Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,296 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From watching this video, I get the impression that putting a rifle stock on a Ranch Hand is legal in Canada, while it's (apparently) a federal offense in the US. I've understood the logic of the feds preventing people from converting their rifles to handguns (though I may not agree with such laws) but I've never understood the logic of laws that prevent people from converting their handguns into rifles. Maybe you need special license in Canada for this gun like you do in the US, but I don't think so.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,955 Posts
Too many stupid laws made by stupid people for stupid reasons....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,713 Posts
I think the gist of it is up there you have to jump through all sorts of hoops like having to belong to a gun club/range and cut through a crap load of red tape just to get the proper licenses to own guns but once all that is done you can go buy SBS/SBR's and suppressors without any extra steps. And then of course you can buy a gun relatively easily down here but you have to jump through the hoops, cut the red tape and go through the extra steps to get the SBR/SBS's and suppressors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
There would be no issue in putting a regular stock on a Ranch Hand in Canada. Supressors are prohibited.

Pansy-ass Canadian laws will have you shaking your head. What I present is a basic outline for the shooting sports (target, skeet, trap, etc), other requirements exist for hunting.

Firearms are categorized into three types: non-restricted (primarily target & hunting shotguns & rifles), restricted (all handguns and certain shotguns and rifles), and prohibited (some handguns, shotguns or rifles, and all full-auto), with progressively heavier requirements on the firearms enthusiast.

First, a person would have to take a mandatory firearms safety course/test which is primarily oriented towards non-restricted and get a safety certificate. An additional course/test is required for restricted and get a higher grade safety certificate. In some Provinces, you must be a member of a gun club to acquire restricted firearms. The prohibited class is near impossible to get anymore, but some people who already owned items put on the prohibited list were given a "grandfather" status to allow them to continue to own/acquire that class of firearm, others were SOL.

Non-restricted acquisition is generally no problem with the safety certificate. Restricted and prohibited acquisition must also be (again) approved by the Provincial Government.

Transport of non-restricted requires only to be unloaded and have the safety certificate card on your person (encased and locked is suggested).

Transport of restricted or prohibited firearms requires certain conditions (unloaded, encased, locked) and have the firearms registration papers and the safety certificate card on your person. On top of that, another certificate card, called an Authorization To Transport is needed which is rather explicit as to where such transport can occur. Since restricted and prohibited firearms can only be discharged at an approved range (no just going out to the bush anywhere you want), the route must be a fairly direct route from your home to your member range, or to another range as long as you have some kind of "invitation" (for tournament, etc).

There are some changes in the wind to make it a little easier for transport but nothing too big.

Registration of restricted and prohibited firearms is still in effect but registration of non-restricted was dropped several years ago.

So, be happy with the freedoms you have by comparison and stand up and defend A2 as your Government looks to chip away at it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,234 Posts
An interesting video, but a faulty premise, imo. At close ranges the 44 might be as effective as the 405, with the shorter barrel being an advantage. The difference would come into play at long range shooting. That's the main reason I carry a sidearm when hunting. On three different occasions, I could use the sidearm, but couldn't bring the rifle into play because of the proximity and position of the animal.

With Canadian laws being as they are, is the Ranch Hand classified as a pistol, as here in the States? That would would make the addition of a rifle stock manditory in order to sell the weapon in Canada.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigBlue

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,296 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks for the rundown, phoenix1151. That helps me understand what's going on in Canada.

As far as the US, the laws make no sense. In my state, the handgun has a somewhat more restricted status than the rifle or shotgun, as far as I know. You have to be older to buy a handgun - 21 vs. 18. Or at least it used to be that way. I remember where I used to live, you needed - at one time - a special permit to buy a handgun. Not that way anymore, I don't think.

So I understand the logic of laws that keep people from modifying weapons that would take them from a less restrictive class to a more restrictive class, but I can't understand the logic of laws that prevent people from modifying a gun in a way that would make it more like a weapon in a less restricted class. The thing is, the Ranch Hand, for my purposes, is fairly impractical. But you put a full stock on it, and it might be the handiest most convenient weapon ever. I'd buy one in a heartbeat. I don't understand how a full stock is evil.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,638 Posts
Adding a full length stock to a Ranch Hand would create a SBR because the barrel length is on 12" if I remember correctly. We need to get rid of the SBR rules in this country.

Heck I guess with the new ruling on shouldering the AR pistol hand brace, this would also apply to shouldering the Ranch Hand.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,638 Posts
The more I read about the Ranch Hand the more I like it. Now I want one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rossi

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
In the US, you can put a full-length stock on a Ranch Hand so long as you pay the tax and do the SBR paperwork. However, once you do that, changing it back becomes a problem as it's now registered as a rifle and rifle receivers cannot be used to make handguns.
Putting a full-length stock on a Ranch Hand in Canada isn't a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
In the United States if you put the long stock on a Ranch Hand it becomes a SBR Short Barrel Rifle with requires a 200.00 ATF tax stamp.
In Canada you can add the long stock with no problem. Lotta guys there are making bush and trapper guns out of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,712 Posts
In the US, you can put a full-length stock on a Ranch Hand so long as you pay the tax and do the SBR paperwork. However, once you do that, changing it back becomes a problem as it's now registered as a rifle and rifle receivers cannot be used to make handguns.
Putting a full-length stock on a Ranch Hand in Canada isn't a problem.
What he said.

In the US, once the receiver is made into a rifle, it is always a rifle. A stripped '92 receiver can't be made into a Mare's Leg if it's been a rifle at any time. The studio and the prop house that supplied the original gun for the TV show ran into that problem, too. Since it was made from a cut down rifle, it had to be registered as an SBR. That was the problem with getting a replica Mare's Leg until Rossi decided there was a market for one. Winchester never came out with one and there was no supply of unused receivers to build pistols out of. Rossi is the only folks making the '92 these days. They can import the Ranch Hand because they are made on virgin receivers that have never been rifles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,672 Posts
What he said.

In the US, once the receiver is made into a rifle, it is always a rifle. A stripped '92 receiver can't be made into a Mare's Leg if it's been a rifle at any time.
The "once a rifle always a rifle" is a largely misunderstood or misinterpreted phrase that confuses a lot of people. You may have misspoken yourself or you weren't being precise, but what you're saying so far there is incorrect as a broad statement.

Yes- if a receiver is originally manufactured by a manufacturer (tax-paying business) and sold/4473'd as a rifle, it can never be a pistol.

BUT- if a receiver is originally manufactured by a manufacturer (tax-paying business) and sold/4473'd as a stripped lower or complete pistol, then the consumer CAN turn it into a rifle, AND turn it back into a pistol, back and forth as often as they wish. Only caveat being that during the process, it is never in an SBR format.
So "once a rifle always a rifle" is not accurate, it only applies to how the receiver was initially sold.


In terms of the mare's leg- if it was purchased as a pistol, it actually CAN be made into a rifle, but it also actually CAN be made back into a pistol. It was configured as a rifle during it's life, but it is not stuck in that configuration once there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,712 Posts
The "once a rifle always a rifle" is a largely misunderstood or misinterpreted phrase that confuses a lot of people. You may have misspoken yourself or you weren't being precise, but what you're saying so far there is incorrect as a broad statement.

Yes- if a receiver is originally manufactured by a manufacturer (tax-paying business) and sold/4473'd as a rifle, it can never be a pistol.

BUT- if a receiver is originally manufactured by a manufacturer (tax-paying business) and sold/4473'd as a stripped lower or complete pistol, then the consumer CAN turn it into a rifle, AND turn it back into a pistol, back and forth as often as they wish. Only caveat being that during the process, it is never in an SBR format.
So "once a rifle always a rifle" is not accurate, it only applies to how the receiver was initially sold.


In terms of the mare's leg- if it was purchased as a pistol, it actually CAN be made into a rifle, but it also actually CAN be made back into a pistol. It was configured as a rifle during it's life, but it is not stuck in that configuration once there.
While I may have been wrong in general firearms terms, in the specific case being discussed, I was correct. Since, until a few years ago when Rossi released the Ranch Hand, there were no '92 pistols only cut down, short barreled, stockless rifles.

Before Rossi started making the Ranch Hand, where would one have obtained a stripped, unused '92 receiver or a '92 receiver that was originally made as a pistol? Winchester (the only other manufacturer of the '92- the Japanese made Winchesters were also marketed by Browning for a time but they all came from the same factory) never sold virgin receivers nor did they market a '92 pistol.

The original gun that inspired the Ranch Hand- the cut down '92 called the 'Mare's Leg' used by Steve McQueen in the "Wanted, Dead or Alive" TV show was put together by a prop house in Hollywood specifically for the show. The ATF saw it and raised a fuss that it was a cut down rifle and made them register it as a SBR.


Last time I checked, it's still illegal (per the NFA of 1934) to put a buttstock on a pistol, too. Doing so makes the pistol in question into a SBR and has to be registered and taxed as such. Isn't that the whole premise behind the ATF's warning about the improper use of the 'forearm braces' that are so vogue for use on the little AR pistols?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,672 Posts
Last time I checked, it's still illegal (per the NFA of 1934) to put a buttstock on a pistol, too. Doing so makes the pistol in question into a SBR and has to be registered and taxed as such. Isn't that the whole premise behind the ATF's warning about the improper use of the 'forearm braces' that are so vogue for use on the little AR pistols?
Yes, you cannot put a buttstock on a pistol. BUT, adding a long 16+" barrel to a pistol and taking it over 26" in overall length makes it not-a-pistol and therefore buttstock is fine.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top