Short Barreled Lever Action Rifles
These Wild West short barreled lever guns are pretty neat looking. Those are classified as short barreled rifles and require a $200 tax. However, these mare’s legs are classified by the ATF as pistols. Not sure why.
January 30th, 2006 at 11:45 am
WTF, The “rifles” look shorter than the pistol?
January 30th, 2006 at 11:58 am
The mare’s legs were probably manufactured and registered as pistols with the ATF. The Wild West gun were probably originally registered as rifles and then cut down, so they’re considered short-barreled rifles whether or not they have a buttstock.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I dunno, les. That may be the case but the both look like they have stocks to me. In fact, a couple of the SBRs look to have pistol grips more so than the mare’s leg.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Les has the right of it.
If the gun is cut down from a rifle tha was shipped as such from the manufacturer, it’s an SBR, whether it has the stub of a buttstock or not. If it was built as a “Mare’s Leg” on a reciever that had never been built as a rifle, then it’s a pistol. Same with various AK/AR pistols, and the distinction between Short Barelled Shotguns and AOWs.
January 30th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Tam, I realize that but when making AK/AR it can’t have shoulder stock. The mare’s leg seems to have a stock but I guess that could depend on what the definition of a stock is.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
“The mares leg seems to have a stock but I guess that could depend on what the definition of a stock is.”
This is where I say “Trust me, I work for a Type 07”. π
The definition of “stock” is only slightly fuzzier than Clinton’s definition of “is”. Basically, if it is intended to allow firing from the shoulder, it’s a stock. (Translated: If the ATF says it’s a stok, it’s a stock. You and I only have precedent to go on, and cross our fingers that the ATF won’t change its mind tomorrow.) Pistols can’t have stocks. Conversely, rifles and shotguns don’t actually need stocks; they just need to meet a minimum OAL.
This is how we wind up with Mare’s Legs with stubby quasi-“stocks”, and Mossenberger Persuaders that have pistol grips and no stocks, yet are not pistols. (And Stevens 311s with stocks that look just like the one on the Mare’s Leg, but are also not pistols.)
If you think this ATF legalspeak is fun to decipher as a hobby, you’d love my job.
Well, except for the “No Money” part of it. π
January 30th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Chuck Connors, call your office…
January 30th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Yeah, and the broomhandle mauser, which has a stock and is an SBR, is exempted. Meanwhile, putting one of those stocks on a Glock makes it an SBR.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Some Broomhandles, and also some High Powers and others, are exempt by virtue of the C&R list. (Chinese and Spanish Broomhandles, I believe, aren’t, but I’d have to go dig out my book. The online list is here: http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/relics/index.htm#SEC. III: )
January 30th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Incidentally, I wasn’t Trevor, I was Tam. My computer was just confused.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Are the stocks on the mare’s legs functional? They certainly look like they could be shoulder-fired, but I don’t see a scale reference in that picture. Maybe they’re too short?
But I think Trevor’s got it figured out. Because of the antique appearance, the manufacturer managed to slide them onto the Curios and Relics list, so they are unregulated and considered to not pose much threat compared to typical modern weapons. However, the listed calibers seem to be modern. I assume these are single shot (that is, you drop the block with a lever and stuff in the next cartridge by hand), but I would expect that a modern looking single-shot bolt-action .45 ACP pistol with a stock would be NFA, while the lever action pistol in the same cartridge is just as functional, and I think would have a slightly higher rate of fire.
Not that I’d want to take either one into a gunfight against a Glock that fires 16 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. Not unless I was wearing 9mm-proof armor, anyhow.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
“Are the stocks on the mare’s legs functional?”
Nope. They barely extend aft of the lever.
“Because of the antique appearance, the manufacturer managed to slide them onto the Curios and Relics list, so they are unregulated and considered to not pose much threat compared to typical modern weapons.”
Nope. These are considered modern firearms, and don’t fall under the C&R exemptions. They are pistols because they were never rifles.
” I assume these are single shot (that is, you drop the block with a lever and stuff in the next cartridge by hand)”
Nope, these are tube-magazine repeaters.
And that wasn’t Trevor that posted as Trevor, that was me. Posting from work computers can cause snafus like that. π
January 30th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I suppose you could put that stub to your shoulder, but it’d put a real kink in your elbow, and the hammer would probably poke you in the face under recoil. Cycling the lever would put the bolt through your upper lip.
I’ve held a few NFA Mare’s Legs, and mounting it to your shoulder is not something that even crosses one’s mind, believe me.
January 30th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
So…was Zoe in Firefly carrying a mare’s leg ‘pistol’ or an SBR?
January 31st, 2006 at 2:20 pm
It was probably a movie prop that never fired anything other than blank projectiles.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
AFAK there are no tobacco ninjas in the Firefly universe to give a damn. π