what's the most creative bullet you have made?

[rickyp]

I was thinking how cool it would be to make some hardened steel core  bullets for the 45 acp, 45 colt and the 44 mag.

 anyone ever try and make a tracer bullet?

[tiger]

to make AP ammo costs $3000 for three years. :eek:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nlc/ffl/ffl_types.htm#type10

[rickyp]

I didn't think about needing a license to make the hardened core bullet.
The ATF won't let anyone have a little fun with out paying a lot of money

[tiger]

It is legal because it is not a solid steel core. It's a steel penetrator (kind of cone shaped) in front of a lead slug. So, if you made a partial steel / partial lead core bullet, then maybe that would be OK. Write the ATF Tech Branch for a determination. The worst they'll say is no. But they will want to know the exact composition of lead and steel, as well as the jacket weight percentage of the total weight. The 1994 Brady Bill amended the AP ammo law by adding the prohibition of bullets whose jacket weight exceeds 25% of the total weight. So if the final weight is 200gr, then keep the jacket weight lighter than 50gr. I'd still get a determination though.

I didn't think about needing a license to make the hardened core bullet.
The ATF won't let anyone have a little fun with out paying a lot of money

[talon]

I believe a Class 6 Licence is to SELL bullets, not make them.

[tiger]

Armor piercing and destructive device ammunition.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nlc/ffl/ffl_types.htm#type6

I believe a Class 6 Licence is to SELL bullets, not make them.

[talon]

title 18, US Code, ch 44, Para 922 (a)(7) is short and sweet: No one can even make AP bullets or cartridges except for three reasons (use by the State, for export, and/or ATF approved testing). The licence to produce AP ammuninition apparently is for one or more of these exceptions. This is one section of the law where you don't need a lawyer to understand the point.
 Also, the defination of AP under this law only applies to pistol ammo, or bullets that could be loaded into a pistol cartridge. It also is clear that 'rods' of any sort embedded in a lead bullet is OK, and that bullets greater than .22cal can not have jackets weighing more than 25%.
   Ch 44 makes for interesting reading.  

[Rick Teal]

This 25% rule is very confusing to me.

My bullet design is both an expander and a penetrator, having an expanding tip plus other features (including a bonded core) to guarantee necessary (though not excessive) penetration.

I make .35 calibre bullets with .030 jackets, and checked my "components" book to see how I measured up to this "25%" rule.  Every one of my weights and variations has a jacket that weighs between 32% and 36% of the over-all weight of the bullet.  I then checked the numbers on a "traditional" lead tipped 300 grainer I had made.  This one weighed in at 32%.

To me, this means that in your country, you cannot make a jacketed .35 calibre bullet using an .030 jacket - and I use a 4 calibre ogive.  What would you get with a "pointier" bullet?

Are you guys sure of this rule?  Looking at the cross-sections of partitions, I seriously doubt that they would meet this 25% rule.

[talon]

Rick, could your bullets be used in a .38/.357 pistol? If so, I believe they are forbidden in the good 'ol USA. If you want to read the exact wording in the Regulation, send me a PM.  

[Rick Teal]

talon:

I hope you pardon any lack of knowledge of handguns on my part, but my government has taken it upon itself to protect me from the evils of handguns by making them very difficult to acquire and use.  However, its my understanding that most .358 bullets can be used in .38/.357 handguns, and that there are some of the silouette type handguns that shoot cartridges like the .35 Remington and .358 Winchester, which definitely take my bullets.

It seems to me that the only type of bullet that might be able to use .030 jackets (and stay under this 25% barrier) would be a round nose.  I can't believe that bullets made by many of the custom bullet makers who make heavy jacketed bullets can meet this requirement.

I'm sending you the PM.

Thanks!

Rick

[talon]

Rick, PM sent. I can't answer your question about the apparent inconsistency in how the law reads and what is obviously going on. If it hadn't been for what tiger said it would have passed under all our radar screens. Looks like every commercial firm cranking out heavy jacketed rifle bullets that can be crammed into a pistol cartridge and fit in a pistol can be closed down tomorrow. Also, if any of their product is used in a pistol length barrel, they are going to the dock along with the shooter. Real nice. What a country. Maybe someone who has gone down this path can let use know what's going on, legal-wise.

[Rick Teal]

talon:

Thanks for the link and directions.

Having read the information there, I really doubt that this rule would (or should) effect the making or sale of bullets like mine.

"921(a)
(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. "

Paragraph (i) refers to projectiles that do not contain any lead, which is not the case with heavy jacked bullets we're discussing, and is, therefore, not applicable.

Paragraph (ii) refers to jacketed bullets, and in it, the words "designed and intended" would have to be intentionally mis-interpreted to mean hunting bullets intended for use in big game hunting rifles.  However, knowing the anti-gun bias of certain players in this debate, sometime in the future this type of deliberate misinterpretation may indeed occur (particularly if "they" gain power).

[talon]

Rick, you wouldn't get any arguments out of me, but just ask a trial lawyer to discuss what "designed and intended" mean. For instance, if the Secretary believes a 30 cal heavy jacket 150 grain 30 cal RN could fit quite well into a 30 mouser pistol cartridge, then into a magazine or chamber, what do you think the manufacturer would be told? For instance, try driving across the US border with a truckload of that chemical "designed and intended" to be a cheap fertilizer, and see what happens when Mr Customs Guy says " Hay... This is bomb making stuff." Which one gets to define " designed and intended" then?  Very thin ice, this regulation.  

[Reed1911]

As a calss 6 FFL holder I can comment to some of this. The ATF makes a lot of the regulations confusing and double speak, so people will call and ask. As for the 25% weight rule it depends on what type of bullet you are making and it's intention. Also the term "handgun" can be misleading (i.e. look at the contender). If you are wanting to make a steel bullet for a rifle round expressly for hunting, they'll probably okay it. I need to point no further than the solids from barnes. Their jacket weight consist's of 100% of the total weight, it's all the same material. Handgun bullets are a whole different thing, I know Barnes has to go through very, and I mean VERY rigorous testing by the ATF to get their solid copper HP's through and de-classed. Best bet, call the ATF and ask. I do caution you to speak to several different people and ask for their judgement on paper with the specific regulation numbers noted. I've gone through all kinds of problems with ATF lackeys that just wanted to give me a halfa@@ answer.