rogdigity
Member
ya know, i was just posting something about these little guys and thought, just how legal are these? anyone know anything about the laws of flechette ammo?
flechettes
- Thread starter rogdigity
- Start date
- Status
rogdigity
Member
or een any other info on them. the only things i know are hear/say about testing, but nothing on actual use
Novus Collectus
Member
Not sure about individual states, but it might run afoul of the "armor-piercing ammunition" fed law depending on what they are made of.
Just guessing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html
Just guessing.
California Penal Code
12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses ... any ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart ...
12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses ... any ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart ...
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
Not illegal in my state (VT) but I'm not so sure I'd want to use them in self-defense...
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
They're perfectly legal under federal law as far as I know. Flechette shotgun ammo is sold all over the place on the internet and the feds aren't going after anyone for it...
Novus Collectus
Member
But what about for handguns or ammo that could be used in handguns?
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
I'm not sure anyone would bother, most handguns have rifled barrels (except class 3 items and certain antiques) and it wouldn't be terribly effective but I don't see why it'd be treated differently than other steel shotgun ammo being shot out of a handgun (like the various snake shot rounds). In any case, I don't think the feds have ever ruled it to be "armor piercing."
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
No handgun caliber snake-shot ammo that I have ever seen uses steel shot.
I don't think there are any steel-shot .410 loads either.
CCI snake shot is definitely lead shot, and the .22 LR crimped shot from Win. & Rem. both use lead "dust" shot.
As for Flechettes ammo out of a shotgun, it wouldn't be effective for any use I can think of.
Flechettes were only at it's best as a man killer when fired out of a 105mm howitzer or 106mm recoilless rifle in Beehive rounds.
rcmodel
I don't think there are any steel-shot .410 loads either.
CCI snake shot is definitely lead shot, and the .22 LR crimped shot from Win. & Rem. both use lead "dust" shot.
As for Flechettes ammo out of a shotgun, it wouldn't be effective for any use I can think of.
Flechettes were only at it's best as a man killer when fired out of a 105mm howitzer or 106mm recoilless rifle in Beehive rounds.
rcmodel
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
I've known people to handload their own steel snakeshot rounds, and I don't think that gets classified as armor piercing...
Novus Collectus
Member
I think hunting varmints and pests counts as both hunting purposes because non-lead shot is required for some hunting purposes and steel is a good candidate for the Secretary to determine it has a sporting purpose in ammunition that can also be used in handguns.
I am sure there is some state that reqiures non lead shot be used in hunting ammo including .410 shotguns like in California where they might in the areas where the Condors eat (by that brand new law). I am not sure if California allows hunting of some small birds or other game with a .410 shotgun, but I am willing to bet they do. This would take care of the first exception about shotgun shot for hunting purposes by state regulations. "Non-lead shot" includes steel.
rogdigity
Member
thanks for clearing that up guys. i was kinda in the dark there as everything ive heard was just that, "heard" from someone else that "heard" it...
maybe ill try to get a hand full of them and load a few of my own and do my own tests with them next time im in nebraska. ill be sure to stand well away too, as i heard in the oteher post that they are prone to coming back at you
maybe ill try to get a hand full of them and load a few of my own and do my own tests with them next time im in nebraska. ill be sure to stand well away too, as i heard in the oteher post that they are prone to coming back at you
They are very neat. Basicly they are little more than nails, except instead of a round head they have slots or fins up the side. In fact I imagine short nails with the head cut into fins would function exactly the same. The fins have to be proportional to the size of the projectile, so smaller nails would be easier to stabilize. Duplex nails would have 2 heads to turn into fins giving even more stability. Although I imagine any nail would work even without alteration since the head would have the highest drag keeping it pointed relatively rearward and the point relatively forward, altered ones would just work better cutting down on total drag.
A denser material than steel but still hard would have greater performance.
They are excellent for penetration, and would indead be "armor piercing" if talking about soft body armor, especialy larger ones. However the same thing that makes them great for penetration makes them horrible for terminal performance. The thin profile of something like a nail means it just applies most of its energy in a very small point causing little damage to surrounding tissue. This means it takes a lot of them, and they are not immediately incapacitating. Although for head shots the very good penetration and high hit probability would probably make them quite effective since the brain does not usualy take a lot of punishment.
If you think of ammunition and total surface area as well as depth penetrated in total volume of tissue destruction all the points of the flechettes are going to total less than the total diameter of the shotgun bore. Yet Buckshot or even any shot is going to total more surface area than the diameter of the bore.
Think of it this way for example. #1 buck is judged to go the suitable 12" of penetration. Each pellet is .30" in diameter. That means 16x.30" is 4.8" multiplied by another 12 inches of penetration gives you 57.6" total area damaged in the target at maximum possible potential. 00 buck is a little less, but not far behind.
Now take the points of the Flechettes. They are going to all total under the (lets assume 12 gauge) .729 bore diameter munus some for the shotcup. Since a torso is not usualy much wider than 12 inches (with many less) extra penetration is usualy not going to amount to additional damage. So taking the shotcup into consideration and the fact that the fins are going to reduce the total number that can fit (although if of shorter length some can be positioned higher up than others with the fins interlocking the shaft of others to pack the most possible) you are going to have less than .70X the depth it penetrates of tissue damage. There is a maximum of penetration that matters though after which it will nott be in the target. So if 12" is your maximum depth then the total tissue damage would be 8.4. If your target is thicker than 12" you can add that much more total.
So you have 57.6" with #1 buckshot, and around 8.4" with flechette of tissue destriction. It would be higher if you count the total depth penetrated by the flechette, but since the target is only so thick, that is usualy irrelevant. Quite a difference in total damage.
Now there would be some yaw, and the fins would add a little damage, but not much.
So the total amount of tissue destruction will be less than with buckshot.
For birdshot type uses flechettes would be far too dangerous as they would rain down like spikes. So discussion of them for that purpose is not even necessary.
So more damage would be done by shot that goes to suitable depth. Then of course the individual diameter of each would is also important as there is a minimum for effectiveness. Otherwise hypordermic shots into the heart would be lethal, yet they are not.
There is also a cut off where thinner no longer freely leaks blood, meaning its wound channel is not effective.
So in both hunting and defensive use the diameter of each projectile is important as is the total momentum of each. So this would limit you to fewer yet larger flechettes with a total impacting surface area of less than the bore of the shotgun.
As pointed out they are illegal in several states including CA. In much of the nation they are not.
Unless penetration is more important than tissue damage they are usualy not a good choice.
Most commercial ones are made of steel and steel and other hard ammunition is very ricochet prone so use caution.
The only time they might be more suitable for a job is if you need that extra penetration. Shooting an animal through heavy brush for example.
A denser material than steel but still hard would have greater performance.
They are excellent for penetration, and would indead be "armor piercing" if talking about soft body armor, especialy larger ones. However the same thing that makes them great for penetration makes them horrible for terminal performance. The thin profile of something like a nail means it just applies most of its energy in a very small point causing little damage to surrounding tissue. This means it takes a lot of them, and they are not immediately incapacitating. Although for head shots the very good penetration and high hit probability would probably make them quite effective since the brain does not usualy take a lot of punishment.
If you think of ammunition and total surface area as well as depth penetrated in total volume of tissue destruction all the points of the flechettes are going to total less than the total diameter of the shotgun bore. Yet Buckshot or even any shot is going to total more surface area than the diameter of the bore.
Think of it this way for example. #1 buck is judged to go the suitable 12" of penetration. Each pellet is .30" in diameter. That means 16x.30" is 4.8" multiplied by another 12 inches of penetration gives you 57.6" total area damaged in the target at maximum possible potential. 00 buck is a little less, but not far behind.
Now take the points of the Flechettes. They are going to all total under the (lets assume 12 gauge) .729 bore diameter munus some for the shotcup. Since a torso is not usualy much wider than 12 inches (with many less) extra penetration is usualy not going to amount to additional damage. So taking the shotcup into consideration and the fact that the fins are going to reduce the total number that can fit (although if of shorter length some can be positioned higher up than others with the fins interlocking the shaft of others to pack the most possible) you are going to have less than .70X the depth it penetrates of tissue damage. There is a maximum of penetration that matters though after which it will nott be in the target. So if 12" is your maximum depth then the total tissue damage would be 8.4. If your target is thicker than 12" you can add that much more total.
So you have 57.6" with #1 buckshot, and around 8.4" with flechette of tissue destriction. It would be higher if you count the total depth penetrated by the flechette, but since the target is only so thick, that is usualy irrelevant. Quite a difference in total damage.
Now there would be some yaw, and the fins would add a little damage, but not much.
So the total amount of tissue destruction will be less than with buckshot.
For birdshot type uses flechettes would be far too dangerous as they would rain down like spikes. So discussion of them for that purpose is not even necessary.
So more damage would be done by shot that goes to suitable depth. Then of course the individual diameter of each would is also important as there is a minimum for effectiveness. Otherwise hypordermic shots into the heart would be lethal, yet they are not.
There is also a cut off where thinner no longer freely leaks blood, meaning its wound channel is not effective.
So in both hunting and defensive use the diameter of each projectile is important as is the total momentum of each. So this would limit you to fewer yet larger flechettes with a total impacting surface area of less than the bore of the shotgun.
As pointed out they are illegal in several states including CA. In much of the nation they are not.
Unless penetration is more important than tissue damage they are usualy not a good choice.
Most commercial ones are made of steel and steel and other hard ammunition is very ricochet prone so use caution.
The only time they might be more suitable for a job is if you need that extra penetration. Shooting an animal through heavy brush for example.
Last edited:
Clipper
Member
Sportsman's guide had 'em for sale recently...Might still have some. They were loose pieces for reloading.
Brett Bellmore
Member
Something I've often wondered about: "Depleted" uranium is uranium which has had the U235 isotope removed, it's waste from making "enriched" uranium for the nuclear industry to burn in reactors, and the government to burn in bombs. The only reason it's used in munitions is because, being waste, it's cheap.
But as far as ballistic and penetration properties, all the uranium isotopes are the same. It seems that you could make bullets with ordinary, natural, uranium cores, (You'd pretty much have to refine your own uranium, it's hard to get.) and they'd be perfectly legal, because they're neither "depleted", (And so legally armor piercing.) nor "enriched". (Which is a controlled material.
Mind you, I'd never do it, because I don't have a lot of need for armor piercing ammo, and in practice they'd probably nail you with some stupid legal fiction like it just being "depleted" uranium with the U235 left in. But the law does seem stupidly drafted.
rogdigity
Member
thank god for loop holes... to bad the governmaent of the good old united states doesnt like it when we fool them. i have often wanted to know more about depleated uranium as well though.
i imagine the use it because it is so dense. my understanding is that in hydrogen bombs they fuse atoms, thus they use the lightest ones possible. then with atomic bombs they split atoms, thus they use amung the heviest they can get redily, correct? [sorry i watch a LOT of the science channel and history channel].
if this is true i could see using the depleated uranium waste since it is so dense, it would pass through body armour with ease. i guess what i would like to know now is if it still has even trace amounts of radiation in it, is it legal to use in wartime???
i imagine the use it because it is so dense. my understanding is that in hydrogen bombs they fuse atoms, thus they use the lightest ones possible. then with atomic bombs they split atoms, thus they use amung the heviest they can get redily, correct? [sorry i watch a LOT of the science channel and history channel].
if this is true i could see using the depleated uranium waste since it is so dense, it would pass through body armour with ease. i guess what i would like to know now is if it still has even trace amounts of radiation in it, is it legal to use in wartime???
alsaqr
Member
"The only reason it's used in munitions is because, being waste, it's cheap."
Not the only reason. U238 is a very heavy and dense metal. It makes a much better high velocity anti-armor penetrator than tungsten carbide. It has the added effect of being pyrophoric (sp).
U238 is also used in shaped charge munitions like the TOW warhead. Again there is a pronounced incendiary effect on the target.
Not the only reason. U238 is a very heavy and dense metal. It makes a much better high velocity anti-armor penetrator than tungsten carbide. It has the added effect of being pyrophoric (sp).
U238 is also used in shaped charge munitions like the TOW warhead. Again there is a pronounced incendiary effect on the target.
MilsurpShooter
Member
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/AMM005-57714-1395.html
Think the first major use they saw in warfare was in World War One, dropped from bombers on the trenches, not widespread use but I have read about it
Think the first major use they saw in warfare was in World War One, dropped from bombers on the trenches, not widespread use but I have read about it
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
clark brothetrs outside warrenton sells em loaded into 12 guage couple bucks a round sold in a 3 pack
Novus Collectus
Member
I bought some flechette shotgun ammo and tested it a few years ago. I only bought four rounds and didn't even fire all of them, but this is what I discovered.
First, to fill the entire space with the flechettes, the round I took apart had about half of them facing backwards. I later learned from posting this on The Firing Line forum that this is normal for the generic flechette round in a shotgun (there are some special ones that are an entirely different and far more advanced design, but these are not cheap). The idea is that the fins on the back will align the point forward after a short distance of travel.
Shooting at paper at, IIRC, ten feet, may of the "darts" hit sideways IMO negating any real penetration effect. It is possible that after ten feet they aligned properly to be point first to better penetrate, but I bet they would have lost much energy due to a skewed aerodynamic flight. So only expect at most half of the "darts" to hit with full effect at at least that distance.
Now I do not know if this is just advertising or not, but a few years ago there was a company which made flechette rounds that were in some kind of complex sabot. This made all of the darts aligned point first and with the seemingly most efficient delivery. Even though it was with fewer darts (by wieght at least) it seemed as if the velocity mey be superior.
Flechettes in rifles or handguns sounds like a good idea, but not for self defense in the handgun IMHO. In the rifles I guess it would depend on the flechette size and weight, and it would depend on the distance since the fins creates a lot of drag and slows it down rather quickly compared to a bullet. In a handgun it would only be useful against body armor, but it would most likely not stop the attacker with one penetration. In a rifle however it might keep them from advancing the hundred yards or so between you.
The only purpose I can see using a flechette in a handgun would be for hunting really small game or on the battlefield where wounding people (with armor or without) is just as good as killing them since the wounded take up battlefield resources.
A flechette, or flechettes in a rifle or shotgun is a different story.
First, to fill the entire space with the flechettes, the round I took apart had about half of them facing backwards. I later learned from posting this on The Firing Line forum that this is normal for the generic flechette round in a shotgun (there are some special ones that are an entirely different and far more advanced design, but these are not cheap). The idea is that the fins on the back will align the point forward after a short distance of travel.
Shooting at paper at, IIRC, ten feet, may of the "darts" hit sideways IMO negating any real penetration effect. It is possible that after ten feet they aligned properly to be point first to better penetrate, but I bet they would have lost much energy due to a skewed aerodynamic flight. So only expect at most half of the "darts" to hit with full effect at at least that distance.
Now I do not know if this is just advertising or not, but a few years ago there was a company which made flechette rounds that were in some kind of complex sabot. This made all of the darts aligned point first and with the seemingly most efficient delivery. Even though it was with fewer darts (by wieght at least) it seemed as if the velocity mey be superior.
Flechettes in rifles or handguns sounds like a good idea, but not for self defense in the handgun IMHO. In the rifles I guess it would depend on the flechette size and weight, and it would depend on the distance since the fins creates a lot of drag and slows it down rather quickly compared to a bullet. In a handgun it would only be useful against body armor, but it would most likely not stop the attacker with one penetration. In a rifle however it might keep them from advancing the hundred yards or so between you.
The only purpose I can see using a flechette in a handgun would be for hunting really small game or on the battlefield where wounding people (with armor or without) is just as good as killing them since the wounded take up battlefield resources.
A flechette, or flechettes in a rifle or shotgun is a different story.
RoadkingLarry
Member
At the risk of further thread drift - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm
DU is not widely liked in the world, I suspect in some large part because the US is using it.
DU is not widely liked in the world, I suspect in some large part because the US is using it.
- Status