PCA 2017 and the APS CAM870 Shotgun

[Shizbazki]

TL:DR

Is the APS CAM870 now illegal under the new rules, or was it always illegal?

 

Ok guys I just need some clarification.

 

I have owned an APS CAM 870 Shell Ejecting Shotgun for a few months now and i must say its an awesome gun.

 

Now whilst i'm aware that the PCA 2017 came into affect on 02-05-17 with it power limitations, definition of an Airsoft weapon, the Full auto and Semi/bolt stuff along with the confusion that has everyone plagued re HPA setups, i was wondering how this affects us CAM 870 users? 

I only asked this as someone recently pointed out that the CAM 870 was now a designated S5 Firearm under the new rules, or has this always been the case.

 

For those that don't know the APS CAM 870 is designated as a shell ejecting airsoft shotgun model after the Remington 870, therefore the user must load each and every individual shell with gas (normally CO2 but one can use HPA), load said shell with a plastic wadding or cup, then loads 12 BBs and tops it off with a cardboard circle to hold the BBs in place.

 

The shell is loaded into the CAM 870 as you would any real steel shotgun, pump the shotgun and fire. This leads to the paper circle, 12BBs and plastic cup to fly out of the gun in one shot - like a real shotgun firing buckshot. Wheres the hop up you cry? Well there isn't any, this shotgun has a .68 inch diameter smooth bore barrel, whilst its designed to fire airsoft BBs it can fire .68 rubber baton rounds, .68 paintballs, nails, steel BBs basically anything you can fit into the Shell, you can shoot with varying degrees of sucess. The shell can contain around 800PSI of pressure of what ever gas you choose, I once watched a guy shoot the rubber baton rounds through this and got an estimated 32J of energy output.

 

Now i don't plan to start shooting nails or rubber baton rounds at people in Airsoft however the shotgun is really difficult to chrono as the chrono will see the paper circle, 12bbs and plastic cup, i have gotten everything 200 to 300FPS using .20g BBs through my XCoretech X3200 but nothing over 300FPS and to be honest from watching its shots, they appear to lose a lot of energy once the BBs leave the barrel.

 

So is this a legal gun or not now?

I think it still is, what do you guys think?

[Sacarathe]

Well, I doubt it's covered by the new airsoft excemption, as that clearly states 2.5J, and even at 200 fps (around 0.65J), if multiplied by 12 is a number well over 2.5.

 

I imagine it's in whatever category it was in before the act was made law. Since the act repeatedly refers to missile singularly.

 

If you take s.125(5) of the act to mean that all airsoft guns must be as stated therein, one thing you can conclude for sure, is that legally it's NOT an airsoft gun.

 

 

Link to act for anyone's convenience.

 

EDIT:

 

I guess that interpretation catches the trishots too.

[Kastrioti]

Right, so you're saying it isn't classified as an airsoft gun because it fires more than one bb per pull of trigger, and each bb flying at even 200fps would mean that the total joule output is over 1.3J for multi shot, or even 2.5J for single shot (if it were classified as such.) The only thing I have an issue with, is the fact that these are multiple shots of (as you said) .65J each. So while the total energy output is (much likely more than 12x.65J as a lot of the air is simply wasted/pushing the wad) more than 1.3J, each shot is less than 1.3J, pretty much the same as having a 300fps (on .2g) m4 with a crazy ROF. It's essentially the same thing: loads of bbs with one pull of the trigger each travelling below the limit. Therefore I think it should fall under the same classification/ be even safer, since these bbs are flying slower anyway. Unless they want to go and ban high ROF AEGs as well just for the sake of it at this point. Moreover, the bbs don't even arrive at the target in the same spot/ at the same time. It's likely that a high ROF AEG can probably get more bbs to hit a target in the same amount of time it takes for the shot to travel from the shotgun to the target.

 

I'm not saying that's how the government sees it, but that's what makes sense to me from a logical standpoint, using their guidelines, and perhaps could be argued in court (assuming my logic is correct), if it ever got that bad in the first place. See below:

 

 

Exception for airsoft guns

(1)An “airsoft gun” is not to be regarded as a firearm for the purposes of this Act.

(2)An “airsoft gun” is a barrelled weapon of any description which—

         (a)is designed to discharge only a small plastic missile (whether or not it is also capable of discharging any other kind of missile), and    <---this is true for the CAM 870, it's designed to use plastic bbs, even if you can use other projectiles, e.g. wax slug

         (b)is not capable of discharging a missile (of any kind) with kinetic energy at the muzzle of the weapon that exceeds the permitted level.  <----this might be a problem, since it is capable of firing slugs, which will almost definitely pass the joule limit : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah8K7b4QQd0 skip to 4 minutes in

(3)“Small plastic missile” means a missile that—

 

 

         (a)is made wholly or partly from plastics, <---yep

         (b)is spherical, and <---yep

         (c)does not exceed 8 millimetres in diameter. <---yep

(4)The permitted kinetic energy level is—

         (a)in the case of a weapon which is capable of discharging two or more missiles successively without repeated pressure on the trigger, 1.3 joules; <---already gave my opinion on this, the shots are successive since they don't reach the target at the same time, and all go in one trigger pull, each one is less than 1.3J so should be ok.

         (b)in any other case, 2.5 joules.” <--- is not meant to fire only one projectile, but depending on size/seal with shell and barrel, it can potentially pass this. 

 

Reviewing all this information it looks to me like the only issue with the gun is that it is capable of firing well above the joule limit. However, this is only possible with projectiles it wasn't designed to fire, in which case the legality is shady, because the GOV have this whole thing about replicas being readily convertible to firearms being illegal. Now, whilst it would not be possible to convert this into a M870, the problem arises due to the fact that the GOV classify any successive shot gun capable of over 1.3J as a firearm, so it would be readily convertible.

 

But, there is a silver lining (I think.) The above statement may not be cause for concern, because; when firing a slug (which you wouldn't do in public/at a game anyway), you are only discharging one round, even if it isn't a sub 8mm plastic bb, so it is capable of shooting a single shot of any kind above 2.5J (as it now falls into this category.) The silver lining is here. I'm almost certain that if a single shot airsoft gun fires above 2.5J, then it is classified as an air rifle, just as with paintball guns, not a section 5 firearm, unless it is more powerful than 16.25J - which may still be a problem for this gun , but you can get around that potentially by messing with the seals in the shells or the mass of the slugs themselves if you were that way inclined. However, I still don't see this being a problem, because it is highly unlikely that - in the unlikely event of a trial, the gun would be tested with perfectly fitting wax slugs. More likely it would be tried with bbs, maybe some other larger ammo, idk. It's difficult to say with this gun, and I'm surprised it wasn't banned anyway under the Brocock ban anyway, maybe because it doesn't fire lead pellet, even though it can - if anyone knows, please do tell, because the aps m40 wasn't exempted from this ban, yet you see many retailers selling this gun.

 

If anyone can find flaws in my thinking, please do point them out, because I'm looking to get the Salient Arms version, and I don't want to spend any money on something illegal , let alone £600.

 

Reviewing the evidence, it looks like the gun should be ok, depending on how the GOV would test it if taken in for whatever reason (travelling to and from games etc.) However, where it could fail is in the legal grey areas of:

 

A)If it is classified as an airgun, due to its ability to fire single shots above 2.5J, then you're shooting people in the woods/CQB with it (even though you're shooting plastic bbs below this limit), and that might be a problem.

B)If it meets their stupid "readily convertible" qualification that all gas gun users have to be worried about, as a HPA set up could be cranked up, although the shells have a limited capacity for CO2, so maybe not.

C)If they for whatever illogical reason, consider the combined energy of all the shot coming out as the muzzle energy, which would make no sense, but then again they've not shown us that this whole thing has been handled with a whole lot of sense, then this would definitely fall into the S5 firearm category. It's sad that AEG users (not quick change spring) and bolt action springers are not as worried about this thing as GBB users, we should really stick closer together as a community if we are to survive. Reminds me of that "First they came for the Jews" poem you always seem to hear in scenarios like this. Bit dramatic, I know, but I'd hate to lose whatever is left of my right to go pew pew in the forest because some politician wants to look good.

D)Again with the testing, would firing a single shot of wax or a bigger rubber ball even be able to stand against you? I say this because the energy requirements are for "missiles", in which case, more than 2.5J makes the gun fall into airgun territory, like paintball, unless it fires more than 16.25J.

 

TLDR: legal stuff is confusing, we have legal clarification for most airsoft guns to be safe under the new bill, but it's not clear enough by any stretch of the imagination. 

Please do read tediously long post to identify any issues with my thinking. If you made it through that, well done.

 

[Sacarathe]

14 hours ago, Kastrioti said:

<snip>

 

 

We disagree on how to read 2(a). The CAM870 does not "discharge only a small plastic missile" - and it certainly was not designed to "discharge only a small plastic missile".

[Kastrioti]

Are you talking about the fact that the Wad is not a small plastic missile, or the fact that multiple plastic missiles leave the barrel instead of only one?

In regards to it being able to fire other things, I think that depends on whether the manufacturer has clearly stated whether only 6mm bbs should be fired from the replica. This should be visible on the box/ in the manual, and it should suffice as it is the manufacturer's disclaimer and intended use for the product "whether or not it is also capable of discharging any other kind of missile"

 

If anyone has the manual/ information sheet, it'd help if we could know whether or not the manufacturer has stated the intended use for the product. If they haven't said that only 6mm bbs should be used (or any small, spherical plastic projectile up to 8mm), then this replica is certainly classified as a section 5 firearm under the new legislation.

[Sacarathe]

20 minutes ago, Kastrioti said:

<snip>

 

It wasn't "designed to discharge only a small plastic missile".

 

22 minutes ago, Kastrioti said:

If anyone has the manual/ information sheet, it'd help if we could know whether or not the manufacturer has stated the intended use for the product. If they haven't said that only 6mm bbs should be used (or any small, spherical plastic projectile up to 8mm), then this replica is certainly classified as a section 5 firearm under the new legislation.

 

Er no.

[Kastrioti]

2 minutes ago, Sacarathe said:

It wasn't "designed to discharge only a small plastic missile".

I was asking you which part of the replica infringes this statement, please read that sentence again and answer it properly, don't just reiterate the same point. I realised that you were saying there's an issue, I want to know what exactly that is. What evidence is there to show that it wasn't designed to discharge only a small plastic missile?

 

4 minutes ago, Sacarathe said:

Er no.

Enlightening response there. Care to explain why? I have clearly said that if the replica is not intended to fire only small plastic missiles, then it is a section 5 firearm, as the law says. Now you're saying no. No to what? The precursor or the statement that followed? 

 

I'm not trying to take the mick here, I just want a genuine, explanatory response so that I can evaluate the situation better.

[Sacarathe]

No you're right. I just don't personally want to go into section five, but if a supposed airsoft gun falls outside the airsoft exception it is not defacto section 5.

 

14 hours ago, Sacarathe said:

It wasn't "designed to discharge only a small plastic missile".

Anything which discharges more than 1 (permitted or otherwise) projectile per trigger pull cannot be an airsoft gun by the text of the exception.

[Kastrioti]

Oh now I get it. Sorry, it looks like I was interpreting it one way, and not in the literal sense of what it said "only a small plastic missile."

I don't see anywhere where it says "per pull of the trigger" though. I know I'm asking a lot here but can you explain this to me?

Otherwise all auto firing replicas would be banned as well (or am I wrong here again?) Yet they've made it clear that auto firing replicas can fire up to 1.3J, so they clearly don't mean to say that a replica that fires more than one plastic projectile per trigger pull is not an airsoft gun. 

 

Regardless, this thread is starting to veer off course, but the short answer is that Sacarthe is right, whether or not the gun was considered as an airsoft replica before, it definitely isn't now. Whether it falls in the category of air rifle or section 5, I don't know, but it's not worth the risk, especially when the general public and or jury will not differentiate between an airsoft gun and a real gun.

 

 

[Sacarathe]

2 hours ago, Kastrioti said:

I don't see anywhere where it says "per pull of the trigger" though. I know I'm asking a lot here but can you explain this to me?

 

In your post above at (4).

 

Remember that a "section 5" gun must be thus, nothing is that because it is nothing else - that's where airsoft was before.

 

But I cannot see how any part of the airsoft exemption could have been written with the intent that any airsoft related discharge of BBs where more than one is discharged on a single trigger pull would be measured in terms of energy by taking the power of the projectile with the highest measurement - it would have to be cumulative.

 

Now, the thing which I lean heavily upon is in (4)(a) where it says "successively": it does not say simultaneously (remember, the exemption already said "a" singular for the projectiles).

 

Therefore any airsoft mechanism (moscart/trishot etc) which discharges more than one projectile per trigger pull is either, single shot adding all the projectiles' force together or not covered by the exemption.

 

I would say that I believe this logic would mean the AA12 is section 5 if any single projectile exceeds 0.43J.

 

But then, are they measuring the cumulative muzzle force by that logic or the impact force (as for the latter you likely couldn't work cumulatively - in terms of lethality, rather than just the law I mean.

 

 

All this section 5 mumbojumbo is only any use if there is a law somewhere which states "all undefined firearms are xxx".

 

 

The giant mistake they made drafting the airsoft exemption was by making it refer to permitted projectiles singular, and then stating that the force must be measured per shot unless multiple "successive" shots are possible from one trigger pull, was to completely miss the possibility of airsoft guns which discharge more than one pershot and at the same time by their language exclude those from being counted.

 

 

[Kastrioti]

Very well put. I guess this is something else that needs to be brought up along with the GBB/HPA issues, if they'll bother to listen at all. 

[Sacarathe]

8 minutes ago, Kastrioti said:

Very well put. I guess this is something else that needs to be brought up along with the GBB/HPA issues, if they'll bother to listen at all. 

 

Thanks.

 

The question really is a simple as "for airsoft guns which discharge more than one [permitted] projectile per trigger pull, but are resolutely incapable of 'successive' discharge on any single trigger pull, will those gun's muzzle force be the cumulative energy of each projectile, or the energy of the highest projectile or would it be impossible for the airsoft exemption to apply?"

 

If I was to put a bet on this, it would be that they would remove the word successively in the future. However, it may be there deliberately either for clarity (or consistence with other parts of the FA1968) or some reason not obvious to me. But without an answer to the question above it's all irrelevant.

 

In my opinion users should continue to go by "the highest reading taken".

[Shizbazki]

some interesting points here