Yep. A plastic abomination...........Want see another?.....Look at mossberg's tactical lever gun.
9mm lever?
- Thread starter sipowicz
- Start date
Yep. A plastic abomination...........Want see another?.....Look at mossberg's tactical lever gun.
Walter Rego
Member
I think it's an example of "just because you can doesn't mean that you should".
I can even see a traditionally styled lever gun with a synthetic stock in .357 Magnum as having pretty good utility value although I would prefer blue steel and walnut. But adding all the "tacticool" stereotypical features just seems like pandering.
I can even see a traditionally styled lever gun with a synthetic stock in .357 Magnum as having pretty good utility value although I would prefer blue steel and walnut. But adding all the "tacticool" stereotypical features just seems like pandering.
LVSteve
Member
If it took Glock magazines they wouldn't be able to make them fast enough. For me, the semi-auto, straight blowback PCC market is a cartel run cash cow. Look at what it takes to make most of those guns. The prices are just out-and-out gouging.
I spent 12 years as a fed for a different 3 letter agency and it had the same problem with regulatory creep and over reach as ATF.
If there are not crystal clear committee notes from when the legislation was developed, risk averse bureaucrats, who are increasingly often trained as lawyers and have no subject matter expertise, will use a very narrow read of the law to determine statutory intent.
In ATF's case it's the narrow read bunch who made the really stupid calls that allowed braced pistols (a clear workaround the SBR restrictions using accessibility as a cover), bump stocks, and binary triggers. ATF eventually figured out its mistake and tried to stuff those genies back in their bottles.
With braced pistols they tried to say that shouldering them made it a rifle not a pistol - and then had to back off from the absurdity that how something was used determined it's classification. They should have said from the beginning that a pistol brace that is capable of functioning as a stock makes it an SBR. Period. Full stop. But they didn't - and let an estimated 20 million of them to be sold. Now they are on the verge of trying to use the NFA of 1934 to claim they are a short barrel led rifle, and if they stay true to form in their response to public comments they will claim they cannot grandfather the existing braces in (which would be easy to do by requiring new NFA braces to be deeply serial numbered) and have potentially indicated they won't wave the tax stamp and background check.
The last administration knew jerked his way to an order banning bump stocks that his own packed court will probably eventually over turn.
The same is likely to occur with the pistol brace rule, but they need to do it quickly after it goes into effect.
If they don't pretty much all the binary triggers will end up being banned.
——
Ultimately what is needed is a Supreme Court ruling requiring all cognizant agencies to apply the rule of lenity prior to Chevron deference any time there is a criminal penalty involved.
The rule of lenity requires any statute or reg to be interpreted in favor of any potential defendants if a criminal statute or penalty is involved. That's the case with the ATF rule changes that then result in NFA violations, fines and jail time.
However at present ATF is applying Chevron deference, which means if the statute or reg is not clear, they have the freedom to define it however they like as long as it is a "reasonable construction" of the statute or reg. That's legitimate in a civil issue, but was never intended to apply to a criminal law.
Grayfox
US Veteran
A tube fed lever gun depends on a fair sized cartridge rim for proper feeding.
If you recall, lever guns in .45 Colt didn't appear until a few years ago. Back in the 1800s the original .45 Colt cartridge had a smaller rim which wasn't wide enough to reliably feed in lever actions. I forget exactly when it happened, but the .45 Colt was modified with a slightly wider rim that will now work in lever actions.
My guess is that this new 9mm abomination uses detachable magazines simply because that's the only way it can reliably feed.
If you recall, lever guns in .45 Colt didn't appear until a few years ago. Back in the 1800s the original .45 Colt cartridge had a smaller rim which wasn't wide enough to reliably feed in lever actions. I forget exactly when it happened, but the .45 Colt was modified with a slightly wider rim that will now work in lever actions.
My guess is that this new 9mm abomination uses detachable magazines simply because that's the only way it can reliably feed.
bmcgilvray
Member
Just ... no!
Because it's possible to put it together doesn't mean that there are some things that just should not be made.
I respect catfish too much to even use that hideous aberration as a trot line weight.
Does this present generation of shooter have so little taste that a company would feel confident enough to market a piece of ugly rubbish like that thing?!!!
Because it's possible to put it together doesn't mean that there are some things that just should not be made.
I respect catfish too much to even use that hideous aberration as a trot line weight.
Does this present generation of shooter have so little taste that a company would feel confident enough to market a piece of ugly rubbish like that thing?!!!
Last edited:
So, then your objections to it are based on is its appearance?
Isn't that why the anti-2A crowd vilifies MSRs, calling them "assault weapons" and wanting to ban them - based on their appearance?
Not trying to be disrespectful or start a fight, just a different perspective to consider...
I'll have to disagree with you on .45 Colt and lever actions. Right idea, wrong reasons.
In the black powder cartridge era, cartridges employed a long tapered case body, and in the case of shorter lever action rounds also incorporated a mild bottle neck.
The long tapered case ensured that as soon as the case moved aft during extraction, the entire case body moved out of contact with the chamber wall, which was usually power fouled.
The mild bottle neck helped the comparatively low pressure black powder loads seal the case against the chamber wall to minimize powder fouling in the chamber and gas and fouling getting back into the action.
Take a look at the .44-40, 38-40, 32-20, and 25-20 and you'll see all of those cartridges have body taper, a bottle neck, and a heavy rim. All of those are to better manage heavy black powder fouling.
In contrast the .45 Colt was designed to be the magnum pistol round of its era, using straight parallel case walls for maximum powder capacity. It was designed for the Colt Single Action Army, which used a rod ejector and thus there was no need to use the rim for anything other than head spacing of the cartridge.
Colt made the rim as small as possible to keep the cylinder diameter as small as possible.
The parallel case walls, the lack of a bottle neck, and the small rim all made it totally unsuited for use in a lever action carbine or rifle. If someone wanted a dual purpose cartridge that would work in a pistol as well as a carbine, they didn't get a .45 Colt. If they wanted a rifle or carbine, they could not get one in .45 Colt.
Colt did however hedge it's bets slightly by tapering the .45 Colt chamber .007" from mouth to base so that while the cartridge walls were parallel the chamber walls were not. That made extraction easier. Fast forward almost 150 years, we still have that taper in .45 Colt chambers, which is why case life is poor, especially with tier two 21,000 psi and tier three 32,000 psi loads.
The US Army adopted the Colt SAA and its .45 Colt cartridge in 1873.
However, not long after in 1875, S&W introduced the Model 3. The US Army soon adopted a slightly modified version as the M1875 Schofield revolver as it could be reloaded in half the time as the M1873 Colt as it had a break open action that make ejection much faster and also didn't require require rotating the cy,index past the cylinder gate to reload.
The M1875 Schofield revolver was chambered in .45 Schofield. The .45 Schofield was just a shortened .45 Colt. It was shorter because the S&W Schofield revolver was a break open design that used a star ejector.
Since logistics were more important than the extra power of the .45 Colt, the .45 Schofield had adequate performance, and the .45 Schofield cartridge could be fired in the 1873 Colt, in 1879 the .45 Schofield became the standard round for both pistols.
That's also where the reference to ".45 Long Colt" got its start, differentiating it from the "shorter" .45 Schofield.
The US Army switched to the .38 Long Colt in it's double action, swing out cylinder Colt M1892 revolver. However, that cartridge proved to be less than stellar when it came to stopping Filipino rebels and the Army put the .45 revolvers back into standard use before adopting the Colt New Service revolver as the M1909 revolver.
Since the M1909 revolver used a star ejector, Colt provided room for a larger rim and the M1909 .45 round had a larger .540" rim diameter. It was however otherwise identical to the .45 Colt in case dimensions and was loaded with smokeless powder.
The am1909 was an interim solution and the M1911 in .45 ACP was adopted in 1911. The M1917 revolvers were adopted in 1917 to address a shortage of 1911 pistols, and the M1917 was a M1909 chambered for .45 ACP and half moon clips.
However, with the end of the black powder era (phased out in the early 1900s) and "modern" commercial .45 Colt production, two things happened. Colt made the rim as large as it could (.512") and still get them to fit in the SAA revolvers, and switched from the older ballon head case design to the current head design.
The new cases didn't hold quite as much powder but were stronger, had a slightly larger rim, and had a small groove cut in the case above the rim to allow better purchase for an extractor.
That made the .45 Colt practical for use in lever action rifles and carbines, although I'm not aware of it actually happening for several more decades as neither Winchester or Marlin chambered their rifles or carbines in it until fairly recently.
As far as I know Rossi was the first to offer a standard factory lever action in .45 Colt with its Rossi 92 beginning in the 1960s.
LVSteve
Member
Coming from England and having lived here for 25 years, none of the above surprises me. After my experience of bills in the UK Parliament, it quickly became clear to me that Congress couldn't write clear, watertight legislation if their lives depended on it. Besides, if they did, they would be lynched by all the other lawyers who haven't made it to the DC gravy train yet.
sigp220.45
US Veteran
I kinda like it. Not enough to spend two grand on it, but if somebody gave me one I'd have a blast with it.
bmcgilvray
Member
Has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
It's permissible to loathe that rifle based on its appearance alone. It's ugly and some of the silly styling features don't even serve a useful purpose.
Beyond that, its configuration is ill thought out, 9mm is a weenie rifle cartridge, and there is no way that such a firearm fabricated out of landfill grade materials is worth two grand.
It richly deserves vilification.
Spoken as a true fogey who has grown tired of the current content of the catalogs of firearms manufacturers. How low can they all go foisting unappealing guns onto shooters?
Puller
Member
You've actually handled and shot one of these to come to this conclusion?
Sounds like a comment from a typical Glock basher, "I've never really fired one but they suck."
max503
Member
bmcgilvray
Member
Oh no! More opinion ahead!
This Winchester Model 1892 .32-20 saddle ring carbine is not kept on hand as a collector's item even though it's now viewed as collectible. It's a favorite "usin' gun," bought cheap, that I've had for decades. It's grand for plinking entertainment, hikes out on our old family place on the lake, potting small game, and would take a deer in a pinch or make a most effective home defense choice, especially with the right handload choice.
The rifle's no larger than the 9mm aberration, is all steel and walnut, shoots a more effective cartridge for all purposes than 9mm, is svelte, light, and well balanced, holds 11 cartridges which is enough to influence things in one's favor, points like one's finger, is durable and reliable, and its action is smooth as cream. Unless one is myopic, it doesn't require doo-dad baggage hanging off gnarly rails. It gives perfect satisfaction. It was produced in 1896, 127 years ago.
It's a shame that .32-20 languishes in the current market while 9mm is lauded to the high heavens, but that's the way it is in the 2023 firearms world.
Lever-action carbines of this type ought to be what are popular today rather than testosterone laden "tacti--cool" stuff. The current firearms market is myopic though. It's also angst ridden apparently for everything has to look like it could fight its way past Armageddon.
Have you ever noticed that guns are not for sport, entertainment, or fun anymore?
This Winchester Model 1892 .32-20 saddle ring carbine is not kept on hand as a collector's item even though it's now viewed as collectible. It's a favorite "usin' gun," bought cheap, that I've had for decades. It's grand for plinking entertainment, hikes out on our old family place on the lake, potting small game, and would take a deer in a pinch or make a most effective home defense choice, especially with the right handload choice.
The rifle's no larger than the 9mm aberration, is all steel and walnut, shoots a more effective cartridge for all purposes than 9mm, is svelte, light, and well balanced, holds 11 cartridges which is enough to influence things in one's favor, points like one's finger, is durable and reliable, and its action is smooth as cream. Unless one is myopic, it doesn't require doo-dad baggage hanging off gnarly rails. It gives perfect satisfaction. It was produced in 1896, 127 years ago.
It's a shame that .32-20 languishes in the current market while 9mm is lauded to the high heavens, but that's the way it is in the 2023 firearms world.
Lever-action carbines of this type ought to be what are popular today rather than testosterone laden "tacti--cool" stuff. The current firearms market is myopic though. It's also angst ridden apparently for everything has to look like it could fight its way past Armageddon.
Have you ever noticed that guns are not for sport, entertainment, or fun anymore?
Last edited:
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
So killing stuff (NOT talking humans)isn't sport, entertainment or fun anymore??? When did THAT happen?
There is really nothing in the standard Winchester or Marlin LA designs that demands that the cartridge it is chambered in be a Rimmed cartridge for it to function 100%.
The action does need to be made with certain specs like anything else and one size does not fit all of course.
But the rim on the back end of the brass case doesn't do much of anything in feeding, chambering, extraction that a rimless case doesn't also offer with the proper set up.
It does provide an easy 'cartridge stop' surface in the feeding cycle of the rifle. But the base of a rimless case does the same as well with just a slightly different shaped/length surface to the Stop..
The large rim was a deffinate plus when BP was the name of the game and brass was not always the best as far as temper..
Small, shallow extractor groove rimmless cases get extracted and ejected all the time in semiauto pistols and rifles w/o any problems. Armys have fought with them for many years.
The round nose, flat point, spire point bullet in a tube mage still is an issue.
Many use RN Lead Tipped bullets in their LA rifles w/no bad happenings.
FMJ RN,,,I don't know if that might cause a primer ahead of one to fire in a tube mag.
Maybe??
That may still be the reason for the detachable box mag on the 9mmL lever action carbine.
..Plus the newer shooters (the market) love detachable mags, hi-cap, and all the other tacticool features on the thing. and that's OK
I'll stick with what I got.
The action does need to be made with certain specs like anything else and one size does not fit all of course.
But the rim on the back end of the brass case doesn't do much of anything in feeding, chambering, extraction that a rimless case doesn't also offer with the proper set up.
It does provide an easy 'cartridge stop' surface in the feeding cycle of the rifle. But the base of a rimless case does the same as well with just a slightly different shaped/length surface to the Stop..
The large rim was a deffinate plus when BP was the name of the game and brass was not always the best as far as temper..
Small, shallow extractor groove rimmless cases get extracted and ejected all the time in semiauto pistols and rifles w/o any problems. Armys have fought with them for many years.
The round nose, flat point, spire point bullet in a tube mage still is an issue.
Many use RN Lead Tipped bullets in their LA rifles w/no bad happenings.
FMJ RN,,,I don't know if that might cause a primer ahead of one to fire in a tube mag.
Maybe??
That may still be the reason for the detachable box mag on the 9mmL lever action carbine.
..Plus the newer shooters (the market) love detachable mags, hi-cap, and all the other tacticool features on the thing. and that's OK
I'll stick with what I got.
Last edited:
bmcgilvray
Member
I think it's a generational thing.
How could they ever hope to ban a 131-year old design?
Even if it's lightweight, easy to carry, very quick for repeat shots and chambered for a very effective cartridge?
I have a couple of '92s - the other one is a Browning in .44 magnum caliber.
John
Even if it's lightweight, easy to carry, very quick for repeat shots and chambered for a very effective cartridge?
I have a couple of '92s - the other one is a Browning in .44 magnum caliber.
John
How could they ever hope to ban a 131-year old design?
Even if it's lightweight, easy to carry, very quick for repeat shots and chambered for a very effective cartridge?
I have a couple of '92s - the other one is a Browning in .44 magnum caliber.
John
You'd think that would be the case but the "narrow read of the law" attorney-bureaucrats have changed the game.
For example the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed with the expressed intent to require registration of firearms and destructive devices used by criminal gangs (meaning in that context, Dillinger, Bonnie and C,yes, Baby Face Nelson, Chicago mobsters, etc), and expressly excluded firearms already in common use, like the 14" Winchester Model 1892 and Model 1894 trapper carbines. They were not considered to be SBRs because they were in common use at the time.
However, the NFA of 1934 is exactly the statute that ATF is now trying to use to justify its reversal of opinion on braced pistols. Even though the ATF itself estimated their numbers at 3 million sold since 2013, while the industry estimate is 20 million. Even at 3 million it's far more than the 10,000 or so trapper carbines that were in common use in 1934.
But the are looking at isolated sections of statute and reg, not the entire text, and they are not considering the over arching intent.
That's one of the big reasons ATF keeps getting its teeth kicked in by appeals courts. When the court looks at the statute and implementing regs and their intent, they look at the whole thing in its complete context, not just sentence, or in some cases just one word or term in a single sub part of the statute or reg.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
