What do you say, SBR or legit?

[mriddick]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=188317497

I'm seeing a M98 action which would make this a SBR wouldn't it?

[hazmat]

Ouch. Hand cannon is right. If it is in fact legit, I'd form 1 the bitch just outta spite. But its hard to tell if its legit or not. I'd err on the side of caution anyway, though just to be safe.

[alismith]

I would have to say it's legit. There's no shoulder stock, so it can't be a rifle. It has to be classified as a handgun, right?

[Helen Keller]

Well


Lets say you went to a gun show,

and a guy had a pile of K98 receivers , You filled out the 4473 and on it in Description He puts "Receiver" ..

[videodon]

I'd say SBR.
:)

[Kadmos]

Lack of shoulder stock does not make a rifle receiver into a pistol

It's going to need some extra paperwork.

[awp101]

Possibly built on a Siamese Mauser receiver? I do not recall if those are antique by definition but they were popular to convert to .45-70 as they used a rimmed cartridge from the get go.

If he'd put pics of the markings in the ad, I might have a better idea...

[aliceinchains]

He don't like the follower in it. He thinks it needs to be wider. Well so is he saying it won't feed a 45-70 round. I can't make out the reciever crest and the bolt handle is ass ugly.

That is all i have to say other than it is stupid like his listing.:biggrina:

[deth502]

sbr

imo, the "I cannot decipher what the symbols mean." means that it was already assembled as a rifle and was marked as such.

[tank_monkey]

Well if the factory ever sold it as a handgun, regardless of whether or not the action is for a rifle, it's a handgun. If some enterprising gunsmith converted a rifle into a handgun, then paperwork is required. From what I remember, a manufacturer can build a handgun from a non-designated receiver, but how many non-designated old MAUSER receivers are floating around.

I remember Cobray's "Ladies Home Companion" pistol which was a mini-version of the Street Sweeper. That was a 45-70 handgun as well. :)

[Helen Keller]

but how many non-designated old MAUSER receivers are floating around.



I was at a guys house a few years back that did some Garand work for me.

He had close to 300 Unused Mauser receivers and dozens of Arisaka receivers in pile that were imported here as "Receivers"



Still...

In 45-70 I'd spend a few bucks more and just get a Thompson Contender/Encore like I did VS winding up in the ICU

[aliceinchains]

I was at a guys house a few years back that did some Garand work for me.

He had close to 300 Unused Mauser receivers and dozens of Arisaka receivers in pile that were imported here as "Receivers"



Still...

In 45-70 I'd spend a few bucks more and just get a Thompson Contender/Encore like I did VS winding up in the ICU




Took the words out of my mouth was going to mention but you are the man. Thompson Contender.

[tank_monkey]

I was at a guys house a few years back that did some Garand work for me.
He had close to 300 Unused Mauser receivers and dozens of Arisaka receivers in pile that were imported here as "Receivers"


I personally have NEVER seen one, but you're making me DROOL over that treasure trove :) Sorry, the inner gunsmith vibe is on overload! :D

[deth502]

I was at a guys house a few years back that did some Garand work for me.

He had close to 300 Unused Mauser receivers and dozens of Arisaka receivers in pile that were imported here as "Receivers"



Still...

In 45-70 I'd spend a few bucks more and just get a Thompson Contender/Encore like I did VS winding up in the ICU

this brings up a good question. and ALMOST on topic......

legally, if a receiver was EVER assembled as a rifle, it IS a rifle. even if its marked "pistol". once its been assembled as a rifle, it would have to be sbr'd to make it into a pistol again (not counting the special case gund like the contender)

now, if a mauser action was built as a rifle, but then stripped, OUTSIDE the us, and imported as just a "receiver", would it qualify as a "virgin receiver" since it was never a rifle in the us?

[mriddick]

The BATF only considers the Contender to be legally able to be converted back and forth, as it's specifically listed as being able to do so. However proving a rifle has gone back and forth is probably tough to do and unless there's some other business going on I would doubt the BATF would risk a court challenge on this alone. They probably are hoping to find some drug dealer or chicken sh&t gunowner who'll plead to the charge so they can start building their case load on the issue as I type this.

As for a rifle ever being a pistol that is a nono without the paperwork, the BATF even considers an antique cartridge firing rifle to need paperwork before conversion to a pistol as many tired to convert antique mosins to pistols found out back in the 80's. I'm not sure this would hold up in court either but I do know the BATF shut down quite a few smiths converting antique mosins to pistol from back then.

As for this creation I believe it is probably a Siamese Mauser which would put it's mfg at about 1903 or there after, so it's not an antique.

[F-16 CHIEF]

That's absolutely an SBR.

While there are many arguments that could be made, the only one that would count in court is what the ATF would say.

He'd get bent over for that without and verification of that being a virgin receiver, barrel, and never having been a rifle.