# modified firearms



## Lisa (Jul 6, 2006)

I was reading back in a few old threads and I came across a few comments about modified firearms being a federal offense.

What are the legal reasons for modified weapons being illegal and what are the acceptable barrel lengths.  Is it the same for shotguns and rifles.

I am making the assumption here that sawing off your shotgun/rifle makes it a more powerful  which is why it is considered a federal offense?  

I honestly have never even thought of doing it but was curious as to the reasons behind doing it.


----------



## Blindside (Jul 7, 2006)

US federal law restricts barrel length on rifles to a minimum of 16" and shotguns to 18" for use by the general public.

The most common modification is to reduce the length of the firearm, to make a "sawed off" shotgun or shorter carbine length.  Making something shorter doesn't make it more powerful (actually the opposite) but rather makes it much more concealable, which is where the guv'mint gets its knickers in a bunch.  Shorter shotguns are the larger worry here, the law states that not only must it have a 18" barrel, but also an overall length of 26".  Short barreled rifles are available to folks with law enforcement credentials.  

Other mods would be converting a weapon from semi- to full-auto, and the reasoning is fairly straight forward.  It should be noted that US law does allow some citizens who pass the appropriate licensing, background checks, and pay their money to possess these types of firearms.

Lamont


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 7, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> US federal law restricts barrel length on rifles to a minimum of 16" and shotguns to 18" for use by the general public.


 
Also, if you go to almost any gunsmith, you'll probably find that none of them will cut down your shotgun's barrel to anything less than 18 1/4", since the BATF's ruler tends to measure things a wee bit short.


----------



## Lisa (Jul 7, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> Also, if you go to almost any gunsmith, you'll probably find that none of them will cut down your shotgun's barrel to anything less than 18 1/4", since the BATF's ruler tends to measure things a wee bit short.



know this from experience?


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 7, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> know this from experience?


 
Not my shotgun, but a friend's, who wanted his shotgun barrel cut down to 18".  After the smith was done, when my friend measured it, the barrel was at 18.25", and complained.  The smith simply chuckled and said "We define 18" according to the BATF ruler, and you would be wise to do the same!"


----------



## Lisa (Jul 7, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> Not my shotgun, but a friend's, who wanted his shotgun barrel cut down to 18".  After the smith was done, when my friend measured it, the barrel was at 18.25", and complained.  The smith simply chuckled and said "We define 18" according to the BATF ruler, and you would be wise to do the same!"



So, what was his purpose behind doing this?  Why would people want the shorter barrel?

Oh and here is another question.  Who here believes that the government should be regulating what is done with privately owned firearms?  Isn't this an infringement of rights?


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 7, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> So, what was his purpose behind doing this? Why would people want the shorter barrel?


 
Simply for the sake of manuverability.  With a cut-down barrel, you get more manuverability, without really sacrificing any lethality, since the spread pattern of even an improved cylinder shotgun is still going to be pretty tight.  

A 26" barrel shotgun is a fine weapon for hunting, or for longer ranged combative purposes, but it might not be the best choice of weapons in cramped quarters.  

I can, however, certainly agree with the gunsmith, that there's no real difference between the manuverability of an 18.25" barrel versus an 18" barrel.  I also agree, that it's certainly better to have that extra margin of error when it comes to measurements.  The BATF is the last organization you would want on your tail.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 8, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> So, what was his purpose behind doing this? Why would people want the shorter barrel?
> 
> Oh and here is another question. *Who here believes that the government should be regulating what is done with privately owned firearms? Isn't this an infringement of rights?*


No, the government should not be regulating these issues, it's none of their damn business what I choose to do with my personal firearms.  So yes, AFAIK, it's an infringement of rights.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jul 8, 2006)

firearms regulation is due to the fact criminals have exploited the use of short barrel shotguns.  to the BATF, there is no plausible reason for the average citizen to own a shotgun with a barrel shorter than "normal".  really, WTF are you going to do with a weapon that short.  home defense is the only explanation.  you sure as hell aren't going to hunt effectively with it.  then again, if its for home protection, why tell anyone...?  it belongs in the home and that's where it should stay.  a shotgun with a shorter barrel is simply not effective for the reasons the law allows, hunting.

infringement?  perhaps.  the matter is in your elected officials' hands, eh?

i own several AR-15 .223 semi-auto rifles, of which the shortest barrel is 16".  i personally wouldn't want it any shorter.  trading shot group for manuverability is a waste.  why?  want something shorter, buy a sidearm.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jul 9, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> firearms regulation is due to the fact criminals have exploited the use of short barrel shotguns. *to the BATF, there is no plausible reason for the average citizen to own a shotgun with a barrel shorter than "normal".* really, WTF are you going to do with a weapon that short. home defense is the only explanation. you sure as hell aren't going to hunt effectively with it. then again, if its for home protection, why tell anyone...? it belongs in the home and that's where it should stay. a shotgun with a shorter barrel is simply not effective for the reasons the law allows, hunting.


And that is exactly the "reasoning" with which I have a problem. Not having a "plausible reason" for something shouldn't be enough to make it illegal. This is the same "reasoning" that was/used to defend the "assault-weapons" ban that [thankfully] died a couple of years ago. I mean, let's extrapolate that "logic" a little. Ferrarri's, Porsches, and Lamborghini's (sp?) should be illegal because no one needs a car that will do over 175...pretty absurd huh? Of course, it's the BATFE, what can you expect from a bunch of facist storm-troopers (no offense to the facist storm-troopers out there )


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 10, 2006)

> really, WTF are you going to do with a weapon that short. home defense is the only explanation. you sure as hell aren't going to hunt effectively with it.


 
Some people have weapons simply for the sake of defensive purposes.  They don't need any justification, and especially don't need to be hunters to defend themselves.  



> i own several AR-15 .223 semi-auto rifles, of which the shortest barrel is 16". i personally wouldn't want it any shorter. trading shot group for manuverability is a waste. why? want something shorter, buy a sidearm.


 
That's your opinion, and I respect it.  I don't necessarily disagree with all of it, but you would probably be surprised at how effective a 14.5" barrel can be.  After all, the military seems to like its performance, even at 200 yards, and a 5.56 mm bullet coming from that barrel is going to be more effective than any common handgun caliber.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jul 26, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> WTF are you going to do with a weapon that short.  home defense is the only explanation.  you sure as hell aren't going to hunt effectively with it.  then again, if its for home protection, why tell anyone...?  it belongs in the home and that's where it should stay.  a shotgun with a shorter barrel is simply not effective for the reasons the law allows, hunting.



Actually, the 2nd amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting.  Even the anti-gun constitutional scholars agree on that.  And the fact it's an individual right.

JeffJ


----------

