# GQ Rifle Question -- clarification **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 7, 2002, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382 "2002-09-07T03:20:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2002, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/1 "2002-09-07T03:20:54Z")
[This thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=134357) was closed before I could respond to this: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Johnny L.A._ > > **Turning a pistol into a rifle is not prohibited however.** > > If I recall correctly, that is false. > > According to the Gun Control Act of 1934, you cannot build a shoulder stock for a pistol. As that is the main difference between a rifle and a pistol (the rifle being shoulder-fired and the other not), I would warn against that as well. > > The above only applies to Americans, by the way. Canada has different rules, shown in dramatic fashion by their exports of Bryan Adams, Anne Murray, and Celine Dion albums. I have to disagree with your response that turning a pistol into a rifle is illegal. (Unfortunately, the thread was closed.) In the U.S. as long as the barrel length is more than 16" and the overall length is over a certain length (I don’t remember that number) you may put a shoulder stock on a pistol. For example, you can get a 16-1/4" barrel and a shoulder stock for the Gov’t. model .45; with the caveat that you may not install the stock unless the long barrel is installed. I think Thompson-Center makes barrels and stocks to turn their pistols into carbines as well, but I haven’t actually looked into that. Also, certain Luger and Mauser pistols that were made to accept shoulder stocks may have shoulder stocks attached – but I don’t remember if there are any restrictions. (I think as long as it’s pre-WWII, it’s okay for the Artillary model and possibly the Navy model.) And you can get stocks for blackpowder revolvers, but of course they are exempt because they don’t use fixed ammunition. (Sorry, **Bibliophage** , but I don’t see how that thread “abets illegal activity”. It sounded to me like the guy wanted to know if it could be done, and then was warned that it would not be legal. Since he never posted to the thread again, it’s kinda hard to accuse him of attempting illegal activity. He may have come back and said, “Oh! I didn’t think of that! I’ll call the authorities to check on the legality.”) ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2002, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/2 "2002-09-07T04:55:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > For example, you can get a 16-1/4" barrel and a shoulder stock for the Gov’t. model .45; with the caveat that you may not install the stock unless the long barrel is installed. I saw a magazine article on one of those, it looked pretty cool. > [@](#): > > Also, certain Luger and Mauser pistols that were made to accept shoulder stocks may have shoulder stocks attached – but I don’t remember if there are any restrictions. (I think as long as it’s pre-WWII, it’s okay for the Artillary model and > possibly the Navy model.) I also don’t recall f there are any restrictions, but I’m pretty sure they can be attached at least under some conditions. > [@](#): > > (Sorry, **Bibliophage** , but I don’t see how that thread “abets illegal activity”. It sounded to me like the guy wanted to know if it could be done, and then was warned that it would not be legal. Since he never posted to the thread again, it’s kinda hard to accuse him of attempting illegal activity. He may have come back and said, “Oh! I didn’t think of that! I’ll call the authorities to check on the legality.”) \*\* Same here. Funny how all the threads asking about tax evasion, child pornography, etc. - things that are illegal - don’t get closed. ---
**Author:** ![happyheathen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@happyheathen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happyheathen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2002, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/3 "2002-09-07T05:06:03Z")
so, what is special about ‘crowning’ ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2002, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/4 "2002-09-07T06:18:47Z")
It is, however, illegal to modify a pistol so that it can be fired two-handed, either by adding a vent to the barrel, or by adding a forward handgrip, for example. Since it’s also illegal to modify a rifle so that it can be fired one-handed, the whole mess doesn’t make any sense. BTW, does anybody think certain nameless moderators are a little close-happy? You’d think they might find out if the question has merit, or even whether the specific f-ing act in question is legal or not, instead of saying “well, generally this tends to be illegal…” Doesn’t look like we were talking about “generally”, but a specific question regarding a specific modification. Perhaps it would have been more productive for bibliophage to say "According to section foo, paragraph 1 of the widget control act of 1991, that is illegal because > [@](#): > > no widget may be modified to such an extent as to change its basic widgetality This crap is getting ridiculous. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2002, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/5 "2002-09-07T07:13:26Z")
Well duh, Anything the moderators don’t fully understand MUST be illegal. I’ve seen this principle applied (by various different moderators)not only to firearms, but also alternative medicine, file sharing, etc.) **Happyheathen** , there’s nothing all _that_ special about crowning a barrel, its just that it must be done precisely. I only meant that you can’t just saw off the barrel and expect the gun to be accurate. Some people do say that the crown should be cut in a cone shape so that the muzzle is slightly chamfered. I prefer the kind of muzzle where the bore is recessed from the end of the barrel. That makes it much less likely to get dinged which will reduce accuracy. Not that I’m such a great shot that I’d really notice… ---
**Author:** ![Alereon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@Alereon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alereon)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2002, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/6 "2002-09-07T09:40:02Z")
Perhaps this thread should be in the pit, since it seems to be questioning a moderator decision? I agree with **Joe\_Cool** that moderators seem to be closing a lot of threads that, IMHO, shouldn’t be closed. That said, they might have good reason to err on the side of caution, however much we might disagree with it. Let us think, for a moment, about what would happen if some unnamed manager at The Reader were to stumble upon a “Here’s how to share your 10GB of MP3s on KaZaA” thread somewhere. Can you IMAGINE the corporate hell that would ensue from a cry of “WE’RE TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO COMMIT CRIMES! WE’RE ACCESSORIES!”? I don’t see how a pile-on thread about “HEY! We’re just trading backups of our LEGITIMATE CDs!” thread in the pit would defuse the situation if it got worked up into a frenzy. Or, alternatively, what if some outside organization (RIAA, MPAA, Government) took issue with a thread? If The Reader got a nastygram from one of those agencies that boiled down to “Turn off your forums, or pay $BIGNUM in legal fees to defend free speech against our Rabid Lawyers of Doom™ in a court case that you might lose and be forced to pay $BIGGERNUM”, does anyone think they’ll bite the fiscal bullet for a NON-REVENUE-GENERATING SERVICE? Being cut down to a heavily moderated General Questions forum might be the best outcome we could hope for. I and a number of other posters might disagree with moderator decisions and some administration policies that we may consider heavy handed, but the reality of today’s world is that an annoyed corporate party or government agency with a legal budget the size of a small country can make life HELL for nearly anyone they want, even if their complaints have no merit. Disclaimer: FDISK is not a lawyer. FDISK has no knowledge of the way The Reader works internally. FDISK has no more than a layman’s understanding of law, and a rabid hate for the RIAA and DMCA. Actual Rabid Lawyers of Doom™ may not be rabid, and may be smaller than they appear. FDISK loves the mods, even though he may sometimes disagree with them. FDISK is ornamental in nature, and may not stand up to vigorous use. For entertainment purposes only. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2002, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/7 "2002-09-07T14:57:49Z")
While I think that there are threads that have been closed prematurely, that’s not what this thread is about. I was just trying to clarify a legitimate question (or refute an assumtion that I’m pretty sure is false). (Getting the facts right is what these boards are about, after all.) If this is going to become a moderator-bashing thread, I’d rather it be closed. ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2002, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/8 "2002-09-07T23:34:57Z")
I have started a thread in the BBQ Pit forum:[Illegal modifications of firearms and GQ](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134477) I direct all comments or complaints about the moderator action in question to that thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2002, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/9 "2002-09-08T01:54:49Z")
I would like to point out that shortening and re-crowning a barrel is absolutely and completely 100% legal as long as you do not make it shorter than a certain length as specified by the law. Firearm ownership is not a crime, damn it! ---
**Author:** ![breaknrun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbce88/32.png) [@breaknrun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/breaknrun)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2002, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/10 "2002-09-08T02:11:38Z")
Not sure how current this is but according to [this](http://www.co.clark.wa.us/sheriff/inter/comminfo/firearms/firearmfaq.htm#Short%20Barreled%20Shotguns%20and%20Rifles) page, short barreled rifles, are illegal. A short barreled rifle is defined as (quoteing from the above referenced site): > [@](#): > > A ‘short-barreled rifle’ means a rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (weather by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches. So the OP’s idea in the previous thread would not be legal in the US. ---
**Author:** ![breaknrun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbce88/32.png) [@breaknrun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/breaknrun)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2002, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/11 "2002-09-08T02:16:19Z")
oops, I gotta correct myself before someone else does. The previous post references WA state laws. [Rec Guns FAQ](http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIH1.html) is somewhat more general to apply to all states. They say also that’s it’s basically illegal t o convert a rifle to a pistol (without some paperwork and expense) but you can convert a pistol to a rifle. ---
**Author:** ![diku](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4af34b/32.png) [@diku](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diku)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2002, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/12 "2002-09-08T02:43:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalashnikov \* > \*\* > > Firearm ownership is not a crime, damn it! \*\* And that’s exactly what was said. Good thing you were here to clear it all up for us. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Wearia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@Wearia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wearia)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2002, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/13 "2002-09-08T05:03:55Z")
Hey! I got a spin off thread! Two spin off threads! I feel appreciated. Anyway, I thought my original thread was handled very well. I wasn’t insulted and I didn’t get any smart ass remarks. All I got was well thought out factually answers. I hadn’t even considered legalties before so the thread really opened my eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2002, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-rifle-question-clarification/127382/14 "2002-09-08T21:24:43Z")
Threads that disagree with a moderator decision belong in The BBQ Pit forum. Please use the proper forum next time. (amended to add) The OP wasn’t perhaps necessarily disagreeing with a moderator decision, but a debate on the accuracy of a statement concerning gun laws wouldn’t belong in MPSIMS either; it should have gone in IMHO or GD.