Alright, /k/, humor me. If you took a .410 bore shotgun and

It's a slug gun.

What the receiver was manufactured as.

>>32484881
>only shot sabot slugs through it

The kind of ammo you feed through something doesn't determine what it is. You could jam your shotgun with 9mm and that doesn't make it a 9mm, and you could only eat garbage from the trash can and that still wouldn't make you a raccoon.

>rifled barrel
Then it's a rifle that uses retarded expensive cases. Pump action rifles are a thing. They also shoot the same ammo for a fifth of the cost.

>>32484881
It's the ability to fire multiple projectiles at once that makes it a shotgun. Just because you are not using that ability doesn't make it not exist

File: shot45.png (272KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 500x375px

>>32487700
>it appears we are at an impasse

>>32484881
I've been thinking about this for a while, and then it hit me. Rifles are longarms that use cartridges without wads, and shotguns are longarms that use cartridges with wads. I feel that might be the most elegant definition between the two, better than the ATF's retarded 'what receiver it was made on' and 'how many projectiles it can fire at once' shit.

>>32488030
I have some of these in treefiddyseven. Fun shit.

>>32488030
Those were not intended originally to be used in that firearm. I know there are explosive shotgun shells (slugs) that doesn't make your shotgun a grenade launcher as it was not designed for that purpose.

File: atf-at-the-range.jpg (27KB, 701x524px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 701x524px

>>32484881

Don't give the ATF any ideas dude.