Ever shoot an antique?

I buy and preserve everything from brand new guns to 'antique' guns. However I also understand the argument that history must live to be preserved. My kids are still toddlers so I have not quite yet figured out how I am going to balance the two.

Click to expand...

My older bro is like you. He's a museum curator so he has the perfect job. But there's room for everyone. For example I love to shoot old BPCR's, and there are a lot of replica and original rifles out there that are either already altered or have been shot quite a bit for those of us who want to shoot them more. Mint antique arms should be left out of my hands. Because I'm going to shoot them. But that's fine because I can't afford mint antique guns anyway ;-) So for example my .50-70 is an old military rolling block receiver mated with a revamped barrel and non-matching stock. And my .45-70 is a trapdoor replica with an increasing number of antique parts. My '86 Lebel is far from mint and none of my antique Mosins have been remotely minty. Most were Finnish reworks.

For those who like to bubba (and I'm not one of them), there are hundreds of thousands of pre-bubba'd guns out there for dirt cheap.

So we can all he happy.

The Old Fuff would point to the written law - the part about metallic ammunition that isn't commonly available. .40 S&W is, and if a Deputy U.S. Attorney wanted to pin a tail on your donkey he just might get it done if the defense depended on the antique status of the original rifle

Click to expand...

Wait, doesn't the antique status of the receiver determine the whole issue? I mean an antique receiver, even mated with all new parts, is STILL an antique. So my Finnish M39 made in 1970 with a receiver from 1896 is still an antique. Regardless of chambering. Certainly 54R is still commonly available and not a moribund cartridge. If I'm wrong a lot of us are in real trouble ;-)

Regardless of chambering. Certainly 54R is still commonly available and not a moribund cartridge. If I'm wrong a lot of us are in real trouble.

Click to expand...

In the case of certain Smith & Wesson revolvers the BATF&E ruled that since the company certified that all of the frames were made prior to December, 1898 the finished guns would be considered to be antiques, regardless of when the frames were made into completed guns. That would seem to settle the issue except they were all made to the established pattern, and chambered for a cartridge that wasn't commonly available.

If it became known as a common practice (that it isn't now) to convert pre-1899 antiques or exact replicas to fire urelated modern ammunition that had the affect of making the antique or replica into a modern, fully functional weapon the BATF&E (and/or some courts) might find that the conversions constituted making them true firearms, defined to mean capable of firing a projectile by force of gas or explosion. Then they'd be subject to the regular rules that govern sales through FFL's.

The legislators that wrote the 1968 GCA were not firearms experts to any degree, and presumed that antiques (and/or reproductions of them) weren't something that would be fired, and could be exempted from the regular rules. From a logical point of view that's was true, and still is. However we are now living in a time where logic seems to be lost when it comes to legislators.

Cosmoline said:

My older bro is like you. He's a museum curator so he has the perfect job. But there's room for everyone. For example I love to shoot old BPCR's, and there are a lot of replica and original rifles out there that are either already altered or have been shot quite a bit for those of us who want to shoot them more. Mint antique arms should be left out of my hands. Because I'm going to shoot them. But that's fine because I can't afford mint antique guns anyway ;-) So for example my .50-70 is an old military rolling block receiver mated with a revamped barrel and non-matching stock. And my .45-70 is a trapdoor replica with an increasing number of antique parts. My '86 Lebel is far from mint and none of my antique Mosins have been remotely minty. Most were Finnish reworks.

For those who like to bubba (and I'm not one of them), there are hundreds of thousands of pre-bubba'd guns out there for dirt cheap.

So we can all he happy.



Wait, doesn't the antique status of the receiver determine the whole issue? I mean an antique receiver, even mated with all new parts, is STILL an antique. So my Finnish M39 made in 1970 with a receiver from 1896 is still an antique. Regardless of chambering. Certainly 54R is still commonly available and not a moribund cartridge. If I'm wrong a lot of us are in real trouble ;-)

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. 95% of all guns should be fired. Its the other 5% that I am concerned about.

Ed Ames said:

I recently managed to find a kel-tec RFB, brand new from a dealer, for $1199.

Click to expand...

Where? I've been "second in line" with Impact Guns in UT since late Jan. I've bought a M&P 10 in the meanwhile.

Mike

Arizona_Mike said:

Where? I've been "second in line" with Impact Guns in UT since late Jan. I've bought a M&P 10 in the meanwhile.

Click to expand...

I've been looking for one for years too. Walked into a local dealer here in TX and they were doing a big sale (discounts, raffles, etc) and had five RFBs marked down from $1699 ($500 off). Sold 'em all.

antiques/collectors

I know where a 12 ga Burgess shotgun is,in nice condition;If I owned it I'd shoot it.

I know where a 12 ga Burgess shotgun is,in nice condition;If I owned it I'd shoot it.

Click to expand...

Ah... Before you do measure the chamber length. :banghead:

to convert pre-1899 antiques or exact replicas to fire urelated modern ammunition that had the affect of making the antique or replica into a modern, fully functional weapon the BATF&E (and/or some courts) might find that the conversions constituted making them true firearms

Click to expand...

I'll have to take a closer look at the statutes again, but I'm pretty sure they would be barred from such a ruling. A pre-99 receiver is an antique, and the firearm is the receiver is the firearm. So stuff that gets attached to it, whether modern firearm barrels and stocks or a sofa, means absolutely nothing. The business of an outdated cartridge is something different, and doesn't change the definition of a receiver as a non-firearm.

Look to 18 USC § 921(16). You'll see subsection A deals with pre 1899 antiques, and a separate subsection, B, deals with REPLICAS which are designed to fire moribund ammo. So in other words the moribund ammo issue arises if you have a brand new firearm that uses cartridges but those cartridges are for example some obscure rimfire. It's a much more limited provision than the general pre-99 category and does not alter the definition under subsection (A) to my reading. Like I said if I'm wrong about this then a lot of us are in trouble because it's been common practice to treat antique receiver arms as antiques regardless of chambering and modernization.

But I think you're absolutely correct that someone creating a new firearm from a replica muzzleloader and turning that arm into a .223 would be building a firearm, and would not be exempted from transfer requirements. But someone using the receiver of an antique to create some kind of new semiauto with some kind of device would not be creating a new arm unless the device itself is considered a receiver.

I once fired a Hall breechloader. IIRC an 1841.

Well, just to aggravate ... I taking delivery of a M-1854/67 WANZL (14 X 50R Rimfire) with decent wood and a bore looks like it never saw a bullet or powder. It's my "oldest" rifle to date and I fully intend to have Rocky Mountain turn me some cases and I'll drill and mill the off-set "rimfire primer pockets" (.22 Crimped Blanks) so I can shoot it! Sorry ... no pics yet.