Author Topic: A Handi or BC in a TRUE .50 of SOME sort (Read 658 times)

coltnavy36 · « **on:** January 02, 2006, 07:24:17 PM »

Why would it hurt the guys and gals at NEF to come out with a Handi or BC in a true .50 (.510-11) chambering? Not just the odd .500S@W.
It's not THAT hard.
I mean for goodness sakes, it's a rifle company.
Give us a .50-70, or .50-90"poison slinger", in say a BC, or a Handi even.

Lead a horse to water, and then have to teach it to drink.
Come on.
Not saying I don't like what they have done so far, but gosh, it's like a big tease, especially with the .500S@W.
There are many people that would crave these, as the caliber alone may not have the large following of the .45, but it DOES have a pretty good following despite. One large enough to be felt by the company I'm sure.

Sure, the .500S@W is powerful and fits that niche, but there are also people that like things for nostalgia also, and these would do well in a BC.
It is a Buffalo Classic? Then put one of the main buffalo cartridges in it.

Am I the only one that thinks this?
Or is my sense of LOGIC going bad?

Mac11700 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 02, 2006, 07:50:49 PM »

Why don't you give them a call when they open...ask to speak to the marketing department...

You right of course...there are a bunch of different calibers and barrel lenghts and types they could offer..but they will only do that when they think they can sell a bunch of them...go figure...

Mac

knight0334 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 03, 2006, 04:47:24 AM »

you could rechamber the 500 S&W to 500 Martin. its a 50 Alaskan necked down slightly to .500 from .510.

dies are available on request from a couple manufacturers.

I thought about doing this myself..

http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/ai.cgi?sn=fLhkXohZiG&catid=364

article by the creater of the 500 Martin:
http://www.singleactions.com/500Martin.pdf

OhioCruffler · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2006, 03:22:18 PM »

Because any firearm with a bullet over .500" and for which ammunition is commercially available is a destructive device, and carries an additional $200 tax, fingerprints, and background check.

The 50/70 and 50/90 rifles that are now on the market are legal only because the ammunition is not commonly available.

Who would build a rifle that shoots a caliber that is not widely available, and which would, if ammunition becomes available, immediately require a $200 tax payment?

Larry

mitchell · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2006, 04:35:55 PM »

Quote from: OhioCruffler

Because any firearm with a bullet over .500" and for which ammunition is commercially available is a destructive device, and carries an additional $200 tax

umm what about the 500 S&W

there's on $200 tax on it and ammo is every where.

OhioCruffler · « **Reply #5 on:** January 06, 2006, 04:44:19 PM »

Quote from: mitchell

umm what about the 500 S&W there's on $200 tax on it and ammo is every where.

That was the original question; "why does the .500 S&W have a "smaller than normal .50 caliber" bore?".
And the answer was they couldn't make the normal .50 nominal bore because it would be a Destructive Device; they had to make it smaller. The .500 S&W bullet is .500", oddly enough. It is not "over .500"" as I stated.

Before anyone asks, the .50 BMG is specifically exempted from that regulation.

mitchell · « **Reply #6 on:** January 06, 2006, 04:54:39 PM »

Quote from: OhioCruffler

Before anyone asks, the .50 BMG is specifically exempted from that regulation.

thats messed up. i wonder what democrat thought that reg. up

moxgrove · « **Reply #7 on:** January 07, 2006, 04:01:52 AM »

An exemption to the destructive device ban can be obtained by a manufacturer if they can show it is only for sporting purposes. SKS has two that are exempt. including their 14,8 mm. I think probably demands a mountain of paperwork, 5 miles of red tape and a lawyer bill for at least one useful appendage though. They have to weigh all that against potential sales and profit. I myself am going to play with the super heavy bullets (600 -750 gr) in the 500 and hopefully have some fun. I may even come up with something like a 600 grain snover bullet. at about 1200 fps it should give all the thrill I want. :lol:

knight0334 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 07, 2006, 04:42:44 AM »

Quote from: OhioCruffler

Because any firearm with a bullet over .500" and for which ammunition is commercially available is a destructive device, and carries an additional $200 tax, fingerprints, and background check.

The 50/70 and 50/90 rifles that are now on the market are legal only because the ammunition is not commonly available.

Who would build a rifle that shoots a caliber that is not widely available, and which would, if ammunition becomes available, immediately require a $200 tax payment?

Larry

Thats not totally true.. There is an exemption from the law for firearms of sporting purposes.

Newly made .550, .585, .600 and .700 caliber hunting rifles fall within the exemption.

The Barrett "50 Caliber" and other bolt action rifles that use the 50 BMG have a .510" diameter bullet and have been designated sporting rifles.

Generally one of the rifles must be reviewed by the ATF to obtain this status. Then there after that model of rifle with that caliber is exempt.

MSP Ret · « **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2006, 05:09:51 AM »

" i wonder what democrat thought that reg. up "

, TOUCHE Mitchell!!! :-D :-D :-D ,

Now I just spit coffee all over my keyboard!!! You sure are an astute and politically savvy young man!!! Congratulations for your clear thinking!!! Vote Republican, keep the U.S.A. free by keeping our guns!!!....<><.... :grin:

OhioCruffler · « **Reply #10 on:** January 07, 2006, 05:33:45 AM »

National Firearms Act of 1934. It was in response to the "Gangster Era" and the fear of imported heavy weapons being used for bank robbery and such.

Larry

coltnavy36 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 07, 2006, 06:39:18 AM »

-OhioCruffler-
Pre-law Sporting cartridges are exempted automatically.
These sporting cartridges are especially, since they were around before "whatever it is" law came in effect. .577 Nitro, 50-sharps, .505 Gibbs, etc.
Your assumption that a tax is required and all else is bogus.
Or maybe it's just the state you live in.
If so, I would not want to be a resident.
Yes, I understand the $200 tax, because I've paid one. It was required for my 9mm sub-gun. I could understand at the time the reason for it. And would pay it again if needed.
But for sporting cartridges, and firearms, this is not needed, and should NEVER be needed.
Not trying to cut nerves here, or to make an argument, or to be unfriendly, but please, do some homework before making these statements.
By the way, I can go buy a .56 Spencer right now. Or a .577 Nitro(if I had that kind of money), and NEITHER require a bloody tax.
If they did, or if someone makes a law like this that you state, then I'd just as soon give up on our "good ol' U.S.A." ever being the same again, and either become a hermit, or move to another less imperialistic country.

---coltnavy---

OhioCruffler · « **Reply #12 on:** January 07, 2006, 07:33:07 AM »

Quote from: coltnavy36

-OhioCruffler-
Pre-law Sporting cartridges are exempted automatically.
These sporting cartridges are especially, since they were around before "whatever it is" law came in effect. .577 Nitro, 50-sharps, .505 Gibbs, etc.
Your assumption that a tax is required and all else is bogus.
Or maybe it's just the state you live in.
If so, I would not want to be a resident.
Yes, I understand the $200 tax, because I've paid one. It was required for my 9mm sub-gun. I could understand at the time the reason for it. And would pay it again if needed.
But for sporting cartridges, and firearms, this is not needed, and should NEVER be needed.
Not trying to cut nerves here, or to make an argument, or to be unfriendly, but please, do some homework before making these statements.
By the way, I can go buy a .56 Spencer right now. Or a .577 Nitro(if I had that kind of money), and NEITHER require a bloody tax.
If they did, or if someone makes a law like this that you state, then I'd just as soon give up on our "good ol' U.S.A." ever being the same again, and either become a hermit, or move to another less imperialistic country.

---coltnavy---

No, you are wrong. The .577 and 56/50 are exempt because they are not offered in normal commerce. Specialty or custom doesn't count.

Look in your Federal Guide to Firearms Laws,m NFA-34.
Go to §5845, Definitions, para (f) Destructive Device, section (2). It forbids any firearm with a bore over ½ inch, unless named as particularly suited to sporting use. Nothing about age.

Now, in exemptions, turn to para (g) of the same code. Antiques. If the *gun* is made on or before 1898, and ammunition for which is not available in the ordinary channels of the commercial trade.

The Director of the ATF&E could exempt anything over .500" he cares to, but he hasn't made such determinations. I wish he would, because I would like a 50/90 Sharps that I could buy commercial ammunition for. But frankly, I don't see it happening.

You say that there is a "grandfather" clause for cartridges made before 1934. I would like to see a cite.

I have done my homework. Now, if I have missed the clause you mentioned, school me.

Larry

coltnavy36 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 07, 2006, 08:04:38 AM »

Excellent reply. Really.
I stand in embarassment.
I did think there WAS a grandfather clause so to speak.
If what you mention is truly the case, then I am totally in awe that this free country has come to this.
I really am.
I am almost positive that our founding fathers have rolled over in their graves so many times, they must, by now, need a change of clothes.
As for your .50-90: Go buy a new Sharps, and go to Buffalo Arms website and BUY your .50-90 ammo.
hehe-maybe this applies only to the "big three" ammo companys.
What about A-Square. It's factory.
I've used gobs of their FACTORY ammo.
Maybe all of this does not take into consideration proprietary cartridges, wildcats, and obsolete ammo.
Go to Searcy's site, buy a .577Nitro, and BUY some FACTORY Kynoch-"Kynamco" ammo.
I will agree that what you say is true.
It enlightens me even more-so, about how far into the gutter they have to reach to come up with these regulations. I am sure that one beautiful day, the lawmakers will once again see daylight, when they are able to find the zipper to their ---hole.
---coltnavy---

OhioCruffler · « **Reply #14 on:** January 07, 2006, 08:25:46 AM »

Quote from: coltnavy36

I am sure that one beautiful day, the lawmakers will once again see daylight, when they are able to find the zipper to their ---hole.
---coltnavy---

I wait beside you, but I won't hold my breath.

Larry

only1asterisk · « **Reply #15 on:** January 08, 2006, 01:06:21 AM »

The bore diameter of a rifle barrel is the inside diameter measured from land to land. It is entirely possible to use a .510" bullet in a barrel with a .500" bore diameter so long as the groove diameter is .510". This makes new rifles using .510" bullets possible with no tax or sporting purpose exemption.

The sporting purpose exemption isn't difficult and it doesn't cost anything, but I agree that it is asinine. They will give you an exemption for almost anything.

I've designed a necked down 50-110 to rechamber 500 S&W handi's. I call it the 50 Handy. I haven't procured a reamer yet as I haven't found a victi- I mean volunteer to shoot it.

David