Pistol-gripped rifle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

A strange person

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
348
Location
The northeastern forests.
I've been thinking for a while about getting a small, cheap, kids .22 rifle, like a Savage Rascal, and cutting the stock off to make a light, handy foraging weapon to strap to a pack or something. The end result wouldn't weigh any more than a large frame revolver, but would be as accurate as needed to get the most out of the .22LR cartridge, which is pretty useless beyond 50 yards, IMO. I don't need a "rifle" to make shots like that.

I have no idea whether or not it would be legal to do this, or even how to find out, other than posting the question here, of course.
 
I'm pretty sure you'd be good to go as long as the firearm has no provision for being fired "two-handed." No vertical foregrip on the forward portion of the stock or anything like that. It would simply be classified as a handgun. Ever take a look at the Taurus/Rossi Ranch Hand Series? Probably along the lines of what you're looking for, and classified as handguns, though not available in .22LR (they should look into that.)
Someone else can elaborate if I'm wrong in my first sentence, such as if, to be a handgun, the barrel must be reduced to within a certain length but, given the selection available of AR15-actioned "pistols" being sold today, I'd think there would be nothing wrong with this.
 
As long as the overall length of the end result is >26" and the barrel is >16" you can do whatever you want to it.

I'm pretty sure you'd be good to go as long as the firearm has no provision for being fired "two-handed." No vertical foregrip on the forward portion of the stock or anything like that. It would simply be classified as a handgun.
Click to expand...

Making a handgun from a rifle is considered a "weapon made from a rifle" and not a handgun, and requires a $200 tax and SBR stamp. It can be a rifle without a stock and with a forward vertical grip, as long as it's over 26" in length with a barrel of at least 16".
 
...to be a handgun, the barrel must be reduced...
Click to expand...
To be a handgun, it must be originally made and designed as such. In this case though, the original config is a rifle and it would remain a rifle.

To the OP, a bolt action might be awkward to manipulate once configured like that. You might consider the Ruger Charger and customize it to your likings. It is a handgun made from a 10/22 receiver. FYI
 
As long as the overall length of the end result is >26" and the barrel is >16" you can do whatever you want to it.
Click to expand...
Bingo!

To the OP, a bolt action might be awkward to manipulate once configured like that. You might consider the Ruger Charger and customize it to your likings. It is a handgun made from a 10/22 receiver. FYI
Click to expand...
Er...double bingo.
 
See this from the ATF about half way down the page.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/i...-firearms.html
Click to expand...

Read it, what a load of horse manure. Not only do they make ridiculous laws that serve no conceivable purpose whatsoever, but then they charge us $200 for it? And what the Hell does it matter if it was "originally manufactured" that way or not? If it is legal to buy a weapon of a given description, then it should logically be legal to make such a weapon, as the end result is precisely the same thing! They even have a specific entry for ".22cal., Crude Manufacture", meaning that some imbecile up there actually went out of their way to make sure people could not have a .22 that was impossible to conceal, yet simultaneously more difficult to aim than a rifle. What the Hell are they smoking? Why do lawmakers lack common sense? This kind of stuff really makes my blood boil. Civil disobedience is becoming very tempting.

To the OP, a bolt action might be awkward to manipulate once configured like that. You might consider the Ruger Charger and customize it to your likings. It is a handgun made from a 10/22 receiver. FYI
Click to expand...

I don't like those because they don't have iron sights. I know the bolt would be a little awkward, but the Rascal is both the lightest and cheapest gun that would work for my project, and likely extraordinarily accurate, being made by Savage, and complete with their accu-trigger.
 
If it is legal to buy a weapon of a given description, then it should logically be legal to make such a weapon, as the end result is precisely the same thing!
Click to expand...

Take it up with BATFE and your congresscritters.
 
Read it, what a load of horse manure. Not only do they make ridiculous laws that serve no conceivable purpose whatsoever, but then they charge us $200 for it?
Click to expand...
Well, "they" didn't. A bunch of congressmen in office in 1934 did. And they had very specific reasons for it, too.

It all makes a lot more sense if you understand that the original intent of the NFA was to regulate out of private ownership ALL "concealable" weapons -- most specifically handguns. They included SBR/SBS "made from a..." language because it was understood that folks who couldn't buy handguns would just buy a rifle and make a concealable weapon out of it. So they wanted makeshift, improvised handguns made from other firearms taxed to the point of being effectively banned, as well.

Thankfully, handguns were struck out of the law before it was enacted, but all the stop-gap "made from a..." SBR/SBS stuff was left in the law more or less as an oversight, near as anyone can figure.

Since then, public opinion, which never really understood the matter to begin with, congealed around the idea that SBRs and SBSs were banned because they were somehow MORE dangerous than handguns or regular rifles and shotguns. It makes no sense and is of course utterly erroneous.

Unfortunately it is STILL federal law, and the ATF is left in the unenviable position of having to enforce these quite nonsensical laws as best as they can.

Even more unfortunately, since public opinion (and even opinion among most shooters!) has this ingrained idea that a "sawed-off shotgun" (or rifle) is extremely deadly dangerous (since, didn't they make them like TOTALLY against the law? :eek:) trying to repeal the NFA is a terribly difficult issue and no law-maker wants to be seen as the guy who wants to let these KILLING MACHINES loose on our public streets. :(
 
A strange person said:
Read it, what a load of horse manure. Not only do they make ridiculous laws that serve no conceivable purpose whatsoever, but then they charge us $200 for it?...
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, it is what it is, and it's unlikely to be changing any time soon.

A strange person said:
...Civil disobedience is becoming very tempting...
Click to expand...
Does ten years in a federal prison, a $250,000 fine and a lifetime loss of gun rights make it more or less tempting?
 
It may you feel good to rant and rave about the law, but if you violate the law and are caught, you can rant and rave to a federal judge or to your "buddies" in federal prison.

Jim
 
Others have covered the issues that the Ranch Hand is made and sold as a handgun; a rifle is always a rifle but cannot be made concealable size without tax and registration; and rifles can wear a vertical grip no matter what size.

Some time back, the Washington County Sheriff's Office had a display of weapons confiscated in criminal cases. Quite a few were .22 single shot rifles or 12 ga shotguns crudely hacked off by robbers, drug dealers, etc who would not be able to legally buy a handgun. Most could get illegal handguns from bootlegegrs or dope dealers, but they cost more than an old .22 rifle or shotgun.

In the 1930s Congress restricted making concealable weapons out of long guns to prevent evasion of handgun laws. Most sawn off rifles I have seen made poor handguns and worse rifles. Some were done innocently by farmers snowed in for the winter with an extra old .22, lotsa free time, and the bright idea that cut down to hand gun size, it would make a good snake gun or gun to carry for shooting animals caught in traps. I really hated, forty years ago, telling Uncle Bill that Cousin Ruddy's "pirate pistol" really wasn't legal. Congress believed they had a good reason for the law.
 
I find it hard to accurately shoot a pistol grip rifle. A shoulder stock helps me greatly. Since this sounds like you are looking for a inexpensive survival gun I would sugget you consider the M6 Survival Weapon that was used by the USAF. 22 Hornet/410 over-under would allow you hunt a variety of game and the folding stock reduces it's length of easier storage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_Aircrew_Survival_Weapon

For 22 Long Rifle try the AR-7. Barrel and other parts fit into the stock which is waterproof and floats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-7
 
Well, "they" didn't. A bunch of congressmen in office in 1934 did. And they had very specific reasons for it, too.

It all makes a lot more sense if you understand that the original intent of the NFA was to regulate out of private ownership ALL "concealable" weapons -- most specifically handguns. They included SBR/SBS "made from a..." language because it was understood that folks who couldn't buy handguns would just buy a rifle and make a concealable weapon out of it. So they wanted makeshift, improvised handguns made from other firearms taxed to the point of being effectively banned, as well.

Thankfully, handguns were struck out of the law before it was enacted, but all the stop-gap "made from a..." SBR/SBS stuff was left in the law more or less as an oversight, near as anyone can figure.

Since then, public opinion, which never really understood the matter to begin with, congealed around the idea that SBRs and SBSs were banned because they were somehow MORE dangerous than handguns or regular rifles and shotguns. It makes no sense and is of course utterly erroneous.

Unfortunately it is STILL federal law, and the ATF is left in the unenviable position of having to enforce these quite nonsensical laws as best as they can.

Even more unfortunately, since public opinion (and even opinion among most shooters!) has this ingrained idea that a "sawed-off shotgun" (or rifle) is extremely deadly dangerous (since, didn't they make them like TOTALLY against the law? ) trying to repeal the NFA is a terribly difficult issue and no law-maker wants to be seen as the guy who wants to let these KILLING MACHINES loose on our public streets.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see... so it's complicated horse manure that no one has cleaned up for 80 years. That really improves my opinion of American lawmakers.

ATF is left in the unenviable position of having to enforce these quite nonsensical laws as best as they can.
Click to expand...

Why? Who would fault them for letting shooters have their little odd hacksaw projects, in spite of ridiculous legislation? Who would even know? In New Hampshire, it is illegal to tap your feet to the rhythm of a song in any restaurant, but you don't see people being fined for it! In Maine, you can practically smoke pot in public! Every state has mountains of laws that aren't enforced because they are silly and everybody knows it!

It may you feel good to rant and rave about the law, but if you violate the law and are caught, you can rant and rave to a federal judge or to your "buddies" in federal prison.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me about the powerlessness of the individual, that was very constructive. I guess I'll just live my whole life in fear of man and his laws.

Others have covered the issues that the Ranch Hand is made and sold as a handgun
Click to expand...

It's substantially heavier, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top