If anyone mails me a .500S&W cartridge I'll drill out

File: 18-44-20-234px-JoseAntonioFEJONS.jpg (17KB, 234x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 234x300px

Spoiler alert: It will explode

>>34434052
Hence 'grenade'

>>34434065
Do you really have a spare hand ?

>>34434080
I've got a shooting bench and string

>>34434038
use a break open 12g for the rest,
>>34434080
no op, there are such things as strings anon

File: 21-49-33-rare_disgusted_pepe_by_fazboggle-d99hz9k.jpg (101KB, 1024x904px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x904px

>>34434099
>>34434085
>>34434099
>>34434085
>poorfag that can't spend 50$ on a box of bullets
>Waste a rifle
???

>>34434116
>Waste a rifle

It's a black powder rifle that is more trouble than it's worth. Plus no one has ever done it before, should be some serious views

>>34434038
Hey, I liked this thread the first time - when somebody else posted it three months ago. We told the last guy that doing that would be a federal firearms-related felony (which it is), but that wouldn't matter much after he blew his hands off (which he would).

>>34434148
>We told the last guy that doing that would be a federal firearms-related felony (which it is),

It's perfectly legal to make a gun out of a pipe and you don't even have to fill out a 4473 to buy a black powder rifle

File: 1469754496642.jpg (29KB, 526x303px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 526x303px

>>34434116

>>34434166
>It's perfectly legal to make a gun out of a pipe and you don't even have to fill out a 4473 to buy a black powder rifle
The fact that you don't have to fill out a 4473 to buy a black powder rifle is *why* it's illegal to modify it to shoot a modern cartridge. You're turning a gun from a class that doesn't require a background check into a gun from a class that does, and unfortunately for you, the ATF is clever enough to have thought of that loophole.

>>34434225
Dude, you can literally, and legally, make a gun out of a piece of pipe from the hardware store

>>34434134
>Plus no one has ever done it before

Are you from Sons of Guns?

>>34434225
There is nothing illegal about manufacturing your own firearms, only if you intend to distribute. Hence why those .22lr conversion barrels for flare guns are perfectly legal. Stop talking about shit you don't know anything about.

>>34434225
Lol they seriously sell cartridge conversion kits for black powder handguns, no paperwork required

>this is who you argue with on /k/

>>34434241
>Dude, you can literally, and legally, make a gun out of a piece of pipe from the hardware store
But you can't modify a black powder rifle to accept cartridges. I didn't say that federal gun laws made any sense (Why is a snub-nosed revolver perfectly legal, but a short-barreled rifle three times its length illegal?), I just said they are what they are.

>>34434268
>but you cant modify a black powder rifle to accept cartridges
Where are you getting this information

>>34434038
all i got is 50bmg

>>34434263
>Lol they seriously sell cartridge conversion kits for black powder handguns, no paperwork required
Learn the law. Modifying the receiver so that a black powder gun can accept cartridges is illegal. Those cylinders are legal because you aren't modifying the receiver when you install them. As soon as you whip out your drill, you're a felon.

>>34434268
I also want a source on this

>>34434282
>Where are you getting this information
"As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16) the term 'antique firearm' means —

…
any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica —
is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘antique firearm’ shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon, which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof."

Modifying the receiver constitutes a "redesign" of the gun. In fact, there's even some question about whether one of those new cylinders is legal to install (as opposed to legal to sell, buy, or possess). It's one of those things that would hinge on a prosecutor's interpretation of the law - you could probably get away with it in Arizona, but I wouldn't chance it in New York or Massachusetts. But as for taking a drill to a black powder rifle, that's absolutely a felony.

>>34434369
>any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
>any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica

The gun in OP is neither antique nor a replica of an antique

Also, that's just defining the terms, it says nothing about a conversion being illegal

>>34434369
>But as for taking a drill to a black powder rifle, that's absolutely a felony.

No.

>>34434369
wowitsfuckingnothing.png

>>34434392
>The gun in OP is neither antique nor a replica of an antique
Legally, yes it is. Read the whole thing over again. Part of the definition of the term "antique" is: "any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition". This is why you don't need to fill out a 4473 to buy a modern black powder muzzleloader.

>>34434439
It says a replica of anything made before 1898 and that post still says nothing about a conversion being illegal

>>34434445
>It says a replica of anything made before 1898 and that post still says nothing about a conversion being illegal
OMG the fucking lack of reading comprehension here! Yes, as I said above, a modern black powder muzzleloader is legally an "antique", (that's why the word "or" is so important in this law - it's defining multiple categories of guns that are legally "antiques") and yes, it's a felony to "redesign" it to use modern ammunition.

>>34434479
> or any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph A

>replica

That means specifically a replica of guns made before 1898

>>34434479
>yes, its a felony to redesign it to use modern ammunition
You have yet to post proof of this

File: 1494654070593.jpg (44KB, 427x451px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 427x451px

>>34434038
>this whole fucking thread and most of K too

>>34434510
>>34434501
>That means specifically a replica of guns made before 1898
Okay, I see the problem here, which is that whatever shit-tier public school you went to never got around to teaching you what the word "or" means. Look it up and try reading that law again. You'll see that it defines an antique as a firearm made before 1898, OR a replica of one, OR as "any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition".

I guess they don't teach this stuff anymore, but this may help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AyjKgz9tKg

File: Screenshot_20170625-004516.png (689KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 720x1280px

>>34436502
It is not illegal to manufacture your own firearms (so long as they're NFA compliant and you dont sell them), which is what you'd be doing by permanently modifying a black powder rifle to use smokeless cartridges. Stop being autistic.

>>34436838
>you dont sell them
You can sell them, you just can't be "in the business of" selling them. They must also have the manufacturer's information and a serial number.

>>34436838
>It is not illegal to manufacture your own firearms (so long as they're NFA compliant and you dont sell them), which is what you'd be doing by permanently modifying a black powder rifle to use smokeless cartridges. Stop being autistic.
Again, I don't claim that the law is consistent or makes sense. I just claim that it is what it is. Redesigning a black powder gun so that it takes cartridges is explicitly illegal. That's what the law says. If you don't like it, call your congressman.

>>34437108
>Redesigning a black powder gun so that it takes cartridges is explicitly illegal. That's what the law says
Post the law then where it explicitly says this

>>34437108
>I just claim that it is what it is
SO POST PROOF TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS

File: ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.png (261KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1366x768px

>>34437108
oh no, I guess this company is blatantly breaking the law according to you

>>34434225
You're an idiot. Please keep that in mind next time you have something to say. Maybe a disclaimer.

>>34437145
I did.
>>34437422
>>34437468
And I've already answered both of these points.

You being too lazy to read what I wrote does not represent a flaw in my argument. I'm not going to waste time responding any further to people who simply can't be bothered to read what I've already posted. You've made clear that you don't want to believe that making this modification is illegal, and nothing I do - including posting the text of the law where it specifically says so - is going to convince you. So do whatever the hell you want, but don't say I didn't warn you.

>>34437563
You didn't post anything regarding the legality of converting a black powder firearm to smokeless cartridges. You posted the legal definition of an antique firearm. Did you even read your "source"?

>>34437563
>making this modification is illegal
>>34437108
>modifying a black powder rifle to use smokeless cartridges

I fail to see how this could possibly be illegal when this product >>34437468 is available for sale

>>34437563
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x6xJADNOiE

>>34437563
>And I've already answered both of these points.
>You being too lazy to read what I wrote does not represent a flaw in my argument. I'm not going to waste time responding any further to people who simply can't be bothered to read what I've already posted. You've made clear that you don't want to believe that making this modification is illegal, and nothing I do - including posting the text of the law where it specifically says so - is going to convince you. So do whatever the hell you want, but don't say I didn't warn you.

Thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt you're a fucking retard with nothing of value to add.

>>34437563
no, you posted an excerpt detailing the legal definition of something, not an excerpt "where it specifically says so", you nonce

File: HenryMare-630x339.jpg (37KB, 630x339px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 630x339px

>>34437598
Again, read the fucking post. The whole thing. Without skipping. I know it's hard. But I believe in you - I know you can get through all of it.
>>34437613
That's because you're a teenager and still believe that our country's laws make sense or are consistent. I'm sorry to disillusion you, but it just isn't so. Our laws are bullshit made up by slick-talking hacks who get power by making nitwit voters feel good. Why is an AR illegal in California but a Mini-14 - which does the exact same thing - legal? Why is pic related illegal under the NFA while my little snub-nosed LCR that's a third of its size and weight is perfectly legal? It doesn't make any sense, but that doesn't stop it from being what the law says.

>>34437694
Okay, last time:

"any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) >>>>>>>IMPORTANT PART HERE!!! PAY ATTENTION TO THIS>>>>>if such replica —
is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition<<<<<<<<<<<<<<THAT WAS THE IMPORTANT PART THAT SHOWS WHERE IT'S ILLEGAL TO MODIFY ANTIQUE FIREARMS TO ACCEPT CARTRIDGES

Then >>>>>>>>>>>>IMPORTANT PART HERE!!! PAY ATTENTION TO THIS, TOO>>>>>or
any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition.<<<<<<<<<<<<THIS IS THE PART THAT DEFINES ANY BLACK POWDER MUZZLELOADER AS AN "ANTIQUE" FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW. THE "OR" IS REALLY KEY HERE, SO PAY ATTENTION TO IT.

>>34437563
>when you're dumb as fuck but are convinced everyone else is

>>34437710
>Why is an AR illegal in California but a Mini-14 - which does the exact same thing - legal?
BECAUSE THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY NAMED IN THE BAN LIST AND ARE THEREFORE BANNED BY LAW
>Why is pic related illegal under the NFA while my little snub-nosed LCR that's a third of its size and weight is perfectly legal?
BECAUSE IT HAS A STOCK

>It doesn't make any sense, but that doesn't stop it from being what the law says.

NFA RULING DECISIONS ASIDE, YOU SEEM TO BE CONFUSING DEFENITIONS WITH LEGAL WORDING
IF A COMPANY OFFERED CONVERTED BLACKPOWDER FIREARMS FOR SALE (WHICH SOME DO), THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN FFL
IT WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO OFFER THESE PRODUCTS, UNLESS THEY SHIPPED THEM DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMER IN SUCH A CONFIGURATION

TO USE AN ANALOGY, IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR A COMPANY TO SELL COMPLETE LOWERS AS 80%. BUT IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO MODIFY (FINISH) 80% LOWERS TO BE COMPLETE YOURSELF
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO MODIFY OR MANUFACTURE FIREARMS AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN
YOUR READING OF THE LAW IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT, BUT IN BAD FAITH NOW THAT YOU ARE DOUBLING DOWN ONCE YOU'VE BEEN PROVEN INCORRECT

GOD DUDE JUST GO BECOME A FUCKING ATF AGENT

HURRR UR GONNA BREAK DA LAW

YEAH AND I SMOKED A BLUNT ON THE WAY TO THE GUN RANGE WITH MY ILLEGALLY TRANSPORTED FIREARMS, WHO THE FUCK CARES!

>>34437778
Well, what I'm convinced of is that people here have so little reading comprehension and attention span that they're incapable of connecting two ideas together if they're in different paragraphs in the same passage. Again, I've shown where OP's rifle is defined as an "antique" for purposes of law, and I've shown where modifying an "antique" to take cartridges is illegal. At this point, anyone who's too stupid to comprehend this isn't worth arguing with anymore.

>>34437710
I give up. Please seek professional help.

>>34437777
>THIS IS THE PART THAT DEFINES ANY BLACK POWDER MUZZLELOADER AS AN "ANTIQUE" FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW
so? he'd converting it into a 'legal' firearm. That's not illegal in any sense
you seem to think it is for some reason

>>34437815
>>Why is an AR illegal in California but a Mini-14 - which does the exact same thing - legal?
>BECAUSE THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY NAMED IN THE BAN LIST AND ARE THEREFORE BANNED BY LAW
>>Why is pic related illegal under the NFA while my little snub-nosed LCR that's a third of its size and weight is perfectly legal?
>BECAUSE IT HAS A STOCK
Does it physically hurt to be this stupid? I mean, to miss points this badly? Yes, I know what the law says. The entire fucking point was that the law says those things, but that it doesn't make any sense that they do. It doesn't make any sense that an LCR is legal, but a Mare's Leg that's three times its size and weight and thus much harder to conceal is illegal. It doesn't make any sense that a Mini-14 is illegal, but an AR that does the exact same thing is illegal. Saying that the law makes sense because it's the law is circular logic, and not being able to see that is the kind of massive stupidity that I've come to expect from you in this thread.

>>34437815
this

>>34437777
No, it shows that modifying an antique to use cartridges makes it no longer an antique. If the resulting firearm is otherwise legal to own, no law is broken. It simply is no longer an antique and is subject to the laws pertaining to modern firearms.

>>34437830


tl;dr

Get your autism meds.

>>34437840
>so? he'd converting it into a 'legal' firearm. That's not illegal in any sense
Yes, it is. I've posted the relevant law over and over again, and at this point you're either too stupid to comprehend it or just don't want to believe it. Again, do whatever the hell you like - just don't say I didn't warn you.

>>34437910
Please read>>34437815

>>34437938
>Please read>>34437815
I did. It was incoherent bullshit that changed nothing. Again, I posted the law. It seems some people here choose not to believe it. Fine. Take your chances. Like I said, just don;t say I didn't warn you.

>>34437910


>look at me im so smart im saving you from non-crimes!

KYS.

>>34437563
AUTISM
U
T
I
S
M

File: marenew[1].jpg (366KB, 2460x750px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 2460x750px

>>34437874
>Yes, I know what the law says. The entire fucking point was that the law says those things
YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT, AS YOU ARE ARGUING THAT CONVERTING A BLACKPOWDER FIREARM TO A MODERN FIREARM IS ILLEGAL BASED SOLELY BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF AN ANTIQUE FIREARM
>The entire fucking point was that the law says those things, but that it doesn't make any sense that they do
YOU ARE SHIFTING THE GOALPOSTS. CHANGING YOUR ARGUEMENT, WHICH WAS THAT CONVERTING A BLACKPOWDER GUN IINTO A FIREARM WAS ILLEGAL, WHICH IT IS NOT
>doesn't make any sense that an LCR is legal, but a Mare's Leg that's three times its size and weight and thus much harder to conceal is illegal.
I WILL HUMOR THE TANGENT YOU ARE GOING OFF ON: YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD BE MUCH MORE COMPELLING IF YOU HAD COMPARED SHORT BARRELED RIFLE 'MARES LEG' TO PIC RELATED INSTEAD OF COMPARING IT TO A REVOLVER. THE REASON THAT IT IS ILLEGAL IS SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE STOCK, BECAUSE THAT CONFIGURATION IS EXPLICITLY BANNED BY THE NFA.
>It doesn't make any sense that a Mini-14 is illegal, but an AR that does the exact same thing is illegal
LAST I CHECKED WE WERE DISCUSSING IF SOMETHING WAS ILLEGAL, NOT IF THE LAW MADE SENSE
>Saying that the law makes sense because it's the law is circular logic, and not being able to see that is the kind of massive stupidity that I've come to expect from you in this thread.
AGAIN, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING IF THE LAWS MAKE SENSE OR NOT, WE ARE DISCUSSING IF CONVERTING AND OR MANUFACTURING A CARTRIDGE FIREARM IS LEGAL OR NOT
PROTIP: IT IS NOT ILLEGAL

>>34438019
It's had to be a troll at this point.

Guys I think Zed is anon posting

>>34438051
Nah, this is a level of shiposting even he would be ashamed of

>>34438049
I REALIZE THIS, HOWEVER THIS IS HOW I GET MY JOLLIES

File: DSCN3572.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Mail the gun to me and I will hike up one of our mountains, stab the barrel in the ground, and hang an American flag off it. Then I will set up an LED to shine at it at night.

>>34437710
>Why is pic related illegal under the NFA
It's not illegal. It just needs to be registered. Moron.

>>34437710
>Why is pic related illegal under the NFA while my little snub-nosed LCR that's a third of its size and weight is perfectly legal?
Because handguns were originally going to be Title II firearms.

>>34438087
If you leave garbage there I'm going to sodomize you with it.

>>34438428
People really need to realize how much of a fucking retard Roosevelt

File: rock push.webm (2MB, 940x529px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 940x529px

>>34438920
please try

>>34434263
You have to order conversion parts through an ffl.

>these are the noguns you have to argue with on /k/

>>34439089
I mail ordered a conversion kit for my 1858, no ffl needed

>>34439117
He's shitposting drop it

>>34438933
He was a total anti American shitbag.