second thought...)

All the best,
Glenn B