What would the legalities of this be?

[jimpeel]

The Rac-Em-Bac Bow Mag – Bullet tipped arrow.

ARTICLE

IN ACTION (VIDEO)

So what would be the ramifications of turning your arrow into a firearm? How would that sit with local laws on archery season? BATFE?

The video shows the device being used on a wild pig which is nuisance game in many parts of the country. They shoot them from helicopters.

So what are the ramifications of using this type of weapon on game? Any thoughts on what the BATFE thinks of this invention?

[armsmaster270]

It seems that each bow tip could be construed by BATFE to be a firearm and have to have a S/N and be registered etc.

[Navy joe]

Seems like a good way to be inhumane. Sort of like a bang stick, but it does not look substantial enough to contain the firing pressure of the round so terminal performance is suspect. If you can hit them with a bow, why not use a quality broadhead. Or you know, a .357 revolver.

[Tom Servo]

These are the criteria under § 921(a):

The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

Those could be interpreted as firearms. I notice their site is fairly evasive on this.

Furthermore, there are going to be questions of how humane they are. The bullet isn't being stabilized by rifling, nor is there the backpressure from the cartridge being in a chamber during ignition. Essentially, it's a firecracker on the end of a blunt-tipped arrow. The weight and shape are going to alter the trajectory. I don't see why anyone would use these rather than a plain broadhead.

[MLeake]

Alligator bow-hunting, maybe? I can't think of any other application, and I don't know that alligator bow-hunting would be legal. (Seems to me that some places do only allow bang sticks / power heads; not sure if these would fly as it were...)

[Onward Allusion]

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that there better be dummy rounds that very closely approximate the weight & dimension of the "bang-head". Otherwise, it would be a pain to zero live rounds or even weighted field points. Hmmm, time to get the scale out. 315 grain field point weights are probably the heaviest I've run across. Being an Archer, I find this kinda crap gimmicky at best.

[Tom Servo]

Being an Archer, I find this kinda crap gimmicky at best.

I'm not an archer, but I really worry about how effective (and therefore, humane) those things would be in real use. I really can't see one of these taking down a feral hog in one shot, no matter what the promotional video appears to show.

This is why some states outlaw rimfire loads (and .223) for hunting.

[Lark]

I think it is a gimmicky piece of crap. The point will not penetrate much at all into the game and the cartridge merely explodes and destroys the tip. The bullet is not going to have much in the way of velocity.

Their claim from the article;

The Bow-Mag Arrowhead combines the stealth delivery of an arrow with the power of a .38 or .357 Magnum bullet, effectively turning your compound bow or crossbow into an even deadlier, silent hunting tool.

This is not going to be silent at all unless the cartridge penetrates deeply into the animal before the primer ignites the powder.

I don't think it meets the definition of a firearm.

lark

[kilimanjaro]

Doesn't seem to be a very humane way to take a hog.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Lark

I don't think it meets the definition of a firearm.

Originally Posted by ATF

The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

How could it NOT be a firearm? It's clearly a weapon. It clearly "expels a projectile by the action of an explosive." It absolutely IS a firearm.

[44 AMP]

A cartridge tipped arrow, or a bang stick clearly is a firearm, after all, they are firing a cartridge! Now, the ATF may stick them in a special category under the general heading of firearm, but I think they would have to be considered some kind of firearm.

It would make sense to consider the arrow (each tipped arrow) as the firearm (because it is), but the bureaucracy might consider the bow to be a part of the "system" as well. I wouldn't think so, but they have made stranger decisions in the past. (such as an auto sear being, all by itself, with no gun involved, legally a machine gun).

They can rule, pretty much any way they want. and they often do....

[Crankgrinder]

my experiments with arrows did not involve cartridges, but i was informed at the time to cease and desist in my adventures due to laws stating that the modification and or design of such things constituted a terroristic device, and would result in huge trouble. Havent touched it since but while your case is somewhat different from mine i would hate to see a perhaps overzealous DA call it just that. Not to mention the physics behind it seems so unpredictable to me. Perhaps dangerous.

[TXAZ]

I'd ask them if they provide indemnification. That should tell you a lot.

[jimpeel]

I don't believe there is indemnification in criminal law.

[Lark]

How could it NOT be a firearm? It's clearly a weapon. It clearly "expels a projectile by the action of an explosive." It absolutely IS a firearm.

I don't think the bullet is propelled as it is in a typical firearm. The website says the device is destroyed so this probably means that the entire cartridge flies apart when the powder burns. In other words it is not actually firing a bullet. Until I am able to see a much more convincing video or tests in balistic gelatin, I think it is a waste of money and a good way to wound but not kill pigs.

If they were legally fireams then I don't think they would be selling them direct to the unlicensed customer on their website.

[csmsss]

I don't think the bullet is propelled as it is in a typical firearm. The website says the device is destroyed so this probably means that the entire cartridge flies apart when the powder burns. In other words it is not actually firing a bullet.

I disagree. From what I can see, there is an inertial firing pin behind the primer of the cartridge and when the arrow strikes something at least relatively solid the shaft of the arrow slams into the firing pin, striking and igniting the primer. The cylinder in which the cartridge is stored acts as the chamber/barrel, and there appears to be at least some exit of the bullet from the device. I can't think of any reason why the entire cartridge would "fly apart" when the powder burns any more than it would under any other circumstance where the primer ignites.

The only thing of consequence that I can see distinguishing this from any other firearm is that there is no trigger.

Until I am able to see a much more convincing video or tests in balistic gelatin, I think it is a waste of money and a good way to wound but not kill pigs.

I'd go along with that. I don't see how this device would induce the death of the pig more quickly or humanely than a sharp broadhead.

If they were legally fireams then I don't think they would be selling them direct to the unlicensed customer on their website.

That's actually irrelevant. There are many previous examples of folks manufacturing objects that were later ruled illegal or incorrectly classified by BATFE.

[lcpiper]

It clearly "expels a projectile by the action of an explosive."

If I were an BATAF agent in charge of classifying this device I would be in a quandary for certain.

Although technically each arrow could be classified as a firearm by the definition, the reality is that the relationship between the "shooter", the weapon(the bow), and the actual projectile remain for the most part unchanged.

There is the added element that the "payload" has been changed from an edged kinetic instrument to an explosive/propellant based secondary projectile.

The question becomes does this "payload" actually effect the method of delivery, from shooter to target, in an appreciable manner that would require a change in laws.

On the surface, and without personal hands on testing and experience, I'd say it does not.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Lark

I don't think the bullet is propelled as it is in a typical firearm. The website says the device is destroyed so this probably means that the entire cartridge flies apart when the powder burns. In other words it is not actually firing a bullet. Until I am able to see a much more convincing video or tests in balistic gelatin, I think it is a waste of money and a good way to wound but not kill pigs.

It makes no difference whatsoever if the bullet is propelled "as it is in a typical firearm". The bullet is obviously imparted energy by the explosion. If the explosion blows the whole device to pieces, it is putting the same force on the bullet.

Their website says it "brings the magnum force of a bullet directly to your target". Stupid, mall-ninja, propaganda that may be, but it clearly "expels a projectile by action of an explosive".

[Lark]

The cylinder in which the cartridge is stored acts as the chamber/barrel, and there appears to be at least some exit of the bullet from the device. I can't think of any reason why the entire cartridge would "fly apart" when the powder burns any more than it would under any other circumstance where the primer ignites.

From looking at their video, it appears that the device is made at least partly of plastic. What you think is a chamber or barrel actually appears to be merely a pocket to hold the cartridge in position for the firing pin. If I were to make a shellholder with a firing pin to detonate a cartridge on the end of a stick, it would do the same thing as the Bow-Mag.

I have held bangsticks before. They at least have a real chamber into which a cartridge can be inserted, used, then reused. They will actually propell a bullet and gun powder gases into the target. I'm not certain that Bow-Mag will do anything more than singe the fur of any animal it hits.

[Tom Servo]

The only thing of consequence that I can see distinguishing this from any other firearm is that there is no trigger.

Yep, and since it's not readily identifiable as a gun, it would qualify as an AOW, which triggers registration and taxation under the NFA.

If I were an BATAF agent in charge of classifying this device I would be in a quandary for certain.

Doubtful. Under the logic I just stated, that's an opportunity for restriction and revenue generation. There would be quandary at all.

[Lark]

The bullet is obviously imparted energy by the explosion. If the explosion blows the whole device to pieces, it is putting the same force on the bullet.

Definitely not the same. The interior of the .357 magnum brass case has over ten times the surface area as the base of the bullet. Unless the strength of the Bow-Mag is enough to contain the pressure, the brass is going to rupture instead of containing the gases and propelling the bullet. Their website says it is destroyed wheh used, so I doubt it is containing much of anything.

Yep, and since it's not readily identifiable as a gun, it would qualify as an AOW, which triggers registration and taxation under the NFA.

If the BATFE was going to define the Bow-Mag as an AOW, then they would have done the same with powerheads as they don't look like a gun.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The regulation doesn't say "if a lot of energy is imparted" or "if the projectile is expelled at least 10 feet"

It says "expel a projectile by the action of an explosive". The projectile is clearly expelled. Otherwise, what would be the point?

It clearly "expels the projectile".

SAAMI has a video for firefighters that shows what happens when a round ignites with nothing to contain the blast. Most rounds won't penetrate cardboard at a few inches distance but the bullet IS expelled and it is "by the action of an explosive".

There's also nothing in the Reg about the device being reusable. The ATF doesn't care what happens to the device when/after it goes BOOM!.

The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;

Is it a weapon? Obviously, they're killing things with it.

Does it use the action of an explosive? Obviously, it does.

Does it "expels a projectile". If the bullet MOVES under the force of the explosion, it is "expelled". A primer ALONE will expel a bullet from a case. I can't see how anyone can argue that a fully loaded round doesn't "expel" the bullet.

[Lark]

Is it a weapon? Obviously, they're killing things with it.

That was not what I saw in those videos. I saw an arrow released, then an animal hit by something. If they want to convince anyone that their product makes a bullet penetrate an object, they should show it being shot into a block of ballistic gelatin or shoot and edit their videos to show the arrow striking the animal and the animal going down as a direct result of that arrow impact. I did not see this in any of their videos.

[Brian Pfleuger]

OK. I give up. Some folks will just argue anything. If you can't even concede that it's a weapon, this discussion is beyond pointless.

[44 AMP]

The discussion of what it legally is, and if/how well it works are two different things.

It takes a commonly available cartridge. The cartridge is fired. That makes it a firearm. Which sub category it best fits in is up to the gov's eventual decision.

One thing is clear, while the cartridge is "fired", it is not fired in the conventional chamber, so it cannot deliver the same effect. Its NOT like the end of the arrow is the muzzle of a .357 pistol.

Note the careful phrasing of the ad copy, "the power of a 357 bullet..." Since it does carry the bullet, and it does strike the target, with some energy, the statement is factually accurate. However it is not the same as the energy of that bullet if fired from a regular gun.