Hello. I hope I can call upon the forum's expertise on this matter. I am curious as to the legality in the U.K of the .280/30 Type "C" round. As you are aware many of the .280/30 Ball rounds have a Mild steel core within them. Whilst the Ball loading(s) may not have had armour piercing as their primary intention, would possession of an inert Ball round with such a core be against the letter of the law (Section v) ? I hope the members can resolve this quandary for me. Many thanks.
British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
.280/30 Type "C" and the law
- Thread starter adammack
- Start date
peashooter
BOCN Supporter
A mild steel core is not Armour Piercing so is not sect 5, It is only a designated hardened steel or Tungsten cored Armour Piercing bullet that is sect 5 But -
"Section 5(1A)(e) any ammunition for military use which consists of, or incorporates, a missile designed, on account of its having a jacket and hard core, to penetrate armour plating, armour screening or body armour, e.g. armour piercing ammunition;"
That is the exact wording in Section 5 of the Amended Firearms act of 1968 so it is a bit grey as usual, but any designated ball round is not AP or it would be called AP not Ball, it is how the law is interpreted by your police force not how me or you interpret it.
Rich
"Section 5(1A)(e) any ammunition for military use which consists of, or incorporates, a missile designed, on account of its having a jacket and hard core, to penetrate armour plating, armour screening or body armour, e.g. armour piercing ammunition;"
That is the exact wording in Section 5 of the Amended Firearms act of 1968 so it is a bit grey as usual, but any designated ball round is not AP or it would be called AP not Ball, it is how the law is interpreted by your police force not how me or you interpret it.
Rich
Last edited:
I'd agree with everything Rich has said.....especially the bit about it being a grey area! Certainly the particular round you are asking about was not intended to be an Armour Piercing and in practice I cannot think that anybody in authority would consider it to contravene Section 5. Keep it with a clear concience!
Jim
Jim
I believe there is to be a big look at the laws relating to firearms and ammunition with a view to reduce the grey and murky areas to the police do not have to interpret the various acts. It might be worth contacting a relevant party to the discussion etc re collecting and staying legal.
Bierjaeger
Active Member
There has been such a book for many years. Recently renamed and even more recently updated, it can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...99/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_v13.pdf
Bierjaeger
Active Member
It look perfectly correct to me. What do you see as the problem with it?
Bierjaeger
Active Member
I have obviously missed the point here. That clarifies the wording of the 1968 Act: "any ammunition for military use which consists in or incorporates a missile designed, on account of its having a jacket and hard-core, to penetrate armour plating, armour screening or body armour;".
So in the words of the Act, the round in question is not "designed" to defeat armour and this is backed up by the reference in "Guidance" to tungsten or depU cor, plus the reference to "armour piercing".
As an analogy, many constabularies used to insist that all hollow-point ammunition was Section 5, ignoring that the Act says "designed or adapted to expand". However, currently, many hollow-points escape Section 5 by virtue of the hollow-point being due to the projectile's manufacturing process or for ballistic reasons.
So in the words of the Act, the round in question is not "designed" to defeat armour and this is backed up by the reference in "Guidance" to tungsten or depU cor, plus the reference to "armour piercing".
As an analogy, many constabularies used to insist that all hollow-point ammunition was Section 5, ignoring that the Act says "designed or adapted to expand". However, currently, many hollow-points escape Section 5 by virtue of the hollow-point being due to the projectile's manufacturing process or for ballistic reasons.
Last edited:
Well considering the current 5.56 SS109 NATO bullet contains a steel pin that is supposed to improve the ballistic performance but actually to pierce the standard NATO steel helmet target (the standard FMJ bullet kept breaking up!) I don't think you can argue that the .280/30 is section V...
I'm glad that US Federal law regarding armor piercing ammunition isn't confusing like that.
For instance, standard Com Bloc M-43, 7.62x39 ammunition with a mild steel core IS considered armor piercing under US Federal law.
30-06 M2 Armor Piercing Ammunition (actual US Army designation) with a hardened tool steel core ISN'T considered armor piercing under US Federal law.
Pretty simple huh?
For instance, standard Com Bloc M-43, 7.62x39 ammunition with a mild steel core IS considered armor piercing under US Federal law.
30-06 M2 Armor Piercing Ammunition (actual US Army designation) with a hardened tool steel core ISN'T considered armor piercing under US Federal law.
Pretty simple huh?