Anyone else building modern designs?

[Modern Art]

This is a great forum, very informative. Glad I found it.

Are there any other members out there who build black powder reproductions of contemporary design? Seems like most BP shooters favor more primative designs for their guns. In my view, in a world of smart bombs and lasers, even the arms of WWI and WWII have now become primative.

 I became hooked on artillery when I built my first cannon, a 2 gauge smoothbore made from the drive shaft from an old truck. My cannon resembles a scaled down WWII howitzer complete with pneumatic tires and coil spring buffers which allow the barrel to retract on firing. Recoil control as much as chamber pressure seems to be the main factor in design of these guns. It took many attempts to get it right. As the designs evolved, the gun more and more began to resemble a modern cannon. I soon had to accept that form does follow function where artillery is concerned.

My latest project is a moderately faithful copy of the M2 60mm mortar, complete with a transit and elevation mount and folding bi-pod. I assemble projectiles that fit the bore perfectly from two 1.5 inch iron pipe caps joined by a short nipple and painted blaze orange for easier recovery.

Hope to post pics of both guns after I get the hang of this forum.

[Cat Whisperer]

Modern Art -

WELCOME to the board! 

There indeed may well be several folks here that are into more modern cannon/mortars, BUT since federal law restricts those built after 1898 for the transfer to be registered, we've chosen not to have those discussed here.  There are other good forums for such Class III devices.

In any event, we'd like to see what pre 1899 designs/replicas you play with!

[GGaskill]

Just for the record, what is the moderators' opinion on variations on the theme of the French 75 of 1897?

[Modern Art]

Modern Art -

WELCOME to the board! 

There indeed may well be several folks here that are into more modern cannon/mortars, BUT since federal law restricts those built after 1898

Thanks for the reply. My understanding of the federal regs is that any weapon of muzzle loading design, that uses black powder and an has a primative ignition system (fuze, flint or percussion) is excluded from regulation. Provided the weapon doesn't use fixed ammo loaded from the breech. Consequently the outward appearance of the gun shouldn't be an issue. A flintlock rifle made up to resemble an M-16, is still just a flintlock rifle.
Of course, the way these laws seem to change overnight, I could be mistaken. What's the latest wording that ATF is using?

[Modern Art]

Just for the record, what is the moderators' opinion on variations on the theme of the French 75 of 1897?

Thanks for the heads-up regarding why this forum restricts it's discussion to guns of pre-1898 appearance. That makes perfect sense. Henceforth I'll confine my discussion to issues of engineering and ballistics, which is what attracted me to this forum in the firstplace. Thanks again GG.

[Double D]

Thanks for the reply. My understanding of the federal regs is that any weapon of muzzle loading design, that uses black powder and an has a primative ignition system (fuze, flint or percussion) is excluded from regulation. Provided the weapon doesn't use fixed ammo loaded from the breech. Consequently the outward appearance of the gun shouldn't be an issue. A flintlock rifle made up to resemble an M-16, is still just a flintlock rifle.
Of course, the way these laws seem to change overnight, I could be mistaken. What's the latest wording that ATF is using?

You better go take a second look at ATF regulations.  The rules for this forum are directly quoted from ATF regualtions. Outward appearance is everythig. 

This board is for the making and shooting of blackpowder mortars and cannons that meet ATF's description of an antique or replica of an antique.  You will find Links to ATF's various descriptions in our FAQ's and references posted at the top of the board.

We as moderators will enforce this rule as we understand ATF's definition.  We are not Lawyers.  We are going to go with what we know and understand. This is for your protection as well as ours.  We do not want this forum to become the hunting grounds for rookie ATF Agents trying to make their reputation.  The Veterans arenÂ’t going to bother us they are to busy looking for real crooks.

If you wish to provide us with a letter from ATF defining whatever other device you wish to discuss as an antique we will allow the discussion. Provide the letter first.

That being said this is what we accept on this forum.

1.  Any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition

and

2. Manufactured in or before 1898...or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898)

or

3. Any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

Stokes Mortar Click on this link for a explanation of why the Stokes Mortar is not allowed on this board. Stokes Mortar

George, you will find your answer in the  there.

These rules are the basis used to create and build this forum and it is the rules by which we operate.

If you wish to dicuss Class three weapons there is a Forum on Graybeards for that discussion.

[Modern Art]

Just spent the day prowling the web for information on what constitutes a NFA, title II destructive device. Just for my own gratification, not to argue the point. I agree with you guys.

Looks like I a dodged a regulatory bullet.

The 2 gauge cannon, being a muzzle loader is indeed an antique weapon. It may even have sporting use as a "puntgun" when loaded with birdshot.

The mortar was trickier to define. Turns out it was as simple as measuring the bore. My design when complete will have a 63mm bore. Since no nation ever created an anti-personnel round in that size I'm in the clear. Provided I don't ever attempt to make a unique anti-personnel round for it.

Regarding a genuine GI issue mortar, like the infamous Stokes. Yes, that would be a destructive device. So too is the old Japanese Knee-mortar of WWII, even though no ammo has been made for it since 1945.

Ironically, if a Stokes mortar is redesigned so that it can not fire the military round and is intended for use as a signal gun, pyrotechnic launcher or line thrower, it's not a DD anymore. Infact, it's not even classified as a weapon.

A similar situation exists regarding the M-203 grenade launcher that mounts under the barrel of an M-16. The 40mm launchers are DD. The 37mm are not even considered a weapon (flare launcher). However, if you buy any 37mm bean-bag rounds which are intended for anti-personnel use (albeit non-lethal) the 37mm launcher becomes classified as a DD and must be registered.

As for the French 75. It loads from the breech and once upon a time, anti-personnel rounds were made for it, so it's a DD too. Unless you redesign it to be a muzzle loader by welding the breech or install a barrel sleeve to create a unique bastard caliber of your own invention...provided the fixed ammo you make is not intended for anti-personnel use.

Oh and just for giggles, a molotov cocktail is a DD. But a flame thrower is not. In fact, a flame thrower isn't even classified as a firearm. I'm getting a headache. These laws are goofy.

[Cat Whisperer]

I think you've got a prety good grip on it.

To answer the earlier question, I'd love to have a replica french 75.  Used to play on one in our city park (Grinnell, IA) as a kid.  I think you could even make a breach-loading one (as long as it wasn't cartrige loaded and primer fired).

I love your last statement too.  Sometimes reason is hard to squeeze out from the regulations.  There are a lot of folks out there that are playing with fire when it comes to their replica 60's and 81's - applying the test of reason rather than the letter of the law.

Thanks for posting the results of your home-work, a good example of what we ALL should do - that is, look up the law and know what is and is not legal.

[Modern Art]

I think you've got a prety good grip on it.

I love your last statement too.  Sometimes reason is hard to squeeze out from the regulations.  There are a lot of folks out there that are playing with fire when it comes to their replica 60's and 81's - applying the test of reason rather than the letter of the law.

Well, if there is any good news to all of this, due to arbitrary ATF actions in the past, the burden of proof has been shifted to the ATF. They must now prove with a preponderance of evidence that the builder had intent to create a destructive device. Mere probable cause is no longer sufficient to get a conviction. Too many innocent folk were tripped up by the ambiguous wording. For once Congress took pity on the hapless gunowners.

Evenso, I think I'll rename my project "the 63.5mm pyrotechnic launcher". 

Thanks again for saving my ass guys.

[Thorn]

While someone could see a BP muzzel loading mortar as a Stokes mortar, I see a "bad" replica of a BP howitzer.

Not being good at woodworking, there is no carridge.
Since i dont have a carridge, i dont see the need for trunnions.
Since it dont have a trunnions, i needed something to hold it up and i therefore used a bipod i found.
Since every time i fire it it sinks into the mud, i needed something like a steel plate and found that a baseplate for a mortar was just the thing.

 

This is of course the type of logic that keeps me in trouble, and one of the reasons why my wife wont leave me alone "UNSUPERVISED" for any length of time. 

[Double D]

You need to look at theses things not whether they meet the description of a Dangerous Device, but whether they meet’s the description of an antique weapon.

There are two elements and one exception. Let’s use the French 75 as an example

Element number 1
Any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition
The French 75 was designed to use fixed ammunition. So it doesn't meet this element

Element number 2
Manufactured in or before 1898...or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898)
The 75 does meet this element

The Exception

Any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
This exception has two parts.  I doubt that anyone is still manufacturing French 75 ammunition in the U.S.  I'll bet you can find someone who will sell you French 75 ammunition and components.  Even then if It’s not available on the commercial market,  you probably would be better off getting an exception letter from ATF.  Once you get that letter from ATF saying that the gun is Antique, then you are going have to provide a copy of that letter to the moderators before you can post your original French 75 on this board.

Now someone is going to jump in here and say, hey you let that golf ball shooting 75 post without a letter. Yes we sure did. Here’s why,

1.  Any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunitiion
The Golf ball shooting 75 was not designed to use rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition, so the exception doesn't apply.

2. Manufactured in or before 1898...or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898)
It replicated a gun made before 1899.


Now let’s look at the bowling ball mortar with tripod and base plate.

1.  Any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition.
The Bowling ball mortar is muzzle loaded and doesn't use fixed ammunition, so it meets this element and the exception would not apply.

2. Manufactured in or before 1898...or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898)
The bowling ball mortar using tripod and base plate does not replicate a pre 1899 design, it replicates a 1914 Stokes mortar.  The bowling ball mortar using tripod and base plate does not meet this element.  Therefore it doesn't meet the criteria for discussion on this board.

WARNING: This is our criteria for posting discussion on this board.  For ATF's interpretation I suggest you contact ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office.