Cartridge conversion cylinder = firearm, or not?

[wogpotter]

Simple question really. Under FEDERAL law does the act of inserting a cartridge conversion cylinder into an original, or replica cap & ball revolver by itself constitute "making a firearm" for legal purposes?


I'm asking because of a specific set of circumstances & I realize state & local laws vary with both C&B revolvers & the conversion cylinders, so I'm limiting this to Federal law.

I was led to believe that just using a conversion cylinder was not enough, but that if the frame was modified in any way (usually by adding a loading notch) that the revolver became a firearm, but that just using the cylinder was not enough to legally make the non-pistol legally a pistol.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

A couple of years ago I had an opportunity to shoot a black powder revolver that had been converted. The instructions that came with the conversion cylinder included a template for grinding the frame to allow reloading with the cylinder in the gun. The one I shot had NOT been so modified, but the instructions stated that making that alteration would be the legal equivalent of manufacturing a "modern" revolver. This is completely legal, but forever thereafter it would have to be bought and sold as a modern firearm rather than as a black powder firearm.

 

[wogpotter]

Agreed that if you modify the receiver its making a modern gun, but what about just dropping in a conversion cylinder without any further modifications to anything? There was a specific limit & intent in the wording of the O.P.

At what point is a C&B "converted" to a modern pistol?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I understood the original question, and I answered as completely as I could. I am not a lawyer.

However, I strongly suspect that the manufacturer of the conversion cylinder in the gun I shot did employ a lawyer (if not an entire law firm) to research the legality of the kit before marketing it. Their statement is that modifying the frame so as to allow reloading without removal of the cylinder makes the gun a "modern" revolver.

If they went to the trouble of explaining what DOES make it into a modern revolver, I would be comfortable proceeding on the assumption that NOT making that modification would NOT make it into a modern revolver.

YMMV.

 

[wogpotter]

Again I agree with you. What I'm questioning is the fitting the cylinder to the pistol, not purchasing it.

This comes up because I was always told that JUST inserting the cylinder did not make a modern firearm in federal law. Like you I was told that modifying the frame was the dividing line between old & modern.

That's why I was being so specific stating JUST installing the cylinder & FEDERAL law.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Wogpotter: Can you re-phrase your question? It seems Aguila Blanca answered it.

Put the cylinder in and it is OK. Work on the receiver so that it can be reloaded with-out having to remove the cylinder, would cause it to be classified as a modern firearm.

Is it illegal to just fit the cylinder? (with or w/o ammo) Again, I think Aguila Blanca answered that question (Answer: No).

 

[Toxdoc]

As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16) the term “antique firearm” means —

…
any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica —
is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘antique firearm’ shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon, which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

IANAL

Is changing the cylinder enough to be considered a "redesign?" I would think so, personally. I certainly suspect that it is enough for a prosecutor to get an indictment from a grand jury, if there is problem with having a "firearm." That will make it a very expensive proposition to fight in court. It certainly won't be a simple as "the law says I have to modify the frame."

I'm sure the lawyers for the company have carefully worded their statement. If you make a modification to the frame, it will not be considered an antique gun, even if you put the original cylinder back in. Just because they say modifying the frame for the cylinder makes it a modern gun, do not assume that not modifying the frame does not. Do not read a negative into lawyerese.

Edited to add: I showed this to a lawyer whose first thought was "Yeah, don't do that and try to call it an antique gun, for legal purposes."

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm sure the lawyers for the company have carefully worded their statement. If you make a modification to the frame, it will not be considered an antique gun, even if you put the original cylinder back in. Just because they say modifying the frame for the cylinder makes it a modern gun, do not assume that not modifying the frame does not. Do not read a negative into lawyerese.

There are two kinds of alterations to the frame, so let's be clear.

Many years ago, long before cartridge conversions became popular and there was a choice of whose to buy, I had a replica 1858 Remington for which I bought a Ken Howell conversion cylinder. This allowed firing modern ammo, but it didn't in any way try to replicate any "historical" conversion. The conversion cylinder had a solid, removable back plate that contained six individual firing pins. To load, you had to remove the cylinder from the gun, take the back plate off the cylinder, punch out the empties with a dowel or screwdriver, insert the new cartridges, put the back plate onto the cylinder, and then reinstall the cylinder in the gun. There was no way that grinding out a larger notch on the right side of the frame would allow reloading like a more modern Remington (whatever year it was) that was designed for cartridges.

Conversely, by putting the original black powder cylinder back in the gun, I had an unaltered black powder firearm. Or did I?

I guess Ken Howell was concerned about the strength of these cylinders, because he made them as big as he could. Which, in some cases, was a wee tad TOO big. The instructions said that it might be necessary to use a file to open up the cylinder window at the front of the cylinder and, indeed, that was the case with mine. It required only a few strokes with a small file and a touch of cold blue, and nobody could tell (unless, of course, they went looking for it). So, technically, the frame was altered. But functionally it was not.

By contrast, the conversion I shot on that out-of-state visit a couple of years ago was another type of conversion, with the cylinder open to the rear. This was also for a Remington clone, BTW. It was very different from the one I used to have. The newer one was set up so that if you used a Dremel or file or milling machine to enlarge the recess where the BP cylinder gets capped, it would allow loading without removing the cylinder. And I believe this is the type of alteration the law (or regulation) speaks to. This is a permanent alteration. (Okay, so was mine.) It changes the design of the firearm so that it can be used (loaded) in a way not contemplated by the original design.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm guessing it's gonna go like this:

If the conversion cylinder is not present and the frame is unmolested, then the gun remains an antique or an antique replica.

If the conversion cylinder is present (installed or not), or the frame is modified, the gun is capable of firing centerfire ammo and is subject modern firearms laws. (Remember, according to BATF, if you simply have machine gun parts and a weapon they will fit, then you own a machine gun, installed or not)

In other words, I wouldn't sell or buy a BP pistol with a conversion cylinder and then try to ship them sans FFL in the same package, calling it an antique or antique replica.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In other words, I wouldn't sell or buy a BP pistol with a conversion cylinder and then try to ship them sans FFL in the same package, calling it an antique or antique replica.

I wouldn't try to sell a BP revolver with a conversion cylinder at all. When I tired of my Remington 1858 with the Howell conversion, I replaced the original BP cylinder and delivered it to the gunshop for consignment as a BP revolver. The conversion cylinder was not included in the deal (but the spare BP cylinder was).

I agree that, while it is equipped with the conversion cylinder, the firearm is a modern firearm and must be regarded as such. My understanding of the alteration to add a loading notch/gate is that, once you have done that, it's permanently a modern firearm ... even if you re-install the BP cylinder. Having a conversion IS legal -- the law allows us to "make" our own firearms. If you're a skilled machinist and download the blueprints, you can start with a block of steel and make a 1911, completely legally. The issues arise if/when you decide to sell it.

 

[wogpotter]

OK let me try the rephrasing.

I thought, based on many posts that JUST inserting a conversion cylinder did not "create a modern firearm" under strictly FEDERAL law. Modifying the frame in any way did create a cartridge firing, & so modern pistol.

Perhaps a bit of background helps here.

There was a series of posts on a different, but mostly muzzle loading, oriented forum that stated that "Inserting a conversion cylinder creates a temporary, but legally binding modern firearm, but removing it converts it back to a non-firearm." Personally this is contrary to everything I have ever seen posted relating to the law in this instance, but I am trying to get an actual, documented reference to the exact act of ONLY inserting or removing a cartridge conversion cylinder.

 

[Ideal Tool]

Hello, Wogpotter...I feel your pain..I too have a couple of 2nd. gen. Colt percussion revolvers, for which I purchased Kirst Kartridge Konvertor cylinders. A 1971 1851 .36 navy, which shoots .38 long colt thru conversion cyl., and a 1980 1860 army .44, which shoots .45 long colt in conversion. I spoke with Mr. Kirst, and his answer was, if frame wasn't altered, gun would still be considered a black-powder muzzleloader. My problem is compounded by the fact that at the time, these percussion revolvers were not required to be regestered. I am thinking, for transport to range..perhaps it would be wise to install percussion cyl?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There was a series of posts on a different, but mostly muzzle loading, oriented forum that stated that "Inserting a conversion cylinder creates a temporary, but legally binding modern firearm, but removing it converts it back to a non-firearm."

I would say that corresponds to my understanding of the law.

What may be confusing is that it is completely legal to perform the conversion (just like, as I commented above, it's completely legal to manufacture your own "modern" forearm from a block of steel and a blueprint) but, once the conversion has been made, it IS a modern firearm. The difference is that, if you don't cut out the loading gate/notch, replacing the BP cylinder causes (or "allows")the gun to revert to its previous BP status.

Another area of possible confusion is the use of the term "firearm." A black powder revolver is a firearm. However, under Federal law BP handguns are exempt from regulations governing transfers. This also applies to most states, but a few states do not (IIRC) allow for direct transfers of BP handguns in face-to-face transactions. But the laws of most states DO include BP handguns in the context of both the use of firearms for personal defense (or committing crimes) and for matters relating to lawful carry of handguns. In other words, if you are in a state that requires a license or permit to carry for self defense, most likely a BP revolver is NOT exempt from that requirement. The definition of what constitutes a firearm, or handgun, or deadly weapon will probably be different from the definition in the Federal law regulating transfers.

 

[Chuck Dye]

Best to search the local law.

Oregon Revised Statutes 166.210 (3) says

(3) “Firearm” means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder.

Any original or replica black powder pistol, whether cap & ball or cartridge conversion, qualifies. (Convicted felons need not apply.)

Given that, who cares what the feds say?

 

[wogpotter]

Never mind I give up.
I was looking for a link to the FEDERAL law that APPLIES TO JUST INSERTING A CYLINDER, NOTHING ELSE AT ALL IN ANY WAY SHAPE, MANNER OR FORM with a cite so I could know for sure.
Even in this thread we have several differing opinions & opinions don't work in a court of law.

 

[Toxdoc]

I was looking for a link to the FEDERAL law that APPLIES TO JUST INSERTING A CYLINDER, NOTHING ELSE AT ALL IN ANY WAY SHAPE, MANNER OR FORM with a cite so I could know for sure.
Even in this thread we have several differing opinions & opinions don't work in a court of law.

You didn't get what you want, because it doesn't exist. There is no federal statute that clearly defines the situation at which you are looking. At best, you can hope there is BATFE guidance. Rapid searching did not show any. This may have been litigated in a lower courts, however unless you happen to be in that court's jurisdiction, it may be persuasive, but is not binding. You can try inquiring with the BATFE. They may send you an advisory opinion.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I was looking for a link to the FEDERAL law that APPLIES TO JUST INSERTING A CYLINDER, NOTHING ELSE AT ALL IN ANY WAY SHAPE, MANNER OR FORM with a cite so I could know for sure.
Even in this thread we have several differing opinions & opinions don't work in a court of law.

Of course opinions work in a court of law. That's why both sides have lawyers. The problem is that one guy's opinion is usually closer to that of the judge or jury than the other guy's.

Toxdoc gave you the steer, but you appear unwilling to do any follow-up on your own. Let's look at 18 USC 921, from the top. First:

(a)(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

So, "firearm" does NOT exclude BP revolvers. BP revolvers ARE designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. So ... if you thought the law didn't consider BP revolvers to be "firearms," it's no wonder you are confused.

Then we drop all the way down to sub-section 16:

(a)(16) The term “antique firearm” means—
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

So now we see that BP revolvers are firearms, but they are "antique firearms" ... if they were manufactured prior to 1898, or if they are are replicas of such firearms IF THE REPLICA IS NOT DESIGNED OR REDESIGNED TO USE RIMFIRE OR CONVENTIONAL CENTERFIRE AMMUNITION.

So ... as a BP replica, the "antique firearm" is not designed to use cartridge ammunition. It is an antique firearm, by definition, even if it was a replica manufactured last week. Insert a conversion cylinder, and now it IS designed to fire "conventional centerfire ammunition," so now it is NOT within the definition of "antique firearm."

 

[CMT12]

Sorry but I am going to have to jump in and confuse you all a little more.

First of all, a BP pistol is not a firearm according to federal law (PERIOD). That's in simple English. Now as to the conversion cylinder:

"If the replica is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition"

1) You did not design the replica to fire conventional centerfire fixed ammunition
2) You did not re-design the replica. You are just popping in a conversion cylinder. Everything is in tack. You are just implementing an accessory.

Furthermore, if you are going to read the law, read all of it. Don’t stop when you think you found enough to prove your personal view. The definition of “Antique Firearm” continues on to say the following:

"Antique firearm shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof”

Wogpotter, you said you didn’t find anything related to the cylinder; however, they clearly tell you what parts of the gun cannot be replaced and cylinder is not one of those items. Let your common sense kick in. If changing the cylinder altered the status, it would have been listed with, “barrel, bolt, breechblock”.

Furthermore, since the definition of “Antique Firearm” mentions conventional ammunition, let’s examine the GCA definition of ammunition.

"The term ammunition means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm"

A BP revolver is not a firearm. Also, we NOW know that the cylinder is not included in the parts listed that would change the status of this. So you are firing rounds through something that is NOT a firearm, therefore; the rounds are NOT ammunition by the definition.

Lastly, intuition tells us that if the makers of conversion cylinders were making it that easy for people to break the law, they would have taken so much heat by now, they would have quit.

Conclusion:
If you are not using your GUN (not firearm) with a conversion cylinder in the commission of a crime and you are transporting it in a manner you would transport a FIREARM then you should not have a problem. Honestly, prosecution will be tough if the only time you have the cylinder in the GUN is at the range or in the home for self defense. If you plan on carrying it on your person (which I can’t imagine because of its size), that’s another thing. Even then, just pull the lever and the cylinder will drop right out on the ground… so then the cop has to prove it was actually in the GUN and not being transported apart. The conversion cylinder is probably one of those things that are so hard to enforce, it's let go. MAN, DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT!!! Your Good!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

First of all, a BP pistol is not a firearm according to federal law (PERIOD). That's in simple English.

...

A BP revolver is not a firearm.

Just above your post I cited a specific Federal law that defines what is a firearm, and the definition would include a black powder pistol.

[quote 18 USC 921](a)(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.[/quote]

What is your citation in Federal law to support your two statements that a black powder pistol is NOT a firearm? Are you looking only at paragraph (D)? That only says that antique firearms are not included in the category of "destructive devices."

 

[Don P]

In other words, I wouldn't sell or buy a BP pistol with a conversion cylinder and then try to ship them sans FFL in the same package, calling it an antique or antique replica.

This is the way I purchased my NIB 1858 replica BP and a conversion cylinder both of which were in there respective box's and shipped in the same box. No FFL required for the BP here in FLA and no FFL needed to purchase the conversion cylinder. Both items can be shipped in the same box as long as the conversion cylinder is "NOT" installed in the frame.