Author Topic: Legality of building 12 guage signal cannon from ATF? (Read 9082 times)

Powder keg · « **on:** July 12, 2005, 05:04:49 PM »

Hello,

I was just wondering. Is there a difference in legality between 10 and 12 gauge signal cannons? I've seen a lot of newer 10 gauge cannons but no 12 gauge cannons? Is there a reason for this? If so I might need to rebore my little signal cannon before I finish it. Also I'm planing on building a signal cannon that shoots 45 cal. blanks. Does anyone think I would have "troubles" with this? I looked at the BATF web site and they had more info on potato guns than cannons. Any info would be appreciated.

GGaskill · « **Reply #1 on:** July 12, 2005, 08:04:39 PM »

I know it's a pain but I can only suggest a written inquiry of the ATF for a definitive answer.

My guess about 10 ga vs. 12 ga is 10 ga makes more noise and smoke.

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2005, 12:52:59 AM »

Quote from: GGaskill

I know it's a pain but I can only suggest a written inquiry of the ATF for a definitive answer.

Agreed.

Short-chambering wouldn't do it, as it would still chamber the short 12ga rounds now produced.

A pin side-to-side in the barrel such that shot couldn't be used would be definitive.

But a letter of approval from BATF would be worth framing!

Powder keg · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2005, 08:20:20 AM »

So How how I go about doing it? Do they need blue prints or will a description do? Has any one dealt with them before? Appreciate any help, Thanks, Wes

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2005, 11:34:12 AM »

Here is where you need some advice from experience. Instead of that, all I can give you is an opinion educated by hearsay. Have qualified what follows, I've heard that a sketch and a description will do. I would take a picture of the known-legal device and label it as the model around which you are building a replica AND that it is a SIGNALING DEVICE intended ONLY for firing blanks.

Powder keg · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2005, 05:02:12 PM »

The pictures of the one I want to build are only simular to the one I want to build. Found searching the internet. I'm making some changes. It was made buy/for an individual, I believe. I can sketch it on paper, but I have no computer drafting skills. I'll send a picture and a sketch. First I might Email them as what if any additional information I should send? I wouldn't worry about it so much but I build some of this stuff to support by hobby and am planing on building several to auction on Ebay and other places. Later,

Powder keg · « **Reply #6 on:** July 15, 2005, 02:18:56 PM »

Hi, I called the BATF in Boise and the lady told me I needed to talk to a inspector because some things have been changed since 9/11. Of corse he's on vacation for a week. I read somewhere that under 50 cal and over 12 gauge is Ok for signaling, I'll check. So I'll have to probably rebore my little signal cannon to 10 gauge. I'll keep every one updated. Is ther any other questions any one wants me to ask?

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #7 on:** July 15, 2005, 02:43:08 PM »

The answers to questions over the phone are likely to be valid answers. But a document is evidence that can be used in court.

Thanks for asking. My real questions will turn up when I have a real project that is close to the line and needs clarification.

Powder keg · « **Reply #8 on:** July 15, 2005, 02:52:26 PM »

I was planing on getting info in document form. mainly I was wanting to find out What was leagle and what to send in where to get documents.

GGaskill · « **Reply #9 on:** August 29, 2005, 03:15:36 PM »

Did you ever get a definitive statement from the ATF on this?

Powder keg · « **Reply #10 on:** August 29, 2005, 05:35:52 PM »

Basically they said no, but I asked about other companies/individuals building signal cannons that use cartridges and how they are getting around it. The BATFE inspector said he didn't no everything (been some changes, I think he said) and that I should call their fire arms technology office. He gave me the number, and I haven't had time to contact them yet. I'll try to get that done in the next day or so. Bug me buy the end of the week if I haven't got back to this. Thanks,

GGaskill · « **Reply #11 on:** August 29, 2005, 09:13:59 PM »

I'll try to remember to remind you. (-:

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #12 on:** August 29, 2005, 11:55:08 PM »

Quote from: GGaskill

I'll try to remember to remind you. (-:

George - please do.

Powder Keg - Inquiring minds want to know! :-D

Thanks for posting about the referral of the question to 'technology division' too.

Powder keg · « **Reply #13 on:** August 30, 2005, 01:59:36 PM »

Hi, Just got off the Batf's computerized answering service. The Firearms Tech branch dosen't answer the phone. :grin: But they would be more than happy to read a letter. I'll try to get something sent off shortly and let everyone know.

Their address is:

ATF
Att Firearms technoligies Branch
244 Needy Rd.
Martinsberg, WV 25401

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2005, 02:05:49 PM »

Well!

Martinsburg is but 4 or so hours from me!

Could be an interesting trip!

Powder keg · « **Reply #15 on:** August 30, 2005, 02:32:58 PM »

So It's settled. CW is going to find out for us :-D Just kidding. I'll get a letter drafted shortlt and send it off.

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #16 on:** August 30, 2005, 02:57:56 PM »

Quote from: Powder keg

So It's settled. CW is going to find out for us :-D Just kidding. I'll get a letter drafted shortlt and send it off.

Sometimes going in to talk face to face, and wearing a suit and tie, can bring about a very good understanding of eachother's perspectives. There are issues that I'd like to discuss, as with signal cannons and mortars with bi-pods. What distinguishes a replica of the 1707 mortar from a replica of the Stokes?

Maybe not this week or month, but sometime.

Powder keg · « **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2005, 04:04:53 PM »

I forgot their phone # for what it's worth is 1-304-260-3414.

Powder keg · « **Reply #18 on:** September 28, 2005, 07:58:59 PM »

Just thought I'd mention I almost have my letter finished. Do you guys think I should add some pictures of examples of what I intend to build. That way maybe they won't think I'm trying to get buy with building a 8 gauge pistol or something? Later,

GGaskill · « **Reply #19 on:** September 28, 2005, 09:05:25 PM »

I think it is best to be very specific with them so they don't think you are trying to pull a fast one on them. If you know the details of what you want to do, spell them out. At worst, it will save exchanging letters trying to determine exactly what you mean (that may happen anyway.)

If you are trying to overturn a standing precedent, e.g., that a bipod supported mortar design predates both the Stokes design and the 1898 rule, gather as much evidence as possible and hit them with all of it at once.

If other people are doing what you want to do and it appears they have legal support for their activities, cite them as previously approved examples of what you are intending to do.

GGaskill · « **Reply #20 on:** October 09, 2005, 11:14:51 AM »

Any progress on this?

Powder keg · « **Reply #21 on:** October 09, 2005, 12:51:57 PM »

Hey Guys,
My leter to the BATF is almost done. I'm having my dad give it a look over because he is good with words. I should have it off in a week or so.

Mark 42 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 12, 2005, 11:26:19 AM »

Keep us posted... I'm about to consider the same issue.

I wonder if the reason 8 & 10 ga. might be easier to get permission for is because
they could be considered obsolete ammunition (not readily available)?

GGaskill · « **Reply #23 on:** April 04, 2006, 05:20:26 PM »

We finally have an answer from the ATF on this subject. I am posting instead of Powder Keg since I put the letter images on my web server. The response is three pages long, but in large print so it won't take long to read. There are links at the bottom of each page to the following page.

ATF Letter

Powder keg · « **Reply #24 on:** April 04, 2006, 05:25:26 PM »

Thanks G!!

Double D · « **Reply #25 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:29:48 PM »

The first part seem pretty clear yes you can build one. As long as it is intended as a signalling device it is not a destructive device.

The second you put live ammuition in it could be considered a destructive device and a license would be requred to manufacture. This is kind muddy.

I'll add this to the FAQ's tonight. I already change your post title. Hang on tight to that letter.

GGaskill · « **Reply #26 on:** April 04, 2006, 07:15:06 PM »

Yes, it does leave a wide gray area. Suppose customer A puts an ordinary shotshell (including shot or slug) in gun A and fires it (in the presence of an ATF agent, obviously). Does that make gun B owned by customer B a DD? Does it make future manufacture DD's? Very ambiguous statement.

I suggest marking each gun "Do Not Fire Self-Contained Ammunition", for what it is worth.

Will Bison · « **Reply #27 on:** April 04, 2006, 08:43:32 PM »

I totally agree with George, stamp the barrel/breach. The old Winchester cannons were marked "Not for Ball". But I know different, sshhhhhh

I read the letter several times and don't find it muddy at all. A very specific question was asked and to that question the answer was "Yes". In past dealings with ATF, I can assure all of you that when they say NO it is not muddy at all. They seem to find more direct verbiage when they say no.

We should all remember that the letter discussed here ONLY applies to the Author, it should not be construed as blanket approval to build breach loading cannons. It may be used as a reference along with your own letter to the ATF.

Bill

Cat_Whisperer · « **Reply #28 on:** April 05, 2006, 12:48:27 AM »

I think it's clear. It is and it isn't a DD DEPENDING on the ammunition used. I would stamp the barrel or action "blanks only"; since the issue is whether or not it launches somethign. That would indicate intent.

Thanks, Wes, for going through the trouble of writing ATF and sharing this. Thanks, George, for posting it and making it available.

Cat_Whisperer · « **Reply #29 on:** April 05, 2006, 12:54:32 AM »

Quote from: Will Bison

I totally agree with George, stamp the barrel/breach. The old Winchester cannons were marked "Not for Ball". But I know different, sshhhhhh

I read the letter several times and don't find it muddy at all. A very specific question was asked and to that question the answer was "Yes". In past dealings with ATF, I can assure all of you that when they say NO it is not muddy at all. They seem to find more direct verbiage when they say no.

We should all remember that the letter discussed here ONLY applies to the Author, it should not be construed as blanket approval to build breach loading cannons. It may be used as a reference along with your own letter to the ATF.

Bill

Good observations!

Bill, we're NOT going to ask you HOW you know! The risks are 10 years and/or 10 grand. I know a person who spent 3 years behind bars because he handled a pistol that was handed to him at the range that had a silencer on it - sting operation. Wife and 2 kids he didn't see for 3 long years.

Weigh the risks, make good decisions.