Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I have seen some great content online about black powder weapons. So would that extend to black powder revolvers? Is it the design or the year they were made?

It's three separate exemptions.

Firearms manufactured before 1898 are automatically considered antiques and legally unregulated at a federal level. That's date of manufacture, not design. Modern replicas of antiques are also exempted, provided they do not accept modern (still-in-production) ammunition. And lastly, muzzle-loading rifles, shotguns, or handguns that cannot be converted to centerfire ammunition are exempted.

So: Mosin-Nagant made in 1897, antique, can be shipped to your door with no background check. Mosin-Nagant made in 1899, modern firearm, follows all the normal rules. Modern replica of a Colt Dragoon, doesn't use cartridges, antique. Modern replica of an obscure pinfire revolver, uses obsolete ammunition, antique. Modern replica of a Colt 1873 in .45 Long Colt, not an antique. Original Colt 1873 in .45 Long Colt, antique. Modern replica of a Colt Dragoon with a centerfire conversion cylinder, not an antique- but neither the Dragoon itself (antique) nor the conversion cylinder (part) are legally regulated until you combine them.

Then states have their own laws enforced separately from federal law, so for instance, in New York you can purchase a black powder revolver since it is considered an antique, but if you also possess ammunition for it, then it's considered a handgun and requires a pistol permit.

Clear as crystal.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

I am currently trying to work out how smoothbore cannon can be used in home defence scenarios, hunting and recreational shooting. Not sure on the first, flushing game on the second, and showing off on the third?

Own a musket for home defense...

Forgive my utter ignorance. But how does one tell an 1897 made from an 1898 made, when production ran across those years?

I’m guessing serial number, where such records survive and serial numbers were stamped.

Most manufacturers actually helpfully put the year on the gun itself in addition to the serial number.

Serial numbers help, many times a year will be stamped, plus certain characteristics can help you guess around what year it might have been manufactured. Tracking precisely years according to serial numbers and gun types is a level of gun nerdism I am actually jealous of and wholeheartedly amazed at.

So what happens if you bought what you believed to be an 1897 in good faith, but it turns out it’s an 1899 somebody had tampered with? I’m hoping in such specific cases there’s room for benefit of the doubt?

Having interacted with US bureaucracy in the past - I would guess no room for anything sensible

Well, assuming you indeed got the wool pulled over your eyes then yeah probably nothing. But the mere fact that its been found out likely means that someone is in trouble for something else already.

This is one of those laws that people only get in trouble for if they're doing something else illegal as well.

I would not be surprised if nobody has ever done this so it remains a purely hypothetical scenario.

In France I'd probably say you're fine, if the gun is registered as a 1880 one but it is not, then for all intents and purposes from that point on it will be treated as such.

That doesn't mean that, as laws change regularly, its new category cannot be up or down graded to a more or less restrictive regime. Shooting ranges are normally (not always) notified and will let you know, if not, gunsmiths should when selling the gun over to someone else.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So what happens if you bought what you believed to be an 1897 in good faith, but it turns out it’s an 1899 somebody had tampered with? I’m hoping in such specific cases there’s room for benefit of the doubt?

Unless something substantial changed between years, if both the date stamp and serial is changed, then most of the time, the police can't tell the difference either.

I knew Dick Vandal down in Pittsburgh. Those who know, know.

Certainly for older rifles it would take an expert to tell if there was a fraudulent alteration made to the gun.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So what happens if you bought what you believed to be an 1897 in good faith, but it turns out it’s an 1899 somebody had tampered with? I’m hoping in such specific cases there’s room for benefit of the doubt?

At that point the buyer would have been the victim of fraud, because saying something is older than it is can have pretty big commercial implications. Duping someone into believing their 1937 Mauser C96 is from 1897 has some serious criminal liabilities, irrespective of firearms laws.

The thing is, how would one prove it wasn't from 1897? Some weapons don't have reliable serial number ranges, nor are they date stamped, so "best guess" is what applies.

And the more archaic, the better. The truth is that someone buying an antique, ludicrously long rifle isn't going to invite much government scrutiny unless they're doing something else with it that they shouldn't.

On another topic...

I've been offline for a few days, and I saw a reference to one of my posts and nomenclature. Here in the US, "battle rifle" is generally shorthand for: military surplus, 7.62x51mm caliber (or greater). That is, a rifle likely used "in battle" before the days of 5.56mm and other more modern cartridges. It also also usually semi-automatic (either by design, or required by law).

The descriptor thus applies to rifles like the M14 (or civilian M1A), CETME, G3, and FAL (and their variants). Think of it as "early Cold War vintage," which is a somewhat distinct class of firearms.

It's like wanting a bolt-action rifle from WW I and WW II - yes, there are some hard lines, but also a lot of overlap. The Commonwealth countries that didn't switch to the No. 4 - are those WW I or WWII rifles?

On such details firearms collectors waste endless hours.

I have also seen battle rifle widely used for the earlier M1 Garand, Soviet SVT rifles, and German G40/41/43 rifles. Essentially the same concept of semi-automatic with full powered rifle cartridge.

Then the arguments over FG42s...

I think it would be incorrect to apply the term backwards to WW2 era guns. Battle Rifle is a post-war term referring to rifle caliber self-loading infantry rifles, sometimes select fire, sometimes semi only, with detachable magazines.

I would say that true Battle Rifles, like the M14, Fal, etc... are definitely an extension of the WW2 semi-auto full caliber rifles like the M1 Garand, SVT, etc... But none of those weapons had all of the characteristics of the true Battle Rifles. They were what everyone eventually worked all the kinks out of and then they became Battle Rifles.

Honestly the only one which I think would check all the boxes would be the FG42. Full rifle caliber, box magazine fed, meant to be a primary weapon for the grunts and not a support weapon, etc... But it gets its own special place because it never got made in sufficient numbers.

I really hope someone eventually comes out with reproduction FG42s, because they really were excellent and I would love to have one.

I thought I saw a FG42 replica ages ago fired by TFBTV show. Had got no full auto mode unfortunately.

Plus a friend of mine fond one in Germany for some 7000 euros (no seriously), but I haven't checked back if it's still being sold.

Yes, there is someone who is/was working on replicas, but I dont think they are doing anything anymore.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think it would be incorrect to apply the term backwards to WW2 era guns. Battle Rifle is a post-war term referring to rifle caliber self-loading infantry rifles, sometimes select fire, sometimes semi only, with detachable magazines.

I would say that true Battle Rifles, like the M14, Fal, etc... are definitely an extension of the WW2 semi-auto full caliber rifles like the M1 Garand, SVT, etc... But none of those weapons had all of the characteristics of the true Battle Rifles. They were what everyone eventually worked all the kinks out of and then they became Battle Rifles.

Honestly the only one which I think would check all the boxes would be the FG42. Full rifle caliber, box magazine fed, meant to be a primary weapon for the grunts and not a support weapon, etc... But it gets its own special place because it never got made in sufficient numbers.

I really hope someone eventually comes out with reproduction FG42s, because they really were excellent and I would love to have one.

Seems a bit odd to me that under that definition you would exclude an SVT40 because it doesn't have selective fire, but would include the AVT variant which did. Especially as this had the same fate as the later NATO battle rifles in being limited back to semi-auto only as soon as everyone released how hard it is to make a useful full-auto battle rifle (I think pretty much only the FG42 pulled it off).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:I thought I saw a FG42 replica ages ago fired by TFBTV show. Had got no full auto mode unfortunately.

Plus a friend of mine fond one in Germany for some 7000 euros (no seriously), but I haven't checked back if it's still being sold.

Grey Templar wrote:Yes, there is someone who is/was working on replicas, but I dont think they are doing anything anymore.

I have encountered the opinion that the FG42 is not a gun that could be made today with modern safety tolerances- it slews too close to just strong enough. The designers got it just right. That may make it difficult to produce realistic replicas that are functional and safe to an acceptable degree for liability purposes.

If it is 1800s, then it is certainly covered by the C&R laws in the US, and therefor not an issue for registering/transporting/selling.

 Haighus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think it would be incorrect to apply the term backwards to WW2 era guns. Battle Rifle is a post-war term referring to rifle caliber self-loading infantry rifles, sometimes select fire, sometimes semi only, with detachable magazines.

I would say that true Battle Rifles, like the M14, Fal, etc... are definitely an extension of the WW2 semi-auto full caliber rifles like the M1 Garand, SVT, etc... But none of those weapons had all of the characteristics of the true Battle Rifles. They were what everyone eventually worked all the kinks out of and then they became Battle Rifles.

Honestly the only one which I think would check all the boxes would be the FG42. Full rifle caliber, box magazine fed, meant to be a primary weapon for the grunts and not a support weapon, etc... But it gets its own special place because it never got made in sufficient numbers.

I really hope someone eventually comes out with reproduction FG42s, because they really were excellent and I would love to have one.

Seems a bit odd to me that under that definition you would exclude an SVT40 because it doesn't have selective fire, but would include the AVT variant which did. Especially as this had the same fate as the later NATO battle rifles in being limited back to semi-auto only as soon as everyone released how hard it is to make a useful full-auto battle rifle (I think pretty much only the FG42 pulled it off).

I never said I was including the AVT over the SVT. Though I guess it would actually kinda fit the definition too. Though again I don't think being select fire is a requirement to be a battle rifle.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:I thought I saw a FG42 replica ages ago fired by TFBTV show. Had got no full auto mode unfortunately.

Plus a friend of mine fond one in Germany for some 7000 euros (no seriously), but I haven't checked back if it's still being sold.

Grey Templar wrote:Yes, there is someone who is/was working on replicas, but I dont think they are doing anything anymore.

I have encountered the opinion that the FG42 is not a gun that could be made today with modern safety tolerances- it slews too close to just strong enough. The designers got it just right. That may make it difficult to produce realistic replicas that are functional and safe to an acceptable degree for liability purposes.

I have never heard anything about the poor quality of FG42s. If anything I have heard the opposite. That they were made quite durably, if expensively which was the main drawback.

The main issue with replicating the FG42 is that the sheet metal stamping is expensive to set up, and the demand for reproductions might be too low to justify it. Though with PSA making their STG44 replicas maybe they'll try out the FG42 eventually.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think it would be incorrect to apply the term backwards to WW2 era guns. Battle Rifle is a post-war term referring to rifle caliber self-loading infantry rifles, sometimes select fire, sometimes semi only, with detachable magazines.

I would say that true Battle Rifles, like the M14, Fal, etc... are definitely an extension of the WW2 semi-auto full caliber rifles like the M1 Garand, SVT, etc... But none of those weapons had all of the characteristics of the true Battle Rifles. They were what everyone eventually worked all the kinks out of and then they became Battle Rifles.

Honestly the only one which I think would check all the boxes would be the FG42. Full rifle caliber, box magazine fed, meant to be a primary weapon for the grunts and not a support weapon, etc... But it gets its own special place because it never got made in sufficient numbers.

I really hope someone eventually comes out with reproduction FG42s, because they really were excellent and I would love to have one.

Seems a bit odd to me that under that definition you would exclude an SVT40 because it doesn't have selective fire, but would include the AVT variant which did. Especially as this had the same fate as the later NATO battle rifles in being limited back to semi-auto only as soon as everyone released how hard it is to make a useful full-auto battle rifle (I think pretty much only the FG42 pulled it off).

I never said I was including the AVT over the SVT. Though I guess it would actually kinda fit the definition too. Though again I don't think being select fire is a requirement to be a battle rifle.

You didn't, I was extrapolating from what you'd listed as criteria. If select fire isn't a requirement then the G43 would also fit the bill.

I agree these are inferior weapons though, they were definitely working out kinks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:I thought I saw a FG42 replica ages ago fired by TFBTV show. Had got no full auto mode unfortunately.

Plus a friend of mine fond one in Germany for some 7000 euros (no seriously), but I haven't checked back if it's still being sold.

Grey Templar wrote:Yes, there is someone who is/was working on replicas, but I dont think they are doing anything anymore.

I have encountered the opinion that the FG42 is not a gun that could be made today with modern safety tolerances- it slews too close to just strong enough. The designers got it just right. That may make it difficult to produce realistic replicas that are functional and safe to an acceptable degree for liability purposes.

I have never heard anything about the poor quality of FG42s. If anything I have heard the opposite. That they were made quite durably, if expensively which was the main drawback.

The main issue with replicating the FG42 is that the sheet metal stamping is expensive to set up, and the demand for reproductions might be too low to justify it. Though with PSA making their STG44 replicas maybe they'll try out the FG42 eventually.

Oh, I wasn't saying FG42s are poor quality, only that they are built close to the limit. The fact they are safe is a testament to their excellent engineering (by the final versions, the initial runs were prone to breaking under automatic fire and the design was continually tinkered with). However, the tolerances accepted in rolling them out were fine for a military in the 1940's (who would sue the Nazi goverment if their rifle blew up...?) but a modern company has to be pretty sure their replica doesn't cross that limit and be unsafe. It would add expense to setting up manufacturing that would make it less attractive to do.

They are essentially a light machine gun that is light enough to use as a standard rifle, yet still reasonably controllable with automatic fire. No one else seems to have managed to thread that needle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, looking at the issues the initial rifles had, there may be something of a survivorship bias in that the good examples have survived WWII with the ones built beyond tolerances failing early.

Just gonna leave this here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x6LibuC4N0

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Just gonna leave this here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x6LibuC4N0

Right at the beginning he talks about their being replicas available, and I think Ian even featured them on a different video.

The durability of surplus firearms is something of an interesting topic. In discussing the Lahti pistols, people usually offer cautions about their alleged fragility, but if you think about it, they're actually remarkably durable.

The famous incident where one of them suffered a catastrophic failure in is very much overblown. Those weapons had been in service for decades, and the Swedes were putting +P+ SMG rounds through them. Contrast that with the M9 (Beretta 92), which was having slides crack in a matter of months when using SMG loaded ammo.

Most of the Lahti's in the US are Swedish M40s that were issued to exiled Danes, then sold on the surplus market as soon as liberated Denmark could get their hands on the FN GP 35, so they're hardly at the end of their service life. But people insist the design is flawed, so everyone uses 9mm light loads.

Yeah, the FG42 is definitely an engineering marvel. It somehow being both easily controllable and light is somewhat miraculous.

I think Ian does mention it in that video or the main video on the FG42 but it is somewhat of an oddity that nobody adopted the FG42 after the war considering how good it really was. Even a derived gun making some improvements or using another caliber would have made a lot of sense.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, the FG42 is definitely an engineering marvel. It somehow being both easily controllable and light is somewhat miraculous.

I think Ian does mention it in that video or the main video on the FG42 but it is somewhat of an oddity that nobody adopted the FG42 after the war considering how good it really was. Even a derived gun making some improvements or using another caliber would have made a lot of sense.

Apparently the M60 is derived from it.

Again though I reckon this is a case of survivorship bias. If an FG42 is still floating around in working condition today, it was probably one of the good ones, and not one where the receiver cracked after using it for automatic fire in WWII which got replaced with an MP40.

 Haighus wrote:
Apparently the M60 is derived from it.

Again though I reckon this is a case of survivorship bias. If an FG42 is still floating around in working condition today, it was probably one of the good ones, and not one where the receiver cracked after using it for automatic fire in WWII which got replaced with an MP40.

It's also being fed the finest, premium ammunition and being meticulously maintained. No one is firing it to the point of overheating in a panicked skirmish.

The problem with the FG42 is that same as so many other German designs - complex, difficult to produce and therefore unsuitable to make by the million (or even half-million).

Post-war Allied arms experts saw it for what it was: a boutique weapon built by an eccentric regime obsessed with miracle gadgets.

I'm going to add that while I've enjoyed Ian's videos over the years, it's very clear that he doesn't really understand how the military works on an individual level. His weird effort to rehabilitate the Chauchat speaks volumes in this respect.

The 60 is derived from the MG34. Not the FG42. At All.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I thought I saw a FG42 replica ages ago fired by TFBTV show. Had got no full auto mode unfortunately.

Plus a friend of mine fond one in Germany for some 7000 euros (no seriously), but I haven't checked back if it's still being sold.

That's probably about right for the repro. Originals auction for $2-300K in the States.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The 60 is derived from the MG34. Not the FG42. At All.

Wikipedia claims the following:

The M60 machine gun began development in the late 1940s as a program for a new, lighter 7.62 mm machine gun. It was partly derived from German guns of World War II (most notably the FG 42 and the MG 42)

Do you have anything to back up your assertion that the above is wrong?

Edit: not saying I necessarily agree with Wikipedia, but they cite a couple of books and it seems like a reasonable claim for the furniture and stamping procedure to be derived from the FG42.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

I'm going to add that while I've enjoyed Ian's videos over the years, it's very clear that he doesn't really understand how the military works on an individual level. His weird effort to rehabilitate the Chauchat speaks volumes in this respect.

244000 in French service in WWI also speaks volumes? They were pretty effective in French use and better than only having Lebel and Berthier bolt-actions.

The poor 30-06 conversion does seem to be gak though.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I have never heard anything about the poor quality of FG42s. If anything I have heard the opposite. That they were made quite durably, if expensively which was the main drawback.

The main issue with replicating the FG42 is that the sheet metal stamping is expensive to set up, and the demand for reproductions might be too low to justify it. Though with PSA making their STG44 replicas maybe they'll try out the FG42 eventually.

I wonder if additive 3D printing using something like laser sintering can be used to resurrect these old firearms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

I'm going to add that while I've enjoyed Ian's videos over the years, it's very clear that he doesn't really understand how the military works on an individual level. His weird effort to rehabilitate the Chauchat speaks volumes in this respect.

I think very few commentators, and even entire gun cultures don't understand the role of an infantryman within a complex military system.

Rifles though are even harder given how much militaries have changed. A limited run 250,000 bespoke complex high performing rifles are now I think more doable given the small size of many armies compared to the high points of large conscript and volunteer armies. You just need (ha, as is we all have serious ones) a plan on how to do that mass if required. Probably today for a NATO nation that means something like an M4 given the large potential production capacity from all the different suppliers.

 Haighus wrote:
244000 in French service in WWI also speaks volumes? They were pretty effective in French use and better than only having Lebel and Berthier bolt-actions.

Yeah, it says the French were completely unprepared for the kind of war they got and lacked the industry to produce anything else.

See also Ruby pistols. Or, for that matter, Sten guns.

The poor 30-06 conversion does seem to be gak though.

The measure of the Chauchat's awfulness is how it was dumped on dirt-poor militaries and saw no evolutionary development. The Sten actually got some product improvement because the design had potential, and in due time became the Sterling.

Compare a Chauchat against any other LMG and it sucks. I recall a video when Ian was in the throes of his trying to prove it was somehow better at things than the BAR or Lewis gun, and when he switched from the Chauchat to the Lewis he unconsciously grinned at the superior experience and then tried to walk it back. Well yeah, Lewis guns didn't suck. BARs didn't suck. Chauchats did, and I think in his first experience of shooting one, he had all manner of problems and the owner grinned and said "Yeah, it's a piece of junk."

Small Arms of the World (9th edition) says that the M60 has the belt feed of the MG42 and the operating system of the FG42, but notes that the FG42 borrowed heavily from the Lewis gun.

Nobody borrowed from the Chauchat.