search
top

Drum Fed Saiga

This is very cool, but I worry it’s going to prompt ATF to reclassify the Saiga shotguns as destructive devices.  Generally speaking, anything with a barrel diameter over one-half inch is considered a destructive device.  Shotguns are regulated under 27 CFR § 479.11:

any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Director finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes.

So all it takes is ATF to make a ruling and everyone who owns one either has to register it, or become an instant felon.  There are a lot of Saiga’s out there.

19 Responses to “Drum Fed Saiga”

  1. Weer'd Beard says:

    Any use of the word “sporting purposes” pisses me off to no end!

    This goes doube for all the sports where a Siga works just fine for, and the fact that nobody feels the need for banning speech that doesn’t have “educational purposes”

  2. You may be right that there is a danger here… but the Saiga is marketed and sold as a sporting gun… it can accept high-capacity magazines, but Saiga doesn’t make, sell, or even mention them. On the other hand, the “street sweeper” type shotguns that are classified as DDs only have/use large magazines.

    I seem to remember a company making a drum magazine kit for “normal” pump shotguns as well (knoxx was it?)… while they were never particular popular, they certainly didn’t turn my Mossberg 500 into a destructive device.

    (I’m not arguing your point, rather just trying to think what the ATF may/may not consider if they were presented with the opportunity to make such a ruling.)

  3. Yeah, the Knoxx sidewinder. It was only a 10rd drum magazine though.

  4. Jim W says:

    They checked with the ATF and the ATF said that the saiga is a sporting gun as imported (that’s a prerequisite for importation) and they wouldn’t reclassify it because of the aftermarket. At the most, they would require DD registration for combination of aftermarket stuff, but that would create a huge legal tangle.

    If Obama gets in, expect ATF to start banning stuff like crazy regardless of the merits. If McCain gets in, expect ATF to more or less behave.

    Of course, expect more filibusters of ATF appointees by pro-gun senators.

  5. “If McCain gets in, expect ATF to more or less behave.” I’m not as confident in that as you are. Not until the BATFE improvement act is passed, and the “sporting purposes” language is repealed.

  6. Jim W says:

    I always wondered if sporting purposes shouldn’t be the next domino to fall after Heller. It seems suspect on so many constitutional grounds besides the 2nd amendment.

    No one has yet been able to articulate a consistent definition for the term and no one can explain the purpose it has, let along giving a justification for that purpose.

    It’s basically a vague restriction without bounds or supporting logic. Look at the chaos over the past 40 years as ATF has tried to define and apply this statute. It just doesn’t work.

  7. Jim W says:

    I meant relative to Obama. As bad as things have been under Bush, they were a million times worse under Clinton and Lloyd Bentsen. I bought a saiga 12 just before the 2004 election because I assumed that whomever Kerry nominated to treasury would immediately ban anything vaguely cool in the shotgun area. Bush won and this danger got pushed back 4 years. Hopefully we will keep avoiding anti-gun democrats in the white house until we can finally push through a repeal or a successful challenge to the “sporting purposes” test.

  8. Laughingdog says:

    In the case of the Saiga they show on the page that you linked, wouldn’t that one need to be registered anyway, since it has that forward handle? Or does that only make a long gun an AOW if it’s a rifle?

  9. Sebastian says:

    A foregrip is fine on a rifle, but not on a pistol. The definition in the NFA for a handgun is a gun that’s designed to be fired by a single hand. ATF argues that the grip on the front means it’s designed to be held by two hands, so it’s an AOW.

  10. “any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Director finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes.”

    Wow….

    Maybe I should tell a few of my friends that they need to register their potato guns. By definition, they fall into such a category. *lame*

    I wish everyone saw the wisdom in voting for Ron Paul. Sure, some might disagree with his viewpoints. But getting rid of 90% of government influence would have been a beautiful thing.

  11. Jim W says:

    The ATF has addressed that issue already, I beleive in a revenue ruling before they got folded into DOJ.

    If you are firing potatoes at inanimate objects, it is not a weapon and therefore not a DD.

    If you use it as a weapon or you start making weapon type rounds for the spud gun, it becomes a DD.

    The ATF has better things to do than go around making themselves look stupid for arresting 15 year olds with potato guns. Technically molotov cocktails are DDs as well, but I suspect the vast majority of [male] children have constructed gunpowder or gasoline bombs at one time or another for fun.

  12. Jim W says:

    Voting for Ron Paul is not the path to 90 percent less government. It’s the path to 90 percent more government because you are helping Obama get elected.

  13. “Voting for Ron Paul is not the path to 90 percent less government. It’s the path to 90 percent more government because you are helping Obama get elected.”

    Not sure…

    I think Obama might be the path to zero government. (ie: revolution). Voting for the lesser of two evils simply delays matters. Voting for the greater can sometimes be a catalyst. That said, Sarah Palin has won my vote. I won’t be voting for McCain, but I will vote for Sarah.

  14. Jim W says:

    You’re deluding yourself. Any circumstance under which a violent revolution would result in a better government would produce an electoral revolution first. The only real exceptions to this are governments that act in total disregard for the preferences of the voters.

    The government we have now is the result of people asking government to wipe their asses and fix all their problems. That people want such a government is the problem that needs to be solved.

  15. “Any circumstance under which a violent revolution would result in a better government would produce an electoral revolution first.”

    First off, I did not specify a violent revolution before an electoral revolution. And much of what many supporters of Ron Paul…be they more libertarian or to the whacko fringes are hoping for is an electoral revolution, a peaceful revolution and resolution to change course.

    “The government we have now is the result of people asking government to wipe their asses and fix all their problems.”

    Absolutely agree, which is why I personally do not think there could be a successful nationwide revolution. That said, I could see segments, regions distinguish themselves, even separate and secede.

    Anything more would be messy, and likely result in either great bloodshed, or a lower-quality of life. The American Revolution was a rarity in that it was a bloody revolution that actually led to a reasonably stable result. Most revolutions that involved violence lead to tragic failures fill with tyranny and death.

    I do believe it is possible for a revolution to result in a better form of government. But I believe it is very slim. 1-in-10 at best and probably closer to 1-in-50.

    That said, electoral revolutions as you termed it, usually stem from a backlash of someone toward the other side. The Republican revolution in 1994 was a direct result of President Clinton and a Democrat Congress. Meanwhile, the losses in Congress stem directly from President Bush and a Republican Congress. However, I believe this to be a larger trend because two sides have been affected. The Left, always ready to hate Republicans, conservatives, etc. And the libertarians sick of a Republican Party that is neither fiscally conservative nor protects our core rights has led to many conservatives and libertarians dis-avowing support for the Republican Party.

    That said, I do believe that if we continue on a path that tramples personal rights and liberties as we seem to be on. The result will be one of two options, a revolution or a fascist socialist tyranny. It’s just a matter of time, 20 yrs, 100 yrs, 200 yrs? As you’ve stated, many are willing to accept such tyranny in exchange for bread and circuses or in modern day terms pizza and television.

    That said, I’d wager $20 that if Obama gets elected with a Democrat controlled Congress. That there would be a strong political backlash in following elections.

    “That people want such a government is the problem that needs to be solved.”
    Very much agreed, and doubtful there is a solution to that problem other than a complete failure of the system and total collapse which would be chaos and equate to much tragedy.

  16. I guess my 0% government could be seen to allude to a violent revolution. But my thought is much more a secession of some from said government.

    But after re-reading I can see how that could be misleading.

    – Jason

  17. Chas says:

    “If Obama gets in, expect ATF to start banning stuff like crazy regardless of the merits.”

    Obama would want to keep his hands clean to maintain his electability. Sticking it to gun owners would be Joe “Gun Ban” Biden’s job.

  18. Jim W says:

    The NRA will direct the ensuing wrath wherever it is most useful. Anyone who contributes to a new ban of any sort will be targeted by the NRA, just like last time.

  19. Tom says:

    “A foregrip is fine on a rifle, but not on a pistol. The definition in the NFA for a handgun is a gun that’s designed to be fired by a single hand. ATF argues that the grip on the front means it’s designed to be held by two hands, so it’s an AOW.”

    The gun was still DESIGNED to be fired with one hand, adding the ability to control it better makes it … more dangerous according to the atfu ( in reality less dangerous except in the hands of criminals who don’t give a rats ass about the laws in the first place)

    Using atfu logic drivers ed cars that have had an additional brake pedal added must therefore be meant to be driven by two people and should be banned as well as they are now more dangerous.

top