PDA

View Full Version : Sabot physics



plastikosmd
08-27-2007, 02:33 PM
not to turn this into a out of control guns vs no guns..i have a physics related question. is a sabot more efficient than a standard round of the same caliber of the projectile in the sabot?

lets use some caliber numbers..we will use .45 for the dia of the larger caliber or sabot, and say .22 for the projectile dia in the sabot and as the smaller caliber that we are comparing

First tell me if i am wrong...
a sabot is lighter ...a .45 sabot generally lighter than a standard .45 round, but is still exposed to the same force of the powder. or maybe it is better to talk using PSI, dunno. therefore it may leave the barrel at a higher velocity? also once the sabot peels away..now the smaller projectile 22, has less surface area be exposed to wind resistance..so the projectile may carry further?

now if all of this is true..which it may not be..then if you put the same charge of powder in the 45 firing the sabot and the 22 standard..what would the terminal ballistics look like...would there be any advantage at all..to either..

just curious

Doc Nickel
08-27-2007, 03:17 PM
Well, "efficient" isn't necessarily the term you're looking for, I think. But you're right on the later part- the velocity imparted by the larger powder charge (relatively speaking in relation to the projectile size) but the reduced wind resistance of the smaller projectile.

Basiclly, if you reduce the weight of the projectile (all else being equal) the same energy will drive it to higher speeds. (There used to be a plastic-bullet round called the "Thunderzap". It'd leave the barrel of even a snub-nose .38 at over 2,000 fps! But the projectile weight was so little, that after just fifty yards or so, the bullet was no longer dangerous, and after eighty or so, could be caught with your bare hands. But at phone-booth ranges, I guess it made a nasty, almost contact-distance-shotgun style wound.)

So yes, if you had a lighter, saboted bullet in a larger shell, you'd get higher velocities from the same chamber pressure- if that's what you meant by "efficient".

But on the other hand, since we're talking about bullets, after all, if you're talking "terminal performance", the bullet may well be going faster, but being lighter it can't carry as much energy. The classic .45 vs. 9mm argument of "light bullet going fast" versus "heavy bullet going slow".

There's lots of variables though; a bullet half the weight but twice as fast carries roughly the same energy- though the lighter bullet tends to have better aerodynamic properties, and the faster speed gives it a "flatter" trajectory, etcetera and ad nauseum.

So there are advantages. But really, there's such a wide range of cartridges available, it's usually easier and cheaper just to switch to a different round if you need different performance. (.45 ACP not powerful enough? You could hotrod it into something like the .45 Win Mag, but really, why not just get a .44 Magnum? .38 Special not hot enough? Grab a .357 Magnum. Still not enough? Find a .357 Maximum. And so on. :D )

Doc.

plastikosmd
08-27-2007, 03:36 PM
thanks doc...i guess what i am looking for would be the performance of a sabot say 45 cal with a 22 cal projectile compared to a 22 cal with the same powder charge.
guessing i would say the 22 alone may leave at a higher velocity, as the weight of the sabot+projectile would be a bit more than the 22 alone...but what happened to all that extra force gained by the increased surface area of the 45? or is it a wash...one with higher psi but less surface, other with more surface but less psi. what if we make the sabot+projectile weigh the same as the 22 alone..would we see equal performance?

all this from watchin a stoopid tank show on discovery
scott

Lynn Standish
08-27-2007, 03:42 PM
Think of trying to hit a home run with a whiffle ball.

Fasttrack
08-27-2007, 05:14 PM
I would think the 22 sabot round would leave the muzzle at a higher velocity of a 22 since you have a greater charge and larger diameter and, most likely, a longer barrel. The barrel has to account for some too (it adds resistance, yes, but the projectile will feel a force until it leaves the muzzle, at which point it begins to slow down).

I don't know much about guns, but from a simplistic analysis the 22 sabot would be faster than the normal 22 and faster than the 45.

Like doc said, E = (1/2)mv^2 (or at least thats a good approximation at low speeds) so increase in velocity will carry more energy than just increasing the mass. On the other hand, the aerodynamics depends on mass and cross sectional area. Even something with very tiny cross sectional area can have a low terminal speed while something slightly larger in cross sectional area can have a higher terminal speed. Like trying to hit a homerun with a ping-pong ball (a wiffle ball has holes that you'd have to take into account) vs hitting it with a baseball. The baseball is larger but more massive and travels better through air than the ping-pong ball does.

So ... i dunno with the aerodynamic part :p

lazlo
08-27-2007, 07:17 PM
I want to reply, but I'm afraid I'll get in trouble :D

BigBoy1
08-27-2007, 07:34 PM
The modern battle tanks fire sabot projectiles for several reasons. First, the explosively drive reactive armor used on tanks, causes the standard high explosive (HE) shaped charges (Monroe Effect) to be effectively defeated. Secondly, the armor has gotten so thick that other HE rounds such as the Squash Head have little or no effect either.

To come up with a solution that will be able to defeat the modern battle tank, the Kinetic Energy (KE) penetrator was developed. This is also called the long-rod penetrator. They are effective "metal darts" that are fired from the tank's main gun in a sabot package. (This is why the tank's main gun is a smooth bore and not rifled.) The sabot is needed for several reasons. First the "dart" has stablizing fins that do not lend themselves to being fired down a barrel. Also, the KE penetrator is made of very heavy metal, depleated uranium and/or tungsten carbide. The be effective, these penetrators must have a large length to diameter ratio, making them very long. Again the sabot is used to house these very long projectiles. These sabotted projectiles are fired and being that they are light compared to the HE ammunition, they have very large kinetic energy. The energy equation (Energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared), with the squared velocity term means that if you double the velocity of the projectile, you quadruple the energy!

The muzzle velocity of the KE pentrators is in the 6,000 ft per sec range so the time of flight to the target is very short. This velocities, combimed with the mass of the projectile, have the effect of striking the target with several millions of joules of energy. I have seen pictures of a tank turret laying next to the tank with a KE penetrator hole in both sides of the turret. The penetrator passed through the turrent and set off all of the ammunition stored in the turret, blowing the turret off the tank.

Bill

plastikosmd
08-27-2007, 08:02 PM
________________________________________
yea.. assume same barrel length....im just tryin to wrap my head around something like

55 gr unique with a 22 cal round that is same weight of the 22 cal projectile that is fired using a 45 cal sabot...same 55 gr charge..

no doubt
45 sabot..lower pressure
22 plain .. higher pressure

force should be about the same tho??

45 sabot...more area, less pressure
22 plain more pressure..less area

are end ballistics about the same?

thanks for entertaining me
scott

Lee in Texas
08-27-2007, 08:30 PM
Awesome thread. I was a crewman in an M1A1 Abrams. I loved that machine.

A .22 projectile fired out of a .45 would move faster, but since the .22 projectile is not engaging the rifling, it will likely be extremely unstable in flight. Sabots need fins to have a stable flight. Some rifled tank guns fire sabots, but they have bearing in the sabot to allow the projectile to "slip"; spinning much slower than a conventional round.

The Army experimented with smoothbore sabot rifles in the early 1970s. They were getting 10 foot groups at 600 yards.

The Army has sabot round for the .50 BMG, and they work, but there's just not enough demand in the civilian world for someone to put the r&d into a sabot for common civilian guns. (not many of us own .50 BMG rifles)

GKman
08-27-2007, 08:44 PM
Is this in a classroom?

Willy
08-27-2007, 09:09 PM
Remington has a line of sabot cartridges by the trade name of accelerator (http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/March02.htm) . I believe they still produce the 30-06 .22 cal. and the 30-30 .22 cal accelerator cartridges.
I believe the 30-06 has a muzzle velocity of almost 4100 fps, and the 30-30 accelerator was listed at 3400 fps . I don't believe that they really ever caught on that well, although I will be the first to admit that I haven't done a lot of research on the subject. A quick search for these rounds should shed more light on the subject.

IOWOLF
08-27-2007, 09:47 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/iowolf/50SLAPT.jpg

Tungsten sabot is about 30 caliber

Doc Nickel
08-27-2007, 10:00 PM
They also have a DU "Silver Bullet" round much like the Abrams anti-tank round, scaled down for the 20mm "Bushmaster" automatic cannon, as used on Bradleys and the like.

I think the problem with the "Accellerator" round is that it's a solution to an unasked question. As I said earlier, most times when you need different ballistic performance, it's easier to simply switch to a different caliber/cartridge. At least as far as handguns and rifles go, a saboted slug among other things will have a significantly different flight trajectory- meaning your sights, if zeroed with the weapon's normal ammo, will be off- perhaps wildly so- with the lighter/faster round.

A 3200fps .22 out of a .30-30 is going to hit nowhere near the same spot as the rifle's sights, if set for it's regular cartridge. It'd be easier here to just switch over to something firing a conventional .223- a bit slower, but probably more accurate.

Doc.

plastikosmd
08-27-2007, 10:08 PM
thank you for the link willy, i wish he gave more load data..then i could just extrapolate from say the 30 carb. sabot to the smaller caliber with the same powder load out of a 10" TC. guess that will be as close as im gonna get for an answer!

love the 50 IO


i agree doc...the more choices the better....i was just watchin too much TV and was stumped on the answer

scott

lazlo
08-27-2007, 10:18 PM
I vaguely remember seeing shotgun sabot rounds somewhere. But like Doc says, there's not a big market for them, unless you're hunting Cape Buffalo.

Willy
08-27-2007, 10:27 PM
I think that there is probably a bigger market for sabot ammunition for shotguns than rifles, as all the major ammo manufactures have sabot rounds in their shotgun line.

http://www.nrapublications.org/tah/Slugs.asp

Willy
08-27-2007, 10:35 PM
Geeze, I hope that they aren't illegal in Canada.:D
After the last round of gun laws they made .50 cal illegal here, don't know if that applies to this situation or not. I have some 12 ga. sabot ammo too, oh well now everybody knows, I'll expect the ammo Nazis will be at my door in the AM.:eek:

tattoomike68
08-27-2007, 10:48 PM
The mythbusters chicken gun packs a punch and uses a sabot :D

I love that show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTW_Or5ezPk

andy_b
08-27-2007, 10:53 PM
i have a ton of the .30 cal. sabot rounds laying around. they are not very accurate. they would more appropriately be called "sub-caliber rounds", as their main purpose is to allow the use of smaller caliber bullets in a larger caliber bore. an actual sabot round, as used in the M1 tanks is a completely different beast.

there are sabot shotgun rounds available. they are basically a bunch of small darts packed inside a plastic carrier. nothing like the .30 cal. Accelerator rounds mentioned. they are lethal only because there are 100 of them flying at you and the chances of puncturing a vital area are greater than a single slug hitting a vital area.

in general, the muzzle energy of a lighter round (sabot or sub-caliber) for a given caliber is less than a heavier round. this is because you can only pack so much powder in a cartridge and can only achieve so much velocity from the ignition efficiency. the M1 tank sabot rounds were designed from the ground up as a sabot round and can make use of the special properties of the projectile. there also is no human shoulder to worry about injury from recoil. attempting to fire sabot ammunition from a "normal" firearm designed for normal non-sabot ammunition will generally provide less than ideal results. the Raufoss SLAP ammo is an exception. but i would guess a tungsten/.50 BMG combo would be deadly no matter what the configuration. :)

andy b.

Forrest Addy
08-27-2007, 11:03 PM
What hasn't been mentioned is the military sabot projectiles are long and skinny like a dart to give them sectional density to give them better range at high velocity and very dense material for greater range and prenetrating power.

If a 22 cal weight round projectile was made into a 0.08" dia flechette config and encased in a light weight discarding sabot in a 30 cal case you could conceivably have a 10,000 ft/sec muzzle velocity five times that of a conventional round. Short range target damage would be out of proportion in harder targets but as hunting ammo, what?

Tank ammo isn't known for long range accuracy. It's strictly for line of sight short range encounters against other tanks and hard targets. For trucks at the same 1000 meter range the M2 is probably a better choice. Certainly more cost effective per destroyed target.

Interesting question, though. Somebody has to run experiments.

RetiredFAE
08-27-2007, 11:09 PM
[QUOTE=Lee in Texas]Awesome thread. I was a crewman in an M1A1 Abrams. I loved that machine.

A .22 projectile fired out of a .45 would move faster, but since the .22 projectile is not engaging the rifling, it will likely be extremely unstable in flight. Sabots need fins to have a stable flight. Some rifled tank guns fire sabots, but they have bearing in the sabot to allow the projectile to "slip"; spinning much slower than a conventional round.

Lee, in modern centerfire ammunition loaded with sabots and sub caliber projectiles for rifles and pistols (and a few shotguns with light rifling in the last few inches of the bore), the sabot grips the projectile tightly, and the spin imparted to the sabot by the barrel's rifling is translated to the projectile.
When the two separate the projectile is still spinning and is stabilized as though it had fit the bore it was fired from perfectly.

The most common formula used for calculating the muzzle energy (can be used for down range energy as well) for firearms is velocity squared, times the projectile weight in grains, the result divided by the constant of 450240 (sometimes listed as 450450 in some reloading manuals). This will yield the energy of the projectile in foot pounds.

By the way, thanks for serving your country in those tanks!

Doc Nickel
08-27-2007, 11:31 PM
there are sabot shotgun rounds available. they are basically a bunch of small darts packed inside a plastic carrier.

-Two different items. Yes, there's a "flechette" round (not commonly) available for the shotgun, but more commonly available are BRI-style (http://www.cabelas.com/prod-1/0016697212291a.shtml) saboted slugs. They're a true sabot round, firing a .50 caliber wasp-waisted slug.

Doc.

elbryant
08-27-2007, 11:31 PM
The question of whether a sabot round is effective for a particular purpose depends upon the aerodamic/ballistic characteristics of the projectile at a particular velocity range. Several posts alluded to it without using the term, "balistic coefficeient." In general larger projectiles have better ballistic coefficients, that is they retain energy in for the form of velocity at longer ranges, but a for a given case, the larger the bullet the lower the velocity. Decrease the size of the bullet, increase the velocity but decrease the ballistic coefficient. You have to decide what you want, long or short range, flat trajectory or not, energy retention at range, or short range, etc.

Graph it out and it may be that a sabot will be the ideal solution, but chances are, as Doc said, an existing conventional design will work almost as well and probably with better accuracy.

lazlo
08-28-2007, 01:25 AM
What hasn't been mentioned is the military sabot projectiles are long and skinny like a dart to give them sectional density to give them better range at high velocity and very dense material for greater range and prenetrating power.

BigBoy mentioned long rod penetrators on the first page Forrest.


Tank ammo isn't known for long range accuracy.

Direct fire yes, but modern tanks are very accurate at long range. The M1 is accurate out to 8,000 meters (5 miles).


It's strictly for line of sight short range encounters against other tanks and hard targets. For trucks at the same 1000 meter range the M2 is probably a better choice.

Modern battle tanks are equipped with two ammo loads: long rod penetrators for hard targets (other tanks) and HEAT rounds for soft targets.

Lee: I was an electrical engineer for the Army Research Laboratory for many years, and I spent many months out in the field at White Sands Missile Range testing research prototypes against M1 tanks driving in circles in the desert. A couple of times the CO let me drive one of the Abrams for short distances with the hatch up. What an amazing machine! The first time I hit the throttle (it's a twist throttle, like a motorcycle) and turned 1500 horsepower loose on 70 tons, which rocked the carriage backward. The CO was not happy, and I thought I was going to have to change my shorts :) It wasn't a wheelie, but it sure felt like it!

The other thing that occurred to me is that the driver is pressed up against the glacis, especially with the hatch down. The tank may survive a direct hit to the glacis, but I sure don't want to know what that shock would do to the driver. The other thing that occurred to me is that the glacis is filled with depleted uranium, which is mildly radioactive, and inches away from the driver's family jewels. No OSHA in the Army...

lazlo
08-28-2007, 01:30 AM
The mythbusters chicken gun packs a punch and uses a sabot :D

That was freakin' hilarious. Especially when they realized that they were firing chickens against small aircraft windshields that weren't rated for bird impacts. Oops! :)

The Styrofoam chicken sabot was very clever though!

Lee in Texas
08-28-2007, 03:12 AM
BigBoy mentioned long rod penetrators on the first page Forrest.



Direct fire yes, but modern tanks are very accurate at long range. The M1 is accurate out to 8,000 meters (5 miles).

Not quite that far. How far? Eh...I've heard stories. The longest I've heard of is about 4,000 meters. The limitations of the sights and rangefinder come into play here. The M1A2SEP has a sight that goes up to 50x, so who knows? Also, the Leopard 2A6 has the same gun but IIRC the tube is a full meter longer. The goal was to get their tungsten sabots to have the same energy as our DU rounds. That extra velocity could likely extend the range. They were working on a 140mm gun, but that was sadly not to be.




Modern battle tanks are equipped with two ammo loads: long rod penetrators for hard targets (other tanks) and HEAT rounds for soft targets.

And, bless their hearts, they have a beehive round once again. Essentially a 120mm shotgun round.


Lee: I was an electrical engineer for the Army Research Laboratory for many years, and I spent many months out in the field at White Sands Missile Range testing research prototypes against M1 tanks driving in circles in the desert. A couple of times the CO let me drive one of the Abrams for short distances with the hatch up. What an amazing machine! The first time I hit the throttle (it's a twist throttle, like a motorcycle) and turned 1500 horsepower loose on 70 tons, which rocked the carriage backward. The CO was not happy, and I thought I was going to have to change my shorts :) It wasn't a wheelie, but it sure felt like it!

Hey cool. I spent a year at WSMR guarding. Eh. Well, you probably know what I was guarding.

Once at Ft Hood, I got to take the C.O.'s tank to the range. Just me and the driver for 15 or so miles. I had him open it up. One of our soldiers was on the tank trail in a Humvee and swears we were airborne, but this kid can tell some stories so who knows? We were hauling @$$ though.


The other thing that occurred to me is that the driver is pressed up against the glacis, especially with the hatch down. The tank may survive a direct hit to the glacis, but I sure don't want to know what that shock would do to the driver. The other thing that occurred to me is that the glacis is filled with depleted uranium, which is mildly radioactive, and inches away from the driver's family jewels. No OSHA in the Army...

I never worried about the DU surrounding me. It is encased in steel. There was one thing in the back of my mind though. Taking a hit head-on. Even if the round didn't penetrate, it could send some nasty spall at me. Overall, I loved that machine. It broke my heart when the Texas national Guard lost tanks. I will not be reenlisting. The thrill is gone.

HTRN
08-28-2007, 04:34 AM
The record, IIRC, is around 4800 meters in the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Yes, it's a shame they never went to the 140mm developed at Picatinny - it was decided that since the current 120mm is capable of killing just about any MBT in the world, and the 140mm would mean mandatory autoloaders, and reduced ammunition capacity, as well as a new turret. The Army decided to instead focusing on improving the ammo. Which now puts it on Par with the longer L/55 Rheinmetall gun used on the New Lepards. Since We're still using an Americanized version of the L/44, updating to L/55, along with our new long rod penetrator, gives us 90% of the advantage of the 140mm, and none of the disadvantages.

And oh, one of the things they're seriously looking into, is combustable cases - easier to deal with.

The DU Armor is being redesigned in light of the NRC's lowering the exposure limit for armor crews from 500 millirems a year, to 100 millirems.

Nothing using direct acting gunpowder is going to get a projectile faster than 6800 feet/sec using Nitro based powder, because of inertia - the gas is too heavy(to go faster you need a "Light gas" gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_gas_gun)) The Long rod penetrator we use travels about 5700 ft/sec. The big advantage of Sabot rounds is this: Despite them being smaller in diameter, they still have the entire surface area for the gas to act upon. That's why if you took a .30-06 "accelerator", it would be faster than simply necking the case down. It's easily demonstrated by looking at the muzzle energy of cartridges that are necked up and down, and comparing powder charges and muzzle energy.

And oh, the reason why the Accelerator line failed commercially was because they had horrible accuracy. You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it.


HTRN

lazlo
08-28-2007, 10:03 AM
Not quite that far. How far? Eh...I've heard stories. The longest I've heard of is about 4,000 meters. The limitations of the sights and rangefinder come into play here. The M1A2SEP has a sight that goes up to 50x, so who knows?

That's where I got the 8,000 meters -- the contractor spec on the M1A2 FEP (Firepower Enhancement Package) was 8,000 meters:

"FEP also includes an eyesafe laser rangefinder, north-finding module and precision lightweight global positioning receiver which provide targeting solutions for the new Far Target Locate (FTL) function. FTL gives accurate targeting data to a range of 8,000m."


And, bless their hearts, they have a beehive round once again. Essentially a 120mm shotgun round.

Wow, they re-invented grape-shot? Was that developed for Iraq? Are the sub-munitions active (explosive)?


Once at Ft Hood, I got to take the C.O.'s tank to the range. Just me and the driver for 15 or so miles. I had him open it up. One of our soldiers was on the tank trail in a Humvee and swears we were airborne, but this kid can tell some stories so who knows? We were hauling @$$ though.

That was the other thing that really struck me about the Abrams -- the ride was amazingly smooth. I'd never been in a tank before, let alone ridden in one, but I was expecting a bone-jarring ride. But that Cadillac suspension system is sweet!


There was one thing in the back of my mind though. Taking a hit head-on. Even if the round didn't penetrate, it could send some nasty spall at me.

I had that picture in my mind too Lee -- in the crew compartment you've got three guys cramped together in something like a 3 foot circle. If something did penetrate the armor, or worse, a top-attack EFP, it seems like any resulting spall would kill the entire crew in a hearbeat (although the driver is sealed-away up front).

Tough business to be in...

Lynn Standish
08-28-2007, 11:50 AM
Why has nobody discussed the twist rate of the parent weapon's rifling vs. the proper twist rate for the caliber of the sabot round? That will have a tremendous effect on the accuracy of the sabot due to instability.

Boomer
08-28-2007, 07:09 PM
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/6051-Serious-Recoil.html

IOWOLF
08-28-2007, 07:26 PM
Seen it.again.

ckelloug
08-28-2007, 10:36 PM
Apparently, if you use the ballistic tables in the operating manual instead of the targeting computer in the M1, you can get beyond the 5km range where the computer won't do the ballistic solution. A couple of colleagues who were M1 Master Gunners told me some stories of doing this in Desert Storm. My understanding is that this limitation in the computer has to do with doctrine as the army doesn't really want tanks engaging things that far down range.

dicks42000
08-28-2007, 10:49 PM
Willie;
I don't want to fan any flames, but iirc, some of the local west coast natives are/ have negotiated the right to hunt whales and if they follow suite with other tribal groups south & north of 49, the weapon of choice is a .50 cal. rifle...Do they have some kind of exemption...?
Rick

lazlo
08-29-2007, 12:13 AM
And, bless their hearts, they have a beehive round once again. Essentially a 120mm shotgun round.

I just found the M1028 Cannister Tank Cartridge on GlobalSecurity.org: the cartridge contains 1150 tungsten balls. Can you imagine the carnage?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m1028.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/m1028_pic1.jpg

HTRN
08-29-2007, 12:54 AM
It appears they have indeed started adopting combustable cases - that XM1028 is one, and the latest version of the APFSDS, the M829A3, a fourth generation "silver bullet"(penetrates almost 700mm of RHA @ 2 kilometers, and specifically designed to defeat reactive armor), also uses it.

It seems conventional cases are being phased out for tank ammunition.

lazlo
08-29-2007, 01:12 AM
I thought all the M1 rounds had combustible cases, including the original M829A1 (the "Silver Bullet").

Lee in Texas
08-29-2007, 01:25 AM
I thought all the M1 rounds had combustible cases, including the original M829A1 (the "Silver Bullet").

They are. The IPM1s (initial production) had 105mm rifled guns and brass cases. M1A1 and up have smoothbore 120s with combustible case ammo. All IPs have been retired.

I would love to light up a car bomber with that canister round. I have some friends who went to Iraq. They were in Humvees engaging a couple of cars across the Tigris. A tank rolled up and the TC said "Do you mind if we light 'em up? We're bored as hell." They said have at it. Our guys heard that the battle damage assessment team wasn't sure how many bodies were at the scene. :eek:

Willy
08-29-2007, 02:28 AM
Willie;
I don't want to fan any flames, but iirc, some of the local west coast natives are/ have negotiated the right to hunt whales and if they follow suite with other tribal groups south & north of 49, the weapon of choice is a .50 cal. rifle...Do they have some kind of exemption...?
Rick

Not that I'm aware of Rick. I have just spent the better part of three hours trying to find that exemption in the firearms act, and as of yet I haven't found it. But as I'm sure you can imagine it is a very convoluted and ambiguous piece of legislation. I could be there for three weeks and not know any more than I do now. Lawyers make laws so that they will have a job interpreting the laws that they wrote.:rolleyes:
For all I know it could be tied into some kind of international aboriginal treaty, there are a number of those because of tribal boundaries crossing the U.S./Can. border.
Interesting point though Rick as I too have seen news footage of them using .50 cal firearms in their whaling endeavors.