I have a question, if you’re still following this thread. What’s a “greener,” and how’s it different from the other short shotguns you have described? An old friend of mine, rest his soul, took a shine to cowboy sport shooting in his last few years. He had a pretty good quick draw, with his single action .45 revolver. He was fascinated with the just-for-the-tourists gunfight at the reconstructed town of Tombstone, and he was seriously considering becoming one of the show gunfighters. When he died of a stroke, he was about half done with a cut-down shotgun he was constructing. He called it a greener.
I never asked him about any details of his gun. I was busy talking him out of going out west to be a tourist-trap gunslinger.
Steve MB is right on the money. Another disadvantage of sawing off a rifle is you lose the crown at the end of the barrel (the slight funnel shape at the mouth of the bore). The primary purpose of a muzzle crown is to provide propellant gases a resistance free path away from all parts of the projectile as it exits the bore of the barrel (so it flys straight). This feature is very precise you would need to know what you’re doing to replicate it. Without the crown your bullets may be wildly inaccurate at any but the closest of range.
W.W. Greener 1829 was (and still is) an English manufacturer of fine vintage style and modern shotguns. I think handmade quality would be argued, as it’s main difference over mass-produced versions.
Now here’s something that will cost $200 to transfer, some may say the Mk3A1 Jackhammer is a bit too much and they might be right (the gun never went into production). But I think it would be a fun gun to shoot. This thing is a shotgun version of the B.A.R. (full auto only). Too bad the ammo cassette only holds 10 rounds a 20 round option would be unreal.
A Greener GP is also a type of shotgun based on the Martini-Henry action and made by W.W. Greener, chambered for 12ga shells. They’re a lot of fun to fire, but kick a lot more than you’d expect from a 12ga, oddly enough.
They do exist and they are covered under the same set of laws as short-barreled shotguns. Note that a short-barreled rifle is less than 16 inches, not 18 as with a shotgun.
By filling out the required forms and paying the required taxes, one may legally own a short-barreled rifle WRT federal law. State laws may differ.
Pistols are less effective than rifles for a couple reasons:
Typical pistols fire cartridges that do not generate the same velocity as typical rifle cartridges. The velocity is why a 55 grain projectile fired from a 5.56mm (.223) M-16 does more damage than a 230 grain projectile fired from a .45 automatic pistol.
Rifles are easier to fire accurately than pistols. This is due both to the shoulder stock and the longer sighting radius.
Short-barreled rifles are desirable enough that the US military uses them. The current issue M-4 carbine has a barrel short enough that it would not be legal for civilian use without the above mentioned forms and taxes.
Cool link mine only covered the Jackhammer yours covers some other full auto SG’s (Wiki can be cool). The USAS-12 has the 20 round clip I want and this weapon actually went into production NEAT! The AA-12 Atchisson assault shotgun is the shiznits though. A forty round drum means Christmas is CANCELED motherfucker in a big way!
Speaking of crazy shotgun contraptions I remember back in the days of apartheid in South Africa seeing a news clip of shotgun device from hell. They had a domed structure on the roof of some riot vehicles it had a dozen or more short (about 10”) 12ga. barrels studded around it deflecting downwards. If the riot car were overwhelmed by a mob of people the occupants would crank a handle inside the vehicle releasing a volley of death all around the car. It must have had a magazine of some sort because each barrel fired more than once.
I’m not a gun-aficianado, but saying that a weapon has no practical use but as a weapon of murder is rather silly. By definition weapons are implements of murder. Any item that isn’t intended for killing isn’t a weapon, and any that is, is. That sawed-offs are specialists at short range where a sniper’s rifle is a specialist at long range doesn’t make a very practical difference in any sort of evil-quotient. Any weapon has its own specialty that it is meant to be more useful in. But whatever that specialty is, its still a method for killing.
This seems like very specious reasoning to me. By definition, weapons are implements used to attack or injure… that’s showing up in my dictionary, anyway. Equating ‘injuring’ with ‘killing’ isn’t very valid… yes, most firearms of any description are pretty deadly weapons, but a billy-club, for instance, is not intended for killing, but I would still consider it a weapon.
And then, you equate ‘killing’ with ‘murder’, when again there’s a gap in that, though a lot of a fuzzier one. Is killing a moose for meat murder? Executing a criminal with a firing squad? Killing an enemy soldier in a war??
And it does seem to me that a sawed-off shotgun is not typically used in these sort of situations that are pretty far from the strict understanding of ‘murder’. YMMV.
True, for some reason my brain jumped a pace. I would vote that gun are meant for killing though, given that it’s taught to be used as lethal force by police, the four rules of handling a gun, etc.
Anything which is useful for killing is useful for murder. Saying that it’s a weapon for murder doesn’t distinguish it from any other gun as they’re all equally usable for such a purpose as lawful killing within their specialty. A madman with a sawed off shotgun in a McDonald’s is no better than a madman with a snipers rifle on top of a belltower, and neither is better than a madman running down a hallway with two pistols blazing. Which weapon to use for killing or for murder is an issue of what sort of situation you’re expecting. No one situation is more inclined to being only as useful to murderers as to lawful killers.
Note that I’m pro-legalised guns. I’m just fine admitting that they do exist with the foremost goal of killing people.
Okay, I’ll go with that. Wasn’t really meaning to get into the gun control aspect of this at all, just wanted to call out the hidden assumptions I saw in your post.