|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 16, 2000, 07:56 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2000
Posts: 340
|
Guys --
I have a HK/Benelli M1S90 with the pistol grip/shoudler stock. I know that installing 7 round mag tube is illegal on the post ban auto loader. But if I was to use a limiter to keep to it five rounds, would it be legal? I really like to the look of the full mag tube. [This message has been edited by Icopy (edited June 16, 2000).] |
June 16, 2000, 01:04 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 25, 1998
Posts: 719
|
I think not. That would be too intelligent for the government to ever allow (like a ban on mag cap. stops crime?).
|
June 16, 2000, 02:30 PM | #3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Is this some state law? I have never heard of a ban on extended mag tubes for shotguns. Fill me in?
|
June 16, 2000, 02:54 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 25, 1998
Posts: 719
|
Pistol grip stocked semi w/ more than 5 in the tube = BAD
Non pistol-grip semi w/ more than 5 in the tube = GOOD Per the 1994 revision of the GCA of '68 |
June 16, 2000, 02:55 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 21, 1999
Posts: 131
|
Well, if he \b{didn't} have the pistol grip on the gun, it would be legal to have the extended mag tube (at least here in California). However, if a semi-automatic shotgun has a mag capacity of more than 5 ruonds and it has a pistol grip, it's illegal.
|
June 16, 2000, 04:16 PM | #6 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Well that's just stupid. Of course that is a redundant statement, it's a gun law.
|
June 17, 2000, 01:10 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2000
Posts: 340
|
I know that as long as my M1S90 has the pistol grip stock, more than five rounds is illegal. But if I was to plug the 7 round mag tube to five rounds, then it would have the look of the 7 rounder, but only hold 5 rounds. Guess I'm calling the BATF in the morning.
|
June 17, 2000, 02:15 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 25, 1998
Posts: 719
|
The criteria is not easily modified, so you could unscrew the tube and pull the plug, hence easily modified. But, in a little more time, you could unscrew the buttstock and switch it to a non-PG config., so I don't get the ATF's point.
I suggest getting both buttstocks and switching as one sees fit. I could be all wet here, but these aren't any harder to change than a Remington are they (10 minutes work)? |
June 19, 2000, 10:25 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2000
Posts: 4,625
|
I want to do the same thing. Called ATF and they had to transfer me to an inspector. She didn't know, so she called Washington. They said that I should write them a letter telling them what I intend to do, and they would make a determination as to whether I
"can" do it. I don't think so. Dick |
June 19, 2000, 01:16 PM | #10 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 17, 2000
Posts: 46
|
If the plug is 'permanent', there shouldn't be a problem.
|
July 1, 2000, 10:59 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2000
Posts: 4,625
|
I think I may have arrived at a solution. Cut the three-round limiter rod to two rounds, and use a bit of the "liquid weld" stuff advertised on Paul Harvey's show. That should make it permanent enough, and still allow five shells. Maybe I'll run it past the head guy at our ATF office here. He's pretty friendly to gun owners, and I doubt he'd arrest me...for now, anyway.
Dick Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|