Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/16/2010 7:50:35 PM EDT
| Is it possible to handload sabot rifle rounds like Remington's Accelerator ammo? If so, where can I get the components? |
|
Thanks, that is exactly what I was looking for. |
|
Quoted:
Tried em' ,resulting accuracy wasn't worth the effort. And be advised, you shouldn't fire them through any form of muzzle device. They ( the sabot )could "bloom" early and cause all sorts of nastiness. I was wondering about the muzzle device thing. I was pretty sure a suppressor was out and figured a muzzle brake was a bad idea as well. Will a flash hider be a problem since there is more clearance or still a no no? How bad was the accuracy? Are we talking 2 MOA, 4 MOA, or shotgun pattern? Thanks for the info. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tried em' ,resulting accuracy wasn't worth the effort. And be advised, you shouldn't fire them through any form of muzzle device. They ( the sabot )could "bloom" early and cause all sorts of nastiness. I was wondering about the muzzle device thing. I was pretty sure a suppressor was out and figured a muzzle brake was a bad idea as well. Will a flash hider be a problem since there is more clearance or still a no no? How bad was the accuracy? Are we talking 2 MOA, 4 MOA, or shotgun pattern? Thanks for the info. Past 100 yards...sucked... and I won't use them with any form of muzzle device.... I've watched videos of them opening right after the muzzle. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tried em' ,resulting accuracy wasn't worth the effort. And be advised, you shouldn't fire them through any form of muzzle device. They ( the sabot )could "bloom" early and cause all sorts of nastiness. I was wondering about the muzzle device thing. I was pretty sure a suppressor was out and figured a muzzle brake was a bad idea as well. Will a flash hider be a problem since there is more clearance or still a no no? How bad was the accuracy? Are we talking 2 MOA, 4 MOA, or shotgun pattern? Thanks for the info. Past 100 yards...sucked... and I won't use them with any form of muzzle device.... I've watched videos of them opening right after the muzzle. You still have the stuff laying around? I'd be interesting in taking it off your hands if you don't want it. I'm just looking to play with it some and test a theory of mine. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tried em' ,resulting accuracy wasn't worth the effort. And be advised, you shouldn't fire them through any form of muzzle device. They ( the sabot )could "bloom" early and cause all sorts of nastiness. I was wondering about the muzzle device thing. I was pretty sure a suppressor was out and figured a muzzle brake was a bad idea as well. Will a flash hider be a problem since there is more clearance or still a no no? How bad was the accuracy? Are we talking 2 MOA, 4 MOA, or shotgun pattern? Thanks for the info. Past 100 yards...sucked... and I won't use them with any form of muzzle device.... I've watched videos of them opening right after the muzzle. You still have the stuff laying around? I'd be interesting in taking it off your hands if you don't want it. I'm just looking to play with it some and test a theory of mine. Sold it all years ago......sorry |
|
Thanks. I'm gonna get some of these 223/30 sabots and tinker. Are they available for any other calibers? |
|
I've always wondered about this technically by inserting a bullet into a sabot you are "manufacturing" a new bullet by the BATFE standards. If you did insert a M855 bullet into a sabot then you would be "manufacturing" new armor piercing ammunition - therefore it could only be used by police or military organizations or you would be in violation of the import ban that big brother put in place. Sounds stupid to me, but just look at the law regarding adding a vertical pistol grip to an AR-15 pistol. If you do so they consider that "manufacturing" an AOW and you either have to send the gun to a licensed manufacturer and pay the tax stamp or go to jail. Since the law specifically states "vertical" pistol grip ... does that mean the new Angled Forward Grips are OK???
Geeesh what is this world coming to??? Can't have any fun anymore without stepping all over the ridiculous laws. Sarg |
|
Quoted:
I've always wondered about this technically by inserting a bullet into a sabot you are "manufacturing" a new bullet by the BATFE standards. If you did insert a M855 bullet into a sabot then you would be "manufacturing" new armor piercing ammunition - therefore it could only be used by police or military organizations or you would be in violation of the import ban that big brother put in place. Sounds stupid to me, but just look at the law regarding adding a vertical pistol grip to an AR-15 pistol. If you do so they consider that "manufacturing" an AOW and you either have to send the gun to a licensed manufacturer and pay the tax stamp or go to jail. Since the law specifically states "vertical" pistol grip ... does that mean the new Angled Forward Grips are OK??? Geeesh what is this world coming to??? Can't have any fun anymore without stepping all over the ridiculous laws. Sarg An SS109 bullet is NOT "armor piercing." M855 is in fact specifically designated as NOT armor piercing by the ATF. Further, you're not "manufacturing" any bullet at all by loading it using a sabot. You're assembling a round, nothing more. Your confusion when comparing logical stuff to ATF regs is understandable. ATF regs are incredibly odd at times. On the other hand, the definition of an AOW is based on specific features, including something like a pistol with a vertical foregrip. A bullet is a projectile, nothing more, and an SS109-type bullet is simply one that flies straighter at longer ranges than an M193-type FMJ bullet. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've always wondered about this technically by inserting a bullet into a sabot you are "manufacturing" a new bullet by the BATFE standards. If you did insert a M855 bullet into a sabot then you would be "manufacturing" new armor piercing ammunition - therefore it could only be used by police or military organizations or you would be in violation of the import ban that big brother put in place. Sounds stupid to me, but just look at the law regarding adding a vertical pistol grip to an AR-15 pistol. If you do so they consider that "manufacturing" an AOW and you either have to send the gun to a licensed manufacturer and pay the tax stamp or go to jail. Since the law specifically states "vertical" pistol grip ... does that mean the new Angled Forward Grips are OK??? Geeesh what is this world coming to??? Can't have any fun anymore without stepping all over the ridiculous laws. Sarg An SS109 bullet is NOT "armor piercing." M855 is in fact specifically designated as NOT armor piercing by the ATF. Further, you're not "manufacturing" any bullet at all by loading it using a sabot. You're assembling a round, nothing more. Your confusion when comparing logical stuff to ATF regs is understandable. ATF regs are incredibly odd at times. On the other hand, the definition of an AOW is based on specific features, including something like a pistol with a vertical foregrip. A bullet is a projectile, nothing more, and an SS109-type bullet is simply one that flies straighter at longer ranges than an M193-type FMJ bullet. What action I was referring to specifically was the act of putting the M855 bullet into the sabot ... that by BATFE definitions is "manufacturing" a new bullet. Just like putting a vertical pistol grip on a AR-15 pistol is "manufacturing" an AOW. Assembling the round is not in question ... other than if big brother wanted to say that since the M855 was "manufactured" into a new type of "bullet" it no longer falls into the exemption as stated above. Then that would open up a whole new can of beans. I was reading the ATF news letter they send out and they were warning dealers not to sell shotguns with pistol grips to individuals under the age of 21. They were stating that since the shotgun did not have a stock as defined by the laws it would not be classified as a rifle and individuals under the age of 21 was not legally able to purchase them. I spent a couple days reading over the newsletters and the regulations / changes to the regulations / letters changing the changes in the regulations / and other letters defining what the changes to the changed regulations really meant. I really leaves you feeling that no matter how hard you try to do it "right". The is always something that you will either have missed or will be "changed" so that your no longer in the clear. What really has me bothered is nothing is set in stone ... it is literally all up for interpretation. As an old military grunt - I like to know the rules and know that they aren't "open for interpretation". I like to know what is right and what is wrong - and not have to worry about getting caught in a gray area. It just doesn't make sense to me that they can say one thing ... and then a year or two later send out a letter saying, "We changed our mind and we now see this law as meaning ......" It will be nice when someone sits down and writes the books correctly and sets the procedures in stone so we don't get bent over when it's convenient for them. Personally I would like the original rules to apply ... the right to bear arms shall not be infringed ... but we have a good way of tieing our own hands it your give us enough rope. Sarg . |
|
Quoted: Can you show me where the BATFE defines placing an existing bullet in an over-the-counter sabot as "manufacturing" a new bullet? Because that would imply that any muzzleloader enthusiast "manufactures" a new bullet every time he uses one of those new Hornady gizmos that includes a sabot and a spine to put their pelletized propellant on...
span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span]
Your confusion when comparing logical stuff to ATF regs is understandable. ATF regs are incredibly odd at times. On the other hand, the definition of an AOW is based on specific features, including something like a pistol with a vertical foregrip. A bullet is a projectile, nothing more, and an SS109-type bullet is simply one that flies straighter at longer ranges than an M193-type FMJ bullet. What action I was referring to specifically was the act of putting the M855 bullet into the sabot ... that by BATFE definitions is "manufacturing" a new bullet. And the construction of the SS109 bullet simply does not meet the definition of "armor piercing." The definition in 18 USC sec. 921(a)(17) states that an armor piercing bullet must have a core made [span style='font-style: italic;']entirely[/span] from one or more of the prohibited metals (which includes steel but does not include lead), while the SS109 bullet core is made of lead with a small, mild steel insert. Note also that the [span style='font-style: italic;']functional[/span] definition of "armor piercing" is irrelevant to the law-sec. 921 establishes that the actual ability of a bullet to penetrate anything and the hardness of the bullet is immaterial. Edit: Fixed messed up quoting. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted: Can you show me where the BATFE defines placing an existing bullet in an over-the-counter sabot as "manufacturing" a new bullet? Because that would imply that any muzzleloader enthusiast "manufactures" a new bullet every time he uses one of those new Hornady gizmos that includes a sabot and a spine to put their pelletized propellant on...
span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span]
Your confusion when comparing logical stuff to ATF regs is understandable. ATF regs are incredibly odd at times. On the other hand, the definition of an AOW is based on specific features, including something like a pistol with a vertical foregrip. A bullet is a projectile, nothing more, and an SS109-type bullet is simply one that flies straighter at longer ranges than an M193-type FMJ bullet. What action I was referring to specifically was the act of putting the M855 bullet into the sabot ... that by BATFE definitions is "manufacturing" a new bullet. And the construction of the SS109 bullet simply does not meet the definition of "armor piercing." The definition in 18 USC sec. 921(a)(17) states that an armor piercing bullet must have a core made [span style='font-style: italic;']entirely[/span] from one or more of the prohibited metals (which includes steel but does not include lead), while the SS109 bullet core is made of lead with a small, mild steel insert. Note also that the [span style='font-style: italic;']functional[/span] definition of "armor piercing" is irrelevant to the law-sec. 921 establishes that the actual ability of a bullet to penetrate anything and the hardness of the bullet is immaterial. [span style='font-style: italic;']Edit:[/span] Fixed messed up quoting. This is out of 18 USC sec. 921 : (17)(A) The term ``ammunition'' means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm. (B) The term ``armor piercing ammunition'' means–– (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. The whole point that I am trying to make is not weather a M855 bullet is AP or not ... it's about the confusion of the law itself - I completely understand what your saying I and I have read the exemption for the M855 projectile and the M2 AP projectile that you are referring to. For instance in the above section, 17(B) is says that any projectile "which may be used in a handgun" ... that means just about every projectile made. Since there are 50 BMG handguns and other large bore pistol - you can conclude that all of these brass and copper solids are considered AP under these definitions. If this section holds true it would mean that the entire Barnes line of bullets (except the frangibles) would be considered AP as well. As backward as all this is ... it just doesn't make sense to assume that you are in the clear with anything now adays. It is all left up to interpretation of the person reading the law. It gets real scary real quick when you start looking at these things! |
|
I'm with GHPorter. I don't think putting a completely manufactured bullet inside a sabot is manufacturing a new bullet. You aren't even modifying the bullet, you are just putting it in a plastic sleeve. You are manufacturing ammunition, but not bullets.
Regardless, it is irrelevent to me since I don't intend to put anything but standard copper jacket lead core bullets into sabots. Thank you to those who have posted links to websites where I can buy 308/223 sabots. Does anyone know where I could get some for different calibers? I haven't found anything other than bringing a .22 bullet up to a .30 bore. |
|
Quoted:
I don't see any confusion with the specifics we were discussing. The bullet used in M855 does not conform to the definition of armor piercing in any way, so wrapping it up in a sabot can't be "manufacturing" a new armor piercing bullet. Just because it was listed in an exemption along with the M2 AP round does not mean that it is exempt for the same reason-it's in fact not AP by the legal definition in the statute itself.
Quoted:
Quoted: Can you show me where the BATFE defines placing an existing bullet in an over-the-counter sabot as "manufacturing" a new bullet? Because that would imply that any muzzleloader enthusiast "manufactures" a new bullet every time he uses one of those new Hornady gizmos that includes a sabot and a spine to put their pelletized propellant on...
span style='font-weight: bold;']Quoted:[/span]
Your confusion when comparing logical stuff to ATF regs is understandable. ATF regs are incredibly odd at times. On the other hand, the definition of an AOW is based on specific features, including something like a pistol with a vertical foregrip. A bullet is a projectile, nothing more, and an SS109-type bullet is simply one that flies straighter at longer ranges than an M193-type FMJ bullet. What action I was referring to specifically was the act of putting the M855 bullet into the sabot ... that by BATFE definitions is "manufacturing" a new bullet. And the construction of the SS109 bullet simply does not meet the definition of "armor piercing." The definition in 18 USC sec. 921(a)(17) states that an armor piercing bullet must have a core made [span style='font-style: italic;']entirely[/span] from one or more of the prohibited metals (which includes steel but does not include lead), while the SS109 bullet core is made of lead with a small, mild steel insert. Note also that the [span style='font-style: italic;']functional[/span] definition of "armor piercing" is irrelevant to the law-sec. 921 establishes that the actual ability of a bullet to penetrate anything and the hardness of the bullet is immaterial. [span style='font-style: italic;']Edit:[/span] Fixed messed up quoting. This is out of 18 USC sec. 921 : (17)(A) The term ``ammunition'' means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm. (B) The term ``armor piercing ammunition'' means–– (i) a projectile or projectile core [span style='color: red;']which may be used in a handgun[/span] and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and [span style='color: red;']intended[/span] for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. The whole point that I am trying to make is not weather a M855 bullet is AP or not ... it's about the confusion of the law itself - I completely understand what your saying I and I have read the exemption for the M855 projectile and the M2 AP projectile that you are referring to. For instance in the above section, 17(B) is says that any projectile "which may be used in a handgun" ... that means just about every projectile made. Since there are 50 BMG handguns and other large bore pistol - you can conclude that all of these brass and copper solids are considered AP under these definitions. If this section holds true it would mean that the entire Barnes line of bullets (except the frangibles) would be considered AP as well. As backward as all this is ... it just doesn't make sense to assume that you are in the clear with anything now adays. It is all left up to interpretation of the person reading the law. It gets real scary real quick when you start looking at these things! And are you sure there are .50 BMG handguns? I'd like to see one. |
|
ENOUGH with the M855 ... I could care less about the M855 and how it is built. What I was trying to open people's eyes to - is that the BATFE's interpretation of the laws can lend someone in trouble, and yes every time a muzzle loader loads a bullet into a sabot it would me manufacturing / making / assembling / creating or whatever you want to call it. As long it is for personal use who cares - if that person started selling them after he assembled them then he would have to have a license. What I was referring to is that - say that same muzzle loader gets a sabot that allows him to put a .311 API bullet into their muzzle loader. They have now manufactured / assembled / created a "new" type of Armor Piercing ammunition - which by law is illegal now. It's the same thing as a dealer ordering a complete upper and a complete lower. If they assemble the two, and sell the rifle then, in the BATFE's eyes, they have manufactured a firearm and would require a manufacturers license. The BATFE's website specifically addresses this ... they state that the FFL would need to sell the lower and upper to the individual as two separate units.
To address your question about the 50 BMG pistol ... there are numerous examples of them ... here is not only one, but two. As well as pictures of them being fired to show that they are functional. If the bullet misses the bad guy you can be assured the fireball will get them!!!  That being said item (17)(B)(i) deems that the solid copper and brass bore riders that are sold should be classified as AP rounds since it can be chamber in a pistol.
I could care less weather it is a .308 in a sabot or a Barnes Copper bullet ... The .gov is open to "interpret" the law however they see fit and if you feel like gambling with your freedom feel free too. 
|
|
Quoted:
The ATF tends to interpret the rules based on precedents, which is a very good thing because it helps us understand what is considered allowable and what is not. Yes, some of the rules are difficult to figure out, but the gist is that if it's been done before and whoever did it wasn't messed with by ATF then it's probably OK-as long as you don't do it and break the law some other way. The whole armor piercing ammo issue is all about Congress' impression of the old KTW bullet, which was marketed to law enforcement as an answer to bad guys getting body armor. I do not know how Congress got the idea that this LEO-only ammunition would be easily available to bad guys, but the idea stuck and the elected guys went to town. Further, from my read on the law, only fixed ammunition (or bullets for fixed ammunition) is covered, so muzzleloaders are not covered by it.
ENOUGH with the M855 ... I could care less about the M855 and how it is built. What I was trying to open people's eyes to - is that the BATFE's interpretation of the laws can lend someone in trouble, and yes every time a muzzle loader loads a bullet into a sabot it would me manufacturing / making / assembling / creating or whatever you want to call it. As long it is for personal use who cares - if that person started selling them after he assembled them then he would have to have a license. What I was referring to is that - say that same muzzle loader gets a sabot that allows him to put a .311 API bullet into their muzzle loader. They have now manufactured / assembled / created a "new" type of Armor Piercing ammunition - which by law is illegal now. It's the same thing as a dealer ordering a complete upper and a complete lower. If they assemble the two, and sell the rifle then, in the BATFE's eyes, they have manufactured a firearm and would require a manufacturers license. The BATFE's website specifically addresses this ... they state that the FFL would need to sell the lower and upper to the individual as two separate units. To address your question about the 50 BMG pistol ... there are numerous examples of them ... here is not only one, but two. As well as pictures of them being fired to show that they are functional. If the bullet misses the bad guy you can be assured the fireball will get them!!! That being said item (17)(B)(i) deems that the solid copper and brass bore riders that are sold should be classified as AP rounds since it can be chamber in a pistol.
I could care less weather it is a .308 in a sabot or a Barnes Copper bullet ... The .gov is open to "interpret" the law however they see fit and if you feel like gambling with your freedom feel free too. Your point-that one must know something about the law to avoid getting on the wrong side of it-is valid. Your assumptions about how BATFE does their enforcement are not grounded in history or law They are good assumptions to start with, no doubt about it, but they are only starting points. My points about the SS109 bullet were specifically intended to point out details in the law which make a big difference. Those .50BMG pistols are...scary! And they're a good example of where BATFE tends to concern itself with some things and not others. The whole "7.62X39 and .223 Remington pistol" thing was due to bad timing on the part of two manufacturers who just had to bring out pistols in those calibers just when everyone knew that this would classify tons and tons of cheap, surplus ammo as "armor piercing." One of the companies had a very bad rep in the AR world for many years because of this. There are potentially hundreds of thousands of AR pistols now; how many .50BMG pistols are there? It's not likely that anyone will go to the trouble to make a formal determination that any .50BMG ammunition is in any way "intended for use in a pistol," and thus it's very unlikely that BATFE will start messing with bullets for that round. |
Armory Sponsor