Fiscal versus calender year for krag production

[kragnut]

I think a similar discusion erupted on here while back, but I can't remember the outcome. How did SA date cartouches work? Did they follow the calender year or the fiscal year?

I've seen several krags over the years that had stock dates that were from the previous year mated to a serial number early in the following year. In all cases, does this always mean the stock has been swapped out?

What about stock dates that are a year later than guns with a receiver dated late in the year prior? I read somewhere that SA didnt use a "first in / first out" system with receivers so I suppose that would explain this one.

Thoughts?

[madsenshooter]

Calendar year, I'd sell that rifle as an antique and not sweat it.

[5MadFarmers]

152670 has often been bandied about as the cut-off and that one, if I'm reading it right, is above that.

One of these days I'm going to send a letter to the BATFE to get confirmation of what they consider the cut-off to be. i really don't like unsourced information like that serial number.

[madsenshooter]

One thing I've found with the BATF is that the answer you get to a question depends on the person answering. Call one day, talk to someone, get your answer, call another day, get a different person and a different answer to the same question. It's as if each is doing their own interpretation or making their own rulings. Not firsthand, but there was a fellow selling Krag barreled receivers. He called one day and asked if he could ship them to a C&R licensed person. On the first day, the answer was no, it was a firearm, regardless of C&R status, had to go to a FFL. Next time he was told that all such transfers had to go to an FFL because they weren't in their original configuration, nevermind the fact that someone may have been buying it to put it into its original configuration, and that any interstate transfers had to be made via a FFL, which makes a C&R License a useless piece of paper. I see the fellow selling again, but I think that to be on the safe side, he's shipping through a FFL. He wrote me and told me about the run around he was getting.

(g) Antique firearm. The term 'antique
firearm' means any firearm not
designed or redesigned for using rim fire
or conventional center fire ignition with
fixed ammunition and manufactured in or
before 1898 (including any matchlock,
flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of
ignition system or replica thereof, whether
actually manufactured before or after the
year 1898) and also 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.

I think that 152670 came from trying to split fiscal year 1899, which of course started in 1898, and I would agree with Poyer, that the pictured rifle, though I can't fully make out the serial #, was made in 1898, Dec of 1898 if I'm reading it right. Springfield has serial #s of fiscal year 1899 (Jul 1898-Jun 1899)production ranging from 116147 - 219925. Splitting that leaves us with serial # 168036, so wherever 152670 came from it wasn't a split (15366 away from it). I think Poyer did a pretty good job on his tables, and I wouldn't mind getting busted over something like that, let's see the government prove it "Beyond a reasonable doubt". Of course, now a days you have to prove you're innocent, not the other way around. 5, you can do the research in my defense! Or perhaps I should contact Joe.

[5MadFarmers]

I think that 152670 came from trying to split fiscal year 1899, which of course started in 1898, and I would agree with Poyer, that the pictured rifle, though I can't fully make out the serial #, was made in 1898, Dec of 1898 if I'm reading it right. Springfield has serial #s of fiscal year 1899 (Jul 1898-Jun 1899)production ranging from 116147 - 219925. Splitting that leaves us with serial # 168036, so wherever 152670 came from it wasn't a split (15366 away from it). I think Poyer did a pretty good job on his tables, and I wouldn't mind getting busted over something like that, let's see the government prove it "Beyond a reasonable doubt". Of course, now a days you have to prove you're innocent, not the other way around. 5, you can do the research in my defense! Or perhaps I should contact Joe.

I don't agree with Poyer's numbers. The Springfield reports in Brophy's "Arsenal of Freedom" are counter to those numbers.

Doesn't matter as it's all kind of silly. If BATFE wants to use 152670 they should have to prove that 152671 wasn't out of order right? They didn't come off the line in order. So 152670 is the best they can do. Probably not terribly far off. They're also working with an arbitrary cut-off point not of their making.

Personally I'd not take chances with a gun above the number they're happy with. I suspect they'd find a way to pin a felony charge on that and "poof" no more guns. Cheaper to just get the C&R and be done with it. $30 is a small price to pay.

[madsenshooter]

True, but what the fellow is telling me BATF told him, an interstate sale must originate from an FFL. If that's the case, as I said, the C&R is useless in dealing with a non-licensee. I think he said they based it on a recent ruling, something about "interstate commerce" being defined as originating from a licensee, not an individual. I've been looking for said ruling, but haven't found it yet. The fellow said he's had a lot of people giving him a hard time with the interpretation BATF has given him. According to them, if I, as a C&R holder was to purchase the above rifle, an FFL would have to ship it to me. He of course would charge a fee. I know a lot of people aren't operating that way, but that's what BATF told the guy. I'll keep digging.

[5MadFarmers]

I have no idea who told him that. BATFE's page is clear that that isn't right:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#gca-unlicensed-transfer


A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

That isn't ambigous.

[jon_norstog]

5MF, Madsen, guys:

At this time, this discussion is along the lines of angels dancing on the head of a pin. My thought in having a custom Krag built was that the 1898 cutoff datemight someday make a real difference: like whether you have to pAY an annual permit fee to keep the gun's registration alive, or in some cases having to submit to a lot of documentation vs. being off the hook.

As it turns out the receiver I got was in the 3XXX,XXX range. But I appreciate ALL YOUR efforts in this regard and will probably look for a bubba job or a receiver thats on the sunny side of 158K.

later!

jn

[madsenshooter]

Same here Jon, I think my Obermeyer barrel will get screwed into a model 96 receiver. I'm out of this debate, other than pointing my friend to what you've posted above 5. My mind isn't working too good, lost my job the other day for what I think is no good reason, got 30 days to sit and wait for 401K money so I can move from this accursed flatland, and very little money to get me through those 30 days. Back to poverty I go, but at least I'm not walking back!

The written word is seldom ambiguous 5, save for those who try to read between the lines, when there is naught there. Seems the people my friend talked to were the ambiguous ones. kragnut, sorry, best to err on the safe side of the fence as those above have rightfully pointed out. To the best of our collective knowledge cartouches were applied by calendar year. Jon, thanks for interjecting some reality. Gotta head home, momma's sick and she's dad's only caretaker, duty calls.

[5MadFarmers]

Madsen, sorry about the job. I remember the economy all too well, and painfully, as it existed in the early 1980s. I don't miss subsisting on cheese sandwiches. This economy is looking even worse. Outside of them not having a surplus of government cheese and butter.

The BATFE agents, like too many these days, seem to think that enforcing the law isn't good enough - they want to create it. About the only thing one can do in that case is get it in writing from them. Then excerpt the appropriate federal code and send a copy of both to your Senator or Congressman. The problem will go away. New Jersey recently was giving the CMP major amounts of grief over shipping to non-FFL members in that state.

Jon. From what I've seen they're very serious about a C&R being a C&R. Taking a C&R receiver and altering it can disqualify it from being a C&R any longer. So, yes, if you're looking at altering one you'd be best served with an early 1898 receiver and build from there. Antiques are more off their radar screen as the federal code on them is pretty clear - "not a firearm." All of which balances the equation nicely:
Firearm and C&R = BATFE
Antique = No BATFE.

That latter is better....

Cheers.

[jon_norstog]

5MF,

Thanks. I guess this calls for a little sea-lawyering. Even with the tapered octagon barrel, my nice custom might not pass muster as an antique, even if it had the low-number receiver. The 1871 #2 Rolling Block with its recent 45-70 barrel might scrape by .... it **looks** stock. But it was originally an Argy in .43.

At this time, though, I don't see any changes in the overall structure of federal gun laws anytime soon, and it has suddenly gotten harder for states to enact really stupid laws. When I'm gone I expect all the firearms will be sold off ... problem solved!

jn

[5MadFarmers]

5MF,

Thanks. I guess this calls for a little sea-lawyering. Even with the tapered octagon barrel, my nice custom might not pass muster as an antique, even if it had the low-number receiver. The 1871 #2 Rolling Block with its recent 45-70 barrel might scrape by .... it **looks** stock. But it was originally an Argy in .43.

At this time, though, I don't see any changes in the overall structure of federal gun laws anytime soon, and it has suddenly gotten harder for states to enact really stupid laws. When I'm gone I expect all the firearms will be sold off ... problem solved!

jn

You've lost me. Antique firearms cannot be "altered" to "non-antique" status from what I can see. Take an early 1898 Krag receiver and you can pretty much do what you want - it's still an antique.


(16) The term “antique firearm” means—
(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or

They didn't include text for "altered antiques." So your 1871 RB is an antique if it was made before 1898. You can pretty much do what you want and it'll always be an antique. Ditto an early 1898 Krag.

That is not the case with C&R firearms.

I'm not an attorney. Regardless I've never seen, nor heard, of antiques being "reclassified" into any category where BATFE has any perusal of them. I don't think that's possible. So an antique is an antique is an antique. Do what you want with it - it'll still be an antique. Assuming the base receiver is pre-1899.

[kragnut]

As long as your receiver has a clear, unaltered serial number that can be documented to having been made before Jan 1st 1899, it doesnt matter if you send it to the best custom gunmaker and it comes back as a $5000 work of art. Its still a "non gun" according the the ATF and the 68 GCA. A Doug Turnbull restored 1886 Winchester below the cutoff number (about 121,000 for 1886 Winchesters), is a strong, beautiful firearm capable of firing modern smokeless factory ammo. But its still a "non" gun that can be shipped to anyone over the age of 18 in any state in the country, unless that state has local laws against antiques, and as far as I know only NJ is such a state.

The problem with krags is that no one can agree just where that number is. If you did have to go to court, you'd be pretty safe as long as your gun was below Flaydermans or whatever the lowest published number is for antique krag production....generally accepted to be the numbers discussed in this thread. The "reasonable doubt" standard would surely require your acquital. Innocent until proven guilty beyond that reasonable doubt is a right we still enjoy in this country.