Sure, why wouldn't it be?

 

It, and the Mossberg Shockwave, exploit the same loophole in GA law that makes them legal under federal law too.

They are not "shotguns."

They were built on a special production run of receivers that were never designed, redesigned, or intended to be fitted with a shoulder stock.

If the weapon was never intended to be fired from your shoulder, then it doesn't meet the laws definition of a shotgun. Even though it uses commonly available shotgun shells for ammo .


My gun laws book has several pages related to that little -known section of the Georgia code which corresponds to the National Firearms Act under federal law and regulates short shotguns, destructive devices, silencers / suppressors, machine guns, and bombs.

 

I have one. Absolutely legal. Here's some prior threads on the subject.

https://www.georgiapacking.org/threads/ga-legality-of-14-non-nfa-non-shotgun.272305/

https://www.georgiapacking.org/threads/mossberg-shockwave-shotgun.274387/#post-2924112

 

Both the Remington and the Mossberg are classified as firearms by the ATF not long guns or hand guns. Add a pistol grip or shoulder stock and then you have a SBS which would require a tax stamp to legally own it.

 

Yeah, and the reason a conventional "pistol grip" would make them illegal is because those nearly-vertical grips don't go back far enough to give the weapon at least 26" overall length (OAL).
That's why they are sold with slanted grips ("Raptor" ) that go a few more inches rearward of the back of the receiver.

About 10 years ago, people were assembling these types of non-shotgun, non-NFA "firearms" using Mossberg 500 "Cruiser" receivers. The Cruiser was commonly called a "pistol grip only" (PGO) shotgun, but it wasn't really a "shotgun" under federal law because it never had a shoulder stock. Pistol grip only, and an 18.5" barrel. The OAL was 1.5" longer than it needed to be to meet the federal standards, but everybody assumed you couldn't cut that barrel back below 18" because that alone would create a Short Barreled Shotgun (so we thought, back until the early 2000's).

When gun lovers and gunsmiths and others, thinking outside the box, demanded that ATF approve cut-down Mossberg shotguns (well, PGO's) with sub-18" barrels but whose OAL was at least 26" or more, THAT's when we all found out that ATF would go along with that scheme and let us chop our barrels.

But, since cutting down a barrel by only 1.5" is hardly worth it, the industry decided to cut the barrels back by 4" and use that "Raptor" slanted-rearward grip on the back end to make up the OAL lost from the barrel.


QUESTION:

Is there any real, practical, useful difference between a non-shotgun based on a Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 which has:

(A): a 17" barrel and a conventional pistol grip that goes nearly straight down (only extending behind the receiver 1 inch) and has O.A.L. of 26 inches, and

(B): a 14" barrel and a dramatically back-slanted "Raptor" grip that extends some 4" past the end of the receiver and has the SAME O.A.L. of 26"?

Is the 14" barrel better by itself, when you have to add extra inches unnecessarily to the back end of the gun anyway?

At least with an 18.5" barrel, you get more ammo capacity. The magazine tube can be longer.

MOSSBERG 500 CRUISER (PGO), 18.5" bbl. Ammo capacity: 5+1 in the current configuration, and Mossberg COULD choose to give it 6+1 capacity if they'd run that mag tube to the end of the 18.5" barrel.

MOSSBERG 590 Shockwave: 14" barrel and 5+1 capacity, because Mossberg DID run the mag tube to the very end of that short barrel.

 

Is there any real, practical, useful difference between a non-shotgun based on a Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 which has:

(A): a 17" barrel and a conventional pistol grip that goes nearly straight down (only extending behind the receiver 1 inch) and has O.A.L. of 26 inches, and

(B): a 14" barrel and a dramatically back-slanted "Raptor" grip that extends some 4" past the end of the receiver and has the SAME O.A.L. of 26"?

It's all subjective. I feel the Raptor grip is more comfortable, like a full stock grip. It's really just a cut down full stock. The PG puts most of its recoil energy on the wrist, which some people don't like. The Raptor's recoil energy goes straight back along the forearm and there's no wrist torque. I find the Raptor grip very easy to shoot and control.

The Raptor gun has a narrower (shorter?) profile over the PG gun. That may be important depending on how/where you plan on carrying or storing it.

 

I think I'd rather have the following type of gun that uses 12 ga. shotgun ammunition, to be the most compact yet effective gun the law allows without requiring NFA registration and taxation:

* A quality pump [non]shotgun with an 18" or 18.5" barrel.

* A full-length magazine tube that holds
--6 rounds of 3" magnum shells,
-- 7 rounds of 2.75" shells, or
--- 9 of the 1.75 mini shells by makers like Aguila.
(And the shotgun should have that special aftermarket lifter or shell holder that will allow for reliable use of the extra-short mini shells).

* All those numbers ABOVE are NOT counting the additional round you could have directly in the chamber.

* A conventional pistol grip that goes down at the same angle as the M16/ AR rifles, or the 1911 pistol.

Since I might like to keep it chamber loaded, give it a manual safety that's easy to flick off in a hurry, and the trigger should not be any lighter than 5 lbs.

The weapon I'm describing above would hold more rounds than any of the Shockwave / Tac-14 firearms, without giving up any change in overall length.

 

--- 9 of the 1.75 mini shells by makers like Aguila.
(And the shotgun should have that special aftermarket lifter or shell holder that will allow for reliable use of the extra-short mini shells).

Those adapters aren't available for the Remington yet.

The weapon I'm describing above would hold more rounds than any of the Shockwave / Tac-14 firearms, without giving up any change in overall length.

As I mentioned above, part of the allure of the non-shotgun shotgun - for some - is being able to thumb your nose at the ATF and their ridiculous rules. To each his own.

 

Soon after the Mossberg Shockwave and the Remington 870 TAC-14 came out, people began wondering about the viability of a semi-auto non-shotgun shotgun. Well, we don't have to wonder anymore! Remington just introduced the V3 TAC-13 semi-auto non-shotgun. Same overall length as the pump but with a 13" barrel instead of a 14" barrel. So I'll assume the V3 receiver is a bit longer than the 870. MSRP is $915! Even with a lower street price I won't be in the market for one. Still, the concept is interesting.

https://www.guns.com/2018/10/09/remington-debuts-new-v3-tac-13-semi-auto-12-gauge-firearm-video/

 

If gun manufacturers keep pushing the limits with non-sporting shotguns (or firearms that use shotgun shells), they're liable to provoke BATF to declare more of them to be "destructive devices." ATF did that 25 years ago with regards to several other semi-automatic combat shotguns that were clearly non-sporting. Since they had bores of over half an inch diameter (any gauge above .410 bore is in this category) they technically fit the definition of an NFA-restricted destructive device-- just like a cannon. Just like a howitzer. Just like an anti-tank 20mm rifle cannon.

The only difference between the semi-auto shotguns ATF did ban in the past and the new ones on the market today are the size and weight. ATF banned big, heavy, clumsy weapons, and cited their size and weight as evidence that they were not suitable for civilian sporting use, but would be good for military service (which is total B.S. The USAS-12 and the Street Sweeper and Striker-12 were NOT remarkably heavy, and plenty of popular civilian sporting rifles and shotguns weigh as much or more as those models).

Notice, also, that when it comes to 37mm flare launchers, even though they are all very light weight devices, they're considered NFA items if you possess even a single round of "anti personnel" ammunition for them. If you only own blank rounds and bird-scaring flash-bangs, great. You can have ammo that blows out strings of confetti. You can load your 37 mm launcher with a round that pokes out a stick and unfurls a banner reading "BANG !" like in an old Loony Tunes cartoon. But you can't have even less-lethal defensive rounds like rubber buckshot.

Anyhow, this is just something to watch out for when it comes to semi-auto tactical/ defensive guns that shoot 12 and 20 gauge shotshells (through bores that are .73" or .62" diameter).

 

If gun manufacturers keep pushing the limits with non-sporting shotguns (or firearms that use shotgun shells), they're liable to provoke BATF to declare more of them to be "destructive devices." ATF did that 25 years ago with regards to several other semi-automatic combat shotguns that were clearly non-sporting. Since they had bores of over half an inch diameter (any gauge above .410 bore is in this category) they technically fit the definition of an NFA-restricted destructive device-- just like a cannon. Just like a howitzer. Just like an anti-tank 20mm rifle cannon.

That whole sporting/non-sporting purposes is bullsh*t anyway since it infringes on the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Which has nothing to do with hunting and/or competitive target shooting. It also violates the Heller decision.

I recall a bill from a few years ago that was supposed to do away with this crap but it ended up dying in committee. Maybe now would be a good time to propose new legislation.

 

The Rem V3 TAC-13's MSRP is $915. Even if the street price, when it finally ships, ends up around $700, Rem may have problems selling them. Look what just showed up from Black Aces Tactical for $449 and November 2018 delivery. I have no idea whose receiver they're using. I hope the guy in the video learns how to shoot that thing properly!

http://www.blackacestactical.com/no-nfa