This rifle was made just before the deluge of 1964. When Winchester being under huge stress to survive. Made some serious mistakes concerning the making of their guns.
So if you are lucky enough to own one of these fine rifles. Consider yourself one very lucky gun owner! Grumpy
Anybody have an idea who these folks are out there?
A Nice looking Piece!
The COLT NEW DA ARMY/NAVY model first began manufacture in 1892 and was made for both services with walnut stocks and sold commercially with black rubber grips. It underwent several changes for improvements and when sold to the government had six different models: 1892, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1901and 1903. These Colt revolvers were the first swing-out cylinder double action revolvers ever made, and revolutionized revolvers with the new design. S&W wouldn’t get their first swing-out DA on the market until 1896. Although there were slight changes to the revolver over the years, the largest complaint was not in its mechanics but with its chambering in .38 Long Colt as used by the Army. Reports from the Philippines campaign regarding the poor performance of the M1892’s .38 Colt ammunition (users complained that the .38 bullet repeatedly failed to stop charging enemy tribesmen at close ranges, even when hit multiple times) caused the U.S. Army to hurriedly issue stocks of .45 caliber revolvers, and played a central role in its decision to replace the M1892 with the .45 Colt M1909 New Service revolver in 1909.
Shooters looking to place a vertical foregrip on their AR pistol are okay to do so as long as the overall length of the pistol is greater than 26 inches. Nothing has changed about that except the very important aspect of how exactly the ATF will be going around measuring everyone’s AR pistols. Personally, I am trying to run down some 26″ calipers to make sure that when I measure the bureaucratic infringement on the 2nd Amendment I did it as accurately as possible. But I digress…..
Here’s Adam’s full explanation which is a must see if you plan to build or are currently building an AR pistol.
But in case you’re reading this while sitting on the couch at some boring family function or in a conference room listening to some guy drone on and on about all the work he can’t wait for everybody else to do, read Adam’s thorough rundown over at Recoil, and make sure you don’t go throwing any vertical foregrips onto your pistol without understanding the potential ramifications.
Here’s the ATF Guidance in full:
Dear [Redacted],
This refers to your correspondence to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch (FTSIB), in which you ask about the correct way to measure a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” and a folding adapter.
Consistent with the stated intent of the inventors, and as supported by the objective design features, FTISB has previously determined that “stabilizing braces” may be assembled on firearms as accessories designed to assist with the operation and use of certain pistols or firearms by aiding the shooter in stabilizing the firearm when firing. In contrast to stocks on rifles or shotguns however, such “stabilizing braces” are merely accessories and are not relevant to classification of a “pistol” under the statutory definition. That is, a folding stock on a rifle or shotgun is included in overall length measurement because the firearm must be “designed or redesigned, made or remade and intended to be fired from the shoulder” to be so classified. The stock is therefore an essential element in the statutory definition. Conversely, it is inappropriate to include a folding “stabilizing brace” accessory in the overall length measurement of a firearm because, unlike a rifle or shotgun, a stabilizing brace is not an element of either a statutory or regulatory definition of any firearm. Therefore, when a device operating as a stabilizing brace is attached to a firearm via a folding mechanism, overall length is measured with the brace in the folded position.
Makers also create an artificial overall length measurement by attaching a folding stabilizing brace. Such a measurement would be problematic because the firearm could avoid classification as an “AOW,” yet retain the concealability and remain fully functional. Measuring a folding (or telescoping) stabilizing brace would therefore undermine the comprehensive statutory and regulatory design of the GCA and NFA. As stated above, this is not the case when measuring rifles or shotguns because the statutory definitions include the stock or shouldering device which therefore must be considered. The measurement of a folding or collapsible stabilizing brace in the overall length of a firearm creates an artificial overall length that would permit a maker to avoid classification as an NFA “firearm” without a viable design purpose or legal justification.
Even if stationary however, only standard receiver extensions will be considered in overall length measurements. For example, accessories (extensions) that have superfluous material are not included in the overall length measurement because they are intended to circumvent the law and serve no purpose in the function of the firearm.
Finally, any conflicting information to the guidance provided in this correspondence is hereby invalid and rescinded, if not issued from the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division, the only ATF Division delegated the authority to provided [sic] technical guidance such as this.
We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your request for clarification. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely Yours,
Michael R. Curtis
Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch
 |
About Kris VermillionKris Vermillion is a lifelong shooter who focuses his training on defensive shooting techniques and the shooter’s mindset. Kris works with the Palmetto State Armory E-Commerce and Marketing teams. |
