Here's a good question for the legal eagles: Disregarding obvious types of weapons such as mortars, cannons, howitzers, bazookas, land mines, atomic bombs, etc. what are the criteria for defining a destructive device. Basically, I'm referring to such items as .55 cal. Boys rifles, Lahti antitank guns, etc.
The reason I'm asking is because of a discussion I had with several different BATF agents, each of whom more or less gave me the same answer regarding a so called "slug gun" rifled barrel that used a shotgun receiver as its platform. Their stand was that, since the barrel was rifled, it would then be legal to cut the barrel down to 16" since, in effect, the weapon technically had been made as a rifled arm.
However, since the bore was over .50 caliber, would it then not become a destructive device according to BATF standards.
The reason I'm asking is because of a discussion I had with several different BATF agents, each of whom more or less gave me the same answer regarding a so called "slug gun" rifled barrel that used a shotgun receiver as its platform. Their stand was that, since the barrel was rifled, it would then be legal to cut the barrel down to 16" since, in effect, the weapon technically had been made as a rifled arm.
However, since the bore was over .50 caliber, would it then not become a destructive device according to BATF standards.
Last edited: