Yes, we really need a new, young guy to tell us what the forum is about.:cheers:

Hi John,
I think I speak for all forum members when I say that we appreciate the diligence with which you take your duties as a moderator. You make mention above of a "naughty word list" and I think it would help all of us to avoid offense if you would share it with us.
Thanks, Norman

I do my best, you are all a fountain of knowledge and so I would rather enjoy learning about everything you have to offer as opposed to the argument. I am also interested in this because I am curious about barrel changes and other applications. For example, were I to put a Navy or Artillery barrel on a shooter Luger, would that particular Luger be okay to attach the appropriate shoulder stock or would that still be considered an illegal SBR by the NFA guidelines for C&R items?

Here it is - :D

****
*******
*****
****
******
*****
******
****
**********

Did I miss any??? ;)

"Did I miss any???"

Yes, you missed the biggies:

*****
&

******-******

dju

Hilarious! :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

I take care of anything that the naughty word list is not capable of, like off color innuendo conversation, that may be offensive... I monitor EVERY post, but do not comment or moderate before it gets posted. Many times, I am alerted to potential language issues that may violate the forum decorum by members who either PM directly, or use the "report post" link that is in each post.

I do not maintain, or even have access to the naughty word list as it is part of the forum software configuration... The only person other than John D. that might have access would be Ed Tinker, as he has some (all?) ADMIN authority in addition to being a discussion moderator...

Cheers to all of you. :cheers:

Feel free to return to Luger discussion now that the commercial break is over.:bigbye:

It would not be legal without SBR registration (and associated $200 tax) as required by the NFA unless the barrel installed is greater than 16 inches...

That is not correct, John. An LP.08 with an artillery stock, nor a Navy Luger with a Navy stock does not require registration under the ‘34 NFA. See Section III on pages 35-6 of the 2007 updates to the C&R list.

Seems like it comes down to an issue of the rear sight. Surely putting a 6" barrel on a P-08 does not make it a Navy, but what if the rear toggle is replaced with the Navy rear sight? Can you then use a Navy stock?
Same with the artillery models. But what about conversions without the receiver cut-away, would a P08 with an artillery barrel and rear sight be an artillery model, legal for use with an artillery stock, if the receiver did not have the cut-away to accommodate the rear sight?
I'm all questions and no answers.
dju

Actually Bill, the issue here is whether or not adding an original, or reproduction barrel will made the pistol exempt from NFA. The answer is no.

The addition of an Artillery barrel, or Navy Barrel to a "shooter" would NOT be exempt if the modified gun receiver was manufactured after the production period for original Artillery or Navy models.

For example, you could not add an Artillery (or Navy) barrel to a Mauser Luger that was produced in 1941 (byf toggle and receiver marked 41), and then consider the pistol to be an "Artillery" Luger under NFA.

The only length barrel you could add to such a shooter that would be considered exempt from NFA would be at least 16" in length. For the attachment of a stock to the gun would not create a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) under NFA.

Any barrel shorter than 16" with any type of stock attached would constitute an SBR under NFA and require both registration and payment of the $200 tax in advance of actually attaching the stock...

John,
Are you "sure"? Do you have guidance from the ATF as detailed as what you wrote?

Suppose your Mauser luger example, has a DWM toggle; or one could argue that the receiver is the replacement part and not the barrel; since the frame is the "gun" anyway! Or just remove the 1941- there are no rules against removing the date!

What you write may seem logical, but we all know that logic does not always apply.
Is not the key here "original configuration"(as written by ATF ) and not original parts?

I do believe this is one of those don't ask the ATF questions; they would have no idea how to answer the question and the entire agency might melt down. Remember these are the guys that approved "bump stocks" and "14" shotguns" recently!

Don, I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV or Internet forums, but what I am "sure" about is that my words above are clear enough that they could not be misunderstood by ATF and cause them to interpret actions by a law abiding citizen as a technical violation of the NFA.

To play "what if" about replacement of parts and what affect that would have on an ATF agent's interpretation? I totally agree with you... this is one of those don't ask questions...

...better left vague than to get a direct answer to the question from an ATF agent that would only be based on their opinion at the moment and not a published law or regulation reference.