Cutting the frame for a loading gate, and legality.

Status
Not open for further replies.
It sounds like someone who doesn't know better but should know better is going to get someone locked up if he/she believe what he is saying.
 
Please tell me there's not still folks among us who think cutting a groove in the frame of a C&B revolver suddenly makes it a firearm.
A loading gate doesn't allow a C&B revolver to fire fixed ammunition and a loading gate isn't even required to convert a C&B revolver to fire fixed ammunition.
The definition of an antique firearm makes it pretty clear a C&B revolver is not a firearm with or without a groove/loading gate.

I do get that shipping through an FFL MIGHT reduce the hassle that could possibly occur if an ignorant postal inspector came along but I think proper packaging would be a better investment that hiring an FFL to ship the package for you.
 
Please tell me there's not still folks among us who think cutting a groove in the frame of a C&B revolver suddenly makes it a firearm.
A loading gate doesn't allow a C&B revolver to fire fixed ammunition and a loading gate isn't even required to convert a C&B revolver to fire fixed ammunition.
The definition of an antique firearm makes it pretty clear a C&B revolver is not a firearm with or without a groove/loading gate.

I do get that shipping through an FFL MIGHT reduce the hassle that could possibly occur if an ignorant postal inspector came along but I think proper packaging would be a better investment that hiring an FFL to ship the package for you.

Let them do what they do, and just ignore what they say (or chuckle)... ;)
 
Ha, I was digging around out of boredom and came up with this tidbit from Wikipedia (not directly related per this thread's subject but obliquely related in that a "firearm" can mean different things to different judicial bodies).

"In United States vs. Kirvan, the defendant used a replica of an antique .44 caliber black powder revolver in several bank robberies. He was eventually arrested, and was charged with "bank robbery", "armed bank robbery", and "carrying or using a firearm in connection with a crime of violence". Kirvan was convicted of bank robbery and armed bank robbery, but the firearms charge was dropped before trial by the prosecution. However, during his sentencing hearing, the probation department recommended a five-level upward adjustment to his sentence due to the use of a firearm, instead of a three-level adjustment for brandishing a dangerous weapon.

Kirvan appealed the five-level adjustment, arguing that the antique replica weapon was not a "firearm" for sentencing purposes. However, the appellate court stated, "...An armed robbery is no less serious by virtue of the fact that the culprit happened to brandish an old or valuable pistol instead of a new one, although the crime might be more exotic or newsworthy...", held that an antique gun was a “firearm” for purposes of the sentencing enhancement, and affirmed the increased sentence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique_firearms
 
Ha, I was digging around out of boredom and came up with this tidbit from Wikipedia (not directly related per this thread's subject but obliquely related in that a "firearm" can mean different things to different judicial bodies).

"In United States vs. Kirvan, the defendant used a replica of an antique .44 caliber black powder revolver in several bank robberies. He was eventually arrested, and was charged with "bank robbery", "armed bank robbery", and "carrying or using a firearm in connection with a crime of violence". Kirvan was convicted of bank robbery and armed bank robbery, but the firearms charge was dropped before trial by the prosecution. However, during his sentencing hearing, the probation department recommended a five-level upward adjustment to his sentence due to the use of a firearm, instead of a three-level adjustment for brandishing a dangerous weapon.

Kirvan appealed the five-level adjustment, arguing that the antique replica weapon was not a "firearm" for sentencing purposes. However, the appellate court stated, "...An armed robbery is no less serious by virtue of the fact that the culprit happened to brandish an old or valuable pistol instead of a new one, although the crime might be more exotic or newsworthy...", held that an antique gun was a “firearm” for purposes of the sentencing enhancement, and affirmed the increased sentence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique_firearms
Yes I don't think that is new to most of us. I imagine that if his C&B gun had a loading port in the recoil shield, there would have been no question that it was indeed a firearm.. (chuckle)
 
Last edited:
It's not the existence of a loading gate/port that makes it a firearm.

It's the fact that the frame was modified with the intent and purpose of facilitating cartridge loading in a gun that can now fire cartridges.

In essence a firearm has been manufactured.

You can do this without filing any paperwork and is not a problem as far as the federal government is concerned but it is now and forever a firearm.

The proof of this is written all over the gun with the permanent modification/modifications. I doubt anyone will believe you if you say otherwise.




The loading gate and port on the black powder replica of the 1873 cartridge gun is made for loading percussion caps not cartridges. It's existence alone does not make it a firearm.

That entire gun is deliberately designed and manufactured to be a black powder percussion system cap and ball revolver.

Many things were deliberately done in it's design to make conversion to cartridge firing difficult and unpractical. They sure were successful in that regard too.

It was designed to be and born a black powder gun.

If someone feels inclined to go through all the trouble and machine shop work to convert a cap and ball 1873 replica gun to cartridge firing then a new cartridge gun is born. They just manufactured a firearm. Converting an 1873 with all the hoops to jump through (machine work welding etc..) to make it fire cartridges will be leave no doubt of that.

You take your chances if you start mailing a bunch of this stuff all over the country even if someone on the internet told you it was "alright."

This is a perfect example of my problem with conversions even though they can be beautiful and appealing.
 
Last edited:
Just maybe a stupid question. Is it leaving it Cap and Ball with the technology that goes along with that loading procedure the only thing that keeps todays replicas of our BP revolvers away from Federal Legislation? I get that this loading porcedure is "antique" as one can get; so is that the only thing that keeps our replicas safe from Big Brother? And to think, I worked for them for 30 years and now draw a pension from them. Boy oh Boy will I be the one with egg on my face while I do all I can to keep from under the Gov't thumb.
 
Just maybe a stupid question. Is it leaving it Cap and Ball with the technology that goes along with that loading procedure the only thing that keeps todays replicas of our BP revolvers away from Federal Legislation? I get that this loading porcedure is "antique" as one can get; so is that the only thing that keeps our replicas safe from Big Brother? And to think, I worked for them for 30 years and now draw a pension from them. Boy oh Boy will I be the one with egg on my face while I do all I can to keep from under the Gov't thumb.

Hard for me to answer since there are exceptions for antiques that fire cartridges that are no longer manufactured nor readily available (obsolete and hard to get.) I must admit I don't know if this applies to replicas or not.

I can figure out if someone starts mass producing that obsolete cartridge again to rake in money from collectors or some one decides some gunsmith work to change it to a more convenient caliber would be a good idea, that gun will no longer be exempt.

The question of how much ammunition produced and distributed means readily available may be figured out in a court case with a defendants liberty on the line.
 
Last edited:
Just maybe a stupid question. Is it leaving it Cap and Ball with the technology that goes along with that loading procedure the only thing that keeps todays replicas of our BP revolvers away from Federal Legislation? I get that this loading porcedure is "antique" as one can get; so is that the only thing that keeps our replicas safe from Big Brother? And to think, I worked for them for 30 years and now draw a pension from them. Boy oh Boy will I be the one with egg on my face while I do all I can to keep from under the Gov't thumb.

Essentially. Even a state or two (I believe NJ is one, but I'm no authority) already considers them as "firearms" and treats them the same as any modern cartridge firing gun for transfer purposes.
 
Essentially. Even a state or two (I believe NJ is one, but I'm no authority) already considers them as "firearms" and treats them the same as any modern cartridge firing gun for transfer purposes.

Yes that is true someone was once arrested and charged for having a genuine antique flintlock pistol. Thankfully due to a lot of publicity something was worked out.

Carrying a BB gun on public property in New Jersey can be a felony gun charge too.
 
It's not the existence of a loading gate/port that makes it a firearm.

It's the fact that the frame was modified with the intent and purpose of facilitating cartridge loading in a gun that can now fire cartridges.

In essence a firearm has been manufactured.

You can do this without filing any paperwork and is not a problem as far as the federal government is concerned but it is now and forever a firearm.

The proof of this is written all over the gun with the permanent modification/modifications. I doubt anyone will believe you if you say otherwise.




The loading gate and port on the black powder replica of the 1873 cartridge gun is made for loading percussion caps not cartridges. It's existence alone does not make it a firearm.

That entire gun is deliberately designed and manufactured to be a black powder percussion system cap and ball revolver.

Many things were deliberately done in it's design to make conversion to cartridge firing difficult and unpractical. They sure were successful in that regard too.

It was designed to be and born a black powder gun.

If someone feels inclined to go through all the trouble and machine shop work to convert a cap and ball 1873 replica gun to cartridge firing then a new cartridge gun is born. They just manufactured a firearm. Converting an 1873 with all the hoops to jump through (machine work welding etc..) to make it fire cartridges will be leave no doubt of that.

You take your chances if you start mailing a bunch of this stuff all over the country even if someone on the internet told you it was "alright."

This is a perfect example of my problem with conversions even though they can be beautiful and appealing.

(chuckle)
 
Essentially. Even a state or two (I believe NJ is one, but I'm no authority) already considers them as "firearms" and treats them the same as any modern cartridge firing gun for transfer purposes.

You definitely need to check your local jurisdiction for legality, but there is no federal impediment (which is the point of this thread). I'm not worried in the least, and would feel quite confident and lawful in selling or buying a cap and ball gun with a loading port, sans FFL. At this time I have never had a c&b gun with a loading port cut. Not really interested in them, except for perhaps a dragoon with a 45-60-250 Brimstone conversion. That is a beast. If it is a permanent conversion (i.e can't be reversed to shoot cap and ball again), then it would have to come back to me via my FFL, most likely. I'll have to ask Gary if it's a permanent conversion. If not, slap my cap and ball cylinder in it, and we're good to go. Save some FFL fees.
 
Last edited:
...It's the fact that the frame was modified with the intent and purpose of facilitating cartridge loading in a gun that can now fire cartridges.

In essence a firearm has been manufactured....
... The proof of this is written all over the gun with the permanent modification/modifications......


This is simply untrue and an often repeated "Old Wive Tale", "Urban Legend", "Internet Rumor" or what ever else you want to call it. There are all kinds of permanent modifications folks make to C&B revolvers without issue. The only one that would apply here would be if it that alteration allowed it to fire fixed ammunition. A loading gate does NOT allow a C&B revolver to fire fixed ammunition and a loading gate is not even a requirement to fire fixed ammunition.
 
This is simply untrue and an often repeated "Old Wive Tale", "Urban Legend", "Internet Rumor" or what ever else you want to call it. There are all kinds of permanent modifications folks make to C&B revolvers without issue. The only one that would apply here would be if it that alteration allowed it to fire fixed ammunition. A loading gate does NOT allow a C&B revolver to fire fixed ammunition and a loading gate is not even a requirement to fire fixed ammunition.

Absolutely right (but I think you meant loading "port"). I don't understand how that is so hard for some people to wrap their heads around, but they just can't. No biggie.
 
Last edited:
You definitely need to check your local jurisdiction for legality, but there is no federal impediment (which is the point of this thread). I'm not worried in the least, and would feel quite confident and lawful in selling or buying a cap and ball gun with a loading port, sans FFL. At this time I have never had a c&b gun with a loading port cut. Not really interested in them, except for perhaps a dragoon with a 45-60-250 Brimstone conversion. That is a beast. If it is a permanent conversion (i.e can't be reversed to shoot cap and ball again), then it would have to come back to me via my FFL, most likely. I'll have to ask Gary if it's a permanent conversion. If not, slap my cap and ball cylinder in it, and we're good to go. Save some FFL fees.

Agree. A relieved area on a C&B frame in no way in and of itself makes it a "firearm".
 
Sorry your belief that milling out a loading port for cartridges on your cap and ball revolvers frame and slapping in a conversion cylinder doesn't really mean you manufactured a firearm because the alteration fails to permanently limit it to cartridges only is not true.

Thinking that once you slap in a percussion cylinder again your gun is now a cap and ball gun again because you never really turned it in a cartridge firearm in the first place is also not true.

The fact is all you have to do to get your frame to be forever committed to being considered a firearm is anything that enables it to fire cartridges.

I doubt that your flawed argument will get anyone out of a jam if they are prosecuted.



The abundant misinformation in this thread is a prime example of my problem with cap and ball conversions.
 
Last edited:
Sorry your belief that milling out a loading port for cartridges on your cap and ball revolvers frame and slapping in a conversion cylinder doesn't really mean you manufactured a firearm because the alteration fails to permanently limit it to cartridges only is not true.

Thinking that once you slap in a percussion cylinder again your gun is now a cap and ball gun again because you never really turned it in a cartridge firearm in the first place is also not true.

The fact is all you have to do to get your frame to be forever committed to being considered a firearm is anything that enables it to fire cartridges.

I doubt that your flawed argument will get anyone out of a jam if they are prosecuted.



This abundant misinformation in this thread is a prime example of my problem with cap and ball conversions.

(chuckle)
 
Cutting a loading port does not make a firearm, but adding a cartridge cylinder does. Threading a barrel does not make it silenced, but adding a silencer does.
 
...The abundant misinformation in this thread is a prime example of my problem with cap and ball conversions.

Your flagrant and abundant misinformation is what I have a problem with.
Anyone who wants to error on the side of caution in their mind I have no problem with, but the spreading of blatantly false information that is so easy to look up for yourself is appalling.

A loading gate does NOT allow a C&B revolver to fire cartridges, and a loading gate would not be needed to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top