Dumb question re: Thompson/Center

L

Long Path

New member
I know this will be answered right away; but I don't know the answer.

With T.C. Contender pistols, are they interchangable with T.C. rifles? And vice versa? And legal implications of doing so? Thanks in advance for your input.

L.P.

------------------
If you're *not* a member of the NRA, what *are* you doing to protect your rights to enjoy yourself on this Bulletin Board?
Do SOMETHING!
 
I know the models made a few years ago were interchangable, not sure about today. A friend and I used to do it all the time until we got a bit more savvy about the laws.

If memory serves me correctly, the ATF tried to make T.C. stop producing rifles (or was it pistols) because of how easy it was to swap parts. It went to court and I believe T.C. won.

Regardless of interchangability, if you put a barrel less then 16" long on a T.C. rifle frame, you now have an unregistered "short barrel rifle," and/or a pistol with a rifle stock. Both are illegal and mean big trouble if you get caught. We all know how much mass destruction a single-shot SBR can do!
smile.gif


Hope this helps. Someone else can probably better explain the court case between T.C. and the ATF.
 
I moved this thread to the "Legal" Forum, for obvious reasons, I think.


You CAN own a Stock that will fit on a T/C handgun frame, so long as you also on a 16+" barrel for it. AND, (seriously), you must physically mount the 16" barrel before you physically mount the stock, when you assemble your rifle.

Owning the Stock without the 16+" barrel wil be considered by the ATF to be an illegal act, comensurate to having an assembled SBR.

I am not sure how the ATF deals with the issue of buying a T/C rifle and then turning it into a pistol. but my gut feeling is that would be entirely illegal, becuase it is often easier to buy a rifle than a pistol.
 
I shoot a lot of TC with several barrels with different cartridges. There are two frames that Thompson Center manufactures the Encore Frame that is for 22-250 Rem, .223 Rem, .243 Win, .270 Win, 7mm BR Rem, 7mm-08 Rem, 7.62 x 39mm, .308 Win, .30-06, 44 Rem Mag, and the 444 Marlin. Barrel lengths vary between 10" and 15" The only ones available in 10" are the 7mm, 7mm-08, 7.62 x 39mm, and 44 Mag all the others are 15". These calibers are also available in their rifle with 24" and 26" Barrel. The only other two calibers there are available in the 26" Barrel are the 7mm Rem Mag, and the 300 Win Mag.

The othe frame is the TC Frame that is available in 22 LR, 22 LR Match, 22 Win Mag, 17 Rem, 22 Hornet, 222 Rem, 223 Rem, 7mm TCU, 7-30 Waters, 30-30 Win, 32-20 Win, .357 Mag, .357 Rem Max, 35 Rem, 375 Win, 44 Mag, 45/70 Govt, 300 Whisper. They also provide a 45 Colt, and 45 Colt/.410 ga shotgun that is not available in CA. These barrels are available in 10" to 16".

------------------
Society is safer when the criminal does not know who is armed
 
Hmmmm.... interesting, all of this. I originally was interested only in the feasibility of the physical act, and threw out the question of the legality only incidentally.

Is it, then, practical for a cheap-skate sportsman (such as myself) to purchase a TC Encore pistol in .223 and then at a later time pick up a long (rifle-length) bbl in, say... .223, and affix (simultaneously!) said bbl and a buttstock to it, to miraculously transform this frame that left the factory with serial #'s assigned to a pistol, into a rifle? Is this cost effective, BTW?

One supposes that for a few seconds, at least, one may possibly have (gasp!) an 18" bbl. pistol in his possession, prior to affixing the buttstock. We all know, of course, the dangers of *that*, don't we? (?)
 
A couple years ago TC went to court over this very issue. I recall seeing the outcome of this case in a issue of Small Arms Review, or Machine Gun News although at this time I can't find it (of course). In short the outcome was that TC prevailed. That being that as long as the receiver was configured as a pistol or a rifle it was legal. Further TC could continue to market their pistol / rifle kit that shared the same receiver. However the court did say that use of the rifle stock with the pistol barrel did constitute making a short barreled rifle. But that it was up to the BATF to prove that such a violation had occurred. That simply being in possession of TC's kit was not proof of a violation ie; making a short barrel rifle.

This was much like BATF's rule 'Once a machine gun always a machine gun' that was also struck down. At least in the Volmer case where Volmer wanted to convert a number of H&K MG's that he had converted to MG's back into semi auto guns. Again as I recall this was struck down and Volmer was able to market the rifles as semi auto guns, after conversion.

For those that know where to locate court findings the case was (as I recall) Thompson Center vs BATF.
Abe



------------------
If everyone thought like me, I'd be a damn fool to think any different!
 
This may only serve to muddy the waters but I've been dealing with ATF for the past five years over a similar "conversion".

I developed a modern revolving carbine based on the S&W "N" in my custom shop. After several two hour trips to my nearest ATF office I was given intial approval. Spent big bucks on the various patents, yada, yada, yada

ATF did a reversal on me. My original design allowed the machanism attaching the stock to be *easily* removed there by allowing a *handgun* grip to be placed on the gun. Even though the two original prototypes had 17.5" bbls. this was supposedly in violation to the 1934 NFA. The explanation I was give was that after the gun was sold on the open market as a rifle the stock could be removed and the bbl. cut to a shorter (concealable) length creating a handgun. In theory a person allowed to own a long gun but prohibited from owning a "concealable" firearm could make the alterations too easily.
I was assured that definately, probably, maybe, it might be sort of be legal if I changed the stock attaching machanism to mount solidly to the main frame it would be in compliance.
This, of course, would have required at least one and possible two new patents. At $6000 a patent I declined. Being, at the time, a class 1 Federal Firearms Manufacturer I was allowed to keep the two prototypes in tact as carbines for further development. Dang generious of ATF.
Bottom line? Even if an ATF agent tells you it's legal you better have it written in blood because the next agent may decide differently.

------------------
Gunslinger

We live in a time in which attitudes and deeds once respected as courageous and honorable are now scorned as being antiquated and subversive.
 
Gunslinger:

I am shocked, angered, horrified.
Please tell me you are bringing suit. Send me your address, and I'll send you $5.00 to help. Your assurances were verbal? Or on paper?

Gentlemen and ladies, we are at a time when you literally *don't know* if you're breaking a federal law. You can't know all of the "regulations" that carry the force of law, and you simply cannot guarentee that the law or reg will not be interpretted or misinterpretted by someone given too much power.

In re: the SW revolver rifles--- they're pre-empting your design based on what someone MIGHT do. Heck, anyone with a hacksaw can cut down a shotgun or a rifle to a short-barrelled gun of "illegal length." Last time I checked, it's just as easy to cut a double's bbl.s down to 8" and the stock just behind the pistol grip as it is to trim the barrel down to 18" and shorten the pull of the buttstock. Hell with it. Put your guns into production, sir, and let them try to pre-empt you. You are not producing a rifle that is in violation of any written law. It would take an illegal act of another to cause the firearm to violate any written code. Of course, the assumption is that the mere ownership of a short rifle will cause someone to commit a crime.


Pardon me while I rant.....
 
Appalling to be sure. However it was a verbal assurance from one agent. One whom I've worked with for quite some time. My first reaction was to telephone my friend and custom gun builder Rodger Hunziker, owner of Phillips & Rodgers. He offered the services of his patent attorney to continue the project. However he advised that having been in similar situations in the past any type of legal action would be an excercise in futility. This is a common occurrance in the field of firearms research and development. What is unknown to most firearms enthusiast is that most modern firearms inovations found on modern guns introduced by the industry leaders come from small "skunkworks" development shops like mine and others scattered around the country (world). Absolute descretion is demanded by the major manufactures. I've had, what I consider a *small* peek into this secret society through my own operation and that of others in the field.

All of us, myself included, often curse *ATF* for problems within the system. However their agents are just as confused about the various laws as we are. I'm not defending them. Frankly I feel it's their job to familiarize themselves with the laws they are being paid to enforce. Before my own retirement I didn't arbitrarily make enforcement decisions without knowledge of the laws at issue. However our elected officials (legislative branch) have no appreciation or understanding of what is requried to enforce (judicial branch) the laws once they've enacted them. As I said this doesn't in any way mitigate the poor actions of the agents. It does however reenforce what we've said here all along. The politicians don't really expect the laws to be enforced.

As you say we are living in a society where due to the over whelming number of laws it is impossible to know if we are breaking one or not. And in far too many instances neither do those paid to enforce those laws. It would probably be safe to say that their is no one on this board that hasn't broken *some* law within the last month.

And once again we are punishing the law abiding to avoid the possibliity of someone obtaining the gun and then committing what is already a felony. But of course it's being done for the children..........................

Long Path your rant is greatly appreciated!!!

------------------
Gunslinger

We live in a time in which attitudes and deeds once respected as courageous and honorable are now scorned as being antiquated and subversive.
 
All these gun laws remind me of the old saying:
Dazzle 'em with Brilliance, or
Baffle 'em with Bull$#!T.

Been a long time since I've heard of anything even close to Dazzling from Washington.


Eventually there are going to be so many rules, regulations, and other hoops to go through to buy a gun, that registration will just be easier.

Where are we going, and why are we in a handbasket?

-LoneStar
 
Long Path,

Yes, it is legal, and it is cost effective...

I had that set up years ago, and I traded it all away.. but I am seriously thinking about starting another "1 frame arsenal" around a T/C pistol.


BTW- your "scary" hypothetical situation of a pistol with an 18" barrel would be legal.. What scares the ATF (for some reason...) is the idea that you could have the rifle stock and the SHORT barrel.. making a concealable controllable weapon which obviously would be inherently evil. :)
 
Pistols with rifle stocks. Why is the Government so afraid of these terrible weapons? Years ago, when I lived in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia, there was a gentleman who showed up ay the range with a long (8")barreled Luger. I guess it was the Naval model. I'm not to familiar with Lugers. Anyway, he had the shoulder stock, and a 32 round drum magazine. We had a gong at 300 yards. The fellow proceeded to fire as rapidly as he could at that gong. There were few misses. This was with a 9mm. I sure wouldn't have wanted to be out where that gong was. It was sure interesting to watch. He even let a curious 18 year old kid (me) try it. I even hit the gong a time of two.
Paul B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top