Selling modern firearms as non-firearm antiques.

[Nickel Plated]

So a thought I had today, theoretical ofcourse.

We are all familiar with cap and ball revolvers I'm sure. And how they can be sold directly over the internet (or in a store ofcourse) with no paperwork, NICS checks or anything of any kind because they do not shoot a self-contained cartridge. Now you can also install an aftermarket cylinder in most of these revolvers that allow you to fire modern cartridges out of them (reduced loads though)
Until recently I was under the impression that the conversion cylinder kit was considered a firearm and had to be purchased through the regular process of purchasing a firearm. Because it is essentially the one part that turns what is essentially a chunk of metal into a "firearm".
However come to find out they are not firearms so in theory you could get a regular old cartridge firing handgun online with no checks or anything. Just buy the gun and the cylinder and voila, you got yourself a regular modern-ish revolver.

Anyway the point of that wall of text is this. Could a company essentially sell modern firearms as muzzleloaders directly over the internet and the end user simply convert them back to their original modern design at home with some spare parts?

A good example would be the AR-15 muzzleloader upper. Could it be sold as a complete gun with the upper mated to a standard semi auto AR 15 lower? it is still a muzzleloader technically so I would think exempt from the GCA. But once you get it, just slap on a regular upper that you can easily buy online. And there you got an AR-15 without leaving the comfort of your home and no NICS checks.

Or let's say a standard glock frame with a muzzleloader slide installed (which would have to be developed ofcourse) hen once bought just install a standard glock slide and barrel assembly that was bought as a replacement.

Would be an interesting way of getting around the FFL and NICS requirements. If manufacturers decide they want to develop new muzzleloading slides and uppers for their guns.
Or it could also be a good way to get muzzleloading arms further restricted.

 

[WardenWolf]

In the case of the AR15, no. The lower is regulated by itself specifically as a firearm. However, other firearms exist that have conversion cylinders. Usually the ATF handles this by requiring FFL transfer for the conversion cylinder.

 

[MErl]

The C&B revolvers have the added advantage of being reproductions of historic pieces. Even the conversion to cartridge is somewhat accurate. These combined with them not being popular in crime keeps them under the radar. Even an unconverted C&B is quite deadly, no need to convert them to misuse them.

Trying to develop a muzzleloader to skirt the law would lead to two things (IMO). First the firearm would be classified as modern. Second you would get a visit from the ATF for selling firearms without a license. Trying to do it on any existing frame wouldn't work, the frames are already classified as modern. Developing a new frame might work until you attempted to sell the second piece and market it as a conversion.

That is my swag on it at least.

 

[WardenWolf]

A cap and ball revolver, once loaded, has no functional disadvantage over any modern single action revolver at typical ranges. You've still got 5 or 6 shots, just as fast as you can cock the hammer and pull the trigger. And we've seen from people like Bob Munden just how devastating even a single-action revolver can be in trained hands. With the right person, they can be faster than a double-action.

 

[newfalguy101]

same issue with the auto pistol, the frame of the pistol is the serialized part, so it matters not one bit what the upper is chambered for.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"Usually the ATF handles this by requiring FFL transfer for the conversion cylinder."


No.

The ATF does not regulate conversion cylinders at all.

When you install one on a cap and ball revolver, you are manufacturing a firearm, which at present is perfectly legal under federal law for an individual to do.


Willie


.

 

[Cosmoline]

A good example would be the AR-15 muzzleloader upper. Could it be sold as a complete gun with the upper mated to a standard semi auto AR 15 lower?

Negatory. The standard lower receiver *IS* the firearm. Whether you attach a ML to it or a crossbow (and someone did that BTW), an AR-15 lower receiver is a firearm period end of story.

A cap and ball revolver, once loaded, has no functional disadvantage over any modern single action revolver at typical ranges.

I'd dispute that. Every single C&B I've owned so far has had at least some minor teething and reliability issues. A few have had MAJOR problems as in not even firing. Most recently this Saturday when my new Rogers & Spencer went "click click click" over and over again. A dinky rebound spring (really a piece of wire) was keeping the hammer from hitting hard enough. None have even come close to the reliability of a modern centerfire revolver, most of which remain 100% or 99% reliable over many thousands of rounds. Granted, once you get the C&B squared away and know the little quirks it can be quite reliable. But you still always run the chance of a "click". At the range, who cares? But for real-life situations it's a deal breaker for most folks.

 

[Jim K]

It is legal under Federal law to manufacture a firearm for yourself without a license. But it might not be legal under state or local law, so if staying out of jail is a concern, better check before converting a C&B revolver to fire fixed ammunition.

Incidentally, banning those conversions is fairly high on the anti-gunners "to do" list. It hasn't gotten the attention of "assault rifle" bans or background checks, but the antis definitely have conversions "in their sights."

Jim

 

[Ron James]

And I am unaware of any place that doesn't consider any firearm ( even a black powder conversion or a pre 1898 firearm ) that is loaded with modern ammo a " dangerous weapon ". If you are legal to carry a concealed firearm or OC, no problem, if there are any legal reasons you are unable to carry a concealed weapon or OC, those legality's would also apply to conversion weapons or antiques. So many people try and play " barracks Lawyer " and skirt the law, well, remember, defence lawyers are expensive.

 

[Nickel Plated]

I am well aware that a cap and ball revolver is quite deadly. The only reason I would be interested in converting one is to just make it less of a hassle at the range when shooting with friends. I don't mind reloading one because I'm a gun nerd. They however are there to shoot not load a gun for twenty minutes.

But that is not the point here. The idea is finding a way to purchase essentially regular modern firearms directly online.

Anyway if i understand it correctly we run intot he old "once a firearm, always a firearm" rule. Even if you put a muzzleloader upper on it, it's still a firearm.

Now what if a manufacturer made a AR lower that is intended from the beginning to be attached to a muzzleloader upper. Has no serial number on it, may even say "Black powder only" on the side. But would just so happen to function perfectly well with a standard AR upper. How would that be any different from a cap and ball revolver that "just so happens" to be really easy to convert to fire cartridges?

Also I know that the law says it should be a design or replica of a design from before 1898. However there are plenty of modern in-line muzzleloaders out there which have practically nothing in common with pre-1898 designs besides the muzzleloading part. So an AR based muzzleloader design should not be a problem on the basis that it's modern.

 

[JRH6856]

The idea is finding a way to purchase essentially regular modern firearms directly online.

Oh. That's easy. Follow the procedures required by law which includes a 4473 and NICS check for interstate transfers. That is how modern firearms are legally purchases online.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Now what if a manufacturer made a AR lower that is intended from the beginning to be attached to a muzzleloader upper. Has no serial number on it, may even say "Black powder only" on the side. But would just so happen to function perfectly well with a standard AR upper...

You really think that someone with an 07 FFL is going to try a stunt like that?

...Also I know that the law says it should be a design or replica of a design from before 1898. However there are plenty of modern in-line muzzleloaders out there which have practically nothing in common with pre-1898 designs besides the muzzleloading part...

Here's how federal law defines firearm (18 USC 921(a)(3)):

(3) The term “firearm” means

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device.​

Such term does not include an antique firearm.

Here's how federal law defines antique firearm (18 USC 921(a)(16)), emphasis added):

(16) The term “antique firearm” means—

(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or

(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—

(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or

(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or​

(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.​

This your AR15 receiver is a firearm, at least because, as you put it:

...But would just so happen to function perfectly well with a standard AR upper....

Thus your AR15 "muzzle loading" receiver is a firearm because it is the receiver of a weapon which, "...may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive."

Furthermore, it is not an antique firearm because it is not a replica of a gun made before 1898 and can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition.

 

[yzguy87]

Wouldn't this be like Harrington & Richardson?

 

[Ed Ames]

The reference that is going to be most useful here is the original savage ML10 (or whatever the model number).

Everyone agrees it was a muzzle loader. BATF thought it was too readily converted to cartridges and forced savage to redesign it, resulting in the mkII version.

If you build a ML or C&B specifically to convert, I bet BATFE would force you to redesign to prevent conversion, just like they forced Savage when they thought the gun was just incidentally convertible.

I have sometimes wondered if Ruger pulled the Old Army in part because it is not a historical reproduction and is readily converted...i'm sure they wanted to free equipment for other product but I wonder if part of the equation wasn't their lawyers saying, "this could be a liability if BATFE decides to make it one."