TonyRumore 1,332 Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 They actually changed their stance on the front pistol grip and picatinny rails. Now they are a "sporting" feature. So the side scope rail mount is good to go. http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/11/atf-posts-a-revised-atf-shotgun-importability-study/#axzz20Q7JUiv7 Tony 11 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Odd Man Out 1,283 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Good to know -- Thanks for posting it! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Excellent! Thanks for the heads-up! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darko 42 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 "sporting" eh? works for me! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Amazing what an enforcement agency can do about making laws... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SaigaKen 338 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 This is great news for Saiga owners, but seems like there is still alot of work needed to stop the whole "sporting purpose" bullshit 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The_Caged_Bird 474 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Wow! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lbsrdi 1,078 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 This is great news for Saiga owners, but seems like there is still alot of work needed to stop the whole "sporting purpose" bullshit Pretty much how I feel. ^^ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
montec 164 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 That would explain why I have been seeing them showing up in the big stores like gandermountain, fleet farm and the such for $700. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
haugpatr 972 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 I saw an S-12 a couple weeks ago at a gun show without the side mount and it just didn't look right, glad to see this problem is fixed! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
evlblkwpnz 3,418 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 I take the rails off. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SwissyJim 117 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Hmmm..... "it does NOT recognized “3-gun” matches as a sport." morons. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unclejake 428 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Morons they be, Brother, Morons, they Be!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eric Pate 478 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 I'm glad these nice folks are here to protect us from imported shotguns with "excessive weight" and "excessive bulk". Thats some scary sounding stuff right there! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Goose 95 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Hmmm..... "it does NOT recognized “3-gun” matches as a sport." morons. Yeah I'm wondering about that. If by sport they mean just hunting, or if there's actually a checklist of criteria that they go through. However, maybe I'm putting too much faith in the competence on the decision makers... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mullet Man 2,114 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Wonder why they didnt compare the number of hunters to the number of clay shooters, like they compared the (single source i'm assuming) number of 3-gunners to the number of hunters, then compare the number of clay shooters to 3-gunners? That would be a much better comparison if you ask me. Seems like that might have been left out on purpose. How is hunting, a "sport", when its done for population control and to put food on the table and not just for trophy? Seems like they mixed the number of trophy hunters into the number of overall hunters, to aid their argument or agenda... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
haugpatr 972 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 I take the rails off. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, you only lose a feature and gain nothing by removing it, IMHO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 I take the rails off. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it, you only lose a feature and gain nothing by removing it, IMHO I prefer to keep the rail, but I've never bothered using it. I can understand removing it if you use a different rail system, or you just prefer not to have a goofy Russian rail on the side of your shotgun. It adds a little bit of weight and has a few sharp edges - removing it streamlines the weapon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SNAFU 4 Posted July 13, 2012 Report Share Posted July 13, 2012 Does this mean that we might see some 030 type S-12s, (with the usual sporter rear ends), come in with intact rails on the bottom of the gas block? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SaigaKen 338 Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 Does this mean that we might see some 030 type S-12s, (with the usual sporter rear ends), come in with intact rails on the bottom of the gas block? Sounds reasonable.......should be able to receive them with pistol grips and that may mean the triggers may come in thier original, intended position Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 Does this mean that we might see some 030 type S-12s, (with the usual sporter rear ends), come in with intact rails on the bottom of the gas block? Sounds reasonable.......should be able to receive them with pistol grips and that may mean the triggers may come in thier original, intended position To the first yes, to the latter, no. They will not come in with rear pistol grips. You might hope for them to come in with a thumbhole stock and the FCG in the correct position. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Ak-47 49 Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 Does this mean that we might see some 030 type S-12s, (with the usual sporter rear ends), come in with intact rails on the bottom of the gas block? Sounds reasonable.......should be able to receive them with pistol grips and that may mean the triggers may come in thier original, intended position To the first yes, to the latter, no. They will not come in with rear pistol grips. You might hope for them to come in with a thumbhole stock and the FCG in the correct position. I think if they came in this way we would end up paying $800+ for S-12s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vance665 225 Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 When were side scope rail mounts illegal? I must have gotten lucky because all my AKs have them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DeadDesperado 22 Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 I've noticed recently as well that the side rails have been on S-12's at gun shows. I only ever saw one without the side rail, around the time the plastic barrel nut batch first started rolling in. Ever since they've had the scope rail. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spartacus 1,619 Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 NRA's take on this is interesting....... BATFE Modifies Shotgun Import Ban Study, Still Gets It Wrong http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/batfe-modifies-shotgun-import-ban-study,-still-gets-it-wrong.aspx And I don't remember seeing this bit of federal law before. Maybe it means 922 and the possibility of non-compliance being illegal. "In downplaying the ban's burden on gun owners, BATFE says, "it should be noted that the sporting purposes test under 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3) applies as a limitation only on the importation of shotguns." Not mentioned is that under federal law an individual is also barred from assembling a semi-automatic shotgun that that would otherwise be prohibited from importation. Under BATFE's scheme, a person who mounts a flashlight or telescoping stock on an imported semi-automatic shotgun could be in violation of federal law." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
socom688 217 Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 NRA's take on this is interesting....... BATFE Modifies Shotgun Import Ban Study, Still Gets It Wrong http://www.nraila.or...s-it-wrong.aspx And I don't remember seeing this bit of federal law before. Maybe it means 922 and the possibility of non-compliance being illegal. "In downplaying the ban's burden on gun owners, BATFE says, "it should be noted that the sporting purposes test under 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3) applies as a limitation only on the importation of shotguns." Not mentioned is that under federal law an individual is also barred from assembling a semi-automatic shotgun that that would otherwise be prohibited from importation. Under BATFE's scheme, a person who mounts a flashlight or telescoping stock on an imported semi-automatic shotgun could be in violation of federal law." Then I am pretty sure 99.99% of people on this board are in violation of this law Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 I am 100% sure that this law violates 99.99% of the people on this board! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spartacus 1,619 Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 Then I am pretty sure 99.99% of people on this board are in violation of this law Yep, that's why it would be kind of a big deal. As I said though, "Maybe it means 922 and the possibility of non-compliance being illegal." In a sense, that line from the NRA piece is true. It just didn't state that compliance with 922 would make it legal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.