.44 Pietta

[Kaeto]

Just put a bid in on this

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=262032516

What do you guys think?

 

[Hoof Hearted]

Ask him to wrap it really well if you win...................

 

[bergmen]

That looks really cool! I don't know how they can make a five shot cylinder work in a six shot revolver without timing issues (but I'm no expert, just curious).

I would love an 1860 Army that could shoot .45 Colt that didn't cost an arm and a leg.

Dan

 

[Fingers McGee]

It's a good deal. Raisin is a friend if mine and a good guy to do business with.

 

[Fingers McGee]

That looks really cool! I don't know how they can make a five shot cylinder work in a six shot revolver without timing issues (but I'm no expert, just curious).

It's really not hard at all. It's just math and depends on size and placement of the teeth on the ratchet. Colt did just the opposite in 1850 with their 6 shot .31 caliber pocket models, and R&D used the same dimensions for their 6 shot .32 S&W conversion cylinders.

 

[Kaeto]

Is it a good deal If I just went ahead and did the buy it now of $500 ?

 

[Legionnaire]

Looks pretty cool! Seller will have to ship the conversion cylinder separately, though, correct?

 

[mykeal]

I asked the seller the following questions:

The 3 inch barrel is marked Pietta and appears to be factory, as there are not provisions for the ratchet type rammer.

???
How does a lack of provisions for the rammer make the short barrel a factory item?

The short barrel has the same factory sight as the long barrel.

I see no front sight at all on the short barrel.

The listing says no FFL is required. That's not true if the cartridge cylinder is included.

What does the broken stock have to do with this listing?

 

[Fingers McGee]

Up to you. Cabelas sold the snubbie for over $250 IIRC, Taylor's sells the R&D cylinder for $200, and an 8 inch barrel with the loading lever would run right around $200 ..................

 

[mykeal]

How does a lack of provisions for the rammer make the short barrel a factory item?

Never mind. I just figured it out. Duh.:banghead:

 

[Kaeto]

Just went ahead and did the BIN.

 

[bergmen]

Just went ahead and did the BIN.

Gnarly dood! We deserve a range report, ya know!

Dan

 

[bergmen]

It's really not hard at all. It's just math and depends on size and placement of the teeth on the ratchet. Colt did just the opposite in 1850 with their 6 shot .31 caliber pocket models, and R&D used the same dimensions for their 6 shot .32 S&W conversion cylinders.

Interesting, thanks for the clarification! Learn something new everyday, I tell ya.

Dan

 

[junkman_01]

The listing says no FFL is required. That's not true if the cartridge cylinder is included.

That's not so if the conversion cylinder is not installed on the gun. If the gun is shipped with the C&B cylinder installed, then the conversion cylinder is just 'parts', same as the extra barrel.

 

[jmstevens2]

Walt Kirst shipped mine to me, conversion cylinder installed, by USPS. The firearm part is the serialed part, and it is unchanged. Still a blackpowder revolver.

 

[junkman_01]

Kirst is an FFL. He is allowed to send YOUR handgun back to you by USPS. An unlicensed seller can not ship a cartridge handgun (the type of powder doesn't matter) to anyone by USPS! Like I said, if the conversion cylinder is not installed, then the handgun is not a cartridge handgun.

 

[tom e gun]

i believe junkman is completely correct on this. if the BP firearm is sent in its BP configuration then it is considered BP and FFL is not needed as long as the cartridge cylinder is not installed. some might even go as far as to ship seperately to be safe.

 

[Indy4570]

congrats on the purchase, i am jealous! looking forward to some targets posted!

 

[mykeal]

Close, but not completely correct. The cartridge cylinder cannot be installed in the gun and it cannot be in the same package as the gun. That's what I meant by 'included'.

 

[Fingers McGee]

Gnarly dood! We deserve a range report, ya know!

+1. Can't wait to see how it shoots with the .45 Colt cylinder and some BP rounds.

 

[tom e gun]

mykeal, yes, i believe you have just put the icing on that cake! BAM!

 

[junkman_01]

The cartridge cylinder cannot be installed in the gun and it cannot be in the same package as the gun. That's what I meant by 'included'.

Please supply the reference from the GCA'68.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

OK I will wade in here.......

The issue here pertains to interpretation. My feeling is that it is best to err on the side of caution but...........here is a link that will get you started:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...node=27:3.0.1.2.3&idno=27#27:3.0.1.2.3.3.1.10

The section related to transport is : 478.29

Most persons FAIL to read the definitions before making decisions so you should also read what the definition of a fiream is:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...&node=27:3.0.1.2.3&idno=27#27:3.0.1.2.3.2.1.1

Be sure to read both antique firearm and fiream.

Nowhere, that I am aware of, is the conversion cylinder addressed (and that is a good thing) but the intent is the important factor. If you intend to make a firearm then it's a firearm. This is why many people believe it is best to err on the side of the ATF and ship the cylinder seperate. Personally I do not believe that cutting any type of port in the recoil shield shows intent (and so far my ATF agent agrees) as this could very well be used to access the nipples in an easier fashion.

I hope this helps all of you make a decision.
Regards
HH

 

[junkman_01]

Thanks Hoof. I think that clearly (amazing for a government document) supports my position on this matter.

 

[mykeal]

junkman_01 -

Let's see, I think your position is that interstate transfer of a handgun without a modern cartridge cylinder installed in the gun, but included in a package with the gun, does not require the use of a licensee. Is that correct? If not, please correct my statement to accurately reflect your position.