raging bull M454 with shoulder stock?
- Thread starter Deadman
- Start date
hksigwalther
New member
(Not that I'm interested in doing it or not as I'm happy with my FA. Just curious on the law.)
Would replacing the stock barrel with one that is over 16" and putting a stock on the Bull be legal?
Would replacing the stock barrel with one that is over 16" and putting a stock on the Bull be legal?
hksigwalther
New member
IIRC, Thompson/Center had at one time offered a conversion kit for their single shot handguns (can remember if it was the Contender or Encore or both). It transformed them (with the proper length barrel) from handgun to carbine with a swap of the gripstock to a rifle stock (and barrel if necessary). They did get into trouble here in the US due to the ability to easily make a short barrelled rifle but can't remember what the final government decision was about it.
So, if TC can do it with a simple grip change, I'm sure it can be done with the Bull, if you can find someone who can manufacture it for you.
So, if TC can do it with a simple grip change, I'm sure it can be done with the Bull, if you can find someone who can manufacture it for you.
Deadman, remember that our BATF sometimes tries to make busts for "conspiracy" to violate the National Firearms Act of 1934, so we're extremely cautious. And you've left your location blank.
It's completely *possible*. And under US law, legal so long as you also stretched the barrel. I think the stock would have to be permanently attached though, or only removable in a fashion that left the gun unable to function as a handgun (of the stock was set up as a "quick detach" versus bolt-on).
The easiest plan I can see would be to take the factory grip off, then bolt a plain rod of metal the width of the grip frame to the bottom of the gripframe, running backwards and then supporting a shoulder stock by coming upwards at the end. Then just carve a bit out of the rubber grips so they'll fit back on with the extra metal in place.
It's completely *possible*. And under US law, legal so long as you also stretched the barrel. I think the stock would have to be permanently attached though, or only removable in a fashion that left the gun unable to function as a handgun (of the stock was set up as a "quick detach" versus bolt-on).
The easiest plan I can see would be to take the factory grip off, then bolt a plain rod of metal the width of the grip frame to the bottom of the gripframe, running backwards and then supporting a shoulder stock by coming upwards at the end. Then just carve a bit out of the rubber grips so they'll fit back on with the extra metal in place.
Legality aside, the easiest way is to fashion a skeleton metal stock with a short tang that fits under the grip. Then drill two holes in the tang and corresponding tapped holes in the grip. Screw the stock tang to the grip and you are in business. If further support is needed, run a tang up the back of the grip and use a third screw. It is not quick detachable, but it is detachable and will work.
In the U.S., you can legally make a short-barrel rifle for your own use after applying for and receiving permission from BATF. I think it is a Form 1, but check on www.atf.treas.gov for the straight scoop.
Jim
In the U.S., you can legally make a short-barrel rifle for your own use after applying for and receiving permission from BATF. I think it is a Form 1, but check on www.atf.treas.gov for the straight scoop.
Jim
Keith Rogan
New member
You can pick up a Marlin Guide Gun in .45/70 for far less than this would cost. A GG would give you much more power as well as being far more ergonomic, accurate and practical.
I suppose that's obvious anyway... The real drawback to making a rifle out of any revolver action is that you'd still have to keep both arms behind the cylinder somehow unless you want to be badly burned from the gases escaping the cylinder gap. Such a rifle would be neither fish nor fowl. You'll lose the portability of a handgun and yet not have the advantage of the solid hold that a rifle gives you.
I suppose that's obvious anyway... The real drawback to making a rifle out of any revolver action is that you'd still have to keep both arms behind the cylinder somehow unless you want to be badly burned from the gases escaping the cylinder gap. Such a rifle would be neither fish nor fowl. You'll lose the portability of a handgun and yet not have the advantage of the solid hold that a rifle gives you.
Keith Rogan, if I did end up in a position to rig a shoulder stock to a Raging bull I could also rig a forward hand grip Steyr Aug style to the barrel, even if that meant the use of a flame retardent glove.
And while a lever gun would be just as effective, simply having a semi-auto firearm of that nature ( ie raging bull carbine ) in Australia would be good for a laugh
And while a lever gun would be just as effective, simply having a semi-auto firearm of that nature ( ie raging bull carbine ) in Australia would be good for a laugh
Keith Rogan
New member
Well Deadman, whatever trips your trigger...
I believe one of those Italian companies who specialize in replica's already make a revolver carbine. One of those in .45 Colt would essentially give you the same thing. Of course, I'm not sure if they make them in .45 Colt or even if they only made in Cap & Ball configuration.
Something to check out before you start plunking down money for a conversion.
Best,
I believe one of those Italian companies who specialize in replica's already make a revolver carbine. One of those in .45 Colt would essentially give you the same thing. Of course, I'm not sure if they make them in .45 Colt or even if they only made in Cap & Ball configuration.
Something to check out before you start plunking down money for a conversion.
Best,
CastleBravo
New member
This what you're looking for? 
