- Thread starter jeffcat
- Start date
It wasn't the whole caliber of 5.56/.223 that they were wanting to ban, just the62 grain, M855 round. There are quite a few other rounds other than just the one, but the M855 is one of the BIG ones that can often be bought from military surplus, in bulk, for a good price. Too, rumor has it the military here, and in Europe is getting ready to adopt another round, thus putting a huge amount of M855 on the market at some future point in time.
Funny the make up of the bullet isn't anywhere near what the NFA calls for, for it to be considered an AP round, as it isn't made with a majority of any specific metal ((as listed in the statute)), as the statute basically states it must be. Without that metal content, it should never have been put up for a ban, regardless of whether it could be chambered in a modern pistol, or not.
It all worked out to just another attempt at back door gun control by one of the most firearm unfriendly regimes this country has ever had in control.....Yet, as all of the others turned into yet another scare that did nothing but cause far more guns and ammo to be sold than otherwise would. You'd almost think this administration actually likes guns.....LOL
Funny the make up of the bullet isn't anywhere near what the NFA calls for, for it to be considered an AP round, as it isn't made with a majority of any specific metal ((as listed in the statute)), as the statute basically states it must be. Without that metal content, it should never have been put up for a ban, regardless of whether it could be chambered in a modern pistol, or not.
It all worked out to just another attempt at back door gun control by one of the most firearm unfriendly regimes this country has ever had in control.....Yet, as all of the others turned into yet another scare that did nothing but cause far more guns and ammo to be sold than otherwise would. You'd almost think this administration actually likes guns.....LOL
old
Well-known Member
- Location
- Camdenton Missouri
What I see if those who make the laws are also the ones that have or know little or nothing about the guns and ammo they want to ban. Talked to a guy in a gun shop today and he kept calling a semi auto rifle an automatic which you need an FFL to own. Few people understand the difference in the 2. Sort of like what makes a gun an assault gun?? As far as I understand there is really no such thing it is just a fabrication of those who do not understand guns and all they are is a tool and NO GUN has ever killed but a person who holds it does and or can
Fortunately you don't need an FFL to own an automatic rifle, just fill out the Form 1, pay the $200 tax stamp, and get the proper approvals to allow it. Then you have to come off the hip with a HUGE chunk of money to buy the rifle given that there have been no 'new' ones made for civilian ownership since '86 I believe it was.
Not that most of us would be able to afford one, or to feed it in FA mode, but there is currently a lawsuit in the works to get the MG manufacturing ban over turned. Fortunately, from what I have read, the way things are going so far sound like it just might get approved by the court.
As far as an assault rifle, there actually is such a thing, and has been since WW2. Most consider any military looking rifle to be an assault rifle, but they are dead wrong. For those who are curious as to what one actually is, Wikipedia has a good definition.
Beyond that, I completely agree. We have way to many idiots in the government making decisions, that effect all of our rights, that have never even shot a gun, much less have any clue what the different kinds of guns are, beyond what the media tells them.
Too, like I was saying in another post on here the other day. A gun is nothing more than a tool of deterrent, until the time it's needed. Then, and only then, it becomes a weapon......and no gun has ever killed anyone on it's own, without human involvement of some kind......anymore than a ball bat, a knife, a fork, or a fist can do the same.
Assault rifle definition
Not that most of us would be able to afford one, or to feed it in FA mode, but there is currently a lawsuit in the works to get the MG manufacturing ban over turned. Fortunately, from what I have read, the way things are going so far sound like it just might get approved by the court.
As far as an assault rifle, there actually is such a thing, and has been since WW2. Most consider any military looking rifle to be an assault rifle, but they are dead wrong. For those who are curious as to what one actually is, Wikipedia has a good definition.
Beyond that, I completely agree. We have way to many idiots in the government making decisions, that effect all of our rights, that have never even shot a gun, much less have any clue what the different kinds of guns are, beyond what the media tells them.
Too, like I was saying in another post on here the other day. A gun is nothing more than a tool of deterrent, until the time it's needed. Then, and only then, it becomes a weapon......and no gun has ever killed anyone on it's own, without human involvement of some kind......anymore than a ball bat, a knife, a fork, or a fist can do the same.
Assault rifle definition
Straw Boss
Well-known Member
I won't pretend to know the difference between all the different .223 ammo and what they want to ban or don't want to ban. I just know I don't give a hoot since I'd just assume not get shot by any of them. I'm sure if I got my head blown off, my last thought wouldn't be a wondering about how many grains, the metal content or what tip the bullet had. Dead is dead. Maybe somebody can explain it to me.
Your right about way to many idiots in government making decisions and the real danger is that most of the idiots are unelected. Politicians twist and spin the constitution to attempt to justify their own ideaology but one thing is for sure, unelected, appointed hacks and hirelings have no legal authority over we the people. The increasingly prevalent practice of Federal agencies dreaming up new rules and so called regulations that have not been approved by congress is patently unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
The problem is that the '86 National Firearms Act decided that we needed to do something about 'cop killer' bullets that could defeat the soft body armor used by LE. Their thinking was that since most instances of an officer being shot happened with pistols, banning AP ammo that will fit a pistol would be a good idea.
So, they came up with a way of determining whether ammo would even be classified as AP, based on it's makeup. Then, if the ammo could be considered AP by them, and if there was a pistol that would fire it, it would be banned to protect the LE. However in certain instances the ammo could be exempted if it was deemed to be for sporting purposes only.
Here recently the ATF has decided that regardless of what the NFA states, they can ban ammo pretty much at will. one major blow they made to the gun community, and no one really fought over, was banning surplus 7N6 (5.45x 39) that is routinely used in AK74's. In its case it does have a steel penetrator, and can defeat body armor, but was not a pistol cartridge. When a mfg came out with one pistol that chambered it, and asked for permission to import said pistol, the ATF banned the ammo. As far as I know the pistol was never even imported, so currently there is no pistol available in the US that can fire the cartridge...thus no valid reason to have it banned in accordance with the '86 NFA. Still they banned it, and have no immediate plans to unban it.
In the case of the M855, it had no qualities that would make it fit the requirements to be banned as far as the make up of the bullet. The only thing they could come up with was that as a rifle cartridge, it was capable or penetrating soft armor ((((which nearly all rifle ammo can do)))) BUT since there are now a good many AR pistols that chamber the round, it needs to be banned as AP.
Basically they were trying to set a precedence that would allow them to arbitrarily ban any ammo they so chose, on the simple fact that it could penetrate soft body armor. If they could have gotten the M855 banned, without it even falling within the guidelines necessary to allow it to be banned, it would have been so easy for them to move on to any kind of ammo they wanted to.
In the end it's nothing but backdoor gun control by a regime that has taken more rights away from this country than any other....not to mention more than doubled our national debt in the same time.
Unfortunately far too many folks, yourself included I'm afraid, are way too far out of the loop on what's going on. You might not care about the 5.56/.223 ammo, and what's going on with it, but I can assure you it ultimately effects your right to own your 'hunting' rifles, and the ammo for them, whether you realize it or not. Between the attempts to completely ban lead ammo, as well as the more recent attempts, or successes to ban military surplus ammo, it's all been done with one end game in mind.....The banning of the guns themselves, or barring that, making them too hard, or expensive to buy ammo for to shoot.
That said, if your not at least a member of the NRA, I implore of you, take the time, spend the money to get a membership, and keep informed. Uninformed gun owners are the thing that anti-gunners love as it makes their jobs so much easier without the opposition.
They claim the NRA is the biggest gun lobby out there, and it is. As a result it is a HUGE influence on our representatives. Think about it, we can do all this with only 4 million or so estimated members. What all could we do if we could get the 70 million estimated gun owners all involved??? If we could do that, I don't think we'd have any problems taking our gun rights, as well as any others we've lost recently, back.
Below is a link to a web page that will allow you to sign up for a year membership for $25. This memebership also gets you a monthly magazine of your choice, be it about hunting, guns/rifles in general, or another based on the way our freedoms are being both taken and protected. In any case, they all have great information for the reader to keep them in the know about what's going on in regard to our 2A rights.
NRA membership
So, they came up with a way of determining whether ammo would even be classified as AP, based on it's makeup. Then, if the ammo could be considered AP by them, and if there was a pistol that would fire it, it would be banned to protect the LE. However in certain instances the ammo could be exempted if it was deemed to be for sporting purposes only.
Here recently the ATF has decided that regardless of what the NFA states, they can ban ammo pretty much at will. one major blow they made to the gun community, and no one really fought over, was banning surplus 7N6 (5.45x 39) that is routinely used in AK74's. In its case it does have a steel penetrator, and can defeat body armor, but was not a pistol cartridge. When a mfg came out with one pistol that chambered it, and asked for permission to import said pistol, the ATF banned the ammo. As far as I know the pistol was never even imported, so currently there is no pistol available in the US that can fire the cartridge...thus no valid reason to have it banned in accordance with the '86 NFA. Still they banned it, and have no immediate plans to unban it.
In the case of the M855, it had no qualities that would make it fit the requirements to be banned as far as the make up of the bullet. The only thing they could come up with was that as a rifle cartridge, it was capable or penetrating soft armor ((((which nearly all rifle ammo can do)))) BUT since there are now a good many AR pistols that chamber the round, it needs to be banned as AP.
Basically they were trying to set a precedence that would allow them to arbitrarily ban any ammo they so chose, on the simple fact that it could penetrate soft body armor. If they could have gotten the M855 banned, without it even falling within the guidelines necessary to allow it to be banned, it would have been so easy for them to move on to any kind of ammo they wanted to.
In the end it's nothing but backdoor gun control by a regime that has taken more rights away from this country than any other....not to mention more than doubled our national debt in the same time.
Unfortunately far too many folks, yourself included I'm afraid, are way too far out of the loop on what's going on. You might not care about the 5.56/.223 ammo, and what's going on with it, but I can assure you it ultimately effects your right to own your 'hunting' rifles, and the ammo for them, whether you realize it or not. Between the attempts to completely ban lead ammo, as well as the more recent attempts, or successes to ban military surplus ammo, it's all been done with one end game in mind.....The banning of the guns themselves, or barring that, making them too hard, or expensive to buy ammo for to shoot.
That said, if your not at least a member of the NRA, I implore of you, take the time, spend the money to get a membership, and keep informed. Uninformed gun owners are the thing that anti-gunners love as it makes their jobs so much easier without the opposition.
They claim the NRA is the biggest gun lobby out there, and it is. As a result it is a HUGE influence on our representatives. Think about it, we can do all this with only 4 million or so estimated members. What all could we do if we could get the 70 million estimated gun owners all involved??? If we could do that, I don't think we'd have any problems taking our gun rights, as well as any others we've lost recently, back.
Below is a link to a web page that will allow you to sign up for a year membership for $25. This memebership also gets you a monthly magazine of your choice, be it about hunting, guns/rifles in general, or another based on the way our freedoms are being both taken and protected. In any case, they all have great information for the reader to keep them in the know about what's going on in regard to our 2A rights.
NRA membership
MarkB_MI
Well-known Member
- Location
- Motown USA
I've been a life member of NRA since the mid-eighties, but they lost my support after they went full-scale character assassination on John McCain back in 2000. Their chosen candidate and his cronies then spent the next eight years destroying our country. These days the NRA's primary interest isn't gun rights, it's "what can we do to help the GOP?"
The reason most cops get killed with a pistol is because most cops get, or at least used to, get shot when the BG got the cops gun. That's part of the reason we went to sprays and tasers, so you wouldn't have so may cops rolling around on the ground with a BG which is when he got the gun. I only had 1 person ever try to grab my gun, it's not fun.
Anyway, I'm glad ATF decided against this latest idea.
dr sportster
Well-known Member
52 senators called in against it also [ for all you politician haters].
A bullet penetrates because of weight, velocity, and bullet construction, with velocity being the most important. I don't know how much material the .223 ammunition is supposed to penetrate, but here are some earlier figures: The Civil War muzzleloader, .58 caliber, was supposed to penetrate 12 inches of pine wood and it had a very heavy lead bullet fired at maybe 1200 feet per second. The 30-06 army cartridge, ball ammunition not armor piercing, was supposed to penetrate 1/2 inch of mild steel and was fired at about 2800 feet per second depending on which weight of bullet was used. There is army body armor that will withstand that, but it is heavy and involves use of a steel plate. The 30 caliber armor piercing bullet was supposed to penetrate 1/2 inch of armor plate.I don't know how much a military 223 is supposed to penetrate, but I doubt if it's more than this.
A cast lead bullet can be fired in .30 rifles at up to about 2000 feet per second with hunting accuracy. Faster than that an the accuracy falls off badly due to air friction melting the bullet. The lead bullet will penetrate at least 1/4 inch of steel at the faster velocities. Would this penetrate a bullet proof vest? Don't know and have no plans for experimenting due to costs of vest.
KEH
No, it does not. No way, no how does that happen. What does happen is that ll the little variables grow and grow the harder you push a cast bullet. Balance, voids, dynamic fit, obtruation, erosion, lube and alloy failure, rifling form, peak pressure, residual pressure and a bunch of other stuff combine to make shooting cast fast a difficult proposition. If you really, truly want to argue that air friction "melts" a cast bullet, then I'm going to demand proof. No offense, but I've been involved in trying to dispel these old wives tales about cast for a long time.
old
Well-known Member
- Location
- Camdenton Missouri
I know a guy who has been fighting to get a CC but the local sheriff so far has told him NO. I'd say why but I'll not do so here
old
Well-known Member
- Location
- Camdenton Missouri
Ya but if you send me an e-mail I'll tell you and by the way his problem is not because he has broken any laws
Every one is entitled to their opinion, that's a given. The thing you've got to remember, is that EVERY person, and organization has an agenda, and works to attain that final goal in any way necessary.
In the instance your talking about I really liked McCain also. As a result I was pretty much keeping up with things also, and I can't say I ever heard any 'full scale' assaults on anyone's character, at least around here. That aside, in the end the NRA doesn't pick the Presidential candidate, so they can't be blamed for who actually got elected.
In that case it was Bush that got elected. While he might not have been the man McCain was, I can assure you he was far better than Gore would have ever been.
Too, while you might not realize it, and it might be more or less common place to do so, McCain officially supported Bush in the election after he lost the confirmation votes needed to be placed on the ballot. Further he also supported Bush in the re-election 4 years later. I say it might be common place to do so, but while one candidate might support another in private, or not at all, very few will do so "officially" unless they actually like the other guy. Given that they both shared a lot of the same ideas, but differed in other areas, it sounds to me like politics, and personal opinions that have always been expressed by our representatives, and both recognized that, and worked through, and around their differences with a more or less common goal of keeping this country great. So, it appears your distaste for Bush goes further than McCain's did.
Personally I can't remember many politicians in general who haven't hurt us in some way, but the current administration has to have been the absolute worst when it comes to not only gun rights, but other rights as well. They have set this country so far back it's sickening.
Ultimately though, regardless of the situation, what turns out to be gun owners worst problems are instances like you describe. In other words someone else shares the same, basic long term vision, but may differ on how/the things that need to be done, to get there. Describe it how you will, but you get the basic idea.
From that point our side routinely divides. This results in divided votes at the ballot box, and ultimately causes us to lose elections. Remember, when the nnalert can get a 40% turn out to vote, we may only need 41% to win. The problem is out 41% is usually spread out between at least two candidates, while their 40% maintains solidarity and takes the win over our split vote.
In the end, it all comes down to the old saying. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. In other words just because people, or organizations may differ in a few minor ways, if the ultimate goal is basically the same, we've all got to stick together. We might not get exactly what we want, right now, but at least we make progress toward that goal. If we don't, then the other side will insure that we get next to, or absolutely NOTHING we want, and the goal just keeps getting pushed further away, and more unreachable by the day.
In the end, it's time for our side, and gun owners in particular, to put petty differences in ideology aside, and stick together to insure our rights are left intact. Remember, the 2A was designed to insure that the other rights were left alone....and they have already been going after the 1A, so that makes our retention of the 2A even more important.
In the instance your talking about I really liked McCain also. As a result I was pretty much keeping up with things also, and I can't say I ever heard any 'full scale' assaults on anyone's character, at least around here. That aside, in the end the NRA doesn't pick the Presidential candidate, so they can't be blamed for who actually got elected.
In that case it was Bush that got elected. While he might not have been the man McCain was, I can assure you he was far better than Gore would have ever been.
Too, while you might not realize it, and it might be more or less common place to do so, McCain officially supported Bush in the election after he lost the confirmation votes needed to be placed on the ballot. Further he also supported Bush in the re-election 4 years later. I say it might be common place to do so, but while one candidate might support another in private, or not at all, very few will do so "officially" unless they actually like the other guy. Given that they both shared a lot of the same ideas, but differed in other areas, it sounds to me like politics, and personal opinions that have always been expressed by our representatives, and both recognized that, and worked through, and around their differences with a more or less common goal of keeping this country great. So, it appears your distaste for Bush goes further than McCain's did.
Personally I can't remember many politicians in general who haven't hurt us in some way, but the current administration has to have been the absolute worst when it comes to not only gun rights, but other rights as well. They have set this country so far back it's sickening.
Ultimately though, regardless of the situation, what turns out to be gun owners worst problems are instances like you describe. In other words someone else shares the same, basic long term vision, but may differ on how/the things that need to be done, to get there. Describe it how you will, but you get the basic idea.
From that point our side routinely divides. This results in divided votes at the ballot box, and ultimately causes us to lose elections. Remember, when the nnalert can get a 40% turn out to vote, we may only need 41% to win. The problem is out 41% is usually spread out between at least two candidates, while their 40% maintains solidarity and takes the win over our split vote.
In the end, it all comes down to the old saying. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. In other words just because people, or organizations may differ in a few minor ways, if the ultimate goal is basically the same, we've all got to stick together. We might not get exactly what we want, right now, but at least we make progress toward that goal. If we don't, then the other side will insure that we get next to, or absolutely NOTHING we want, and the goal just keeps getting pushed further away, and more unreachable by the day.
In the end, it's time for our side, and gun owners in particular, to put petty differences in ideology aside, and stick together to insure our rights are left intact. Remember, the 2A was designed to insure that the other rights were left alone....and they have already been going after the 1A, so that makes our retention of the 2A even more important.
Russ from MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- Bemidji MN
Absolutely! I have been a member about 40 years because I am a hunter and gun enthusiast. But that is going to end next month, I am not renewing my membership to a political lobby group that is the opposite of my beliefs. When I joined it was a completely different organization.
As bad as I hate to admit it, I know of a few who have their permits that scare me also. Not saying they shouldn't have a permit, as they have a right to be able to defend themselves just as much as we all do....but they usually tend to be somewhat irresponsible in some areas that you can see would ultimately cause problems for them in a firearm related incident.
Unfortunately when it comes to pretty much any kind of legislation, that has ties directly back to the Constitution, it's a really slippery slope sometimes. In this case, how do you justify any kind of "infringement", when the 2A specifically states "shall NOT be infringed"?
In the end it's simply got to be left up to common sense which, unfortunately, isn't so common sense anymore, especially in the representatives who keep wanting 'common sense' laws passed to ban things for everyone, rather than enforcing the laws already present that simply punish those that choose to be criminals.
Unfortunately when it comes to pretty much any kind of legislation, that has ties directly back to the Constitution, it's a really slippery slope sometimes. In this case, how do you justify any kind of "infringement", when the 2A specifically states "shall NOT be infringed"?
In the end it's simply got to be left up to common sense which, unfortunately, isn't so common sense anymore, especially in the representatives who keep wanting 'common sense' laws passed to ban things for everyone, rather than enforcing the laws already present that simply punish those that choose to be criminals.
Straw Boss
Well-known Member
NCWayne, I thank you for that explanation.
As far as the NRA, I was a member about 10 years ago. I thought I'd do my part and send in my money. They'd have my cash to fight the anti-gun crowd.
Next thing I know the NRA is harassing me by phone and by mailings for additional money to fight so and so bill working it's way through congress. Isn't that what my membership money was for? After a year of this I'll bet the NRA spent 50 dollars on me trying to get more money. What a joke! They wasted my money and then some by harassing me instead of harassing a congressman so I did not renew my membership.
I'm still getting mailings from them these past ten years trying to get me to sign up my membership again. They've probably spend 75 dollars on me by now. So much for putting my money to work for a cause.
As far as the NRA, I was a member about 10 years ago. I thought I'd do my part and send in my money. They'd have my cash to fight the anti-gun crowd.
Next thing I know the NRA is harassing me by phone and by mailings for additional money to fight so and so bill working it's way through congress. Isn't that what my membership money was for? After a year of this I'll bet the NRA spent 50 dollars on me trying to get more money. What a joke! They wasted my money and then some by harassing me instead of harassing a congressman so I did not renew my membership.
I'm still getting mailings from them these past ten years trying to get me to sign up my membership again. They've probably spend 75 dollars on me by now. So much for putting my money to work for a cause.
old
Well-known Member
- Location
- Camdenton Missouri
In this cast the guy who is fight for the CC owns a business in the area so he is pretty well known but yet can not get the CC
Well, I don't remember the source of my info on the
melting bullets, but it was from a reliable
publication some time ago. I pushed a 200 gr lead
bullet at maybe 2150 fps and accuracy went away
seriously. I'll have to figure out some way to
capture the bullet undamaged and see what the
condition of it is.
KEH
Mark - IN.
Well-known Member
Have you ever heard of a .22 TCM? It's made by AMSCOR/Rock Island Armory, really out of the Philippines. They had it in pistol form, 1911, with plans to release it in a rifle. The bottom line is that it resembles a shortened .223, case shortened about an inch. I considered and still might buy a couple, one to use on varmints because its got quite a muzzle velocity, and then keep the other unfired as a collector because I kind of think they may never really take off mostly because the gun and the ammo are made exclusively by AMSCOR/Rock Island Armory and no one else. They had one that I tried to purchase, but a couple of years when stuff got so whacked out, they got super back ordered. The one that I was interested in was called a "Micro-Mag" where the barrels can be swapped out between .22 TCM and 9mm. I'm a revolver handgun kind of guy, not so much a pistol. But, I would like to pickup a .22 TCM for varmints.
Mark
.22 TCM Round
Mark
.22 TCM Round
BarryRanch
Member
Yeah the senate said no, but Mr. Lovely will just do another executive order and that will be that sadly.
Well, I had a nice 5 or 6 paragraph response and explanation almost ready to submit when my computer decided it needed to update and restart. So, short version- your bullets aren't "melting", they are eroding or striping or becoming so unbalanced that they fly away off the target. 100% surety they are not "melting". People are shooting paper jacketed bullets at 3000 fps and the paper isn't even scorched. I've recovered bullets shot at 2500fps plus and the lube, which has a far lower melting point than lead alloys, is still in the grooves. If you really want to know about the basics of this stuff I can re type the post I just lost. The basic principle is that it all depends on bullet fit, static and dynamic and that encompasses at least 25 variables.
Cast is not jacketed.
teddy52food
Well-known Member
I have a bunch of 55 gr .243 bullets that can't be loaded up to specs or they disintragate before reaching the target. They show a puff of smoke about 50 to 100 feet from the muzzle. They are jacketed soft points from a major manufacturer. I think they spin so fast that they fly apart.
I've never seen it myself that I recall but it's been reported by enough people I have confidence in that I think it does happen. In fact, I seem to remember one type of bullet that may have been marked right on the box that it was not intended to be used past a certain speed. Rotational forces can be figured, but it's way, way past any math I can understand. A super thin jacket, a fast rifling twist and a lot of speed can cause it. Of course, you put the same bullet in a 22 Hornet or 218 Bee and it would do fine.
As far as cast lead bullets are concerned. No, they don't melt, but depending on the quality of the molding (seams from the mold showing) and purity of the lead can and will greatly affect bullet performance. The faster the velocity the more pronounced any defect is going to be.
Rick
Rick
Well, first off no one is shooting naked, pure lead cast bullets over the 1800 fps area. As far as seams showing, I'm assuming you mean casting quality and you're right again, to an extent. The seam is going to show to a greater or lesser extent assuming someone doesn't "pretty" their bullets up by tumbling or giving then a swipe with 4/0 steel wool. A micrometer will give you the real story. But yeah, all the little variables get more and more pronounced the harder you push them. Too many people have bought a box of commercial cast over the years and stuffed them into a case using the same care they'd use with jacketed with the same load and shot them down a fouled barrel and decided cast was junk. They just didn't know the first steps. If there's one thing the internet has done, it's freed us from 100 years of old wives tales and typewriter commando "facts" that have been repeated over and over, many in the major shooting publications.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy