LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

12-06-2001, 11:09 PM

Not to hog this thread, but I've researched the laws in this area extensivly. The Federal 68 GCA only requires pre 98 date of manufacture. As you probably know smokeless powder was introduced in the mid 1880's but did not completly replace blackpowder (by this I mean arms continued to be manufactured for black cartridges) until about 1910. Of course black powder replicas continue to made to this day and they are classified the same as pre 1898 firearms. These comments are made under the assumption that the term "modern ammunition" means self-contained, smokless powder and not just self-contained (which could date back to around the 1850's) I'm not sure what is particularly "modern" about an one-hundred and twenty year old design...but again who said any of this made sense. To re-state my objection another way- I find it difficult to reconcile that a 100+ year old gun is evaluated by the same grading criteria as a 2 year old gun.

12-06-2001, 11:09 PM	#7
BCC Guest Posts: n/a	Ammo question Not to hog this thread, but I've researched the laws in this area extensivly. The Federal 68 GCA only requires pre 98 date of manufacture. As you probably know smokeless powder was introduced in the mid 1880's but did not completly replace blackpowder (by this I mean arms continued to be manufactured for black cartridges) until about 1910. Of course black powder replicas continue to made to this day and they are classified the same as pre 1898 firearms. These comments are made under the assumption that the term "modern ammunition" means self-contained, smokless powder and not just self-contained (which could date back to around the 1850's) I'm not sure what is particularly "modern" about an one-hundred and twenty year old design...but again who said any of this made sense. To re-state my objection another way- I find it difficult to reconcile that a 100+ year old gun is evaluated by the same grading criteria as a 2 year old gun.