edk
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,105
|
Post by edk on Jan 28, 2021 6:53:44 GMT -5
Things change but before there was any S&W involvement, a person could just call TC in Rochester NH and the fine folks would simply look it up and tell you "pistol" or "rifle". They would even tell you what barrel it shipped with or whether it was a bare frame. Did S&W get those record with the sale? Who knows? I cant think of a single thing good that has come out of that sale. I once told a custom maker I wanted a 16"+ barrel. Got a reply that according to the regs the "+" was unnecessary and they could simply make it 16.000". I didn't want to go there... When TC was still in Rochester, NH, I called and asked about the shipped status of my Original Contender, which I bought in '81 as a pistol, from IHMSA. They could not provide any data due to a major fire at the factory which destroyed all history to that point. So the issue goes back well before any S&W involvement. I stand corrected in regards to the fire having obscured matters. Before the fire TC likely provided this info until the 1995 fire because after the fire TC willingly gave out post fire serial number info. I know this because I confirmed all in my possession (which happen to be post 1995).
So TC had 15 years of production info on hand before the plant closed and operations were transferred from Rochester NH to S&W. That represents a significant portion of the newer style easy-open Contender production and all Encore and G2 production. After re-reading Revolvr's post this popped into my head regarding conversations with TC: They did not speak in terms of the the specific BATF lingo such as "undesignated". If it was a pistol they would say for example "Blue Contender pistol with Super 14 30/30 barrel, walnut grip and for-end". If rifle the language was "Stainless steel carbine with XXX barrel and YYY furniture". On two of mine the rep said to the effect of "Stainless steel pistol frame with Rynite grip/for-end". I don't recall TC ever selling bare frames without any grip/buttstock but I'm not sure on that one. Of course they were certainly reporting whatever formal terminology required of them to the BATF and maybe had I asked they might have told me but I got what I had come for so I thanked the lady for her time and that was that.
|
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,606
|
Post by jeffh on Jan 29, 2021 15:51:11 GMT -5
This was legally decided decades ago. If it is a pistol stock with a pistol barrel it is a pistol; if it is a rifle stock with a rifle barrel it is a rifle. If it is a rifle stock with a pistol barrel it is illegal (and no I do not understand the logic of this!) If it is a pistol stock with a rifle barrel it is okay. This
YET.....
The part that still lingers unresolved in my mind is the confusing text about whether one is "MAKING" a pistol from a rifle if one simply removes the butt stock and puts on a pistol grip.
Maybe I'm an idiot and am missing something obvious, but I've read that BATF IS/HAS/WILL make an issue of this even if you change out the pistol parts to use it as a carbine for a while - and then are "MAKING" a pistol from a rifle when you go to change the parts BACK.
I don't know if this is speculation or real, but someone (somewhere - and I don't remember where) posted a letter from BATF stating exactly that when they inquired about this seemingly ridiculous issue.
It's really been so confusing - because it's so ridiculous - that I've closed my eyes, plugged my ears and gone "LALALALLALALALALALA" whenever it comes up.
NOW I HAVE A QUESTION:
I have a Contender "FRAME sitting at my FFL waiting for me to go pick it up. The nice lady that called me to tell me my "gun, err' frame, err, whatever it is..." is ready to pick up said the guy who calls in the background checks needed to talk to me because he was confused. This is not a dedicated "gun store," but they are amazing people who have done several transfers for me and sell a few guns out of their store, which sells mostly appliances, household goods and similar.
I KNOW what he's going to ask me - is this a RIFLE a HANDGUN or "OTHER?"
My question to YOU fellas, is: what are the implications of telling him to check "OTHER?" I'm not looking for legal counsel here, rather wondering if anyone has a "take" or an opinion, personal experience, etc.
EDIT: By the way, I am not certain this is materially significant to ME, because I personally do not care for the Contender as a pistol and can't see me ever having a need for on in that format - so mine will remain "rifles" or carbines, but 1) I am curious, and 2) am concerned about others and their situations, whether it's any of my damned business or not.
|
|
|
Post by magnumwheelman on Jan 29, 2021 17:31:53 GMT -5
Is this a new Contender??? If you have the serial could call TC/S&W... of the serial is new enough, they could tell you
|
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,606
|
Post by jeffh on Jan 29, 2021 18:20:59 GMT -5
Is this a new Contender??? If you have the serial could call TC/S&W... of the serial is new enough, they could tell you Yes, Sir, it is a CONTENDER, but this is an original Contender, not a "G2" from before the fire, so they (TC) don't know.
Thank you though.
This, being yet another kink in some of the perverted logic which displaces "common sense," leaves otherwise law-abiding citizens in a lurch. I'm not asking in order to subvert the law, but to try to more closely adhere to it.
Have any of you who purchased, say an AR "lower," without yet knowing which way you would go with it selected "other" on the 4473 or know if the FFL you used selected "other?"
I have NO intention of dragging others into a rabbit hole here, so there may be no real answer given the pattern and the apparent precedence. I honestly feel like it's made up as we go. Ideally, I'd think that if everyone involved were interested in the law being fair and reasonable, BATF would have recognized the original conundrum and worked out some change, clarification or exception to remove the catch-22, but they failed to do that and SEEM to simply continue to enjoy the consternation it causes to people who are simply trying to obey the law, regardless of how ridiculous it may be.
I'm just curious as to whether selecting "other" on the 4473 is of any help at all in keeping someone out of inadvertent trouble.
I've sliced this and diced this every way I can think of and it just keeps coming back to apparent trickery on the part of BATF when it comes to what constitutes "MAKING" a pistol from a rifle. Sad that it must be this way when they could easily fix it and thereby make allies in the majority of gun owners. All it does for me is make me nervous.
|
|
|
Post by rjm52 on Feb 1, 2021 7:27:10 GMT -5
Would register it as a Handgun because then you can do anything you want with it as long as you don't put a barrel under 16" on the frame when the carbine stock is attached.
I have two Contender frames and two G2 frames and all are registered as Handguns. Used to have lots of carbine barrels and stocks but now just down to a 18" Custom Shop .22 LR and a 16.5" TCA .41 Magnum.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by mobjack on Feb 1, 2021 20:48:12 GMT -5
Would register it as a Handgun because then you can do anything you want with it as long as you don't put a barrel under 16" on the frame when the carbine stock is attached. I have two Contender frames and two G2 frames and all are registered as Handguns. Used to have lots of carbine barrels and stocks but now just down to a 18" Custom Shop .22 LR and a 16.5" TCA .41 Magnum. Bob
I don't know what state you are in, but most states do not require registration. In those states a Contender or Encore frame would transfer as "other" it isn't a pistol or rifle. If it was, there would be a barrel length, and caliber. As far as putting a rifle barrel and butt stock, then putting a pistol grip and < 16" barrel, on the frame, that was decided in court. As long as the firearm was assembled in a legal configuration, no short barreled rifle exists. See the BATFE letter dated July 25, 2011. See attached link for the document.
So, if you take your Contender carbine, remove the butt stock and > 16" barrel. Then install the pistol grip, and short barrel, you have not made a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) that falls under the NFA. Thompson Center took the BATFE to court and won. That is the genesis of their letter dated July 25, 2011. There is nothing to fear with your Contender or Encore.
Just a tidbit, the Contender and Encore, are only supposed to be dealer transferred to people over 21, this is due to the ability to make a pistol. This is the same as a stripped AR-15 receiver, those are only transferable to 21 and older too.
Mobjack
ps
A little history. All hand guns were supposed to be covered by the NFA, and require a $200 tax. That is why they added the Short Barreled Rifle definition to the law. So if you took your rifle, and made it small, that was covered as a pistol, and taxed accordingly. Alas, the pistol part was dropped, but they didn't remove the SBR designation (and Short Barreled Shotguns). So now you know the rest of the story.
pps
The whole NFA law would have been scraped in US v Miller, if Miller and council would have shown up to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by magnumwheelman on Feb 2, 2021 7:04:19 GMT -5
maybe one of the biggest potential issues I actually see here, would be an Encore originally sold as a black powder rifle... to the wrong government agency, that would have started as both a rifle & a black powder gun???
|
|
|
Post by rjm52 on Feb 2, 2021 8:40:51 GMT -5
...I'm in Rochester, NH...right up the road from where the factory used to be. I know about all the lawsuits but don't remember about how the guns were listed when one bought one.
As to the guns being available as a BP rifle right from the factory, I believe they could not be shipped or sold as a dedicated BP rifle could because it could be turned into a "firearm".
All these laws are useless, senseless and are rarely if ever prosecuted against "real" criminals...
Bob
|
|
edk
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,105
|
Post by edk on Feb 2, 2021 8:58:44 GMT -5
Regardless of whether an Encore was even sold at retail with a barrel that launched rubber bands, a 4473 was always, always required against the serial # on the frame.
|
|
|
Post by mobjack on Feb 2, 2021 11:19:15 GMT -5
maybe one of the biggest potential issues I actually see here, would be an Encore originally sold as a black powder rifle... to the wrong government agency, that would have started as both a rifle & a black powder gun???
A muzzle loading Encore could not be sold as a "non-firearm" due to the receiver it's self being a firearm.
An example would be the early Savage muzzle loader. Those were stopped due to the gun being made from a rifle receiver. The later Savage Muzzle loaders were made on a dedicated receiver, so as not to be firearms. I am not sure how the Remington muzzle loaders were done.
I would be willing to bet that some FFL holder has sold an Encore Muzzle loader without doing the required paperwork, but that would have been in violation of Federal law.
In my opinion, the whole NFA was in violation of the Constitution, but good luck with that.
Mobjack
|
|
jeffh
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,606
|
Post by jeffh on Feb 6, 2021 10:27:51 GMT -5
.........take your Contender carbine, remove the butt stock and > 16" barrel. Then install the pistol grip, and short barrel, you have not made a Short Barreled Rifle.....
Mobjack
............................. THIS is sort of what I am talking about, but slightly different.
The argument by BATF was not regarding the "potential SBR" in parts, or that one COULD make an SBR if they possessed both a short barrel and a butt stock.
The specific new nit being picked was that once you, the owner, placed a rifle barrel (>/= 16") and a butt stock on your receiver, it would constitute "MAKING" a pistol from a rifle if/when you removed t he rifle barrel/butt stock and put the pistol barrel and pistol grip BACK on.
The MAKING is illegal for a non-licensee, even as ridiculous as it sounds to consider swapping parts "making."
Herein lies the problem I see for owners - one absolutely cannot rely on ruling something out by how stupid it sounds or by assuming common sense and good judgement would be used. Though I've never been a direct victim of "abuses" of this nature, it's too big a price to gamble against.
I will try to find the letter someone posted elsewhere from a field office. I'm asking here to determine if anyone else had ever heard this - I am not trying to convince anyone and I'm not even necessarily convinced myself. I wonder too if an individual filed office might have an individual employee/agent providing bad information too - but as I said, you can't rule something out just because it makes no sense - not with this agency. That they continue to enforce and prosecute the picayune caveats and catch-22s instead of fixing them, like the original issue of having a short barrel and butt stock in your possession at the same time, I'm sorry, but I harbor a general distrust for the organization. Well, actually, I'm NOT sorry, I'm just trying to be polite about it.
mobjack , thanks for the history on that. Those are things I never knew.
|
|
|
Post by x101airborne on Feb 7, 2021 22:55:06 GMT -5
I have heard stories all over the map and I cannot make heads or tails of it. XP100 weapons are one example. Contenders, Encores, G-2's, Mauser pistols of old... I dont remember all the stories true so I wont try to regale. Some were outright stupid builds, some were (I believe) genuine builds that were misinterpreted. Some were an abstract assembly of parts that sometimes did and sometimes did not fall under certain laws.
I cannot help except to say, do your best to stay within the law. I am saying I dont believe our guberment could find its posterior with both hands and a flashlight.
|
|
|
Post by eagle1899 on Feb 10, 2021 17:19:07 GMT -5
My two cents from having a few Contenders and "other" firearms.
The new frame is an "other" until it is put together. Same as an AR lower, a bolt action with no barrel. Then it is either a rifle or a pistol.
|
|
|
Post by eagle1899 on Feb 10, 2021 17:21:39 GMT -5
Btw... I have been meaning to Form 1 a Contender for years, just haven't gotten around to it. The new pistol brace adapters are making it moot anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Feb 11, 2021 9:01:16 GMT -5
I have heard stories all over the map and I cannot make heads or tails of it. XP100 weapons are one example. Contenders, Encores, G-2's, Mauser pistols of old... I dont remember all the stories true so I wont try to regale. Some were outright stupid builds, some were (I believe) genuine builds that were misinterpreted. Some were an abstract assembly of parts that sometimes did and sometimes did not fall under certain laws. I cannot help except to say, do your best to stay within the law. I am saying I dont believe our guberment could find its posterior with both hands and a flashlight. ***** Trey.... dragging a few cobwebs off the memory, it seems Remington introduced the XP-100, circa 1960, .221 Fireball as a pistol, using a short action with solid bottom receiver. Don’t know when the 40-X match rifle was introduced, but it uses the same receiver as the the XP. Purpose stated for introducing the XP-100 was to certify the action originating as a pistol.... and then build M-600 series of short action carbines. Ostensible modus operandi, to avoid howling from the orchestra pit at ATF that Remington was manufacturing a pistol on a rifle action. I got this from a couple of Remington folk. It was Jim Stekl of Remington Research & Development (and the Bench Rest Hall of Fame) who dragged Remington into the IHMSA (International Handgun Metallic Silhouette Association) steel shooting game. Which happened in 1980, as Jim Stekl and Dick Deitz of Remington got together with this shooter to finalize a configuration of XP-100 to fit the IHMSA Unlimited category. Had Remington not made the XP-100 .221 Fireball first, there would have been no XP-100 in 7mm Remington BR, nor .35 Rem 7mm-08, 6mm BR Rem, etc. As a sidetrack, when Stekl retired, the fumes over Remington taking forever to offer 7mm BR brass and ammo still steamed from his ears. Remington management was too busy playing golf and twiddling on a yacht to drive the horses from the front of the wagon. Once Remington offered the XP-100 in Stekl's 7mm BR, popularity of Elgin Gates’ 7mm International (7mm IHMSA) and a host of wildcats began a slide from popularity. The BR family of cartridges is built on Stekl’s .308x1-1/2” case, with the most popular being the .22 Br, 6mm BR, and 7mm BR. Gates 7mm IHMSA is the .300 Savage necked long to 7mm with 38-degree shoulder. There are two versions, Elgin’s with Savage taper, and Richard Beebe’s (CEO of Redding) straighter walls to allow the 7mm BR Rem to be rechambered to 7mm IHMSA. The accuracy of all these cartridges is thoroughly proven in championship competition. As made clear right here by some old timers. the Contender’s unique versatility isn’t a problem, long as a buttstock ain’t put on a sub-16” barrel. David Bradshaw
|
|