A-Max's now classed as 'expanding'?

[TonyH]

FFS!

 

OK, rang Hornady, spoke to their technical department asked simple question - are A-max's designed to expand? answer 'oh yes most definitly'.

 

If I can do this so can the plod!!

 

Terry

 

I wonder why Hornady say this when (I thought) the A-Max was marketed as a target bullet? I wonder why plod would bother to try and pin down the exact degree to which A-Max bullets expand, whether by design or whatever? I wonder what public good they imagine it might bring about? Have they in fact - as one has always suspected - got plenty of time on their hands...?

Tony

[John MH]

I wonder why Hornady say this when (I thought) the A-Max was marketed as a target bullet? I wonder why plod would bother to try and pin down the exact degree to which A-Max bullets expand, whether by design or whatever? I wonder what public good they imagine it might bring about? Have they in fact - as one has always suspected - got plenty of time on their hands...?

Tony

 

 

Blame the ACPO quango.

[terryh]

Gents,

 

spke again at length with Hornady. the A-max was designed from the get go for expansion on impact but not for hunting but for use against steel targets and to lesson the chance of rechocets.

 

they can see our problems ans are going to look at this re. thier on-line statements, posibly removing the expansion.

 

Can only see, but biggest problem is with damage done.

 

Brgds Terry

[1967spud]

Gents,

 

spke again at length with Hornady. the A-max was designed from the get go for expansion on impact but not for hunting but for use against steel targets and to lesson the chance of rechocets.

 

they can see our problems ans are going to look at this re. thier on-line statements, posibly removing the expansion.

 

Can only see, but biggest problem is with damage done.

 

Brgds Terry

Terry get them to email the rellevant police force over here, they have a duty of care to do so

[John MH]

they have a duty of care to do so

 

Hi Spud

 

Why have they (Hornady) a 'duty of care'. Surely if there is a potential issues with the reclassification of the A-Max as 'Expanding' putting the unsuspecting shooter/homeloader at risk of prosecution then it should be the UK Importer who has the 'duty of care', in the USA they don't have any of this nonsense.

[baldie]

The link doesn't work Terry.

 

The dealer in D + C wants naming publicly, because he has just buggered up target shooting for a horrendous amount of people, who used A-max quite legally. He ought never to sell another bullet in his life...absolute lunacy, and i could take a pretty educated guess who it is too.

 

The a-max and the v-max DO differ in their make up. The v-max has a large void under its tip to assist rapid explosion. The A-max has a tiny void. The bullet design hasn,t changed from when it said "match" on the box, and were perfectly legal here

 

All bullets unless FMJ are designed to expand , some do it more rapidly than others.

 

If the bullet box still contains the word "match" then D and C haven,t a leg to stand on, because that is in the firearms act somewhere.

[snc_2010]

Whoever knows or has a suspicion/educated guess at which D&C RFD blabbed, could you let me know who you know/think it is please. On here or by PM is fine.

[pat]

Dave,

 

I have to disagree with your statement that all non-FMJ bullets are "designed to expand". The fact that it is more accurate to draw a jacket from the base than from the ogive pushes any accuracy-oriented design to a construction methodology that yields, as an entirely unintentional consequence, an increase in frangibility. A bullet that is "designed to expand" has specific construction features, beyond the basic construction method, which is designed to enhance frangibility.... a bullet that is skived could be considered as an expanding bullet since the skives don't have any appreciable aerodynamic effect (bar perhaps a miniscule effect on the boundary layer, but that is debatable). A bullet which is designed with base bleed is not necessarily expanding despite the fact that the bleed channels would increase frangibility; the primary purpose is drag reduction.

 

It appears that Hornady cannot make up their own minds. If you look at the product page there is no mention of expansion. If you look at (say) .224 75gn A-Max again there is no mention of expansion. It's only on the master Overview page that there is any mention of the expansion characteristics.

 

Ultimately I guess that it will come down to whether Hornady care about the UK target market enough to risk "upsetting" their US customers by withdrawing the "expanding" bit. As it stands A-Max are illegal for target use in the UK, ergo no sales to target shooters here. But if that's 1% of their business they may not care. I'm sure that Sierra, Berger, Lapua et al will gladly supply the erstwhile Hornady users

 

Cheers,

 

Pat.

[Gandy]

Whilst I think the whole think is shocking is there an argument to say that this only applies if you live in D&C as its their ruling or is it an ACPO ruling which applies nationally?

[Jeza]

This is from the Home Office Guidance:-

 

3.16 Category (xiv) refers to ammunition

incorporating a projectile that is designed or

adapted to expand in a controlled manner.

It is the kind of ammunition used in

deerstalking and vermin control because it is

more likely than non-expanding ammunition

to ensure a quick, clean kill. Semi-jacketed

soft point and hollow point are typical forms

of expanding ammunition, but care must be

taken to distinguish between match target

hollow point ammunition, which has a tiny

hole at the front for manufacturing purposes,

and true hollow point. Match hollow point

rounds, such as the Sierra Match King, are

not prohibited, neither are flat-nosed bullets

designed to be used in tubular magazines.

This is to prevent magazine explosions

caused by a pointed bullet resting on the

primer of the cartridge ahead of it. All bullets

will distort on impact, but only those which

were designed or adapted to do so in a

predictable manner fit this category.

 

It would fall in line with the smaller hole in the Amax and the controlled expanding verses break up design.

[achosenman]

Guys this is the wording in the guidance to police from the Home Office.

 

Definition

4.2 Section 9 of the 1997 Act extended the prohibition on expanding ammunition from pistol ammunition only to cover all types of expanding ammunition.

Thus section 5(1A)(f) of the 1968 Act now prohibits any ammunition which incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact and section 5(1A)(g) prohibits the bullets for such ammunition (expanding missiles, in the words of the Act).

 

4.3 The words designed or adapted are the important ones here. Any bullet will deform on impact with a sufficiently hard surface, but only bullets, and ammunition containing bullets, which were designed or have been adapted to do so in a controlled manner are actually affected by the legislation.

 

If A-Max meets that criteria then they are illegal to use for target shooting.

However I don’t buy it for one second that that is the case. IMHO you have to ask Hornady the right question. That is not do they expand, but rather do they expand in a controlled manner like a hollow point or partition type bullets. I suspect the answer would be no.

 

FWIW I believe Hornady are jumping on the Berger VLD bandwagon. Berger renamed their bullets “hunting” to attract US hunters to their match products and to convey the fact that they do expand. They were however not designed to expand in a controlled manner like Partitions’ etc. The expansion was just coincidence. I e-mailed Eric Stecker at Berger about this and as already mentioned, UK sales are nothing more than an afterthought when compared to the US market.

 

I wouldn’t get my hopes up of Hornady changing their tune for us in the UK.

 

Cheers.

[terryh]

Achosenman,

 

thank you for the digging out of that it will be most useflu as i'm waiting on a call from the D&C man who instagated this action. In talking with Hornady the spelled out that the A-max was not designed to expand in a controlled manner but to 'fragment/dissintergate if used against steel targets.

 

I think this is a good point to put fwd.

 

FYI Hornady were actually interested in 'our' problem.

 

Brgds

 

Terry

[Davy]

Terry, is this a call from the RFD or FEO?

 

I somehow doubt this will be withdrawn as quickly as it was implemented.

[achosenman]

Terryh,

 

I have a copy of that guidance in a PDF doc. I’d post it here for everyone to peruse but I’m not sure how to get it on this web site. If you need a copy PM me and I’ll e-mail you a copy.

 

Cheers

achos

[terryh]

Davy,

 

The call is from the main guy at D&C firearms licensing and in dealing with him before he has been very reasonable only problem will be with ego's re. revoking something already in place.

 

If you go to the D&C web site you can see the minutes from the local firearms comittee and the history behind this and the RFD who brought it up - pretty pathetically actually , but you can make you own conclusions on this.

 

Brian Coldacot (the main FEO guy) actually states in the minutes it was not enforcable but obviously the RFD did some more work on the subject.

 

Terry

[Davy]

Found it, thanks for that Terry. Having read it I still cannot understand how they came upon the decision to classify them as expanding...

 

Link to Pdf of meeting here:

 

http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/OnlineServices/ApplyFirearmslicense/Documents/liaisonCommitteeMinutes110309.pdf

[c18rch]

The way Isee it is those that were sold befoe Hornady decided to add expanding to their product description should be still classified as non-expanding because at the time they were purchased they were purchased as non-expanding.

 

If the police have decided to make A-max's expanding why have they no contacted every single FAC holder to inform us of the fact.

 

Currently is it only D&C Police that have made this decision?

[brown dog]

Found it, thanks for that Terry. Having read it I still cannot understand how they came upon the decision to classify them as expanding...

 

Link to Pdf of meeting here:

 

http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/OnlineServices/ApplyFirearmslicense/Documents/liaisonCommitteeMinutes110309.pdf

 

Is that the meeting in question?

There's no record of a decision & no action point, just the silly bletherings of this Mike Squire fellow (who is he?!)

[terryh]

Matt,

 

As far as I can determine the decision was made after this meeting (the June meeting's are minutes not on line yet) but in speaking with the no2 at D&C Firearms I asked if it was the result of Mike Squires points that the decision was taken re. A-Max’s and he said 'yes'.

 

The reason given (blathering being a good term) by this character as his clients not being able to tell the difference stikes me as they seem to be unable to either read or have the ability to sort one loaded round from another i.e. should this type of person have a rifle in the first place? Quite how sectioning a bullet gives you its composition or terminal performance is also beyond me?

 

Only ever seen Mike Squire's name on the committee listing, not known to me, not a prominent person as far as the shooting community locally but appears to have been on the police committee forever and an 'adviser' on deer, an RFD and a maker of custom rifles.

 

Unfortunately looking at it's composition it appears that the advisory committee is made up of unrepresentative sorts who can afford the time to get on such similar to local councils etc.

 

Terry

[TonyH]

Is that the meeting in question?

There's no record of a decision & no action point, just the silly bletherings of this Mike Squire fellow (who is he?!)

 

I think I've heard Mike Squire's name mentioned in the past, but I don't know him. Looking at that document, his contribution seems rather worse than mere "bletherings": I wonder why he felt it necessary to bring up the subject. The makeup of the Firearms Liaison Committee reminds us yet again how critical these things can be: historically, the differences between branches of the shooting sports have proved damaging because of the frequent ignorance of, or indifference to, particular types of shooting by someone of rather narrow experience & interest. Squire and Mike Wellum (whom I have met) come from deer "stalking" and I see there are a couple of other good ol' boys whom I strongly suspect are traditional target types. Without prejudging them as individuals, experience suggests such people are unlikely to be educated in current developments, unsympathetic to such non-traditional pursuits as Practical Shooting or Varmint Hunting ("A bit sort of American old boy, don't you think?"), and excessively trusting in the goodwill of Plod.

I think it would be very constructive and beneficial if Terry H or someone else were to extract a definitive statement from Hornady about the A-Max not being designed specifically for controlled expansion, and for this to be presented for consideration to D&C Constabulary, with a reminder that this would seem to place the A-Max outside theHome Office guidelines on "expanding ammunition".

Tony

[Davy]

Quote: He had sectioned a range of ballistic tipped bullets, described by the manufacturer as target or expanding, and compared them with bullets described as dual purpose. He could detect no difference in

construction I did some checking and found these on the Hornady site, the difference looks quite obvious to me. VMax on the left and A Max to the right.

 

 

EDIT - the image came from http://www.hornady.com/store/30-Cal-.308-155-gr-A-MAX/ but they one on the right does not look like the ones I have at home.

[c18rch]

Hornady re launching a new range of match bullets without the polymer tip. The one on the right looks like these. I suspect this is why they are now describing the A-max's as expanding.

 

http://www.hornady.com/store/Match-bullets/

[Jingzy]

Hi Terry. I wonder how long they have held this view? I have had A-Max bullets in .224" in the past, and never had problems with RFDs wanting to see my ticket first.

 

 

What a ###### indeed! It never ceases to amaze and depress me, the extent to which so many RFDs - perhaps especially in this part of the world - want to bend over backwards (or forwards...) to accommodate any and every dubious or downright extra-legal "policy" dreamed up by the police. Truly pitiful.

 

I really despise this situation. It is almost beyond belief that so much time is expended, by police and by Her Majesty's subjects, having to deal with this sort of pointless moronic crap, and that someone, somewhere (Westminster anyone?) ever thought that it might improve public safety one iota to attempt to control the types of bullet we can buy freely. I dare say there are still bits of the UK where this contemptibly stupid ruling hasn't taken hold yet? I think I'll look around and buy some A-Maxes there, just for the hell of it...

Tony

 

Why not boycot the RFD in question. If you dont know who he is, dont buy any amax in D&C, but order them in from elsewhere

[Jingzy]

Guys this is the wording in the guidance to police from the Home Office.

 

Definition

4.2 Section 9 of the 1997 Act extended the prohibition on expanding ammunition from pistol ammunition only to cover all types of expanding ammunition.

Thus section 5(1A)(f) of the 1968 Act now prohibits any ammunition which incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact and section 5(1A)(g) prohibits the bullets for such ammunition (expanding missiles, in the words of the Act).

 

4.3 The words designed or adapted are the important ones here. Any bullet will deform on impact with a sufficiently hard surface, but only bullets, and ammunition containing bullets, which were designed or have been adapted to do so in a controlled manner are actually affected by the legislation.

 

If A-Max meets that criteria then they are illegal to use for target shooting.

However I don’t buy it for one second that that is the case. IMHO you have to ask Hornady the right question. That is not do they expand, but rather do they expand in a controlled manner like a hollow point or partition type bullets. I suspect the answer would be no.

 

FWIW I believe Hornady are jumping on the Berger VLD bandwagon. Berger renamed their bullets “hunting” to attract US hunters to their match products and to convey the fact that they do expand. They were however not designed to expand in a controlled manner like Partitions’ etc. The expansion was just coincidence. I e-mailed Eric Stecker at Berger about this and as already mentioned, UK sales are nothing more than an afterthought when compared to the US market.

 

I wouldn’t get my hopes up of Hornady changing their tune for us in the UK.

 

Cheers.

The highlighted point at 4.3 is where it makes sense. Controlled expansion is when the bullet deforms in a controlled manner like in a soft point bullet and retaining weight. If the Amax are frangible - it does expand, but not in a CONTROLLED manner.

[terryh]

Gents,

 

Just got off the phone from D&C head of firearms department, Barry Collacott - (FYI has been a 'good guy' when dealt with previously and is a shooter himself)

 

Bottom line, as it was brought to the attention Barry had to act, he contacted John Batley of the GTA who came back and confirmed, after talking to Hornady, that the A-max was expanding.

 

It has now been passed up to the HO for consideration and is a point for discussion at next weeks HO forum of police licensing authorities.

(Barry's words - 'don't hope for a fast responce').

 

Barry's comments/attitude was that it was a problem that he wished did not exist i.e. he used the bullets also!

 

Do not know what else I can say/do on this subject.

 

Brgds

 

Terry