non-ruger question

[dreamer]

what is the difference between 14" contender barrels and ones marked Super 14?

 

[Merle1948]

what is the difference between 14" contender barrels and ones marked Super 14?

IIRC, the "super 14" was used when they first came out, way back when the 10" was standard. I know of no functional differences. 8)

 

[Dan in MI]

yup.

 

[contender]

I agree as well.

 

[dreamer]

Thanks

 

[DA_TriggR4Ruger]

I've been curious about something for a while and this thread spiked my curiosities again. What differentiates the TC 14 inch from a SBR?

 

[DA_TriggR4Ruger]

Made me think of the SBR thread.

I guess as long as it has a pistol grip, its considered a pistol? Then once you add a stock it becomes a SBR? And this is also why the Ruger Charger is not called an SBR? But the TCs I have seen had stocks? So are they not SBRs?

 

[pyth0n]

I've been curious about something for a while and this thread spiked my curiosities again. What differentiates a TC 14 inch from an SBR?

That is was made as a handgun, not a rifle. Same as a 10" Ruger MkII, or Charger.

 

[Dan in MI]

Add the buttstock to 10" or 14" and you have an SBR.

Add a 16" or longer bbl then add the buttstock and all is good.

In the G-2 era there were stipulations on whether it was built as a handgun or long gun. Genuine Contenders don't have that stipulation.

 

[Merle1948]

Made me think of the SBR thread.

I guess as long as it has a pistol grip, its considered a pistol? Then once you add a stock it becomes a SBR? And this is also why the Ruger Charger is not called an SBR? But the TCs I have seen had stocks? So are they not SBRs?

Yep, a pistol grip, but no butt stock, makes it a pistol. There is a 16" barrel, that meets the standard for a rifle & I expect that is what you saw. Some folks have used the 16" barrel on a pistol, as there is no maximum length for a pistol barrel - makes a pretty clumsy pistol though!

 

[pyth0n]

Add the buttstock to 10" or 14" and you have an SBR.

Add a 16" or longer bbl then add the buttstock and all is good.

In the G-2 era there were stipulations on whether it was built as a handgun or long gun. Genuine Contenders don't have that stipulation.

Didn't Thompson have to make changes in the barrel/stock attachment to satisfy the ATF when they began making rifles? I don't remember the details but IIRC they couldn't just add a butt stock and a 16" barrel. Since your avitar has the TC, I'm guessing you know the history better than me. :)

 

[GhosT]

"In the G-2 era there were stipulations on whether it was built as a handgun or long gun. Genuine Contenders don't have that stipulation."

DAN,,Thanks, good to know!

Always wanted a TC Contender back in the day, but money was tight.

When the G-2 model was announced.....
I RUSHED TO EVERY GUN SHOP to find a NEW G-1 .......(handgun version)
Got one of the last ones out there locally.

{Had no idea about those legal changes.......
I saw the difference in the trigger adjustment design.}

I never did get around to to buying the rifle conversions,but glad to know I still can without hassle.


As I live in OHIO,
I bought 3 Super 14 barrels that cover all my shooting needs.
A .22 match grade barrel...
A .223 Barrel........and.....
A .44 magnum barrel.......

Those 3 both cover any game that walks in OHIO, and are fun at the range.

 

[DA_TriggR4Ruger]

Add the buttstock to 10" or 14" and you have an SBR.

Add a 16" or longer bbl then add the buttstock and all is good.

In the G-2 era there were stipulations on whether it was built as a handgun or long gun. Genuine Contenders don't have that stipulation.

Didn't Thompson have to make changes in the barrel/stock attachment to satisfy the ATF when they began making rifles? I don't remember the details but IIRC they couldn't just add a butt stock and a 16" barrel. Since your avitar has the TC, I'm guessing you know the history better than me. :)

I remember a BIG shitstorm between the ATF and Thomson Center about this YEARS AGO. As i recall TC won their case and the ATF had to change some of their policies!

 

[pyth0n]

Add the buttstock to 10" or 14" and you have an SBR.

Add a 16" or longer bbl then add the buttstock and all is good.

In the G-2 era there were stipulations on whether it was built as a handgun or long gun. Genuine Contenders don't have that stipulation.

Didn't Thompson have to make changes in the barrel/stock attachment to satisfy the ATF when they began making rifles? I don't remember the details but IIRC they couldn't just add a butt stock and a 16" barrel. Since your avitar has the TC, I'm guessing you know the history better than me. :)

I remember a BIG shitstorm between the ATF and Thomson Center about this YEARS AGO. As i recall TC won their case and the ATF had to change some of their policies!

Thanks. Good to hear TC won.

 

[eveled]

I believe the issue with the feds was that the Contender chambered in .410 was a sawed off shotgun. They fought a long expensive battle that paved the way for the .410 revolvers that came next.

 

[Merle1948]

I believe the issue with the feds was that the Contender chambered in .410 was a sawed off shotgun. They fought a long expensive battle that paved the way for the .410 revolvers that came next.

IIRC the rifling derailed the "shotgun" argument. But there was also a question of taking off a rifle set-up then installing a pistol barrel - is that considered a "sawed off" weapon?

 

[Dan in MI]

I believe the issue with the feds was that the Contender chambered in .410 was a sawed off shotgun. They fought a long expensive battle that paved the way for the .410 revolvers that came next.

IIRC the rifling derailed the "shotgun" argument. But there was also a question of taking off a rifle set-up then installing a pistol barrel - is that considered a "sawed off" weapon?

That puts you in short barrled rifle (SBR) land. Not a good plan.


The best way to convert a T/C is grip/buttstock "off first" and "on last" when changing configs. This prevents a 10 second brain fart violation from becoming a 20 year sentence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thompson-Center_Arms_Company