Rimfire Central Firearm Forum banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,137 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Doesn't this rifle meet the guidelines for an antique, thus not requiring an ffl to transfer ownership?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
cmjr said:
Doesn't this rifle meet the guidelines for an antique, thus not requiring an ffl to transfer ownership?
Nope sure doesn't antique guidelines. The .310 was introduced in 1903.

A FFL isn't always required to transfer ownership. Check your state laws.

DD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,645 Posts
cmjr said:
Doesn't this rifle meet the guidelines for an antique, thus not requiring an ffl to transfer ownership?
YES, An FFL is required because a custom modern firing rifle can be produced from its receiver. Also .310 ammo is still available through collectable sources. It would be classified as a C & R.

DAVID
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
DRS said:
YES, An FFL is required because a custom modern firing rifle can be produced from its receiver. Also .310 ammo is still available through collectable sources. It would be classified as a C & R.

DAVID
David neither of those items are conditions for transfer through an FFL. Some states allow transfer of firearms between individuals with in the state without going through an FFL dealer. Basically transfer of a firearm to a person in another state would require the transfer go through an FFL. The .310 Cadet would require such transfer.

To be an Antique it would have to have been made in or before 1898. Just because a modern sporting rifle could be made from the reciver changes nothing it still is an antique. There is some indication that once the antique rifle has been remade then it loses its antique status. That's something that you must deal with ATF about. But that is after its been remade.

The ammunition issue you allude to applies to replicas of antiques. The ATF regs say if the replica uses ammunition "which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade" it can be classed as an antique.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,645 Posts
Back before the "Firearm Act of 1968"; I ordered one of those Cadet .310 action from an ad in the American Rifleman, and it was sent to me directly. I then sent it into a custom Gunsmith to have it barreled for the .17 Ackley Bee. Later on (1970), I was planning to build another rifle on the Cadet Martini action but had to order it through a Dealer with an FFL, just like a regular Rifle.

DAVID
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
DRS said:
Back before the "Firearm Act of 1968"; I ordered one of those Cadet .310 action from an ad in the American Rifleman, and it was sent to me directly. I then sent it into a custom Gunsmith to have it barreled for the .17 Ackley Bee. Later on (1970), I was planning to build another rifle on the Cadet Martini action but had to order it through a Dealer with an FFL, just like a regular Rifle.

DAVID
Boy weren't those the days. I wish I had deeper pockets back then. Darn kids thought they needed milk and braces more than I needed a cheap BSA Cadet. Now that they both are in their 30's you would think they would make it up to me...

Yep your right. The Cadet rifle you ordered in 1970 had to go through a dealer. It's not an antique. The BSA .310 Cadet wasn't made until after 1903.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top