Black powder conversion rules

[870classic]

Please reread Post #2 from "Quite".
My understanding is that in California you can own the cartridge conversion as long as it is separate from the handgun.

"Installing a metallica cartridge conversion to a blackpowder revolver, changes the firearm into a non-antique firearm.
This will cause the firearm to no longer qualify for the antique firearm exemption to CA self-made firearm laws.
Which means it can now (post-2018) be confiscated as evidence of violating CA self-made firearm laws, due to not having CA DOJ marking info engraved on it & not being registered in AFS.
In order to avoid all that, the firearm would need to be engraved with CA DOJ marking info & registered with CA DOJ."

Best regards,
870classic.

[MuayThaiJJ]

It might depend on when you first converted it (month/year)

So if someone has a BP revolver and separate conversion cylinder manufactured and purchased prior to 2018 then it is also exempt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AR22]

Yes.

This stuff gives me a headache just reading it

[SkyHawk]

So if someone has a BP revolver and separate conversion cylinder manufactured and purchased prior to 2018 then it is also exempt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It depends on what markings it has and who put them there. For example, a Ruger Old Army probably meets the marking requirements of 18 USC 923(i), because they are not imported, Ruger is a US licensed manufacturer and the guns have the markings required.

But a Pietta 1858 not so much. Pietta is not a licensed US mfg, and the importers of black powder firearms do not mark their data on black powder guns entering the country because they are not considered firearms for purposes of importation. So it does not have the markings required. It is missing importer markings.

In most every case, the best thing to do is keep the conversion cylinder out of the gun until you are ready to shoot unless you want to apply to DOJ for a serial, pay to have the gun marked, assuming the gun operationally and dimensionally qualifies for manufacture.

[MuayThaiJJ]

This Remmi appears to have been proofed in 2009:


According to this Proof Marking document:

https://docdro.id/9CWxwUx

So, with a 2009 manufactured Pietta Remington 1858 replica and a 2008 Ruger Old Army, both w/ unattached conversion cylinders - both should have pre-2018 exemption from having to be registered, correct?

[SkyHawk]

This Remmi appears to have been proofed in 2009:


According to this Proof Marking document:

https://docdro.id/9CWxwUx

So, with a 2009 manufactured Pietta Remington 1858 replica and a 2008 Ruger Old Army, both w/ unattached conversion cylinders - both should have pre-2018 exemption from having to be registered, correct?

Read my post above again, slowly, then go read 18 USC 923(i) and the related CFRs.

If the Pietta does not have US LICENSED IMPORTER MARK, to include the name and city/state of the licensed importer, then it DOES NOT meet the CA requirements to be exempt from needing a CA serial number. It does not matter when it was made.

And I have not seen any Pietta BP revolvers with importer marks, probably because it is not required to import them or sell them so long as they are percussion black powder.

Go look at the Pietta cartridge revolvers that Cimarron or Taylors imports, they are marked with the importer name, city, state, in addition to the makers name.



That importer marking is required for imported guns. The Pietta black powder revolvers don't have it. So they don't qualify for the CA exemption.

[warbird]

Now CalGuns will need a flow chart for black powder. Isn't this wonderful?

[MuayThaiJJ]

Read my post above again, slowly, then go read 18 USC 923(i) and the related CFRs.

If the Pietta does not have US LICENSED IMPORTER MARK, to include the name and city/state of the licensed importer, then it DOES NOT meet the CA requirements to be exempt from needing a CA serial number. It does not matter when it was made.

And I have not seen any Pietta BP revolvers with importer marks, probably because it is not required to import them or sell them so long as they are percussion black powder.

Go look at the Pietta cartridge revolvers that Cimarron or Taylors imports, they are marked with the importer name, city, state, in addition to the makers name.



That importer marking is required for imported guns. The Pietta black powder revolvers don't have it. So they don't qualify for the CA exemption.

Ok, so basically Ruger OA is safe with conversion installed since it's pre-2018. And Pietta, even though it is pre-2018, lacks the importer stamps that would exempt it, therefore needs to remain in BP mode. Thanks man

[SkyHawk]

Ok, so basically Ruger OA is safe with conversion installed since it's pre-2018. And Pietta, even though it is pre-2018, lacks the importer stamps that would exempt it, therefore needs to remain in BP mode. Thanks man

No, the Ruger is likely safe because it is Pre 2018 AND it is made in the USA by a US licensed manufacturer (Ruger) AND it has all the markings required by 18 USC 923(i) and the related CFRs.

The Pietta does not have all the markings required because it WAS NOT made by a US licensed mfg, it was imported and it DOES NOT have the required importers mark.

And this is all just speculation, the best we can come up with absent any opinion from a real lawyer or the DOJ. If you want to be safe, apply for a DOJ serial number no matter which of those guns you have, or keep the cylinder out of the gun.

[risingsun212]

[darkwater]

Having looked at this before, it was easier to just leave my 1851 replica in its original form and get a Colt SAA replica later on for just a bit more than the cost of a conversion cylinder. Besides, since conversion cylinders are aftermarket items not made by the gun's original manufacturer, I'd be worried about alignment issues and voiding any warranties.