Conversion Cylinders and FFL???

[tpelle]

I've seen references on this and other sites where posters give the impression that they just mail-ordered them from Cabelas and others.

I was always under the impression that cartridge conversion cylinders for cap and ball revolvers had to go through an FFL. Am I mistaken?

 

[arcticap]

A simple conversion cylinder is a mail order item, but it should be mailed separate and apart from a revolver because when together, they may be considered to be a regular firearm.

 

[mykeal]

Yes.

Cylinders are not serialized and thus simply classified as 'parts'.

However, the cylinder can determine whether or not the gun falls under the GCA of 1968 and thus is a firearm that requires an FFL transfer. It works like this:

A black powder revolver utilizing percussion caps is an antique under the GCA of 1968 and is thus not subject to excise tax and transfer requirements under that law. Further, any person can build a firearm for their own personal use without a license and without documenting that build regardless of whether it uses modern or antique ammunition. However, you may not sell, give or otherwise transfer that firearm to another person without paying an excise tax as a manufacturer. Installing a cartridge conversion cylinder in a percussion revolver constitutes manufacturing the gun for your personal use, and is thus exempt from the tax law and the GCA of '68 (because there is no transfer involved). If you sell, give or otherwise transfer the gun to another person with the cartridge conversion cylinder installed you must pay an excise tax and use an FFL for the transfer. You can, however, sell the gun without the cylinder and the cylinder seperately with no tax or transfer paperwork involved.

 

[tpelle]

That clears it up.....at least as clear as any BATF regulation can be! Thank you.

 

[rcflint]

conversion

If the revolver frame is modified to accept the cylinder, such as a loading port cut to allow breech loading the cylinder rather than removing the cylinder to load/unload, it is considered to be a "firearm".

Even with the cap & ball cylinder in place, if the frame has had a loading port cut into it, it is a "firearm".

If there is no modification to the frame required, such as with a Kirst or R&D "drop-in" cylinder, it is not considered a "firearm" and needs no FFL to transfer.

 

[mykeal]

If the revolver frame is modified to accept the cylinder, such as a loading port cut to allow breech loading the cylinder rather than removing the cylinder to load/unload, it is considered to be a "firearm".

Even with the cap & ball cylinder in place, if the frame has had a loading port cut into it, it is a "firearm".

I don't believe that's correct. I know that some people have stated that opinion, but I've not been able to find any documentation by the BATFE making such a statement. If you have a BATFE written opinion stating that, please provide it.

Modifying the frame to add a loading port does not change the fact that, with the percussion cylinder installed the gun cannot shoot modern ammunition, which is the discriminant used in the '68 GCA to define an antique firearm.

 

[tpelle]

I don't believe that's correct. I know that some people have stated that opinion, but I've not been able to find any documentation by the BATFE making such a statement. If you have a BATFE written opinion stating that, please provide it.

Modifying the frame to add a loading port does not change the fact that, with the percussion cylinder installed the gun cannot shoot modern ammunition, which is the discriminant used in the '68 GCA to define an antique firearm.

I agree with mykeal. How can anyone prove, with the cap & ball cylinder installed, that the relief cuts weren't done just to make it easier to apply the caps? I know my fingers would sure appreciate the extra room.

Besides, I would expect that as soon as a BATF guy saw the Kirst or R&D cylinder in the pistol, and stoked full of .45LC cartridges, he's pretty much gonna jump to the conclusion right away that he was looking at a cartridge firearm - those BATF guys are pretty smart, you know..

I think the serial number argument is the telling fact here. If the cylinder were a firearm in and of itself, it would be serialized and a 4473 would be required to take it home. I also know that it's true that one can construct a firearm (that's not otherwise prohibited such as a machine gun or a bazooka or something) for his own use, but he's just not allowed to transfer it - although I think you can put a serial number on it and file papers to "legitimize" it. Just don't do it too many times, or you become an unlicensed manufacturer, and will be doing any further business transactions from a new address.

 

[scrat]

Frame highly modified. IF i were to ever try to sell it i would need to do a FFL transfer

 

[BHP FAN]

I'm jealous,mine's the old model Kirst without the gate,and with the crude ''L'' ejector rod. I may convert mine to a coil hammer spring.

 

[madcratebuilder]

I read a BATF letter that addressed this. I need to find the forum that had it. Something about a non reversible modification to the the revolver. Makes as much sense as their once a machine gun always a machine gun rule.

I'll try a e-mail to my local batf office, don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.