Pistol with Threaded barrel & "shroud"

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
6,931
Likes
12,610
Location
NH
Curious about whether this pistol would be MA OK with regards to the AWB.

upload_2019-5-30_10-44-55.png
Ruger® Mark IV™ 22/45™ Lite Rimfire Pistol Model 43924

Specifically, if it violates:

(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

Particularly, whether or not this would be considered a "barrel shroud." It's blowback so that part won't move like, say, a Glock. Not sure how hot or not it would get. I don't think anyone would logically hold the pistol like that but it's probably doable. I don't "think" a pistol like this was what was in mind with the AWB (compared to say a TEC-9), but when I read the law, it sounds like it might be borderline.

Basically, I have a plain-Jane Mark III and a friend wants a 22 pistol. I have a suppressor sitting in NFA jail and I'm going to want a threaded 22 to use with it, so I was thinking of selling him my Mark III and then buying a pistol like this, but I still want to be able to bring it to MA (minus the suppressor of course) legally.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,136
Likes
68,771
IMHO if this was 2003 and you sent this to BATFE to determine whether or not it violated the AWB the answer would be "no", based on the fact that it's pretty obvious that
part wasn't really intended to "keep people from getting burned" etc. If we went full retard with "barrel shroud" definition then any pistol that had something covering the
barrel could be rendered illegal by that, and that clearly isn't the case. If it was me I wouldn't worry about it.

Of course one fun problem is for MA bullshit there is no clearing house for this stuff legally, so the people afraid of their own shadow will not have a
clean answer, I'm afraid. And I'm even intentionally excluding Maura's new cauldron of bullshit when I say this too, because her crap certainly isn't law.

-Mike
 

jpm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
87   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
7,332
Likes
4,112
its not really a shroud IMO since its not meant to be held by the non-shooting hand like this:
COBRAY-SM-11-Stainless-MAC-9-9MM-Semi-Auto_100933834_35095_0EA001B83B99431D.jpg
 

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
6,931
Likes
12,610
Location
NH
IMHO if this was 2003 and you sent this to BATFE to determine whether or not it violated the AWB the answer would be "no", based on the fact that it's pretty obvious that
part wasn't really intended to "keep people from getting burned" etc. If we went full retard with "barrel shroud" definition then any pistol that had something covering the
barrel could be rendered illegal by that, and that clearly isn't the case. If it was me I wouldn't worry about it.

Of course one fun problem is for MA bullshit there is no clearing house for this stuff legally, so the people afraid of their own shadow will not have a
clean answer, I'm afraid. And I'm even intentionally excluding Maura's new cauldron of bullshit when I say this too, because her crap certainly isn't law.

-Mike
Basically what I was expecting. I know it was really intended for TEC-9s and what not where the weight/size would make it required or extremely likely the supporting hand would not be on the pistol grip and would be supporting the firearm forward of the grip.

While there's some pistols with exposed barrels (Beretta 92 comes to mind, P38, etc.) the overwhelming majority now are covered by something. I don't think I'm worried about it; I think my friend is more likely to buy his own new pistol so I'll keep any questionable pistols in NH.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,136
Likes
68,771
Basically what I was expecting. I know it was really intended for TEC-9s and what not where the weight/size would make it required or extremely likely the supporting hand would not be on the pistol grip and would be supporting the firearm forward of the grip.

While there's some pistols with exposed barrels (Beretta 92 comes to mind, P38, etc.) the overwhelming majority now are covered by something. I don't think I'm worried about it; I think my friend is more likely to buy his own new pistol so I'll keep any questionable pistols in NH.

If it was me I wouldn't even consider it questionable. I wouldn't be surprised to find one of these in MA frankly. Hell, I just found "22-45 Lite MA approved model 43921" on four seasons web page.... so apparently someone at EOPS thinks its OK.

Ruger® Mark IV™ 22/45™ Lite Rimfire Pistol Model 43921

43924 probably isn't "compliant" but that doesn't mean illegal to possess. IMHO these two guns aren't fundamentally any different from each other, though.

-Mike
 

92G

NES Member
Rating - 99.1%
108   1   0
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
8,009
Likes
5,394
Location
NC
If it was me I wouldn't even consider it questionable. I wouldn't be surprised to find one of these in MA frankly. Hell, I just found "22-45 Lite MA approved model 43921" on four seasons web page.... so apparently someone at EOPS thinks its OK.

Ruger® Mark IV™ 22/45™ Lite Rimfire Pistol Model 43921

43924 probably isn't "compliant" but that doesn't mean illegal to possess. IMHO these two guns aren't fundamentally any different from each other, though.

-Mike

While it appears to have a thread protector on muzzle, the description states model 43921 is not threaded. I don't think Ruger has ever consider any threaded pistols to be "MA OK". not that it has any legal value whatsoever but certainly in line with Ruger's rich tradition of being overly paranoid.
 

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
6,931
Likes
12,610
Location
NH
If it was me I wouldn't even consider it questionable. I wouldn't be surprised to find one of these in MA frankly. Hell, I just found "22-45 Lite MA approved model 43921" on four seasons web page.... so apparently someone at EOPS thinks its OK.

Ruger® Mark IV™ 22/45™ Lite Rimfire Pistol Model 43921

43924 probably isn't "compliant" but that doesn't mean illegal to possess. IMHO these two guns aren't fundamentally any different from each other, though.

-Mike
Ah, I didn't find that model. I'd say it's more than fine then. I couldn't find any "MA approved" threaded models and figured maybe Ruger didn't submit threaded ones for testing. I know the chances of an issue are nearly microscopic but if I'm going down for an AWB violation I want it to be something way cooler than a Ruger Mark IV :D.
 
Top Bottom