"Sawed Off" .410 double barrel?

[Kliegl]

According to a Taurus rep there's no plans for a 28 gauge Raging Judge being sold here.

A Judge is a .45 Colt Pistol. It can shoot .410, but it is a pistol. A pistol must be .50 cal or less, else it becomes a Destructive Device. Thus, a 28 gauge pistol, 55 caliber, cannot exist, because it is too short to be a shotgun, and too big bored to be a pistol.

Yes, the law is stupid, but making a gun that would have to be AOW stamped, or SBS, I don't know which way you'd go, to be legal is not commercially viable.

I wouldn't want to shoot it either, would crank the wrist something fierce.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Since it's not designed to be fired from the shoulder, it can't be an SBS. If this thing were to be produced and sold in the US (which it isn't, apparently) it would be sold as an AOW. With the Tax Stamp required, and the number of states who don't allow NFA items, and the low demand for them to begin with, Taurus made the right call in scrapping the plans for US distribution.

 

[moonpie]

i should auto burglar concept because stevens once had a share of the market to.http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Manu...un Pistol/410 Single-Shot Shotgun Pistol.html

 

[addedpulp]

I'm surprised noone has ever fought the "AOW" restrictions. They're arbitrary, hardly have anything to do with "public safety," and the fact that simply paying your government $200 makes you somehow any less dangerous with one to the point of now making it legal basically just says "hey, if you want something cool, you have to pay us."

 

[il_10]

addedpulp: it's a tax. That's how taxes work. All of the NFA restrictions are arbitrary, with the POSSIBLE exception of machine guns, and even then the machine guns in use at the time were mostly stolen from government caches. The only reason SBS's and SBR's are in the thing is because pistols were originally going to be restricted, and they didn't want cut-down rifles and shotguns to be the next concealable go-to. It really doesn't make sense when you think about it, and when you look at the hughes amendment you start noticing blatant constitutional issues as well. The NFA was the result of a knee-jerk reaction to gangsters, and more specifically, gangster movies and public perception of gangsters. It's like banning switchblades. They're "scary," but still less effective and slower to get into action than a fixed blade knife. Sawed off shotguns are "scary," but still less effective and less concealable than a decent handgun until you get to living-room range.

The NFA is somewhere in the list of things to fight in gaining our full rights back, but it's a little ways on down the list. CCW in all states, preferably permitless CCW, takes first priority. Then Title-2 restrictions ("assault" weapon bans, etc.). Once legal guns are legally carried by legal owners in all states and federal districts, we can start attacking arbitrary unconstitutional laws like the hughes amendment. After that, we can start going after the NFA restrictions.

 

[addedpulp]

I understand taxes, thank you. At least most taxes feign purpose. Demonizing something to the point that the general public assumes something is "illegal," but it's simply a "pay your government to screw off" basis is where I find issue. THAT feels a bit more arbitrary and invasive than most.

 

[Pfletch83]

Does any company make exposed hammer side by sides in .410 these days?

Because that would be the ticket for a modern remake of the "Auto-Burglar" pistol (with all legal federal regulations met btw)

 

[il_10]

I didn't mean to be patronizing in the least; my apologies if you took it that way. I was bemoaning the fact that taxes and legislation have gotten to the point that things like this seem normal, and the satire apparently didn't come across in text.

Keep in mind that the NFA was originally implemented to stem the tide of prohibition era gang activity, and as far as the public at large was concerned, that was a good enough reason for the government to enact the legislation. Still, though a tax on a constitutionally backed right is awful, an altogether ban is worse, which is why I hold that working to abolish the Hughes amendment to FOPA is the more appropriate course of action for 2a folks in the short term.

But the FIRST thing that needs to be done, in my opinion, is to make sure that everyone in the union can legally own and carry even the "mundane" title II guns, and that's the fight we're fighting right now in D.C., Chicago, New York, New Jersey, and California. But battles like this need public support, and Sawed off shotguns, rifles, suppressors, and machine guns aren't going to gain that support easily in the minds of people who don't really get the 2a argument.

Fortunately, this is the internet age. That has done wonders for NFA possession, because the information that makes it possible to posses them legally is widely available, and the myth of "illegality" is being largely debunked. That information is a huge step in the right direction for us.

But I digress. I'm fairly sure I'll be hitting politics too soon and to a higher degree than is acceptable at THR, and I really am interested in a .410/.45lc SxS "sawed off," and any input others may have on that. That in mind, I'm happy to carry on this conversation in PM if you'd like, otherwise know that we're on basically the exact same page in terms of level of disgust with the NFA and similar legislation. I just see more prevalent threats to 2a that need to be addressed in the short term before the NFA becomes an opponent that we can successfully deal with.

 

[il_10]

This: http://www.rossiusa.com/product-details.cfm?id=218&category=3&toggle=&breadcrumbseries=

with some wood grips would be about as close as we could get for a production gun. I'd love to see a double, but this might have to suffice.

 

[addedpulp]

Like I said, there's this:



But... doesn't look like a real double much.