A fellow in Mississippi wanted a 30/30 pistol but din't want to pay the extreme prices so he set about building his own. Being real handy in his machine shop and with gun repair, he removed the tube mag and cut the barrel down to 10 inches. He also removed all the inside workings to retreve a round from the tube and blocked it off. After making a pistol grip for it he put some sights on the barrel. He had to move away before finishing it and I never did get to see how it worked out. But I was wondering with 10 inches of barrel what bullet would proabley stablize better. With a single shot 30/30 he would have the whole range of 80 to 220 grain 30 caliber to choose from.

IMO a 130 gr Hornady SSP bullet would work great .

Did he apply and receve a a permit form the BATF for making a short barreled rifle ?
He may have done a big NO NO .
If it starts out as a rifle ,it stays a rifle no matter the barrel length ( 16" min without a permit for a short barreled rifle and a min OAL).

I don't know all the things he needs to do to make it legal ,but IMO he should have checked into it before cuting off the barrel.

Johnch

I agree with Johnch that is simply a rifle with a 10" barrel. That is a big time non-starter.

Aside from the legalities, the length of the barrel hardly matters (it needs to be about 1-2"), what determines how stable the bullets are is the twist rate and bullet length; the longer the bullet, the faster the twist needs to be; with some minor imput from the bullet velocity. The same bullets that worked with the original barrel length will probably work with the shorter barrel, unless they are just on the edge of stability and the drop in velocity causes the bullet to go unstable.

Hornady's red reloading books have 30/30 and contender loads... which is what this would be if it was legal (which it aint without class 3)

jeffe

I use a 10" Contender, because it's not a rifle and lets me hunt longer. A 130 V Max or Sierra single shot pistol bullet are just dandy.

This was several years ago and I don't know where he is and havn't seen him since but you are right about getting the right permits before making a personal firearm.

You don't need any permits for making a personal firearm, so long as it isn't a class III destructive device.

You do need serious permits to convert an existing gun into a class III device.

If he'd built a mdl 94 from scratch, as a pictol, he would have been ok. Cutting down a rifle to make it a pistol is a big no no.

You mean if I was to go get all the model 94 parts I need and then assemble it as a single shot pistol it would be legal?

I think I understand the law to mean that if you MADE a reciever yourself, THEN you could use other manufactureres parts to complete the gun. But the part that is required to be serial numbered, must be self made.

quote:

Originally posted by Blob1:
You mean if I was to go get all the model 94 parts I need and then assemble it as a single shot pistol it would be legal?

If you could buy a '94 receiver that had never been assembled as part of a rifle......then, yes, you could legally use it to build a pistol.....there is no legal requirement for you to actually manufacture the receiver.....only that the receiver could never have been assembled as part of a rifle......

Technically, on newer than 12-16-68 receivers, it all depends on what the original manufacturer reported it to BATF as, when they built it.

If it was reported as a rifle action, even if the manufacturer never finished assembly as anythimg more than an action, it could NEVER legally become a pistol (in the U.S.)without an ATF permit to make the conversion.

If it was built before 12-16-68 and was finished at least to the barreled action stage, then a permit would still be required to convert it to a pistol. Otherwise it would still be an illegally short barreled rifle under the law, anytime the barrel was reduced to less than 16" long. And if you think that's bad, it isn't too long ago that the minimum length was 18", not 16".

This letter was posted by a fellow on ar15.com a while back, its his response from the ATF on the subject of making a pistol from a bare receiver.

Sorry about the quality of the picture, you might have to right click your mouse, save it to your computer, and blow it up in your picture viewer..

Well, that letter does prove you can get different answers from different members of ATF, just as you can when you call the IRS for advice.

Short answer is, if you have any doubts whatsoever, either don't do it, or pay the $5 tax fee and apply for a permit.

In these days of "homeland security" paranoia, you don't want to end up on the wrong end of an "interpretation" dispute....or at least on a government "don't fly" list

I couldn't agree more, it just kind of went totally in the opposite of what I believed the law to be.

Based on my interpretation of this letter, one could buy a new 700 action from Brownells, and build a pistol with it....

The problem with that letter, which wouldn't be clear unless you had dealt a lot with ATF, is that it only deals specifically with a pistol built on an AR-15 reciever.

As there WERE AR-15 pistols built and sold commercially, an ATF counsel might be unwilling to try to prove to a jury unsymathetic to ATF that the receiver was not originally intended to be a pistol.

However, with a M94 action or even a Model 70 action, Winchester NEVER (to my knowledge) made any such pistols for sale. And when they reported the manufacture of those acions for excize(sp?) tax purposes, I'll bet their reporting form read something like "X number of Model 70 actions, value such-and-such, X number of Model 94 actions, value so-and-so." And, as you know, both the Model 70 and the Model 94 are specific, known, rifles in the Winchester line...never one pistol of either designation.

Even the greenest federal attorney could probably carry that ball and score a conviction in court. And they like to prosecute easy winners, especially if they have any internal or external political ambitions.

God help the poor soul who tries it with an MRC action...I mean, MRC does NOT stand for Montana Pistol Company.

Best wishes...

Keep thinking about fireball's letter from the BAT-men.

Would that not mean that EVERY T/C Contender and Encore that has ever been assembled as a rifle, could then NEVER be assembled as a pistol?

Or do they mean "assembled" by a BATFE-licensed MANUFACTURER, and do not consider assembly by the end retail purchaser to be a final legal configuration?

So I can purchase a new Remington 700 action only (possible now), and use it to build a pistol?

Is anyone SURE that Winchester NEVER sold bare actions?

Since MRC sold many, would the name have ANY bearing on the legality of the final application?

Don't mind me, I'm half asleep and just talking of the top of my head. But it is something to think about in more lucid moments.

So one would have to go to Winchester and have them stamp a new action as it was being built with a special stamp declaring it could be used as a pistol. Then a barrel would have to be cut down by a Fed reconized smith. Then a hearing would be held to see if you were politicaly correct in your thinking and all paper work was in order. Then you would be written down in a special file of possible home land terroist and checked every 6 months to see if you actually were shooting silos with it and those you were shooting with would be interviewed to see if you ever talked about using the rifle-pistol on some missunderstood coward murder called a terrorist or mabe defending your home with it from baby killers. Well guess I will buy a Thompson Contender after all.

Blob makes an interesting point about the T/C carbine/pistol conversions. It takes what, 2 minutes to change it from a single shot rifle to a 10" pistol...and it is MADE to do this regularly. Something doesn't smell quite right.

I've dealt with the BATF on a couple of occasions and when it comes to something like this. My advice would be "If you don't need to, don't do it. Communicate your intentions fully and in writing. Get permision in writing. And lastly, put yourself in the jury box, and see what you think".

Good luck

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wingnut:
Keep thinking about fireball's letter from the BAT-men.

Would that not mean that EVERY T/C Contender and Encore that has ever been assembled as a rifle, could then NEVER be assembled as a pistol?[End Qoute]

BATF has already been through this particular one. Current ATF interpretation (and, I seem to recall, case law, is basically this....

If it was originally sold by T/C as a Contender action only, or as a Contender Pistol (pistol-(barreled action or complete pistol), you CAN make it into a carbine (rifle) and then change it back to a pistol, However, if it was sold by T/C as a complete Carbine or as a Carbine barreled action, you CANNOT rebarrel it as a pistol. The case law on this one is the result of BATF trying to enforce their previous ruling, which was that once you converted it to a carbine, you could not convert it back to a pistol.

The theory was that in jurisdictions where pistols were banned or only allowed with a permit, many people without permits would buy carbines, which might be unrestricted, then rebarrel them as pistols and local government control would be lost. The court said, "Well, maybe so, but that does NOT apply where the person involved first bought the gun legally as a pistol...in that instance, they are still just using it as the same legal type of firearm with which they originally began,

Of course, that leaves open the question of what happens when a person buys a carbine which was originally a pistol or an action only from some other individual living outside his local area, THE BUYER brings it into his area as a unrestricted long gun, then converts it to a locally banned or restricted pistol. We know that at this point he has committed a local offense, BUT has he committed a federal offense also? Probably not. But interpretations can change as often as I change my pants. All it takes is a new Section Chief, a new ATF director, or a new President. Or a local office head in a bad mood & teamed with an ambitious uoung regional federal prosecutor.

This type of complexity is one of the many things that, in my mind, make most gun laws into CS harrassment of local citizens. I'd like to see gun laws either totally eliminated, or better yet, limited only to authorizing additional sentencing options for the use of a firearm in a REAL crime.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Technically, on newer than 12-16-68 receivers, it all depends on what the original manufacturer reported it to BATF as, when they built it.

If it was reported as a rifle action, even if the manufacturer never finished assembly as anythimg more than an action, it could NEVER legally become a pistol (in the U.S.)without an ATF permit to make the conversion.

If it was built before 12-16-68 and was finished at least to the barreled action stage, then a permit would still be required to convert it to a pistol. Otherwise it would still be an illegally short barreled rifle under the law, anytime the barrel was reduced to less than 16" long. And if you think that's bad, it isn't too long ago that the minimum length was 18", not 16".

Canuck

Actually, the manufacturer can list it as a frame/receiver only and it can be recorded as such on the form 4473 (yellow sheet) when sold.

By the way, the tax on a Short barrel rifle is $200, not $5 as was stated in one of the posts......the $5 tax is for an "any other weapon" (AOW).


October 1, 1992


Firearms Technical Branch
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
650 Mass. Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20226

Dear Sirs:

The Greensboro, NC BATF Compliance Office suggested that I write to
you for information on the following point.

I am interested on whether it is possible to have a commercially
manufactured rifle receiver changed to be legally considered to be a handgun
receiver, and how this can be done. The Compliance Office said that this
might be possible via a "Letter of Determination", but advised me to write
to you about the criteria and procedures.

For example, if a person has a rifle receiver and wishes to have it
built into a rifle-caliber handgun suitable for steel silhouette target
shooting, comparable to the bolt action Remington XP-100 handgun. I
understand that the serial number of this receiver is recorded as being for a
rifle. Could this person have this receiver's serial number considered to be
a handgun receiver? If so, what procedures and paperwork would be
necessary.

Sincerely,

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 29 1992
Dear Mr. XXXXX:

This refers to your letter of October 1, 1992, in which you inquire
about the legality of manufacturing a handgun which utilizes a rifle
type receiver.

26 U.S.C. Chapter 53 # 5845(a)(4), the National Firearms Act (NFA),
defines the term "firearm" to include a weapon made from a rifle if
such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches
or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.

Utilizing the receiver of an existing rifle for the purposes of
manufacturing a handgun would constitute the making of a firearm as
defined above. Individuals desiring to make such a firearm must first
submit an ATF Form 1, Application To Make And Register a Firearm and
pay the applicable $200 making tax.

If an individual were to obtain a rifle type receiver that had not
previously been utilized in the assembly of a rifle, a handgun could be
made and not be subject to the provisions of the NFA. Verification
must be obtained from the manufacturer of the receiver to establish
its authenticity.

We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. If we may
be of any further assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely your,
(signed)
Edward M. Owen, Jr.
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

The TC court case had nothing to do with converting a TC that left the factory as a rifle into pistol configuration......when the case was first filed, no factory produced Contender rifles existed.......the decision in the case established the legality of using a "kit", that consisted of a barrel over 16" in length and a buttstock, to convert a Contender HANDGUN into a rifle......

Here is what the BATF has to say about converting TC rifles.....

The original letter to BATF Technology Branch:

Department of the Treasury 2/15/2003
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Firearms Technology Branch

Dear Sir or Madam,

My questions are in regard to Contender and Encore firearms manufactured by Thompson Center Arms of Rochester NH. As I’m certain you are aware, these firearms feature an interchangeable barrel system.

If a new Contender or Encore rifle is purchased from a licensed dealer, is it legal to later convert that rifle into a pistol?

Can a dealer, who receives a new Contender or Encore that was shipped from the factory as a rifle, change the legal classification of that firearm by listing it as a handgun, instead of a rifle, on the Form 4473 when it is sold?

How would the purchaser of a used Contender or Encore determine whether it is legally a handgun or a rifle?

TC has stated the following in response to questions concerning legal configuration of TC firearms:

1. The Supreme Court decision in the TC case affirmed the legality of converting TC firearms between rifle and handgun configuration regardless of the configuration of the firearm when purchased.


2. All Contender and Encore frames are legally classified as handguns.


I have read the case briefs in the U.S. v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., -U.S.-(1992) TC case and cannot find any reference to converting any factory produced rifle into handgun configuration. Instead, I find only references to converting a factory produced handgun into rifle configuration through the use of a “carbine kitâ€. Did I miss something that exempts the Contender from NFA Short Barrel Rifle regulations?

In addition, if all Contender and Encore frames are legally classified as handguns, how can any Contender or Encore firearm be sold to anyone under the age of 21 since federal law prohibits sales of handguns to persons under 21?

I would appreciate your assistance in clearing up the confusion surrounding legal configurations of TC firearms.


Sincerely,


Answer from BATF Technology Branch:

[Actually, the manufacturer can list it as a frame/receiver only and it can be recorded as such on the form 4473 (yellow sheet) when sold.

That's true for the nonce, but it won't neccesarily protect one from attempted future enforcement action as political times and interpretations change...in which the accused might prevail, but only after spending a lot of money in legal fees.
-----------------------------------------

By the way, the tax on a Short barrel rifle is $200, not $5 as was stated in one of the posts......the $5 tax is for an "any other weapon" (AOW).

Thanks for the correction on that. I tend to forget which fee amount is for which tax...mine are pretty much always $200 for either sound moderators or fully automatic capable firearms.
--------------------------------

And even if the manufacturer reports an action just as an action, I suspect that somewhere down the road one had better hope it wasn't reported as a Model 70 (or 700, or 77), action. Those are obviously specific models of Rifles, not pistols. Some smarty hungry, eager young DOJ attorney working for a future anti-gun administration could use that. "Mr. Smith, did you just write Remchester and ask for an action without specifying a Model?" "Yes." Do you mean to tell this court you didn't care whether the action you were buying was a bolt action, pump action, or lever action?" Well, you can fill in the rest.

Bottom line still might well be, it's best to buy a pistol if you want a pistol. Doesn't pay to play "Technically inocent/Technically guilty" with guys who can sieze all your assets, jail you awaiting trial, and have unlimited funds to prosecute you, just to prove one's point. And in these days of anti-terrorism law where, depending on what you are charged with/suspected of, they don't have to give you the right to a phone-call, a lawyer, or a speedy trial. Nor do they have to tell your wife, kids or other relatives who inquire, or even a lawyer hired by them, that they have you in custody. They don't even have to keep you in a civilian jail or in this country!!

If one were a pessimist, he might even suspect the terrorists have already won. At least this doesn't seem quite like the free country in which I was born about 70 years ago.

On that thought I will leave this thread as I feel we mave "worried it about" enough for me.