C96 Broomhandle Reproduction Stock - Reply From the ATF

jmmitc06

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
224
Reaction score
135
Location
Lexington, Ky.
So after scouring the internet trying to find out if a reproduction stock is legal for a C96 and finding a range of answers from totally legal to completely illegal, I sent the ATF an email and was surprised when I got a response from them yesterday.

While this settles my question, I thought I would post what they sent me out here on the interwebs just in case someone else needs the information as well. Below is their response:

------------------

Mr. Mitchell,

This is in reference to your email (below) in which you inquire about the legality of affixing an original or reproduction shoulder stock to a Model 1896 broomhandle semiautomatic pistol. Your email was forwarded to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) for reply.

A rifle having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length is a firearm as that term is defined in Title 26, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 53, § 5845(a)(3). If a pistol were possessed with an attachable shoulder stock, the combination would be a firearm as defined. Weapons of this type are subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has previously determined that by reason of the date of their manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics, the following when possessed with an attachable shoulder stock, are primarily collector’s items and are not likely to be used as weapons, and, therefore, are excluded from the provisions of the NFA:

Mauser, model 1896 semiautomatic pistol accompanied by original German mfd. detachable wooden holster/shoulder stocks, all semiautomatic German mfd. variations produced prior to 1940, any caliber.

Further, ATF has determined that such firearms are curios or relics as defined in Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 178, § 178.11 and, therefore, would still be subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

ATF has previously determined that Mauser Model 1896 pistols with reproduction stocks, which duplicate or closely approximate the originals, have also been removed from the provisions of the NFA. Copies of the Mauser pistol using frames of recent manufacture, with shoulder stocks, are still subject to the NFA.

If an individual possesses a pistol and shoulder stock combination that has not been removed from the provisions of the NFA, the combination would constitute a firearm subject to the provisions of the NFA. The fact that the stock was not attached to the pistol would have no bearing on this classification.

We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.

Firearms Technology Branch

------------------

Thought it was pretty cool that they took the time to send a thorough response. Not so cool when I forgot I had emailed them and I checked my phone in class to see I had an email from the ATF and immediately started looking for black helicopters to come snatch me.
 
Register to hide this ad
So after scouring the internet trying to find out if a reproduction stock is legal for a C96 and finding a range of answers from totally legal to completely illegal, I sent the ATF an email and was surprised when I got a response from them yesterday.

While this settles my question, I thought I would post what they sent me out here on the interwebs just in case someone else needs the information as well. Below is their response:

------------------

Mr. Mitchell,

This is in reference to your email (below) in which you inquire about the legality of affixing an original or reproduction shoulder stock to a Model 1896 broomhandle semiautomatic pistol. Your email was forwarded to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) for reply.

A rifle having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length is a firearm as that term is defined in Title 26, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 53, § 5845(a)(3). If a pistol were possessed with an attachable shoulder stock, the combination would be a firearm as defined. Weapons of this type are subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has previously determined that by reason of the date of their manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics, the following when possessed with an attachable shoulder stock, are primarily collector’s items and are not likely to be used as weapons, and, therefore, are excluded from the provisions of the NFA:

Mauser, model 1896 semiautomatic pistol accompanied by original German mfd. detachable wooden holster/shoulder stocks, all semiautomatic German mfd. variations produced prior to 1940, any caliber.

Further, ATF has determined that such firearms are curios or relics as defined in Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 178, § 178.11 and, therefore, would still be subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

ATF has previously determined that Mauser Model 1896 pistols with reproduction stocks, which duplicate or closely approximate the originals, have also been removed from the provisions of the NFA. Copies of the Mauser pistol using frames of recent manufacture, with shoulder stocks, are still subject to the NFA.

If an individual possesses a pistol and shoulder stock combination that has not been removed from the provisions of the NFA, the combination would constitute a firearm subject to the provisions of the NFA. The fact that the stock was not attached to the pistol would have no bearing on this classification.

We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.

Firearms Technology Branch

------------------

Thought it was pretty cool that they took the time to send a thorough response. Not so cool when I forgot I had emailed them and I checked my phone in class to see I had an email from the ATF and immediately started looking for black helicopters to come snatch me.

Thats great info but, cant they just say yes or no?
 
More detail

Can you post the email address and date time of the ATF response. I've seen and gotten lots of conflicting guidance and this is the closest I've seen to something official and specific. I'll print it and put it with my gun in case questions are ever asked.

Great post. Great effort.

Many thanks,
Rosser

I'm with The Ringo Kid: can't they just say yes or no!?
 
Last edited:
Well, that saves me some money! Now I no longer have to look for repros for my C96's. (I can't afford originals....)
 
On second reading, I believe that original C96 Mausers with repro stocks are OK per the following:
ATF has previously determined that Mauser Model 1896 pistols with reproduction stocks, which duplicate or closely approximate the originals, have also been removed from the provisions of the NFA.

I guess I'm back on the hook......
 
This is how I read it. A reproduction C96 with an original or reproduction stock IS subject to the NFA. An original C96 with an original or reproduction stick is NOT subject to the NFA.

Until, as Ivan the Butcher says, they change the ruling.



On second reading, I believe that original C96 Mausers with repro stocks are OK per the following:


I guess I'm back on the hook......
 
Will somebody please explain to me why I can't do a copy & paste of the above letter for my files so I can print it? All I get are some dotted lines.
Jim
 
Thats great info but, cant they just say yes or no?

I thought they DID say yes or no.

They said YES, original broomhandles with original holster/stocks were no longer NFA (paragraphs 3 and 4).

They said YES, original broomhandles with repro holster/stocks that match originals in size and shape were also no longer NFA (paragraph 6).

And they said NO, new-made broomhandles (is anybody making broomhandles, now, or are they covering their bases/making a preemptive strike?), with holster/stocks, are considered NFA SBR (also paragraph 6).

What's the confusion?
 
(is anybody making broomhandles, now, or are they covering their bases/making a preemptive strike?)

AFAIK nobody is making repro 96's.
I wonder if this ruling covers the Spanish and Chinese copies?
(Even though they are not "replicas" and are even scarcer, maybe they are what they are referring to.....)
 
Whoa! Am I the only one who spotted this scary part?

If an individual possesses a pistol and shoulder stock combination that has not been removed from the provisions of the NFA, the combination would constitute a firearm subject to the provisions of the NFA. The fact that the stock was not attached to the pistol would have no bearing on this classification.

This makes it sound like owning an AR15 pistol and a separate unattached AR15 shoulder stock makes it subject to NFA SBR provisions.

Scary.
 
AFAIK nobody is making repro 96's.
I wonder if this ruling covers the Spanish and Chinese copies?
(Even though they are not "replicas" and are even scarcer, maybe they are what they are referring to.....)

From the original letter:

Mauser, model 1896 semiautomatic pistol accompanied by original German mfd. detachable wooden holster/shoulder stocks, all semiautomatic German mfd. variations produced prior to 1940, any caliber.

If I recall correctly, Federal Ordnance put together some Broomhandles back in the '80s using surplus parts and newly manufactured receivers. Those would not be legal with a shoulder stock, but I don't think they were slotted for one anyway.
 
Whoa! Am I the only one who spotted this scary part?



This makes it sound like owning an AR15 pistol and a separate unattached AR15 shoulder stock makes it subject to NFA SBR provisions.

Scary.

That's called "constructive possession". Ain't nothing new.

If you have a Remington 870, with a full-length barrel, but you also own a 14" 870 barrel, you have a SBS. Does not have to be together. If you have both pieces, you have an SBS.

So yes, if you have an AR15 pistol, and you have an unattached shoulder stock, you have an SBR. UNLESS you also have a normal AR15 rifle. Then the unattached rifle stock is considered to be part of the rifle - spare parts.

But if you don't have a rifle, you have no need for a rifle stock, and the only reason for having a rifle stock would be to make that, illegal, SBR. So sayeth ATF thinking.

That's why, if you apply to make an SBR or SBS, you wait until you get the paper back before taking a hacksaw to the barrel.
 
Whoa! Am I the only one who spotted this scary part?



This makes it sound like owning an AR15 pistol and a separate unattached AR15 shoulder stock makes it subject to NFA SBR provisions.

Scary.

If the shoulder stock can be attached to the pistol, yes it is illegal to possess both.

There was a ruling, several years ago, on the T/C Contender when T/C brought out the carbine barrels and the shoulder stock. The ATF ruled that possession of both was an NFA violation. Federal court ruled that in that case possession of both was not illegal but mating a pistol length barrel to a shoulder stock was. Similarly when the manufacturers started producing inline muzzle loaders on frames with interchangeable barrels for cartridges those muzzle loaders were and are subject to a NICS check.

As has been said before: let the government get involved and confusion reigns supreme. Keep in mind the most feared words in the English language: "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."
 
Scary. Two separate, completely legal items. Own them both, even if you never put them together, it's against the law. :rolleyes:

What's next, owning both dirt and having poppyseeds in your kitchen will make you a "constructive opiate farmer." :eek:
 
So, where will the 1911 that had provisions for a shoulder stock fit in to the mess?


WuzzFuzz
 
Darn but I'm glad that I only owed standard "hold in your hand" handguns... that is before they all went down in the boat while I was fishing last night.

Them thar Fed rules and regulations both confuse and scare me these days.
 
Back
Top