FFL to buy Black Powder receivers

[VRCordsgt]

I rencetly damaged one of my three Remington 1858 revolvers. It was a brass frame and now Im afraide to trust it with even a light charge for a blank. I check some gun parts sources and every one of them have a notice that to buy a Black Powder receiver, you need a FFL to do so. This seems odd to me as you can order a fully operational Black Powder rifle or revolver, even at Walmart, and not have to fill out a 4473( the old yellow form) or do a record check.

My question is, why should you need a FFL to buy just the receiver, to repair or build up a gun from parts. I have all the other parts and access to a lathe to set the barrel properly( you need to face off the threaded end of barrel so it lines up properly with frame and the barrle cylinder gap is not excessive

[Slickrick214]

Can you give websites with this notice? Are you sure its for everyone and not just certain states (The Soviet Socialist states of California and New Jersey)? Unless I'm missing something that doesn't sound right.

I was just checking a few sites. The only limits I saw was THIS PRODUCT CANNOT BE SHIPPED TO NEW JERSEY OR CANADA

[Frenchie]

Tell us the names of these gun parts sources and we'll get this straightened out.

The receiver or frame of a firearm is considered by the BATFE to be the firearm. It's the one essential part without which you have no firearm, only a pile of parts. So, the same restrictions apply to a receiver only as to a complete firearm.

That being said, a firearm designed to fire lead balls or bullets using black powder ignited by a flint spark or percussion cap is not technically defined to be a firearm and isn't subject to the same laws and restrictions as a modern "smokeless powder" gun.

This is the situation at the Federal level. State and local laws can be and sometimes are more restrictive.

[Rachal]

I wonder if this requirement is for black powder cartridge revolvers, rather than black powder cap & ball revolvers? An 1870's Remington is a lot different than its 1858 breathren, at least legally.

[1stTexas]

Weapons that fire cartridges require a background check and a FFL license to receive those weapons in the mail...regardless of the propellant they use.

Black powder firearms that do not use cartridges along with the parts for those weapons do not require a FFL and can be sent through the USPS, UPS, FED-EX, etc. The high crime states have more restrictions on weapons of any kind.

If the weapons or parts require a FFL to receive them, the sender will advise you of that fact before the sale.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"If the weapons or parts require a FFL to receive them, the sender will advise you of that fact before the sale."


Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I have see numerous for sale ads for BATFE/FFL governed guns on Civil War, "Cowboy," WWI, and WWII boards in violation of the law. (As well as local juridictions with their own more restrictive black powder laws.)

And, there are some (original) black powder and/or smokless cartridge firing guns, made prior to 1898, that do not require Federal "Bradying" and FFL processing.

CHS

[VRCordsgt]

I just looked it up again and looked at Gun Parts Corp/Numrich Arms and under Uberti,Remington 1858 Army it list the frame and is a note saying an FFL is required to purchase. I didnt take time to look at other parts sites as I have them scattered in a number of places on my favs list

[FloridaConfederate]

I've read some of your other posts and take away that accuracy is somewhat of a concern to you.

I dont believe there were brass framed Remington 58's ? Please correct me.

Why go through the expense to repair something that didnt exist..when you could probably get a properly timed, accurate steel framed gun for not much more after all is said and done..purchase, gunsmithing, refin, any shipping....it adds up.

[Frenchie]

I just went through about a dozen places on my Favorites list, and Gun Parts Corp./Numrich Arms is the only one I found with that notice on percussion revolvers or their frames. Three to ten it's because Numrich's Web wizard just cut 'n' pasted it on to all the handgun frame descriptions, either because he doesn't know any better or wasn't paying attention.

And just for the record, neither Colt nor Remington ever made a full-sized ("belt" or "holster") revolver with a brass frame. All the original brass-framed revolvers are Confederate copies of them.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/shenandoah/Choy.html

A. MODERN REPRODUCTIONS: Cabela’s, Traditions, Taylor and Co., CVA, EMF, Navy Arms, and Dixie all offer, but do not manufacture cap and ball reproductions. Virtually all reproductions are made in Italy by Euroarms (Armi San Paolo), Pietta, Uberti, and Armi San Marco (ASM). Pedersoli sells a Roger and Spencer made by Feinwerkbau (Germany). The Colts are fitted and assembled in the U.S.A. with Italian parts. Colts are the best and are very expensive. The Ubertis and Pedersolis are excellent. While the Piettas and ASMs are affordable, they have quality control problems. All are made of materials that are stronger then the originals. These companies also offer historically incorrect reproductions. Colt 1851 Navys in .44 never existed nor with a brass frame except for the Griswold and Gunnison and the Schneider and Glassick Confederate revolvers. Brass Colt 1860's and Remington New Model Army revolvers were never made. The Colt 1861 and 1862 models were never made in .44. All were in .36. Historically inaccurate reproductions are discouraged.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Colt 1851 Navys in .44 never existed nor with a brass frame except for the Griswold and Gunnison and the Schneider and Glassick Confederate revolvers"

Just an added potential wording/reading point, (not breaking with "in .44 never existed") I would emphasize that the Griswold & Gunnison and Schneider & Glassick Navy's were .36's.

(Plus, while the roughly 50 made Schneider & Glassick revolver did have an octagonal barrel like the Colt M1851, the roughly 3700 Griswold & Gunnison's had a round barrel.)

CHS

[Frenchie]

Good point, Herr Schmidt. I should have read that more carefully.