Boulder Shooter

[CD2]

The camp carbines had stock split issues too, but maybe just the .45 acp ones. Having taken a couple apart for fix, cant remember if buffer replace or some other part. I wouldn't own one.

[CD2]

Ran a couple of the old Ruger .44 mag autos. Flawless. 240gr jackered stuff. Got a fingergroove sitting in my safe, '66 model.

There was a trigger housing revision, dunno if mine of type 1 or 2. Also stock splitting happens on some, dunno if that due to wood shrinkage or a design issue.

Either way, a busted trigger housing or stock isnt gonna be an easy fix.

[jhjimbo]

659B1B76-C073-43E1-BC5B-913F15FA038A.png

Marlin






I know Ruger made the .44 mag carbine that looked like the 10/22 but never heard of a 9mm or .45 ACP so I checked google, are you thinking of the Marlin Camp Carbine that was made in 9mm and .45?

Learning something new everyday here.

3D8D18E2-9C1D-481C-A49C-C9872DD2287C.jpeg
Ruger

I know a guy who has the 9mm camp gun - sweet.

I had the .44mag Ruger rifle and could not get it to cycle every time so I sold it. Looked like a big 10/22.

[CD2]

Be glad the shooter ran a POS AR pistol w arm brace (legal).
He could have slapped a pistol upper on a rifle lower and increased his hit and kill ratios.
Oh, but that would have been illegal.

Yeah, as if breaking a firearm modification law would have stopped him from murdering folks.

That SOB was nuts, people knew it and did nothing. He made threats and was on the FBI radar and they did nothing.
Then he targeted an upscale area where he proly figured nobody would be armed.

Laws don't mean chit.

You want protection? Protect yourself. The gov and agencies of the courts are not there to protect you.
But most folks can't shoulder lesser responsibilities, and want to feel good about doing nothing, so think legislation is the answer.

Fools.

[CD2]

On the media reporting.....I suspect a Ruger AR pistol is a pistol, with or without an arm brace.

[CD2]

Arm braces are designed to be, wait for it, braced by the arm.
Some are a thin paddle to lay against the arm, others clamshell over the arm (and may have straps).
I doubt there that many disabled folks needing them, but whoever designed the first ones was smart.........BATF couldn't deny their design/usage as it would probably be discriminating to those disabled.

Think about that

The fact that an arm brace may look like a stock in profile, and may be shouldered as one.........big whoop.

Actually that last part, is where the BATF made a ruling and then backed off.
Arm braces they said were legal, but could not be shouldered. They then changed their mind.

Back then Shotgun News and other periodicals were saying " SBR kinda sorta, without paying the price".
I figured such flaunting would get some notice, and it did.

But I also figured the declaration of "no shouldering" was just to shut some media folks up.
The BATF went back to original view in short order.

FWIW a regular stock is far superior IMHO.
If I needed a rifle for in and out of a vehicle, w a suppressor, I'd definitely go the SBR route. Hell, already on the registry if ya get a can.
Just more paperwork and another stamp

Be a dandy ranch rifle. No chucks around or PDs...........and I'm not even on a ranch.
So I aint getting one.

Now if ya want to get a handgun and put a stock on it, get a Navy or Artiller Luger or C96.
Those no longer NFA

[FirstBubba]

Again, this morning (03-28-2021), the main stream media claimed the shooter was using a Ruger 5.56mm "pistol" and showed a photo of a Ruger, AR style weapon with a short barrel and no stock.

AGAIN!....the "lame" stream media can't report on anything without displaying their blatant bias or the ability to find their butt with either hand!

[CD2]

Its not confusing. Some braces do look like stocks.
They are not stocks though (and suck when tried to be used as one).

The BATF waffling ....well whatdya expect?

If the hearing act stuff went through theyd get their 200 bucks per, and itd be streamlined. So they proly wouldnt be butthurt by folks using braces and seemingly skirting SBR stamps.

Money. They could get more, faster, and more efficiently....if they had passed the hearing act.

[fitch270]

TC Contender and Encore MZs require a 4473.
Think since leaving factory as handgun receivers, had to be 21 to buy.

The FX versions are not convertible to rifle or handgun and are MZ only.

Those dont get a 4473.

This I did know!

[fitch270]

SCOTUS ruled on the TC stuff. Kits are not SBR - BATF lost. And if all receivers leave factory as handgun, then it is legal to convert to rifle and back again as long as not in NFA violation during process.

The old BATF language allowed a handgun to be made into a rifle, no prob. Buy also said once a rifle always a rifle. That the prob. Could convert but not go back.

Putting something back to original form is not creating a new weapon. Its restoring, and iirc Scalia may have made comment about TC items not being a real hit with criminals LOL

Thanks for that, I didn’t know or had forgotten about the ruling.

[FirstBubba]

The pic shows a brace, not a stock. Proly was a pistol.

Get glasses or something please.

See that band though the back end.....freakin arm brace. Looks like a stock, but isnt one.

Legal.

Last I heard, several different facets were all up in the air as to whether a "wrist brace" constituted a stock or not.
Kinda like the argument of how to measure a shotgun barrel. From the breech or the end of the chamber.
Are you saying they finally came up with a concrete answer?

[FirstBubba]

TC Contender and Encore MZs require a 4473.
Think since leaving factory as handgun receivers, had to be 21 to buy.

The FX versions are not convertible to rifle or handgun and are MZ only.

Those dont get a 4473.

Last I heard, several different facets were all up in the air as to whether a "wrist brace" constituted a stock or not.
Kinda like the argument of how to measure a shotgun barrel. From the breech or the end of the chamber.
Are you saying they finally came up with a concrete answer?

[FirstBubba]

The pic shows a brace, not a stock. Proly was a pistol.

Get glasses or something please.

See that band though the back end.....freakin arm brace. Looks like a stock, but isnt one.

Legal.

Chill dude. I've never seen a wrist brace, much less installed one.
My cheaters are fine! LOL!

dewman, the whole schmear is confusing.
Rifle?
Pistol?
Barrel length?
Wrist brace?
Stock?
SBR?

Again, this is what happens when "we" (collectively) allow the government to make the "rules" (laws?).

[CD2]

TC Contender and Encore MZs require a 4473.
Think since leaving factory as handgun receivers, had to be 21 to buy.

The FX versions are not convertible to rifle or handgun and are MZ only.

Those dont get a 4473.

[CD2]

This modular stuff reminds me of discussions I used to read about Contenders and Encores. It probably gets overlooked because they’re single shots but the way the laws read it’s a no-no to turn a rifle into a pistol and it’s questionable if you make a pistol into a rifle if you can change it back. As I understand it that’s why T/C did away with the muzzleloader option, you could legally buy one without a 4473 then make it into a rifle or pistol. The FX muzzleloaders aren’t convertible. Same deal with my NEF Huntsman, the muzzleloader version of the Handi-rifle.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this gets addressed with semi auto platforms. Just one more way to chip at the edges.

SCOTUS ruled on the TC stuff. Kits are not SBR - BATF lost. And if all receivers leave factory as handgun, then it is legal to convert to rifle and back again as long as not in NFA violation during process.

The old BATF language allowed a handgun to be made into a rifle, no prob. Buy also said once a rifle always a rifle. That the prob. Could convert but not go back.

Putting something back to original form is not creating a new weapon. Its restoring, and iirc Scalia may have made comment about TC items not being a real hit with criminals LOL