'Designed or adapted to'

A

appleorangefish

Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I've always wondered why Swiss and nagant revolvers can be antiques, when there are plenty of videos and anecdotes of people showing that they are capable of shooting 32 S&W Long.

Here are the exact regulations for prescribed centerfire antique handguns:
7 A handgun manufactured before 1898 that is capable of discharging centre-fire cartridges, other than a handgun designed or adapted to discharge 32 Short Colt, 32 Long Colt, 32 Smith and Wesson, 32 Smith and Wesson Long, 32-20 Winchester, 38 Smith and Wesson, 38 Short Colt, 38 Long Colt, 38-40 Winchester, 44-40 Winchester, or 45 Colt cartridges.
Click to expand...

So if a pre-1898 handgun is "designed or adapted" to shooting one of the no-go calibers, it loses its antique status (like rechambering a 38 rimfire to centerfire, which basically makes it a 38 colt).
Is this the only reason the Swiss and Nagant (swedish, norwegian) revolvers are able to maintain antique status?

How about something like rechambering to 32 ACP; I recall there were 32 ACP cylinders for 1895 nagants floating around at some point. What would happen if someone put one of those into an antique belgian nagant?
 
Well, you'd probably be in big trouble in you got caught with a Cylinder full of No-go calibre cartridges. Short version right there.
I had a lettered Antique that was de-registered from 44-40... but i never used it with 44-40 cases. Shortened 444 Marlin would allow it to pass a CO check if it happened..probably...
 
Capable of firing and being the correct cartridge are two different things. When you fire .32 S&W Long out of a Swiss 1882 revolver the cases bulge because they aren't the correct size. The handgun wasn't designed to shoot that round, nor did you adapt it to shoot that round. It just happens to be capable of chambering and firing. If you were to make a new cylinder in .32 S&W Long that would be a different story.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Capable of firing and being the correct cartridge are two different things. When you fire .32 S&W Long out of a Swiss 1882 revolver the cases bulge because they aren't the correct size. The handgun wasn't designed to shoot that round, nor did you adapt it to shoot that round. It just happens to be capable of chambering and firing. If you were to make a new cylinder in .32 S&W Long that would be a different story.
Click to expand...

There is a fly in your rationality, two of them in fact...#1 is that "rationality" is trumped in firearms law verbage that can be insinuated one way but still be interpreted in a completely different direction, this could be one of those for an exuberant crown prosecutor.
#2. Two words in the legal description can negate your statement. The first being "capable"= doesn't have to be purposely built for a "no-go cartridge"...if one fits it is "capable". The second word is "adapted"...here you rationally assume adapted to mean a caliber change but it also can mean the change from a solid bar to a cylinder with chambers in it no mater what particular cartridge it was "designed for"...the solid bar was "adapted" to be a cylinder, it doesn't have to be changed to a no-go cartridge...if one can enter it and the primer is still centered enough to detonate from the firing pin , it is completely capable of firing that round.
 
I think Eaglelord has the correct answer; the gun was not designed for the 32 S&W and since the cylinder has not been modified, it has not been adapted for a no-go cartridge. Quite some time ago, I asked the CFP why 30 cal handguns were not prohibited because many of the 32s shoot a bullet around .310. The answer was that the defining feature was the head stamp on the factory cartridge the gun was designed for. That is why a .30 luger is not prohibited but and 32-20 is

cheers mooncoon
 
What concerns me is that they do seem to be shifting in their interpretation of the law and how they are going to apply it going forward. They've already reversed their policy on papering Antiques that were originally in a No Go cartridge to one that isn't. All it would take is a change of policy away from the factory cartridge headstamp to a more general interpretation. It would no longer be designed for a 7.5mm Swiss Ordinance cartridge but designed for a .32 caliber cartridge. Then it would be wide open for prosecution the first time somebody is caught with a cylinder full of .32 Smith and Wesson Longs.
I fell for the BS about being able to shoot .32 S&W when I bought my 1882. It's a selling feature for dummies and I fell for it. It is a different case than having an Antique that just happens to fit, or was adapted to fit, .45 ACP or .38 Special. In that case there is nothing to even hint that a law has been broken. The legislation is clumsily worded and leaves a loop hole you could drive a bus through. It isn't so cut and dried here and I fear that policy and procedure could change in the future.
I kinda wish that everyone would stop talking about this topic but it's now out there and no longer a poorly kept secret. I have two 1882 revolvers. I paid $1800 for a Fair condition Antique and $395 for an Excellent condition Restricted ( 1902 manufacture ) example. I have a bad feeling that in the future they may swap places for which one's the more valuable.
Cheers
 
Its clearly not the correct cartridge for the gun though, as the brass bulges significantly. Thats like saying a .30-06 is a .308 or .270 because you can chamber and fire both cartridges in the gun.

Personally I think antique handguns are a poor place to put money into for the simple reason I could see the laws changing on them significantly which would leave people out a lot of money. But you can’t predict or control the future, only know what is in place at the moment and base your decisions off that.
 
Not a handgun, but same principle: When we were young and stupid, one of my friends had a cadet Martini in .310 Greener. We looked up the cartridge dimensions and decided a .32 S&W Long was "close enough". It chambered, it fired. The cases came out looking kind of strange. None of them split, but I don't think any of them could have been reloaded, either. I can't remember what the accuracy, if any, was like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom