The loading gate question

[a1albert]

I wonder if you could go to ATF site and email them your question and picture of the firearm. I think you could get a hundred diffrent answers on here and none us be right.I would say it should fall under the black powder rules, but who am I to say.
Now you got wondering other than the fireing pin hole what is the differance between the frame and barrel on your gun and a uberti 1873 45 colt. Please I'm not trying to be smart here but they sure do look a lot alike.

Albert

 

[madcratebuilder]

The language in the ATF publication 'Federal Firearms Reference Guide" is from 18 CFR Chapter 44, The Gun Control Act of 1968. The paragraphs you reproduced are under 921(a)(16).

It seems to me that the reference to installation of a loading gate constituting reworking the gun to enable it to fire cartridge ammunition comes from the language in (c), in particular:
"For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "antique firearm" shall not include any weapon
which incorporates a firearm frame or
receiver..." It's interesting that the language does not include the very common term 'loading gate', but rather an obscure reference to something called a 'firearm frame'. Does 'firearm frame' mean loading gate, among perhaps other things. And why doesn't the language include the term cartridge cylinder...it would seem mandatory that a cylinder capable of holding metal cartriges be specified, if what you're trying to do is include cartridge ammunition guns under the definition of a firearm.

All of the above is the genesis of my search for language specifying 'loading gate'. And 18 CFR 44 921(a)(16)(C) is clearly not the answer to that search. So, where is it?

I agree completely, it's about as clear as mud. My take is BATF purposely uses obscure language so they can use what ever interpretation they please. It would be nice if BATF would clear up some of the gray area concerning BP and cartridge conversions. In the same breath I hope they do not look at BP at all least we come under tighter regulation.

 

[Dphar]

Private transfers are not regulated by the feds, yet.

Dan

 

[Zonie]

For what it's worth, Dixie Gunworks shows this gun along with a number of Colt cartridge pistols in their 2009 catalog.

The pistols that use cartridges all have a note that says that says the FFL laws apply.

The Cap & Ball version does not have this note which indicates to me that BTAF didn't consider it a gun that requires Federal controls.

Of course, that catalog was published a year ago and things may have changed.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

since there is no loading lever on the revolver in question - which is essential to load/fire it - how can it be considered a firearm at all?
or does this make any diff?
all you've got w/out means to load it is a play-pretty that has a spinning cylinder on it! :hmm:

 

[madcratebuilder]

What's the whole pint of the ejector rod and loading gate anyway? Just to make it 'look' like a cartridge revolver?

 

[R.M.]

What's the whole pint of the ejector rod and loading gate anyway? Just to make it 'look' like a cartridge revolver?

I would think so.
One thing I'm wondering, the BATF says "Altered or Modified". These guns were made that way weren't they?

 

[mykeal]

The point of the loading gate and ejector rod was to make the gun RESEMBLE a Colt Peacemaker, and still be able to sell it in Europe; that's where it was originally marketed. US marketing occurred only because it was listed in Uberti's catalog.

I guess what I'm learning is that BATF has never said that simply adding a loading gate was sufficient to make the gun a cartridge gun, or 'firearm'. People who assert that are simply expressing their opinion, and not necessarily that of BATF.

A1lbert - here's a few more pictures of the frame to show the offsets. The firing pin on the hammer is offset to the right; there's a corresponding offset hole in the frame through which the firing pin can strike the cap. The nipple is also offset in the cylinder to match up with the firing pin/frame hole. It appears the chamber is aligned with the barrel when the cylinder is in battery, so the nipple/flash channel are located off to the side of the chamber. This appears to have been done so that one couldn't simply replace the percussion cylinder with a Colt SAA cartridge cylinder and have a cartridge gun; you'd have to modify the frame and hammer as well, and perhaps even the hand assembly.

 

[a1albert]

Mykeal

Yes it is all clear now. Those last pictures tell the rest of the story. I had to get out my 1873 to compare, interesting peace for sure. They must of built them that way to satify the countries that they were going to.

Albert

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

The point of the loading gate and ejector rod was to make the gun RESEMBLE a Colt Peacemaker, and still be able to sell it in Europe; that's where it was originally marketed. US marketing occurred only because it was listed in Uberti's catalog.

I guess what I'm learning is that BATF has never said that simply adding a loading gate was sufficient to make the gun a cartridge gun, or 'firearm'. People who assert that are simply expressing their opinion, and not necessarily that of BATF.

A1lbert - here's a few more pictures of the frame to show the offsets. The firing pin on the hammer is offset to the right; there's a corresponding offset hole in the frame through which the firing pin can strike the cap. The nipple is also offset in the cylinder to match up with the firing pin/frame hole. It appears the chamber is aligned with the barrel when the cylinder is in battery, so the nipple/flash channel are located off to the side of the chamber. This appears to have been done so that one couldn't simply replace the percussion cylinder with a Colt SAA cartridge cylinder and have a cartridge gun; you'd have to modify the frame and hammer as well, and perhaps even the hand assembly.

You hit the nail on the head! This is the exact same revolver that I saw for sale in Dixon's. It's not an item that they regularly stock. Greg showed me the offset hammer and the corresponding offset for the aperture to let the hammer strike the caps. This revolver was designed from the start to never be able to take a conversion cylinder--at least not without gunsmithing that would be more dollar-wise than just buying a centerfire example. It's an interesting piece, and since they sell only cap & ball black powder revolvers, I would feel confident that no laws were broken during the importation and sale from their supplier.

From what I can determine, this gun was made to look like a .45LC, complete with gate and extractor assembly housing, for the collector that doesn't want to "jump through the hoops" of owning a centerfire example such as a copy of the Colt 1871-1872 Early or Late Model Open Top, which has a MSRP of only $519.00.

I don't think that any federal agency is concerned with this gun. It doesn't readily accept centerfire ammo, and requires a master gunsmith and advance tools to even try to make it do so, loading gate or not.

When I saw it for the first time at Dixon's in the revolver display with the other Uberti's I too was instantly excited and had to see it and have it all explained to me.

Is this one yours, and if so, how does it shoot?

Have a great weekend and stay warm up there!

Dave

 

[mykeal]

It is mine; I got it at an auction 3 years ago - one of those dream buys you usually only hear about. The auction advertised 90 handguns and another 50 or so long guns, mostly modern stuff. The night before was a 50 year snowstorm - a couple of feet of heavy, wet stuff that shut down highways and made the plows work very hard. The auction venue was a fairgrounds and the parking lots and roads inside the gate were not plowed. I followed a large 4wd truck through to the building and found myself at a large auction with very few attendees, mostly housewives looking for cookware and sewing materials. There were 4 men interested in the guns, and I was the only black powder buyer. After getting no bids on a few bp guns, the auctioneer just asked if anyone wanted any of them; I spoke up for a few, this gun being one. The auctioneer said what's the highest you'll bid on each; I shot him a price (NOT my highest), he asked if anyone else wanted to top it, nobody answered and they were all mine.

It shoots very, very well. I generally use it for between 7 and 25 yards and it's great for those distances. I've used it in bowling pin shoots and it keeps pace with the .45ACP crowd. It came with two cylinders; I have since gotten two more. I load them with a cylinder loading stand, of course.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

Interesting story, thanks for sharing! Auctioneer didn't want to have to close the whole thing down and re-advertise the sale later. Might be a legal wrangle in there as well I suppose.

As far as "Experts" on forums goes, (and believe me, I'm no Expert when it comes to firearms law) they can say all that they want...till the POLICE start knocking on doors, then they disappear into the woodwork like bugs hiding from the light.

I'm starting to look at the Colt Late Model Open Top in .45 LC. I'd use it strictly with black powder Goex loads. Have you ever handled or shot one of them?

With that Avatar you have, I could just imagine a big smile on your face after fanning-up a cloud of real black :thumbsup: .

Continued success at the bowling pin shoots :thumbsup:

Dave

 

[mykeal]

I have no experience with BPCR yet; that's a long ways into the future for me, I think.

My current bowling pin guns are a Uberti Walker (55 gr) and a S&W 60. The Walker goes first, and if I hit the pin, it leaves the table RDN. If I miss one the S&W is my backup, kind of a 'Chicago reload'.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

Yeah, sounds really fun doing pins with you! I've considered doing pins with my Walker as well, just haven't gotten around "tuit" yet :haha: .

Here in Jersey we call it a "NY Reload" :rotf: :haha: . I dunno why, we just do :idunno: .

Interesting to note is that Bianchi used to make a leather 2-sidearm, behind the back holster, and he called it "The New York Reload"! I kid you not! :shocked2: . Don't know if it's still in the catalog or not.

Take care and stay warm up there!

Dave

 

[Ketchakah]

I dont know guys...
Im no lawyer But... I would classify this gun as a cartridge firearm with a secondary cylinder. Simply replacing the cylinder with a cartridge type would make this a fully functioning cartridge revolver. Yes the Firing pin is very blunt, But I would venture to say it would set off a primer.
There is absolutly no reason to have not only the loading gate but the ejector rod as well unless its original intention was to fire cartridges.
There is no loading leaver as on most percussion revolvers, So that would require removing the cylinder to load it.
You all are probably right, but its a VERY sketchy situation. If i install a percussion cylinder in my 73 colt it is still a 73 colt. Its the frames that are reqistered not the cylinders.
Im sure its fine, But.... all it takes is the wrong cop and it could make for a very bad day. Of course, that could happen with ANY gun right?
Just some thoughts.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

I dont know guys...
Im no lawyer But... I would classify this gun as a cartridge firearm with a secondary cylinder. Simply replacing the cylinder with a cartridge type would make this a fully functioning cartridge revolver. Yes the Firing pin is very blunt, But I would venture to say it would set off a primer.
There is absolutly no reason to have not only the loading gate but the ejector rod as well unless its original intention was to fire cartridges.
There is no loading leaver as on most percussion revolvers, So that would require removing the cylinder to load it.
You all are probably right, but its a VERY sketchy situation. If i install a percussion cylinder in my 73 colt it is still a 73 colt. Its the frames that are reqistered not the cylinders.
Im sure its fine, But.... all it takes is the wrong cop and it could make for a very bad day. Of course, that could happen with ANY gun right?
Just some thoughts.

The "firing pin" is a hammer for caps, not a firing pin! Also there is a deliberate mis-alignment of both the hammer and the orifice that is open to let the hammer hit the cap. As it comes from the factory, without HUNDREDS of dollars of modification, the gun won't fire centerfire ammo, even if you could fit a replacement cylinder into the frame. The built-in "offset" won't allow for it!

So I don't see this as being something a cop would want to try to prove, but you can sue the Pope for being religious....doesn't mean you'll win though. I think that the deliberate off-set of the hammer is plain enough.

Dave

 

[Homesteader]

I'm guessing lawyers could argue back and forth about this, picking nits and making money, but my money's on it not being subject to FFL. Dixie Gun Works sells this percussion revolver, and they don't require the FFL. Seems like that's a pretty good indication that it's not a problem.

 

[nkbj]

Not a problem? The centerfire drop-in cylinders have made it a "problem" awaiting regulations. Comprende?

 

[mykeal]

Not a problem? The centerfire drop-in cylinders have made it a "problem" awaiting regulations. Comprende?

I for one don't "comprede".
The revolver I posted pictures of, and which is the subject of this thread, clearly cannot accommodate a 'centerfire drop-in cylinder', as the pictures and several of the posts correctly identified. So, just what is it that you're trying, and failing, to say?

 

[Tracy]

That is one nice looking gun.Where do the spent caps go?Do the caps ever jam the gun?