Given that these rifles use an obsolete black powder cartridge but shoot a projectile greater than .50 cal what are the legal ramifications of acquiring/owning one. You can buy expensive custom brass case .577 ammo and make your own redneck rounds using 24 gauge shells, black powder, and .58 cal prb, but is there a problem with firearm regs?
Legality of Snider-Enfields
- Thread starter elhombreconnonombre
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,544
Over 100 years old, shoots obsolete or hard to get ammunition. I'm inclined to say it doesn't fall under the federal definition of firearm. BTW, I wish the Brits hadn't converted those enfields to cartridge firearms. I like the muzzle loading better. Oh well, you can't stop progress.
Gary
I thought I read somewhere there was a regulatory "gotcha" regarding a rifled barrelled, cartridge fed long gun in calibers greater than .50, despite the age issue.
I thought I read somewhere there was a regulatory "gotcha" regarding a rifled barrelled, cartridge fed long gun in calibers greater than .50, despite the age issue.
Looks like you're from Texas so this ain't a Jersey question. Anyway, a buddy of mine owned and shot a couple of .577 Sniders. I think being a blackpowder gun and if it's older than 1898 production you're probably good to go.
There's still some lead going down range from the 600 and 700 Nitro and .577 T-Rex rifles sent by people that just don't like themselves.
Rifled barreled 12 gauges shooting copper sabots would get a person racked up pretty quick if there was a caliber issue.
I'm not a lawyer so the usual grain of salt with Internet advice applies.
Have fun...Bexar
There's still some lead going down range from the 600 and 700 Nitro and .577 T-Rex rifles sent by people that just don't like themselves.
Rifled barreled 12 gauges shooting copper sabots would get a person racked up pretty quick if there was a caliber issue.
I'm not a lawyer so the usual grain of salt with Internet advice applies.
Have fun...Bexar
Last edited:
Cartridge firearms made before Dec. 31 1898 are not regulated by the federal government (Other that NFA class III weapons). Some socialist leaning cities and states have their own regulations. You have to be familiar with the laws in your own area.
Several states have their own peculiarities.
A few years ago New Jersey had a bill to outlaw anything 50 Cal or over.
In pa a Tc scout pistol qualifies as an antique but a muzzle loading pistol that uses 209 primers may not be an antique.
A Snider is a cantankerous gun because of the progressive rifling used in the 1853 pattern muskets they used barrels of.
Think of it as a chamber with a barrel long choke. It takes a larger bullet to fill the rifling at the chamber than at the muzzle.
A few years ago New Jersey had a bill to outlaw anything 50 Cal or over.
In pa a Tc scout pistol qualifies as an antique but a muzzle loading pistol that uses 209 primers may not be an antique.
A Snider is a cantankerous gun because of the progressive rifling used in the 1853 pattern muskets they used barrels of.
Think of it as a chamber with a barrel long choke. It takes a larger bullet to fill the rifling at the chamber than at the muzzle.
That's actually kind of funny to say, as the question at hand is whether or not these ARE NFA firearms. (Though Class III is the wrong term.) Not machine guns, of course, but rifled arms over .50 cal, which would be a "large bore destructive device."
Some such weapons or cartridges have been specifically exempted because they are deemed useful for sporting purposes. For example, .600 N.E. is, but a 20mm Lahti is not. JD Jones got the exemption for his gargantuan .959 JDJ. I may be wrong, but I've read that the .700 N.E. never actually was exempted because they're so rare in the 'States that no one bothered.
The nice thing here is that the definitions under 26 US Code section 5845 (where the National Firearms Act is codified) include the following:
By federal definition, these are indeed antique firearms.
Sam1911 wrote:
The definition of an antique for purposes of the NFA differs from the definition for purposes of the GCA. Subsection (g) of 26 US Code section 5845 reads as follows:
On its face, it would appear that a Snider-Enfield (a .577 cartridge gun) would not be exempted from the NFA as an antique, regardless of date of manufacture, if commercial ammunition in that caliber were available. The other exemption for "sporting guns" would not apply since this was originally a military weapon. I suppose you could get a letter ruling from ATF exempting it.
The definition of an antique for purposes of the NFA differs from the definition for purposes of the GCA. Subsection (g) of 26 US Code section 5845 reads as follows:
On its face, it would appear that a Snider-Enfield (a .577 cartridge gun) would not be exempted from the NFA as an antique, regardless of date of manufacture, if commercial ammunition in that caliber were available. The other exemption for "sporting guns" would not apply since this was originally a military weapon. I suppose you could get a letter ruling from ATF exempting it.
But would you consider BP .577 cartridges to be "... manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.?"
I agree, a letter would be safer. Of course, another way to answer the question with some degree of practical certainty is to determine if commercial retailers are being allowed to sell these items, and under what terms. IMA sells them as antiques, direct shipping everywhere but New Jersey. Firms like that don't go on doing so for long in direct violation of the BATFE's interpretation of the law.
I agree, a letter would be safer. Of course, another way to answer the question with some degree of practical certainty is to determine if commercial retailers are being allowed to sell these items, and under what terms. IMA sells them as antiques, direct shipping everywhere but New Jersey. Firms like that don't go on doing so for long in direct violation of the BATFE's interpretation of the law.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2003
- Messages
- 13,350
Here you go .577 Snider ammo for sale
https://www.buffaloarms.com/577_Snider_Black_Powder_Ammunition_it-158100.aspx?CAT=4444
Whooo. Wheee! I suppose if I was building BP cartridge ammo for commercial sale I'd probably want several dollars a round too... but yikes!
I have a few of the very old large bore centerfire guns. even a 58 Berdan Roller, a Snider, a Rem NY militia 50-70, etc. all purchased before any ammo was in current production.
It never dawned on me that they may no longer be "antiques." under the GCA.
I take great delight in going to places like Walmart and asking for 58 Berdan ammo, just to see the clerk turn and look through the shelves for nothing.
Is it any availability in commerce, or at least available from other than a specialty custom loader.
It never dawned on me that they may no longer be "antiques." under the GCA.
I take great delight in going to places like Walmart and asking for 58 Berdan ammo, just to see the clerk turn and look through the shelves for nothing.
Is it any availability in commerce, or at least available from other than a specialty custom loader.
The situation is potentially far worse than it seems. A Snider-Enfield is unquestionably an antique under the GCA. But if it's not an antique under the NFA (which would be the case if ammunition was commercially available, and there was no ATF determination letter ruling to the contrary), then it would be a "destructive device" coming under the full purview of NFA regulations. That is, it would need to be registered with the ATF, a $200 tax would apply to any transfer, there would need to be CLEO signoff (or ownership by a trust), etc., etc. And then there's the issue of retroactive registration of an existing gun. Until that's done, the gun would be contraband, and it would be confessing to a crime to attempt to register it.
I imagine the ATF would be reasonable, and find some ground under which they could rule that it was exempt.
Except that without pulling major shenanigans, there is no registration of an already existing gun. So if the BATFE did decide to go for that interpretation it would sure suck, and bad!
But the places selling these now aren't SOT3 dealers. And they've been sold for years and are still being sold, along with (as we now know) ammunition for them, and the ATF hasn't said a word. I know they aren't the most consistent bunch in the multiverse, but it would be pretty darned surprising if they jumped on antique black powder cartridge guns as the next big enforcement front. When an organization has the kind of interpretive and enforcement powers that the ATF has, what's legal and illegal tends to be determined by their own enforcement precedents.
The M1865 Allin conversion Springfield would be in the same boat, except that nobody is making (nor is likely to) .58 cal. rimfire ammunition.
Seller can always set whatever conditions he wants on the sale. More than legally required is certainly a lawful condition to set, even if pointless.
Hmm.. Interesting viewpoint.
Of course, you are free to believe whatever you like, but to tell the truth, it wouldnt surprise ME, one damn bit.
Given the fact that we have the sort of power freaks that we do, holding the reigns in DC... That the IRS is going after any sort of dissent... That the entire federal structure is arming itself to the teeth (even the Agriculture Dept. now has assault teams and heavy weapons), that they seem to do anything they want, with total impunity... And simply lie, baldfaced when questioned by We the People and our Representatives in Congress, and that they have made their stance on DIS arming We, the TRUE legal power and legal firearms owners of this Nation, at any cost whatsoever... Well... I just think it would be wise to either get it writing, now, BEFORE they have the chance to change their minds and decide that we too (like any and all returning vets) are suspect of being domestic terrorists.... Or hide it and hide it well.
JMHO...
It would seem like the Snider would fall into the same category as a 45-70 Sharps made in 1874. That would put the Sharps being made prior to 1898 and use ammunition currently available. Midway has the .577, so what would be the difference?
The problem, and difference between this and the 45-70, is that its over .50 in bore diameter... And the seemingly contradictory wording of the two major "laws" (the NFA and GCA) taken in defiance of The Constitution.
One SORT of says its legal.. the other SORT of says its not. This is a common ploy used by DC power brokers, in order to make something legal today but insure that they are able to come back and "change their minds" whenever they decide its time to do so...
- Status
