What would the legalities of this be?

[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.

 

[Lark]

I can fire a cartridge by putting it in a hot frying pan. I can also use the frying pan as a weapon. This does not make a frying pan a firearm.

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

That, or they just haven't taken notice of the powerheads. Still, the definitions are what they are.

Having failed to meet their gun control objectives, the administration will be looking for regulatory ways to restrict things. Stuff like this is an easy win for an enterprising agent.

 

[Grizz12]

I guess I will be the odd ball on this one.

Having shot thousands of arrows, I think its pretty cool. In the video, the arrow did not "recoil" back, telling me the bullet took everything forward and into the pig. It actually looked like the arrow was sticking into the pig...

In most states (if not all of them), explosive tips on arrows are illegal for hunting.

I think it would be a fun thing to play with at the range or in the desert

BTW, I used to own a traditional archery shop and only shoot traditional bows

 

[lcpiper]

but it clearly "expels a projectile by action of an explosive"

You have to first see if it meets the definition of a projectile. If the device isn't triggered until it strikes a target and if the "projectile" doesn't travel any of the distance from the firer to the target is it still a projectile. If it is not a projectile then the firearm definition falls apart. I would need to know more about the AOW definition but my basic understanding is it's a catchall for anything they want to control that doesn't neatly fit another category.

 

[44 AMP]

I can fire a cartridge by putting it in a hot frying pan.

no, you can detonate a cartridge by putting it in a hot frying pan.

In reality, what matters is what the govt decides to classify it as, not what we think it is.

In the end, it will boil down to where, within existing ATF definitions they decide to put it. It could be a "destructive device" (hopefully not, as that would put it in the same category as hand grenades, etc), or it could be a firearm, in a special subclass, like AOW.

They make the ruling, and outside of legal challenges, we live with it.

 

[Lark]

I wrote to the company to ask if they had an ATF opinion on their product and have not received an answer.