PDA

View Full Version : Wooden Shoulder Stock For Broomhandle - Question


gjw
May 8, 2012, 05:50 AM
Hi all, just was wondering, does anyone know if those repro stocks you see on e-bay and elsewhere (the Chinese ones) will fit a M30 Broomhandle?

Not to concerned about using it as a holster, but as a shoulder stock.

Thanks so much!!!

Greg

gyvel
May 8, 2012, 08:27 AM
They'll fit, but the illogical reversal of BATF's position on repro stocks makes them verboten on guns.

madcratebuilder
May 8, 2012, 08:45 AM
They'll fit, but the illogical reversal of BATF's position on repro stocks makes them verboten on guns.

The BATF is going to be very busy as there are thousands of repro C96 stocks being used today.

They do make great holsters.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/C96/c9603.jpg

Awkward shoulder stocks.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/C96/c96002.jpg

Better as a display piece.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/c96001cased.jpg


Would new wood with original steel be a repro? Original wood with replacement steel?

gyvel
May 9, 2012, 05:14 AM
The BATF is going to be very busy as there are thousands of repro C96 stocks being used today.

That may be, but the fact of the matter is that it is still a violation of the NFA.

And, you'll notice I said illogical reversal of their origninal ruling.

James K
May 9, 2012, 10:45 PM
I am confused. Their original ruling was that a shoulder stock pistol was a short barrel rifle and was illegal to possess if not registered as such. That was pretty much in conformity to the original 1938 law. When the law was changed to give BATFE more power to make changes, specifically to define curios and relics, they ruled that a pistol with a shoulder stock was no longer an SBR and thus under the NFA, but a C&R item and no longer under the NFA IF the shoulder stock was original. They did not require that it be original to the gun, only that it be of about the same time and the same type originally issued with the gun.

So far, that has satisfied the antis in Congress while allowing legitimate collectors to have original guns with contemporary stocks.

Perhaps I am paranoid, but I am afraid that if the gates are opened too wide, so that Glocks, say, can be fitted with shoulder stocks, the gun ban gang will set up a dozen mass killings with shoulder stock pistols, and we will be in deep doodoo again.

Jim

gyvel
May 10, 2012, 02:55 AM
Jim, not long ago, BATF reversed (illogically, as I stated) their ruling and stated that the shoulder stock must be an original issue stock and not a clone or replica. (At least that's how I understand it.)

In other words, your Mauser Broomhandle was fine if it had an original German manufactured stock, but NOT legal with a Chinese replica. Ditto for Luger replica shoulder stocks, and replica Chinese Inglis Hi-Power shoulder stocks.

Also, to further compound the confusion, a Canadian Inglis shoulder stock would NOT be legal on a Belgian Hi-Power and vice versa, even though they are both "original" stocks and fit either gun. Likewise, a Naval Luger stock cannot be used on an Artillery, etc., etc.

As an editorial rant, I still cannot fathom how an agency that was originally created to enforce taxation regs got to be such a high powered law enforcement agency, given their utter incompetence.

It's really a pity that complacency more or less defines the American public; It seems that, if enough people made a stink and threatened the "jobs" of their elected "representatives," BATF could cease to exist altogether, or at least be relegated to their original purpose, i.e. to collect taxes.

I guess one can always dream...

Gunplummer
May 10, 2012, 08:11 AM
I would not worry about where the stock came from. The BATF has issues in Mexico right now.

gyvel
May 10, 2012, 08:24 AM
I would not worry about where the stock came from. The BATF has issues in Mexico right now.

That's the reality of the situation. Sorta like the speed limit on the highway. It only matters if you get caught. LOL!

BlueTrain
May 10, 2012, 08:32 AM
I don't know about the reproductions but I had an orginal one with a pistol when I was living overseas. The US has relatively conservative gun laws, you know. Anyhow, as far as using it as a shoulder stock, I was mightily unimpressed with mine. The problem was that the fit was poor, resulting in a wobble. While it probably helped some with shooting at longer ranges, not that I had that opportunity, a tight fit would have been better.

On the other hand, what I had must have been at least fifty years old and I'm not as tight as I used to be either.

James K
May 12, 2012, 11:25 PM
"It only matters if you get caught."

True with any violation of the law. But the trouble with even those "minor" kinds of violations, it only takes one zealous ATF agent, eager for promotion, and a U.S. Attorney who hates gunowners and wants to impress his boss, and some poor slob ends up in jail for years. Every one of those minor "crimes" is a federal felony and folks can not only go to prison but lose the right to own any gun forever.

Not really worth it just to play with a forbidden "toy".

FWIW, I have a stocked Red 9, and had a stocked BHP. I have fired stocked 7.63 Mausers and .45 pistols and other handguns with stocks. IMHO, they are all much overrated, not a lot steadier or more accurate than a simple two-hand hold. One big drawback, except on a range, is that the pistol muzzle ends up only a few inches from the left ear, and the blast from a 9mm, 7.63mm or .45 is pretty bad without hearing protection. The Broomhandle is marginally better because of the longer stock and barrel, but it is still bad.

Jim

James K
May 12, 2012, 11:47 PM
Hi, Gyvel,

No, they never stated that any shoulder stocked pistol was legal; some folks thought and wrote that, but it was never official and was never finalized.

Your assessment of the current situation is correct. But they went directly from "stocked pistols are SBR's" to "stocked pistols are C&R and no longer NFA IF the stock is original". That is not too inconsistent, since it is on the same lines as other C&R definitions, like a K.98k with a sporter stock is not a C&R since the gun is not in original condition. So actually, BATFE relaxed the original ruling, not tightened it. Too late, of course, for the original Mauser and Luger stocks that were destroyed or had the "iron" welded up or smashed or the guns that had stock lugs or slots ground off or welded up.

I registered a pre-war BHP with an Inglis stock during the 1968 amnesty, just as an SBR (pistol with stock). Several years ago, I sold that gun, with the stock, to a friend. We did the usual Form 4 paperwork and paid the tax. THEN he told me that he had an original BHP pre-war stock, made by FN. I pointed out, too late, that if he had just given me the Belgian stock, I could have put it with the gun, asked that the gun be removed from the NFRTR because it had the original stock, and saved both the Form 4 trouble and $200. Oooops!.

Jim

Bear River
May 20, 2012, 12:11 AM
These pistols with Repro. stocks are openly sold at gun shows. It would seem that some one would be arrested. The dealers always claim they are legal. They are not if they read the law. :)

gyvel
May 20, 2012, 07:15 AM
"It only matters if you get caught."

True with any violation of the law. But the trouble with even those "minor" kinds of violations, it only takes one zealous ATF agent, eager for promotion, and a U.S. Attorney who hates gunowners and wants to impress his boss, and some poor slob ends up in jail for years. Every one of those minor "crimes" is a federal felony and folks can not only go to prison but lose the right to own any gun forever.

That was exactly my point. If you want to play the odds, be prepared to pay the consequences.

James K
May 20, 2012, 07:17 PM
Re: stocks sold at gun shows:

Yes, those stocks are perfectly legal to buy and own -- just as long as you don't have the pistol the stock fits. So the dealers tell the prospective buyer the truth, but not the whole truth. If the suc... er, discerning customer gets in trouble, that is not the dealer's fault, is it?

Jim