View Full Version : C96 shoulder stock
April 6, 2009, 12:00 AM
I am confused. I thought a C96 with a shoulder stock was legal. I read on another forum where you must have an SBR Permit?? What about the Artillery Luger?
It was stated that these guns with stocks were OK after 1981 but the law changed again in 1998. There are a number of firms selling these stocks without warnings. What are the facts. THX:confused:
April 6, 2009, 12:03 AM
I'm not a lawyer or an expert, but I think they are old enough to be a "curio & relic", and thus allowed under that classification.
I think there are some "trapper" lever actions that fall into that deal also, that would otherwise be SBRs.
April 6, 2009, 08:15 AM
Some are antiques also.
I know they are legal and it has something to do with their age.
If they lack the stock I believe it can be replaced with one meant to look like the original without voiding the C+R classification.
April 8, 2009, 06:38 PM
Broomies and Lugers are fine with no Stamp b/c of C&R status. Something modern like a Glock would require a Stamp.
April 10, 2009, 08:53 PM
redwing 40: I am confused. I thought a C96 with a shoulder stock was legal. I read on another forum where you must have an SBR Permit?? What about the Artillery Luger?
It was stated that these guns with stocks were OK after 1981 but the law changed again in 1998. There are a number of firms selling these stocks without warnings. What are the facts. THX
Was this what you saw on another forum?
The thread was in reference to the legality of attaching a reproduction stock to certain handguns.
dogtown tom Quote:
doubs43 :..Reproduction stocks ARE legal for the C-96, Browning Hi-Power and the Luger...
Reproduction stocks are NOT legal for attachment to the Mauser C96, Browning Hi Power or Luger unless you hold a SBR tax stamp.
Current ATF regs say it has to be an original stock. As of 1999 a reproduction/replica/copy is an NFA violation unless you have a SBR tax stamp.
Only certain 96 Mauser, Lugers and HP's are exempt from the National Firearms Act. You can see the complete list at:http://www.atf.gov/firearms/curios/1...7/section3.pdf
It's getting harder and harder to tell an original from a copy. When the ATF ruled in 1981 that a replica stock holster was okay, quite a few very good copies were imported. Sportsman's Guide was selling Inglis HP wood stock copies last year for about $80 each. A genuine WWII vintage stock holster should run you at least $275-350.
ATF has issued conflicting "opinions" regarding replica stock/holsters.
I printed and keep both letters with my stocked Inglis.
From 1981 (said repros are okay):
From 1999 (said repros need $200 tax stamp):
****Only those Inglis Hi Powers with a Tangent rear sight are exempt from the NFA when a stock is attached. A number of fixed sight Inglis Hi Powers had a stock slot cut at the factory but ARE NOT exempt from the NFA.
April 12, 2009, 01:54 PM
Yes that is the post. I am still confused is it legal or not to attach a reproduction stock to a Luger or a C96. It seems from this post that it
April 12, 2009, 07:30 PM
redwing 40: Yes that is the post. I am still confused is it legal or not to attach a reproduction stock to a Luger or a C96. It seems from this post that it
Sorry, I don't know how to make it any more plain than I did in that post.
I highly recommend you contact your local ATF office if you intend to attach a reproduction stock to a Luger, Mauser or Hi Power.
April 12, 2009, 09:43 PM
AFAIK, all shoulder stock pistols over 50 years old WITH AN ORIGINAL SHOULDER STOCK have been removed from the purview of the NFA and classified as regular pistols as well as C&R. Note that being a C&R does NOT automatically remove a firearm from the NFA (a WWII Thompson SMG is a C&R, but still an NFA weapon).
I have a Mauser "red nine" (yes, original, not a Chinese fake) with an original shoulder stock. It had been registered, but when the ruling changed, I wrote BATFE specifically asking that the gun be removed from the NFRTR. I got a letter that it had been removed.
AFAIK, shoulder stock pistols newer than that, or older with a reproduction stock, are still under the NFA and must be registered.
January 11, 2013, 09:36 AM
The question is: how do I fill out the Form 4 for a SBR?
Many years ago I bought a C96. Before the rules changed, I bought a non-original shoulder stock from another dealer. Therefore I did not buy a complete SBR from a dealer who could help with the Form 4. Note: while I own the shoulder stock, at present I do not possess it (my daughter has it at her house in another city).
January 23, 2014, 07:15 PM
Having just bought a C96 I was looking into the stock issue.. and saddly the batf has YET again muddled the works with there FAQ.
"Q: If a person has a pistol and an attachable shoulder stock, does this constitute possession of an NFA firearm?
Yes, unless the barrel of the pistol is at least 16 inches in length (and the overall length of the firearm with stock attached is at least 26 inches). However, certain stocked handguns, such as original semiautomatic Mauser “Broomhandles” and Lugers, have been removed from the purview of the NFA as collectors’ items.
[26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11] "
One would then think that if c96 has been "removed from the purview of the nfa" then a Repro stock would be ok. BUT....
The C&R List states on page 38
Mauser, Model 1896 semiautomatic pistol accompanied by original German mfd. detachable wooden holster/shoulder stocks, all semiautomatic German mfd. variations produced prior to 1940, any caliber.
So.. the most restrictive reading would mean that ONLY a C96 with the original stock is C&R at all. So if its not C&R it is still NFA so a C96 with any stock other than an original would be a Short Barreled Rifle
The ATFE needs to update their FAQ..
January 23, 2014, 08:57 PM
SO, the obvious question, how do you tell an original stock from a reproduction?
January 23, 2014, 09:35 PM
The answer to that one is not easy; my response would be that "I can tell", but that obviously is neither a definitive ruling nor one that can be applied by others.
Mostly, the repros are quite crude and so poorly made that they are obvious. But if the stock looks good, and appears to be like those in the pictures, it should pass muster. Remember, BATFE can't be certain, either, so in most cases they would not take any action even if they suspected, unless the gun was actually used in a crime. The criteria of "original" is more to placate the anti-gunners than anything else. If BATFE says the change was only for old collectibles, they can't be accused of "allowing millions of easily concealable assassination weapons on the streets..."
January 29, 2014, 03:54 PM
Long ago (at least 15 years), I bought a C96 then a holster/shoulder-stock. The shoulder stock is like-new, well made, but has no markings whatever on it.
In 2012, I took our local citizen’s police academy course and got to know the course director, a master police officer in the crime prevention unit.
In January 2013, I heard that C96s with after market shoulder stocks (to quote James_K "I can tell") were SBRs. I gave the shoulder stock to my daughter to hold in her apartment since apparently having them in the same house made the combination de facto an SBR. I got my ATF Form 1. I asked my academy MPO if SBRs were legal locally and, if so, for help getting the Chief Law Enforcement Officer’s signature on the ATF form. He referred me to a local classic firearms dealer who said to him and to me, in an email: “Mauser Broomhandle pistols, as well as other curio & relic handguns (Lugers, Hi Powers, Nambus, etc) that were manufactured to be used with shoulder stocks are exempt from being registered as a SBR. Perfectly legal to own with the stock, and BATF would just send any applications back if he tried to register it.”
I believe from this blog and my own reading of the NFA (with changes), that the dealer has it wrong. However, I’m keeping my C96 “SBR.”
My lesson is, give it shot and keep the paperwork.
But to quote Alan Korwin: “It not what the law says, it’s what the jury says." i intend to keep a low profile.
January 29, 2014, 09:19 PM
This is something that has confused us for years. Back in the middle 60's I bought one of my first pistols, a "red' nine with shoulder stock from Pharr Firearms in downtown Atlanta. At the time I was told the only way I could have the stock with the gun was if the metal that attached the stock to the gun was removed which it was. Never got to shoot it as a pistol with a stock, only for storage.
Later, when I had my Class 3, I researched shoulder stocked weapons. To qualify as a C&R the stock had to be original. At the time I had a artillery Luger and Belgium Nazi marked high power with slot and tangent sight. I was told to get them legal with stock I had to get original stocks. The only way it was considered was that it had a number stamped on the metal that attached the stock to the pistol. At the time there were very few numbered stocks in the country. Then, there seem to be a few original stocks that came into the country, but they were consumed fast. Then the repos showed up as well as the cheap stocks for the 1911s.
Was told at one time, that the number on stock had to match the last numbers on the pistol. Later, it just had to have a number. Repos never had a number.
Wonder to this day, where the stock metal for my "red" nine went. I am sure it was like the parts for a m-2 carbine, never have all of them.
January 29, 2014, 11:04 PM
" Repos never had a number."
Neither dd many originals. AFAIK, that was never a BATFE position. But it was official that the metal had to be removed from the stock, or the stock lug welded up, so many stocks and guns were mutilated. BATFE is bad with things like that, since they take ad hoc positions and in many cases one writer has been told that something is legal while another was told the exact same thing was not.
It is well to remember that the old ATTD was part of the IRS, and that kind of thing is what IRS does routinely, which is what makes them so infuriating to tax attorneys, and allows them to be politicized since they don't have to go by prior rulings or give any reason for their positions.
January 29, 2014, 11:15 PM
so, essentially, if the stock doesn't look brand new, there is no way to tell if it isn't an original?
What if its been refinished? I have seen a refinished broomhandle that looks new. A refinished stock would look new, as well.
Not doubting your word, or your opinion, but seems to me "I can tell" in some cases, really can't tell for certain.
January 30, 2014, 10:34 PM
Six or seven years ago, Sportsmans Guide was selling "authentic" Canadian Inglis wooden stock/holsters for about $60each.
While it had the correct "Made in Canada" and "S.A. Ltd 1945" cartouches......it reeked of fresh shellac. What gave me the most convincing hint that it was a repro was the tiny "China" sticker stuck to the underside of the holster lid.
Be aware that ATF has issued multiple letters on repro stock holsters. One says they are fine, the latest says "original only", repros need a stamp.
January 30, 2014, 11:19 PM
Hi, 44AMP and folks.
How would I tell? The main thing I would go by is the wood (walnut) and color, second the workmanship, inside and out. I would expect to see the normal signs of aging on the spring, the hinge and the button metal. Also, the stock should fit the gun without being either too tight or sloppy and without signs of being filed or fitted. The cap should close and open easily, but fit snugly and without any misalignment. If there is a number, it should be in an old German font. Also, the gun should fit in the stock. That seems a bit obvious, but some repro stocks fail that test.
I am fairly sure a good repro could fool me, so I wouldn't know it was a repro. But the repros I have seen are very obvious and should not fool anyone familiar with the original.
As to a refinished stock looking new, I doubt that; it would look refinished, just as a refinished military rifle stock looks refinished.
It is a lot like repro guns. A good repro might fool me, but it would have to be darned good.
February 3, 2014, 09:31 AM
Ignore the anti-gun words and see what might be possible in Virginia:
Truth in lending: I believe in some restrictions but I also believe that people kill people and if they don't have guns, they will have pipe bombs. I also worry about policy-creep: one small restriction gets quietly amended then amended again until finally we have confiscation.
February 3, 2014, 02:51 PM
Just a note on one point:
"There are a number of firms selling these stocks without warnings."
There is no law against buying, selling or owning a shoulder stock, new or used, original or repro. What is illegal is possessing the stock and also possessing a handgun with a barrel under 16" to which it can be attached unless the combination is registered. (There are exceptions, already covered.)
So companies can make and sell shoulder stocks without the need to "warn" the buyer; it is up to the buyer to know and obey the law.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.