Would a 20mm rifle firing a .50cal sabot round still be a destructive device?

I know there is a law that anything larger than a 50cal is considered a destructive device but I'm wondering if a 20mm rifle that fired a .50 caliber sabot round would still be considered a destructive device, or if it would get around that designation because the projectile fits within the legal designation as the discarding sabot is not considered the projectile.

en.wikipedia.org...

The law states that:
(2) Any weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter (.50 inches or 12.7 mm), except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and

Now the bore is larger than the legal limit but it seems the restriction on bore size is due to the size of the projectile which is "expelled".

Side note on DD's - it's crazy that some potato cannon's have been considered destructive devices, it is truly ridiculous and outrageous they arrested some people for this. I believe the arrests were in DC but I don't know if it went on to prosecution. In NJ, they are considered DD's and in other states they are considered "firearms".
Here is a link to the crazy laws of the US

en.wikipedia.org...

Now on another note about the .50 cal tungsten sabot round, I'm wondering what kind of velocity one might be able to achieve shooting from a 20mm round. I thought the US had 2 different 20mm rounds the vulcan and a larger/longer round. The vulcan is 20mmx102 and the navy has a 20x110, but I swore there was a current production round that was something like 120-145mm for anti-tank rounds and such (can fire a heavier round b/c of more powder & longer barrel in planes/helicopters).

Out of an anti-material rifle, the vulcan fires at about 3,300 FPS with about 65,000 joules of energy! That's 4x the 50cal BMG!. The anzio 20/50 neck's down the 20x102 case to accept a .50cal bullet, but the ballistics look terrible in comparison.

20x102 vulcan - 1,543gr bullet (3.5oz) - 3,300 fps - 65,000 joules
50BMG - 800gr bullet - 2,900 fps - 20,200 joules
20/50 - 800gr bullet - 3,770 fps - 30,000 joules
Teh cartridge capacity of the 20x102 & 20/50 are near identical (in H2O volume), so they shold be able to hold near same amount of powder, depending on how deep the bullet is seated. Firing a bullet that weighs about 1/2 and only gaining 470fps seems pretty low, could it need a longer barrel? While there is about a 30% gain in velocity over the BMG, it is only a 14% gain over the standard 20mm vulcan round. I expected to see something like 4,000+ fps like we see when wildcatting or using a sabot for a 7mm mag or even 30-06 with a 5.56 round, it's insane the velocities that have been recorded with these, I think some were ~4,500fps. I just can't see why so little velocity improvement over the round that is 2x as heavy.

I was thinking that a .50 cal tungsten penetration fired from a 20x102 shell would be very interesting to see how much armor it could go through but after seeing the above numbers, it seem like the results might be disappointing. Now if we stepped it up to the 30x113 or 30x173, now THAT might reach the 4500 & 5000 fps respectively for each cartridge. I wonder if there is anyone who could build such a thing. I would think building a rifle that shoots a .50cal tungsten bullet with a 30x133 or 30x173 case should be legal, as the bore fits within the DD laws, so maybe this can be done! Talk about penetrating power

i wouldnt go telling anyone

That's only for "firearms"

A cannon for example you can legaly own and fire

Same with a muzzle loader or air rifle

You just can't use a catrage or have a semi auto

originally posted by: markovian
That's only for "firearms"

A cannon for example you can legaly own and fire

Same with a muzzle loader or air rifle

You just can't use a catrage or have a semi auto

Would a magnetic force be considered propellant?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yes. It's called a railgun and those projectiles travel very fast.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

its a constructive device. if im not mistaking

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

few things first, if you go .50 and want to make it tungsten i THINK it has to be a rifle as while ap ammo can be found for rifles they are illegal as all hell in handguns , i think it would still be a DD as they go off bore size and dont seem to care about if it shoots sabots or not. now the fun exception to that is to make it smooth bore as shotguns are usually exempt from such bore size regulations (baring length mind you) . if ya wanna shoot something ridiculous get a PUNT gun made in either 4 bore or smaller (RIP your shoulder) load it with as much BP as you think you can fire and now blow up and as long as its not a metalic cartridge your golden for MOST laws just no explody rounds

www.youtube.com... something like this but if you wanan do what i think you wanna do id tripod mount it in like a truck bed so your shoulder does not die. i think it can even be rifled if its a muzzle loader no idea how you would go about it

but just pulling numbers out of my butt id say go with a enlarged breech so you can cram a ridiculous amount of powder in as its gonna be using BP ,and at least a 1.5-2 foot long barrel possibly with removale sleeve so you can either fire smooth bore or riffled .

forum.accurateshooter.com... some info on attempting to get to 5000fps which is apparently either really hard or impossible to do currently outside of an abrams tank shooting tungsten penetratior rounds

www.practicalmachinist.com... info on black powder attempts

arc.id.au... smoothbore BP balistics info hope this helps OP be safe dont blow up lol

Possibly if you welded the barrel in

Edit, sorry, i see now your talking using sabots.
Yeah, prob wont fly as it would still be capable odlf shooting 20mm

Ahh, you've just gotta love the good ole ATS Armaments Research Deparment!

A 12 gauge shotgun is 18.5 mm and you can fire flechette rounds legally in the US. Much safer than having a fired round rattling around in a barrel that has a 1/4 inch larger diameter than the round.

If it can fire anything larger than a .50 then yes...and a 20mm bore can do exactly that.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Ask a lawyer or anybody else that is qualified in this. Anything else is just talk.

The ballistics of the .50 cal round being launched out of the 20mm barrel isn't the problem.

Without a recoil-less design, the doctors will be spending days, pulling bits of your shoulder out of your liver... ( shooting prone with a bipod).

originally posted by: Ahabstar
A 12 gauge shotgun is 18.5 mm and you can fire flechette rounds legally in the US. Much safer than having a fired round rattling around in a barrel that has a 1/4 inch larger diameter than the round.

A sabot round doesn't rattle around. It is contained in a sheath that discards after the projectile leaves the barrel. The original Phalanx was a 20mm sabot cartridge with a .50 penetrator.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

People cannot comprehend the 2nd amendment vs the availability of nuclear weapons and everything short... including your 20mm rifles and ammunition.

The best reference in regard to the subject can be found here...

The place to start, of course, is by examining the right of self-defense fundamentally. In our western tradition, and in the Constitution, we derive most of our notions of "rights" from the philosopher John Locke, upon whose work the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were based. Locke bases his theory of rights out of property rights, specifically, out of the idea that adult individuals have the right to own their own bodies -- that is, that individuals have a basic right to self-ownership. That's why his basic triad of rights are the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property" -- it all boils down to the central idea that individual people have a right to own and control themselves. It's not a perfect idea -- for example, it runs into problems with children and the mentally unfit -- but as a whole, for adult citizens, it's a darn good rule to work by. More importantly, it's the centerpoint of our system of law, enshrined in the Constitution. So for all practical purposes, this is the system we have to work with. From that basic idea, it's extremely easy to deduce a right to self-defense. "Ownership" of something may be defined, roughly, as "just control" over that something; and if someone owns themselves, then what that means in practical terms is that they have the sole right to determine what they do, where, and how, as long as they don't interfere with the ownership rights of anyone else (which, of course, includes other people's bodies, because the other people own those.) This is often referred to as the "non-aggression principle," and is the core of modern-day libertarianism. People have the right to do whatever they want with themselves, as long as they don't interfere with the just rights of others. This principle has a corollary, though; if you don't have the right to interfere with others unless they interfere with you, then if they do interfere with you, you do have the corresponding right to interfere with them. If you didn't, you wouldn't have control over your body; the guy who's interfering would. Another way of phrasing this is that, because you have a right to own yourself, you have a right to assert that ownership: you can legitimately stop people who try to do things to your body that you don't want done to your body, presuming only that they were the ones who initiated the conflict, not you. This is generally summed up in "the right to self defense," and it's something most human beings, if not most governments, can recognize intuitively. People have a right to defend themselves when attacked. Most everyone can agree on that

The Mystic Nuclear Weapons Exception


If anyone has any common sense, they can apply this logic across nuclear weapons to 22mm weapons, in regard to self defense, and the 2nd amendment.

Further, the 2nd amendment was never for self protection, hunting, concealed carry...

The 2nd amendment was purposed for national defense against tyranny. Just saying.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

People cannot comprehend the 2nd amendment vs the availability of nuclear weapons and everything short... including your 20mm rifles and ammunition.

The best reference in regard to the subject can be found here...

The place to start, of course, is by examining the right of self-defense fundamentally. In our western tradition, and in the Constitution, we derive most of our notions of "rights" from the philosopher John Locke, upon whose work the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were based. Locke bases his theory of rights out of property rights, specifically, out of the idea that adult individuals have the right to own their own bodies -- that is, that individuals have a basic right to self-ownership. That's why his basic triad of rights are the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property" -- it all boils down to the central idea that individual people have a right to own and control themselves. It's not a perfect idea -- for example, it runs into problems with children and the mentally unfit -- but as a whole, for adult citizens, it's a darn good rule to work by. More importantly, it's the centerpoint of our system of law, enshrined in the Constitution. So for all practical purposes, this is the system we have to work with. From that basic idea, it's extremely easy to deduce a right to self-defense. "Ownership" of something may be defined, roughly, as "just control" over that something; and if someone owns themselves, then what that means in practical terms is that they have the sole right to determine what they do, where, and how, as long as they don't interfere with the ownership rights of anyone else (which, of course, includes other people's bodies, because the other people own those.) This is often referred to as the "non-aggression principle," and is the core of modern-day libertarianism. People have the right to do whatever they want with themselves, as long as they don't interfere with the just rights of others. This principle has a corollary, though; if you don't have the right to interfere with others unless they interfere with you, then if they do interfere with you, you do have the corresponding right to interfere with them. If you didn't, you wouldn't have control over your body; the guy who's interfering would. Another way of phrasing this is that, because you have a right to own yourself, you have a right to assert that ownership: you can legitimately stop people who try to do things to your body that you don't want done to your body, presuming only that they were the ones who initiated the conflict, not you. This is generally summed up in "the right to self defense," and it's something most human beings, if not most governments, can recognize intuitively. People have a right to defend themselves when attacked. Most everyone can agree on that

The Mystic Nuclear Weapons Exception


If anyone has any common sense, they can apply this logic across nuclear weapons to 22mm weapons, in regard to self defense, and the 2nd amendment.

Further, the 2nd amendment was never for self protection, hunting, concealed carry...

The 2nd amendment was purposed for national defense against tyranny. Just saying.

i legally own a bowling ball cannon.

that is larger then 20 mm.

as long as its not rifled a cannon is legal in calif but anything but a air rifle must be unrifled.

now you can own a 20mm air rifle and have fun.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Does that mean if I lived in Colorado I could buy a Davey Crockett recoiled rifle for avalanche prevention nothing knocks down the loose snow like a couple of millions and a little heat.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Why what is it your trying to kill, those rodents must be huge

or is it for self defense