PDA

View Full Version : Rifle Definition - Mares Leg


dfletcher
08-16-2011, 8:50 PM
A "Mare's Leg" is a handgun built on a lever action type frame, typically a Winchester 1892 or 1894 type. Henry makes a version too. They are built and sold as a handgun, most have 10" to 12" barrels. Here's an example made by Rossi.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=247067395

I am buying one (single shot exemption) and have seen most folks fire them at eye level, either one handed or two handed but definitely not on the shoulder. Up to the eye, arm or arms extended out, elbows bent a bit.

Would atttaching a lanyard loop to the buttplate and using a sling hooked around one's shoulder - pushing, creating forward tension - cause this handgun to meet the definition of a rifle and as such, an SBR? A rifle is defined as being designed or redesigned, made or remade to be fired from the shoulder - does the sling and lanyard loop setup make that definition?

Maestro Pistolero
08-16-2011, 9:48 PM
How is it not an SBR as it is? It has a stock, does it not?

moleculo
08-16-2011, 10:14 PM
How is it not an SBR as it is? It has a stock, does it not?

I don't know that I agree with that assessment. It has a stock in the same manner that you can call the buffer tube on an AR pistol a stock. In either case, the only way you're going to use that "stock" is cheek weld. You don't use these lever action guns by holding them up against your shoulder.

The OP's question about adding a lanyard to the stock to create foward tension is no different than doing the same thing on an AR pistol. It doesn't turn the AR pistol into an SBR and I don't see how it does the same thing to this lever action gun.

69Mach1
08-16-2011, 10:21 PM
That is a pistol grip, not a butt stock.

bwiese
08-16-2011, 10:22 PM
Mare's leg-style legit pistol variants are not designed to be fired from shoulder and were not 'made from a rifle'.

The stock is not that protruding and the bulk of the hand mass 'uses up' that stock. A contortionist might be able to fire from the shoulder, but I can fire my S&W 686 revolver that way too.

The only issue in obtaining such a rifle is the Roster situation, and that is eminently handleable thru 12133PC single-shot exemption - dimensional compliance appears not to be an issue [I haven't measured so don't quote me on it.... appears Calgunner dfletcher has done his homework.]

Honestly I don't know about the sling situation you described. To me it's not, but a judge could think differently - esp since it's up there and is kinda-sorta 'using' the shoulder area.

Remember what happened to Mr. Rooney. He appears to have followed the Fed. standard for min. rifle length (26", measured with stock open) but CA SBR law was separate and independent, and judge ruled the min length was to be measured w/stock closed. This survived up the CA appeals chain a bit, and it's not a wobbler that can be 17(b)'d. [I have no idea what lawyer Rooney had or if a usable plea bargain was proffered/ignored, etc.]

djleisure
08-16-2011, 11:29 PM
Would atttaching a lanyard loop to the buttplate and using a sling hooked around one's shoulder - pushing, creating forward tension - cause this handgun to meet the definition of a rifle and as such, an SBR? A rifle is defined as being designed or redesigned, made or remade to be fired from the shoulder - does the sling and lanyard loop setup make that definition?
I can't see how that would be a problem - it's a sling NOT a butt stock. I use that method with my Draco and Troy sling and KAC handstop - works great!

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af189/dj_leisure/IMG_8387.jpg

Connor P Price
08-16-2011, 11:46 PM
Honestly I don't know about the sling situation you described. To me it's not, but a judge could think differently - esp since it's up there and is kinda-sorta 'using' the shoulder area.


So your thinking the legal argument would be that adding the sling redesigns what was once a pistol into something designed to be fired from the shoulder?

I would love to see that play out in court, but certainly not with someones freedom on the line.

cdtx2001
08-17-2011, 7:19 AM
Just put one of those shoulder things that go up on there, that'll fix it.

Anyhoo, I want one of those things sooooo bad. I watched Firefly enough times now and that's gotta be one of the coolest 357mag handguns around. Practical, no, but really cool.

dfletcher
08-17-2011, 8:01 AM
I can't see how that would be a problem - it's a sling NOT a butt stock. I use that method with my Draco and Troy sling and KAC handstop - works great!

http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af189/dj_leisure/IMG_8387.jpg

I'm trying to think like ATF, been years since I laid off the illegal chemicals so it's a bit of a challenge. But it seems the ATF letters have been coming fast & furious so I thought I'd do a little exploring.

I am mindful of ATF's creativity regarding machine guns, to include a rubber band.

What we're banking on is that a sling is not rigid - isn't that mostly what it comes down to? As I would configure in the OP, with a lanyard loop on the buttstock and the sling configured to loop about my shoulder, might the question not be "how is that NOT made to be fired from the shoulder?" Maybe we have to get into such things as a difference between "from the shoulder" and "off the shoulder".

Is there a difference between CA law and federal law?

I've owned T/C single shots for years, ATF paid mostly zero attention to the whole "handgun/ong gun" reconfiguration issue & the firearm's classification when sold frame only. ATF said nothing for 40 years. Along comes the "evil & dastardly" AR folks & in a few years ATF has taken an interest in the stripped receiver, changed the 4473, changed when a firearm becomes a long gun, reviewed kits and reconfiguration and then reconfiguration in general.

It seems to me the combination of the sling point on the rear, the sling remade to be looped about the shoulder (and let's throw in the hand stop up front on the forend because that indicates 2nd hand on the gun, yes?) it seems to me the opportunity, whether it's a Mare's Leg or an AR or AK, Sig 556 type, for the powers that be to assert the totality of the firearm is that of a rifle, and in this case an SBR.

I'm just wondering out loud, not advocating nor hoping ATF takes an interest. I'd like someone to definitely say "ther eason you're wrong is ......."

And yes, that thing looks neat as hell. Maybe next on "the buy" list for me.

bwiese
08-17-2011, 10:20 AM
Is there a difference between CA law and federal law?


They are separate bodies of law. 12020PC generally is the thou-shalt-nots for SBRs, SBSs, other evil guns and devices like trigger activators. 12200PC is the thou-shalt-nots for machineguns.

Even if these laws were worded identically, there's far, far less agency opinion letters, along with lack of much case law, on these California matters than there is for similar Fed matters. Things can go sideways easily in a busy metro court.

One of the reasons we've had successes in the AW field in California is precisely BECAUSE there's so much paperwork on file, because regulatory efforts had to have comment periods, etc, and because new gun laws were written so quickly they required a ton of clarification. We can thank our CA NRA legal team for getting those 3000+ pages of AW-related stuff that gives us a frame of reference. We just don't have that on other older material.

Perfect example is the Rooney case in CA for overall length. SBR definitions are, roughly speaking, the same in CA vs Fed law.

Mr. Rooney got popped on an SBR charge because his gun was under 26" when folded - even though it appears it was over 26" when open, and thus compliant with Fed standards. Even after appeal he was still guilty of SBR. (And this is not a wobbler charge resolvable a few years down the road with a 17(b).)

Yes, various Fed standards can 'inform' CA law in the courts. But sometimes - often, in fact - that takes good lawyering. I have no idea of the counsel that Rooney had and it could've been a public defender.

But in general it's best not to have a case named after you ;-)

My concern about the 'hoop sling' attached to a Mare's Leg pistol is that it somehow - though slightly but not completely contrived - makes it 'shoulderable' in some sense in the unexplored area of CA gun law.

Also, given constructive possession applies to SBRs in CA, if the above is a risk, then mere possession of such a hoop sling for a Mare's Leg - even separate and unattached from the gun - also is a risk.

Bruce
08-17-2011, 10:52 AM
I'm sorry but I don't see what the fuss is about. Many handguns have lanyard attachments that would allow the shooter to place tension against the lanyard during firing. Trying to stretch that scenario into the firearm suddenly becoming a rifle or even a "shoulder stocked " handgun is pretty far fetched. It would be far mor likely to have some ignorant copper try to arrest you for 12020 just because of the appearance of the Mare's Leg type of handgun; ie it looks like a sawed-off rifle there fore it is.

JagerTroop
08-17-2011, 11:35 AM
I'm sorry but I don't see what the fuss is about. Many handguns have lanyard attachments that would allow the shooter to place tension against the lanyard during firing...


I agree.

a Beretta 92 has a lanyard loop.

http://guns.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/495/media/images/1_117.jpg

as does a 1911

http://www.hyattgunstore.com/images/P/64709-P-02.jpg

a Glock

https://www.entrygear.com/productimages/BH%20pistol%20lanyard%20single%20swivel.jpg

and many, many others. I think you're good. Besides... doesn't the Mare's Leg have a lanyard/sling ring on the left side at the back of the receiver already?

(yes it does)
http://maresleg.com/new-mare1.jpg

dfletcher
08-17-2011, 12:03 PM
I agree.

a Beretta 92 has a lanyard loop.

http://guns.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/495/media/images/1_117.jpg

as does a 1911

http://www.hyattgunstore.com/images/P/64709-P-02.jpg

a Glock

https://www.entrygear.com/productimages/BH%20pistol%20lanyard%20single%20swivel.jpg

and many, many others. I think you're good. Besides... doesn't the Mare's Leg have a lanyard/sling ring on the left side at the back of the receiver already?

(yes it does)
http://maresleg.com/new-mare1.jpg

That's true, however I think details in this are important.

Regarding the lanyard loop on the Mare's Leg it is on the side, not the buttplate. I was considering adding on smack in the middle of the buttplate. Even if the lanyard loop on the side could be considered a sling point, it doesn't become an issue until a sling is crafted. The sling point or lanyard loop, on its own, is not the issue.

The sling is also important. None of those pictured is specifically configured to loop about the shoulder. The handguns pictured (with the exception of the Mare's Leg) are designed and made to be fired with one hand, none are in any way configured to be used with two hands. That's not the case with ARs and AKs.

Bill mentioned Constructive Possession - I was going to leave that alone, but he's as usual a few steps ahead of the rest of us. Again, I think that's where details matter. If one has an AR pistol with a sling point on the butt and a sling specifically configured for use on the shoulder only (and no AR long gun) I can see, taken to its conclusion, that CP could apply.

ATF could be very narrow and assert the sling point with a sling specifically configured for use on only the shoulder = SBR. Or they could be very broad SOBs and assert sling point with a sling that may be configured or reconfigured for use on the shoulder = SBR.

Kharn
08-17-2011, 1:32 PM
Shooting a large pistol with a sling over the shoulder stretched tight has been a technique for years, so has having a sling on a large pistol and gripping the forward part of the sling as if it were a vertical grip. The ATF has not written against either practice, but they did say a ~6" strap hanging from the front of a pistol would make it an AOW as it has no other use.

Bruce
08-17-2011, 2:26 PM
I might point out that the Remington XP-100 came with an attachment point at the rear of it's stock, below the rear of the receiver. There's a photo of Steve Herrett shooting one in a old 1960's issue of Gun Digest. He has the strap or sling over his shoulder,and around his back attached to the rear of the pistol. The modification does not remake it to be fired from the shoulder. If anything, a ring in the middle of the plate would make more difficult to fire from the shoulder. I think you've come up with a nonexistant issue.

ke6guj
08-17-2011, 2:35 PM
Shooting a large pistol with a sling over the shoulder stretched tight has been a technique for years, so has having a sling on a large pistol and gripping the forward part of the sling as if it were a vertical grip. The ATF has not written against either practice, but they did say a ~6" strap hanging from the front of a pistol would make it an AOW as it has no other use.I've seen this mentioned on forums in the past, but ahve never seen proof that ATF said that.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-17-2011, 4:02 PM
Mare's leg-style legit pistol variants are not designed to be fired from shoulder and were not 'made from a rifle'.

The stock is not that protruding and the bulk of the hand mass 'uses up' that stock. A contortionist might be able to fire from the shoulder, but I can fire my S&W 686 revolver that way too.

The only issue in obtaining such a rifle is the Roster situation, and that is eminently handleable thru 12133PC single-shot exemption - dimensional compliance appears not to be an issue [I haven't measured so don't quote me on it.... appears Calgunner dfletcher has done his homework.]

Honestly I don't know about the sling situation you described. To me it's not, but a judge could think differently - esp since it's up there and is kinda-sorta 'using' the shoulder area.

Remember what happened to Mr. Rooney. He appears to have followed the Fed. standard for min. rifle length (26", measured with stock open) but CA SBR law was separate and independent, and judge ruled the min length was to be measured w/stock closed. This survived up the CA appeals chain a bit, and it's not a wobbler that can be 17(b)'d. [I have no idea what lawyer Rooney had or if a usable plea bargain was proffered/ignored, etc.]

Maybe it should be considered a musical instrument? (Watch to the very end for this modified Mares Leg)

vQ-NhyctOho

dfletcher
08-17-2011, 9:02 PM
I might point out that the Remington XP-100 came with an attachment point at the rear of it's stock, below the rear of the receiver. There's a photo of Steve Herrett shooting one in a old 1960's issue of Gun Digest. He has the strap or sling over his shoulder,and around his back attached to the rear of the pistol. The modification does not remake it to be fired from the shoulder. If anything, a ring in the middle of the plate would make more difficult to fire from the shoulder. I think you've come up with a nonexistant issue.

That's not the method by which the gun would be "fired from the shoulder" - the sling swivel attached would bee the method, the gun itself would not touch the shoulder.

phamkl
08-17-2011, 11:17 PM
I agree.




a Glock

https://www.entrygear.com/productimages/BH%20pistol%20lanyard%20single%20swivel.jpg

and many, many others. I think you're good. Besides... doesn't the Mare's Leg have a lanyard/sling ring on the left side at the back of the receiver already?



Cool, but does that Glock charger have a USB adapter?

Tintreach
08-17-2011, 11:56 PM
Lols....I bought the one I own when I lived in cali, they are single shot exempt...never heard such nonsense about single point/SAS/israeli method slings. The ATF is a state run criminal enterprise, same as the CADOJ ;)

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/atf-smuggles-guns-to-mexican-drug-lords/


BTW mine's for sale it's a bounty hunter m92 .44 mag, I'll post an add when I get around to it.

Kharn
08-18-2011, 1:39 AM
I've seen this mentioned on forums in the past, but ahve never seen proof that ATF said that.Early/mid-80s Tech Branch letter IIRC, when Macs were still in production as the MGs came with the strap but the pistols did not.

Bruce
08-18-2011, 8:59 AM
That's not the method by which the gun would be "fired from the shoulder" - the sling swivel attached would bee the method, the gun itself would not touch the shoulder.

Then what are worrying about? If you're not holding it in contact with your shoulder, then it is hand held. If it really worries you that much, then don't put a sling, lanyard or whatever on it. That gun is not much of a practical weapon as it is a plaything. The originals were just gimmicks to make the hero of a TV series "different".

It's sad that we've become so paranoid as gun owners that we scare ourselves over "what if ?".

dfletcher
08-18-2011, 9:14 AM
Then what are worrying about? If you're not holding it in contact with your shoulder, then it is hand held. If it really worries you that much, then don't put a sling, lanyard or whatever on it. That gun is not much of a practical weapon as it is a plaything. The originals were just gimmicks to make the hero of a TV series "different".

It's sad that we've become so paranoid as gun owners that we scare ourselves over "what if ?".

I ask questions to get information, not to be worried or paranoid. I realize it's a fairly useless get up, that's mostly why I bought the thing. Like it or not details are important and can determine whether something is no big deal or a problem. I think some posts in the thread mention some of those points.

MasterYong
08-18-2011, 10:39 AM
The sw500 revolvers come with a sling from the factory, and are sold right here in ca, so...

djleisure
08-18-2011, 11:21 AM
The sw500 revolvers come with a sling from the factory, and are sold right here in ca, so...
Now that's interesting... seems like a solid defense for the single-point sling method.

Southwest Chuck
08-18-2011, 12:10 PM
I'm wondering if it would hold a tighter pattern for a longer range when used with snake shot? Seems like it would. Any thoughts?

Bruce
08-18-2011, 12:27 PM
Would atttaching a lanyard loop to the buttplate and using a sling hooked around one's shoulder - pushing, creating forward tension - cause this handgun to meet the definition of a rifle and as such, an SBR? A rifle is defined as being designed or redesigned, made or remade to be fired from the shoulder - does the sling and lanyard loop setup make that definition?

The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
Title 18, Part1, Chapter44 921-- Definitions

A Mare's Leg is a pistol. An SBR has to be made from a rifle.

dfletcher
08-18-2011, 12:58 PM
The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
Title 18, Part1, Chapter44 921-- Definitions

A Mare's Leg is a pistol. An SBR has to be made from a rifle.

That's not accurate, an SBR can be made from a handgun. If you'd like to read the thread in its entirety to include BWiese's comments you may get the full picture of what's been discussed. Otherwise we're just bouncing back & forth bits of the thread.

Bruce
08-19-2011, 9:00 AM
The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
Title 18, Part1, Chapter44 921-- Definitions

A Mare's Leg is a pistol. An SBR has to be made from a rifle.

That's not accurate, an SBR can be made from a handgun. If you'd like to read the thread in its entirety to include BWiese's comments you may get the full picture of what's been discussed. Otherwise we're just bouncing back & forth bits of the thread.

I have read the entire thread Mr. Fletcher, since it consisted of only four posts.To be honest, I think you have an over active imagination. and to borrow from the late Col. Jeff Cooper, I belive that you are searching for"... an answer to a non-existant problem." You are far more likely to be hassled by some eager beaver cop or deputy looking for a 12020PC arrest that by the ATF over a lanyard loop or sling. (Look at post #2 in the thread) Yes, Virginia, you can make a pistol into a rifle,but you have to put a actual solid buttstock on to it to be in violation and not by attaching a sling or, if you like, carrying strap to it.

As I said above, gun owners in general, not you specifically, have become paranoid because of some twisted bits of logic when it comes to the interpretation of firearms law. The GOA et al, make their money off of their twisted logic and that paranoia.

Go ahead and put your ring or whatever on it. (I'd suggest you use the saddle ring provided first though.) I for one would like to hear what kind of accuracy improvements you might gain from such a set up.

gun toting monkeyboy
08-19-2011, 9:38 AM
Just put one of those shoulder things that go up on there, that'll fix it.

Anyhoo, I want one of those things sooooo bad. I watched Firefly enough times now and that's gotta be one of the coolest 357mag handguns around. Practical, no, but really cool.

Practical rarely has anything to do with our choice of toys. I have an AR pistol that is arguably the most useless firearm I own. That doesn't mean that it isn't fun to go play with. There are times when it is just entertaining to take something weird to the range and let the other folks drool over it. And, in the case of that AR pistol, rattle your sinuses with the concussion coming off of the compensator...

Tintreach
08-19-2011, 9:11 PM
Practical rarely has anything to do with our choice of toys. I have an AR pistol that is arguably the most useless firearm I own. That doesn't mean that it isn't fun to go play with. There are times when it is just entertaining to take something weird to the range and let the other folks drool over it. And, in the case of that AR pistol, rattle your sinuses with the concussion coming off of the compensator...

If an AR pistol is the most useless weapon you own, then you don't know much about weapon manipulation and if a 5.56 bothers you don't ever touch a .338 Lapua or .50 cal.

Tango-Alpha
08-19-2011, 9:32 PM
That's awesome. I had no idea that Rossi made a Mares Leg.

Flopper
08-20-2011, 6:02 PM
Practical rarely has anything to do with our choice of toys. I have an AR pistol that is arguably the most useless firearm I own. . . And, in the case of that AR pistol, rattle your sinuses with the concussion coming off of the compensator...

If an AR pistol is the most useless weapon you own, then you don't know much about weapon manipulation and if a 5.56 bothers you don't ever touch a .338 Lapua or .50 cal.

Agreed. My AR pistol is arguably the handiest firearm I own.

In regards to the supposed "concussion" of an AR pistol . . . my 9mm Glocks have more concussion than my 11.5" AR pistol.

I don't know, maybe he has a 7.5 inch barrel and/or a REALLY loud compensator.

If not, yeah, stay away from the big boy calibers.

DannyInSoCal
10-03-2011, 4:42 PM
So has anyone used a single shot exemption to legally register one of these...?

Wherryj
10-04-2011, 10:27 AM
Cool, but does that Glock charger have a USB adapter?

No, it's 220v only.

Merc1138
10-04-2011, 10:33 AM
A contortionist might be able to fire from the shoulder, but I can fire my S&W 686 revolver that way too.

I want video.

Merc1138
10-04-2011, 10:33 AM
So has anyone used a single shot exemption to legally register one of these...?

You don't need to single shot it...

It already meets the length requirements, and isn't semi auto.

ke6guj
10-04-2011, 10:36 AM
You don't need to single shot it...

It already meets the length requirements, and isn't semi auto.incorrect.

from the factory, it is not listed on the roster, nor is it roster-exempt handgun. It has be to set up in a dimensionally-compliant single-shot configuration, to make it single-shot exempt, so that it can be transfered from a dealer.

Merc1138
10-04-2011, 10:39 AM
incorrect.

from the factory, it is not listed on the roster, nor is it roster-exempt handgun. It has be to set up in a dimensionally-compliant single-shot configuration, to make it single-shot exempt, so that it can be transfered from a dealer.

As I recall it is already dimensionally compliant.

Although re-reading the PC, it seems that the exemption without needing to be single shot would have to be a revolver, even though the mares leg is already single action as well.

I guess you'd just need the FFL so shove a stick into the magazine tube.

bwiese
10-04-2011, 10:55 AM
As I recall it is already dimensionally compliant.

Yes.


Although re-reading the PC, it seems that the exemption without needing to be single shot would have to be a revolver, even though the mares leg is already single action as well.

Yes... as I have repeatedly warned before, aside from the single-shot pistol exemption, there simply is no "single-action" exemption. There is specifically *only* the 'single-action revolver' exemption. (Otherwise Colt 1911s and Browning HiPowers would be Roster exempt, which is clearly not the case.)

Some people are confusing things, refusing to read my detailed posts and running off rumor and assumption. Some FFL is gonna lose his ticket on this if he doesn't get his mind squared around this, and damned quickly. Reading is Fundamental, as the TV ad used to say.

Also, since the gun in question here is not a revolver, any single-action status is otherwise wholly irrelevant to the matter.



I guess you'd just need the FFL so shove a stick into the magazine tube.

And lock it in so tool required to remove/insert. Otherwise it's just a normal gun that you temporarily "shoved something else into" and does not have articulable single-shot topology.

Merc1138
10-04-2011, 11:01 AM
And lock it in so tool required to remove/insert. Otherwise it's just a normal gun that you temporarily "shoved something else into" and does not have articulable single-shot topology.

Could be pretty easy to do depending on how the gun is disassembled. Also, my statement was simplified but I did actually mean putting it behind the follower. Your comment about a tool is interesting though, because if we're talking about something like a threaded cap, can torquing it down far enough be considered requiring a tool if I can't find someone who can turn it with their bare hands and you need pliers? A small tack weld to hold it in place would also be easy to do without needing to actually fabricate anything.

So yeah, shove a stick in it.