What would the legalities of this be?

J

jimpeel

New member
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Being an Archer, I find this kinda crap gimmicky at best.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Lark said:
I don't think it meets the definition of a firearm.
Click to expand...

ATF said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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....
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
That's actually irrelevant. There are many previous examples of folks manufacturing objects that were later ruled illegal or incorrectly classified by BATFE.
 
It clearly "expels a projectile by the action of an explosive."
Click to expand...


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.
 
Lark said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The only thing of consequence that I can see distinguishing this from any other firearm is that there is no trigger.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. Under the logic I just stated, that's an opportunity for restriction and revenue generation. There would be quandary at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top