Pre 1899 guns and replicas of pre 1899 guns.

[deadin]

Conversion cylinders are currently a "loophole" in most places.
If they become a "thing" and too many people start bragging about how they are avoiding the intent of the law, I'm sure the govt will find a way to regulate them.....

 

[Tommygunn]

Conversion cylinders are currently a "loophole" in most places.
If they become a "thing" and too many people start bragging about how they are avoiding the intent of the law, I'm sure the govt will find a way to regulate them.....

Well .... they're not really a loophole, and if the govt. ever does anything about them, it will be to apply the same laws to black powder replicas that pertain to modern firearms. It could happen..... I've heard some low volume background rumblings but nothing really serious .... yet.

 

[AlexanderA]

Gang-bangers and mass shooters don't use percussion revolvers, even with conversion cylinders. (It's easier for them to find more effective weapons.) This is not a problem that a legislature could address without making the funny pages.

 

[Tommygunn]

And since when does making the funny pages prevent legislatures from legislating? ? ? ("the thing that goes up.")

True, gangbangers don't use conversion cylinders or b.p. guns. There are far more Glocks around than Uberti Colt 1860s. But there have been a small handful of cases where a antique weapon, or repro thereof, has been used.
And lawmakers get strange itches they need to scratch from time to time as well.

 

[TNelson]

1. The dividing line is pre-1899 versus post-1898. Anything made pre-1899, including cartridge guns (but excluding certain NFA weapons), is considered an antique and therefore not regulated.
2. For post-1898 guns, the ignition system (and not whether the gun is muzzleloading or breechloading) controls. Post-1898 cartridge guns are considered "modern" and thus regulated, while those with percussion, flintlock, etc. ignition are "antiques" and not regulated. For example, a currently-made Sharps breechloader that uses percussion caps is an unregulated "antique," whereas a currently-made Spencer breechloader that uses cartridges is "modern" and regulated.

In Texas, it appears from the law that breechloader would not qualify as an "antique". Could you discuss that further? I would love to get a Sharps but I want to make sure it is defined as an "antique" in Texas.

 

[Jim Watson]

Texas law says: (3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:

(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or

(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.

 

[GAF]

Even felon's can own BP weapons.

Bill

Not in Wisconsin.

 

[TNelson]

Texas law says: (3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:

(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or

(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.

Jim, thanks for your response. The above is exactly what I read. A Thompson breech loader does not fall under the description of (A) or (B). Therefore, it looks like the modern breech loaders would be considered "Antique".

 

[TNelson]

Jim, thanks for your response. The above is exactly what I read. A Thompson breech loader does not fall under the description of (A) or (B). Therefore, it looks like the modern breech loaders would be considered "Antique".

would NOT be considered "antique"..

 

[Jim Watson]

Not a chance.
But it depends on what you load at the breech. I daresay an 1859 Sharps "paper cutter" reproduction would sell like an antique. But you have to be careful, some places you can't hunt with one in "primitive weapon" season.

 

[Elkins45]

Gang-bangers and mass shooters don't use percussion revolvers, even with conversion cylinders. (It's easier for them to find more effective weapons.) This is not a problem that a legislature could address without making the funny pages.

Wonder how many are using Polymer80 Buy And Build kits? Those showed up on the ATF radar recently.

Back in the early days of my internet usage I bought an Israeli 98 Mauser barrel in 308 from a gentleman named John Wesley, Rawles (comma placement intentional) and one of his other offerings were pre-1899 S&W revolvers chambered in 44 special. He would send them directly to you without an FFL. Payment was in silver. He seemed to be doing a pretty brisk business.

 

[Jim Watson]

gentleman named John Wesley, Rawles (comma placement intentional) and one of his other offerings were pre-1899 S&W revolvers chambered in 44 special. He would send them directly to you without an FFL. Payment was in silver. He seemed to be doing a pretty brisk business.

I read some potboiler survivalist adventures by a James Wesley, Rawles. Kin?

If he was selling pre-1899 revolvers chambered in .44 Special, they were REchambered from .44 Russian because the Special did not come out til 1907. Not unknown, there is a guy on the S&W board who shoots a No 3 rechambered to Special for convenience. He will point out that .44 Special and Russian ballistics are the same.

 

[Elkins45]

I read some potboiler survivalist adventures by a James Wesley, Rawles. Kin?

If he was selling pre-1899 revolvers chambered in .44 Special, they were REchambered from .44 Russian because the Special did not come out til 1907. Not unknown, there is a guy on the S&W board who shoots a No 3 rechambered to Special for convenience. He will point out that .44 Special and Russian ballistics are the same.

Same guy. I might have been wrong about them being 44 special. I just remember the “no FFL needed” aspect of the business.