Break Open - What Happened to the Omega?
#62
Well around here in commie land (Illinois) you have to go through an FFL to buy a fart in a can. Even real antique MLers are considered a "firearm" and are required to go through an FFL. But from what I have read, according to some new writeup from the ATF, if the firearm in question is smokeless capable then it is 4473 needed.
#63
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: MD/PA Line
Posts: 598
Well around here in commie land (Illinois) you have to go through an FFL to buy a fart in a can. Even real antique MLers are considered a "firearm" and are required to go through an FFL. But from what I have read, according to some new writeup from the ATF, if the firearm in question is smokeless capable then it is 4473 needed.
Since the new Remington Ultimate is not capable nor rated for smokeless you still need to go thru a FFL and complete a 4473. Wonder why?
#64
Typical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 861
#65
Its because that action can be rebarreled for smokeless cartridge use. Same with several other smokeless capable rigs. That's probably the basis for the writeup I saw and just didn't remember that particular passage.
#66
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,585
Now they all shot equally well by that I mean when I was shooting well I could get them in an inch. When you get near 80 years some things get a bit harder.
I sold my Knights and my Omega because I much prefer my encores an Endeavor 50 and a Pro hunter 45 I still have the Triumph and I still prefer it for stalking as the encores have stainless.
I personally believe that most of the guns mentioned can be made to shoot better than the people can shoot them.
That means that all this talk about bedding and actions has more to do with what people prefer than how the gun actually shoots.
My opinion for what it is worth.
I sold my Knights and my Omega because I much prefer my encores an Endeavor 50 and a Pro hunter 45 I still have the Triumph and I still prefer it for stalking as the encores have stainless.
I personally believe that most of the guns mentioned can be made to shoot better than the people can shoot them.
That means that all this talk about bedding and actions has more to do with what people prefer than how the gun actually shoots.
My opinion for what it is worth.
Last edited by lemoyne; 01-22-2016 at 04:56 PM.
#67
Typical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 861
Yes, so now you are understanding that it is the action and not the barrel. This is nothing new. All actions that can be converted into a center fire gun has to have an ffl. A barrel being rated to handle smokeless pressures has nothing to do with it. So one could build a muzzleloader that can handle smokeless powder and not require an ffl.
#68
I already knew about the action part as I own a Pro Hunter (encore). But the way that was written was making it sound like all new MLers that are smokeless capable were on track for 4473 paperwork. I guess since 80% of the smokeless capable ones out there are built on cartridge based actions and can be converted to that with a simple barrel swap is the reason.
#69
Typical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 861
I already knew about the action part as I own a Pro Hunter (encore). But the way that was written was making it sound like all new MLers that are smokeless capable were on track for 4473 paperwork. I guess since 80% of the smokeless capable ones out there are built on cartridge based actions and can be converted to that with a simple barrel swap is the reason.
I don't know what you read, what you think you read, or where you read it but a barrel being rated as a stronger barrel does in no way make it be required to go through a ffl if it is based on a non-cartridge action.
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
I actually started posting quite a bit on the lehigh 215 ,etc in different twists but you didnt like the shape of the holes among other things . You remember that? Both sabotloader and myself were trying them bullets in different guns and posting results .