DD or non - regulated cannon?

[ahil925]

I got into a discussion elsewhere about the legality of a muzzle loading recoilless rifle and have tried to read up on the pertinent laws. I feel like I'm missing something so I wanted your all's input on this. Would it be legal to construct and fire recoilless arm that:

1. Is muzzle-loading, with some sort of fixed physical contrivance (a bar or grating) that would prevent breech loading.
2. Does not used fixed ammunition.
3. Is shoulder fired.
4. Has a bore diameter larger than .50"
5. Is not used to launch explosive or incendiary projectiles.

Since it's muzzle-loading and does not use fixed ammunition my understanding is that it would not be considered a destructive device. That said, it wouldn't be a "replica" of a pre-1898. I've seen a lot designs and video's of homemade cannons that aren't either so I'm not sure how important that would be legally speaking. I also don't know how the "shoulder fired" aspect would sway the argument.

I'm not a machinist and don't have the time or resources to actually construct something like this. Still, I am curious.

 

[AlexanderA]

This is exactly the sort of thing for which you would want to request a ruling from the ATF Technical Branch.

 

[CLP]

This is exactly the sort of thing for which you would want to request a ruling from the ATF Technical Branch.

Edited- remark made applied only to accessories to firearms, and not the firearm itself necessarily.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It is generally held that muzzle loading guns using "antique ignition" are not firearms under the purview of NFA, GCA and other relevant statutes. However, there can be some blurry lines, and I wouldn't want to push the envelope with what basically amounts to modern artillery using "antique ignition" without a letter from FTB giving the go-ahead. Yes, there are all sorts of cannons out there which certainly don't constitute replicas (generally due to modern materials, simple or crude construction, lack of embellishment, etc), but which are functionally still mid-19th century, not modernized to be used as weapons. There's considerable difference between a wagon wheel carriage mounted front stuffer using round ball ahead of black powder with touch hole, and a gun mounted to a turret on a vehicle that gets bags of modern propellant put in before a stabilized conical projectile, set off by percussion means not far removed from modern artillery.

Also keep in mind that some states do consider muzzle loading guns firearms.

 

[jmorris]

1. Is muzzle-loading, with some sort of fixed physical contrivance (a bar or grating) that would prevent breech loading.
2. Does not used fixed ammunition.
3. Is shoulder fired.
4. Has a bore diameter larger than .50"
5. Is not used to launch explosive or incendiary projectiles.

Except for shoulder fired sounds like a pneumatic bowing ball launcher. Like this one firing over 40lbs.

 

[morcey2]

Except for shoulder fired sounds like a pneumatic bowing ball launcher. Like this one firing over 40lbs.

I wonder how much it would cost him to replace that power line that he's shooting over?

 

[rromeo]

This is exactly the sort of thing for which you would want to have an attorney well versed in firearms and firearms law request a ruling from the ATF Technical Branch.

Edited. No offense, I don't know your background, but since you're asking here I presume you are not. It is my belief that many of the BATFE letters are written by people that shouldnot be asking questions directly to the BAFTE and that is how bad policies get enforced.

 

[F-111 John]

Since the BAFTE published rules today in the Federal Register to declare bump stocks as machine guns in spite of several previous Technical Branch determination letters to the contrary, I would say that BAFTE determination letters are no longer meaningful in any way.