Rossi Ranch Hand -- anyone seen one yet ?

[Streetstar]

self descriptive title --- the Ranch Hand is a more "budget friendly" Mares Laig for people who want to plink with it rather than just hang on the wall --- supposedly priced roughly equivalent to the rifles (between 400 and 600 i've heard). If anyone knows where to get one yet, i will happily put my name on ont too


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/Ha ... sLegx3.jpg

[jeepnik]

Well, the price is more in range than on other "Mares Legs" that I've seen. I always thought they were way over priced, over a grand, for what was basically a shortened levergun that usually sold for about half as much. From what I've seen they are neither fish nor fowl, and are more of a novelty than a useful tool. Not that I'm against novelty guns, heck, I like the unusual and odd, my grail being a Webley Fosberry.

[J Miller]

Those things are useless as txxs on a bull frog. They would be awkward to shoot as you can't stabilize them on your shoulder, they aren't really a rifle, and regardless of the BATFE says they sure aren't a handgun.

Not seen one of any variety 'cept on Wanted Dead or Alive. That's where they should stay, on the Hollywood lot.

If I had $600.00 to spend I'd buy a real Rossi 92 and have something worthwhile.

Sorry, but that's JMNSHO

Joe

[Griff]

Since legally, they ARE a pistol... wonder how'd they do in the Silhouette game??? I could see one in .45Colt in my safe soon. Laying on one's back, knee's bent, forearm against the calf, either receiver sight or tang sight with larger aperature... could be quite accurate!

Just the thing where open carry isn't discouraged!!!!

[Streetstar]

Those things are useless as txxs on a bull frog. They would be awkward to shoot as you can't stabilize them on your shoulder, they aren't really a rifle, and regardless of the BATFE says they sure aren't a handgun.

Not seen one of any variety 'cept on Wanted Dead or Alive. That's where they should stay, on the Hollywood lot.

If I had $600.00 to spend I'd buy a real Rossi 92 and have something worthwhile.

Sorry, but that's JMNSHO

Joe

Its a "fun gun" --- not really about having anything "worthwhile" or not. In the same vein as the wildly succesful Taurus Judge, and any number of other firearms that dont have a sporting niche or a real purpose. This firearm's purpose is for knocking cans around down by the riverbank with some like minded buddies

If i had $600 for a '92, i'd save for a couple more weeks or months until i could add another 400 to it and get a Brownchester --- however, since i posted, i have found a couple of retailers like Buds gun shop , that have these listed , but they are out of stock.
Prices i have seen are between $400 and $425 , --- which is a far sight lower than the 11-1200 these things were being marketed for by Puma, albeit, i believe the higher priced guns do have some nice case colors maybe, better wood, etc.,

I'll let you guys know if Bud's lets me reserve one ahead of time

[AJMD429]

For the ballistics you'd get, I'd just as soon have a .44 Magnum or .454 Casull revolver - much easier to fire one-handed, carry in a holster, and way less paperwork. [...I stand corrected - see below...! ]

I'm sure it's a fun gun-toy, though, and I never fault anyone for wanting one of those...

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

For the ballistics you'd get, I'd just as soon have a .44 Magnum or .454 Casull revolver - much easier to fire one-handed, carry in a holster, and way less paperwork.

I'm sure it's a fun gun-toy, though, and I never fault anyone for wanting one of those...

Your half right. These are sold as handguns (never before built as a rifle)and don't require any more paper than any other handgun. If it were a converted rifle it would be an SBR and definately require additional paper and money.


Might be cool to buy one and put a shoulder stock on it and paper it as an SBR.

[Alan Wood]

For the ballistics you'd get, I'd just as soon have a .44 Magnum or .454 Casull revolver - much easier to fire one-handed, carry in a holster, and way less paperwork.

I'm sure it's a fun gun-toy, though, and I never fault anyone for wanting one of those...

Your half right. These are sold as handguns (never before built as a rifle)and don't require any more paper than any other handgun. If it were a converted rifle it would be an SBR and definately require additional paper and money.


Might be cool to buy one and put a shoulder stock on it and paper it as an SBR.

Doesn't the order have to be paper it then change?

[Old Ironsights]

For the ballistics you'd get, I'd just as soon have a .44 Magnum or .454 Casull revolver - much easier to fire one-handed, carry in a holster, and way less paperwork.

I'm sure it's a fun gun-toy, though, and I never fault anyone for wanting one of those...

Your half right. These are sold as handguns (never before built as a rifle)and don't require any more paper than any other handgun. If it were a converted rifle it would be an SBR and definately require additional paper and money.


Might be cool to buy one and put a shoulder stock on it and paper it as an SBR.

Now, if one were to put an "extendable" stock on it... it would be a pistol one second and an SBR in another...

But still, it would look cool behind the bar as a "Behave!" piece...

[Burrito]

Looks like Vin Tanner's gun in the Magnificent Seven (TV series).

[Buck Elliott]

Don't forget, Woody Strode packed one in his short appearance in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST... Obviously, it was no match for a good man with a 6-gun, even though he got a shot off, and hit 'Harmonica' in the shoulder...

[J Miller]

I had the Mattel version of that when I was about 9. Yep I beat all you guys. As a toy it was an awkward thing, I can't imagine how clumsy the real thing would have been.

Joe12-60 a.JPG

Here I am with it in Farmington, Christmas morning 1961. You can see the butt stock in my hand. Only pic I have of it.



Joe

[Blaine]

Aw...what a cute little guy....What happened?

[O.S.O.K.]

I've just never had any attraction to those things. Hard to shoot accurately and recoil is heavy... but to each his own!

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

For the ballistics you'd get, I'd just as soon have a .44 Magnum or .454 Casull revolver - much easier to fire one-handed, carry in a holster, and way less paperwork.

I'm sure it's a fun gun-toy, though, and I never fault anyone for wanting one of those...

Your half right. These are sold as handguns (never before built as a rifle)and don't require any more paper than any other handgun. If it were a converted rifle it would be an SBR and definately require additional paper and money.


Might be cool to buy one and put a shoulder stock on it and paper it as an SBR.

Doesn't the order have to be paper it then change?

Not if you're dyslexic.

[Doc Hudson]

I pretty well agree with Joe Miller.

Sure they look neat, but they are not very usable.

FWIW, Rossi does not list the Ranch Hand on their website.

This think might not be anything more than a trial balloon to see how many folks are interested.

personally I got no interest in the awkward thing.

Steve,

I'm not arguing with you about the legality issues, but the receiver was forged as a rifle receiver even if never assembled as a rifle.

I can remember way back when Remington intorduced the XP-100 a few months later they introduced the Models 600 and 650 using the same action. From what I heard Remington introduced the XP=100 first because a rifle made on a handgun action would be acceptable to BATF (no"E" in those days) but a pistol built on a rifle action would require Federal Tax Stamps.

Has this stupid rule been changed or merely differently interpreted?

[DPris]

As with the Chiappa Bounty Hunter, and as noted above, if the receiver HAS NEVER BEEN ASSEMBLED AS A RIFLE, it requires no federal tax stamp to own or possess when built as a handgun.
That's it & that's all.
The Rossi version would fall into exactly the same category as all of the similarly constructed Chiappas, one of which I own & had to do no more paperwork with than the yellow sheet I do on all regular non-NFA purchases.
Denis

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

I pretty well agree with Joe Miller.

Sure they look neat, but they are not very usable.

FWIW, Rossi does not list the Ranch Hand on their website.

This think might not be anything more than a trial balloon to see how many folks are interested.

personally I got no interest in the awkward thing.

Steve,

I'm not arguing with you about the legality issues, but the receiver was forged as a rifle receiver even if never assembled as a rifle.

I can remember way back when Remington intorduced the XP-100 a few months later they introduced the Models 600 and 650 using the same action. From what I heard Remington introduced the XP=100 first because a rifle made on a handgun action would be acceptable to BATF (no"E" in those days) but a pistol built on a rifle action would require Federal Tax Stamps.

Has this stupid rule been changed or merely differently interpreted?

As with the Chiappa Bounty Hunter, and as noted above, if the receiver HAS NEVER BEEN ASSEMBLED AS A RIFLE, it requires no federal tax stamp to own or possess when built as a handgun.
That's it & that's all.
The Rossi version would fall into exactly the same category as all of the similarly constructed Chiappas, one of which I own & had to do no more paperwork with than the yellow sheet I do on all regular non-NFA purchases.
Denis

Hi Doc,
I think part of the reason the rule has been so muddled is because the BATF has tried to define it so many different ways. As Denis said these Rossi made guns are considered to be handguns so no additional paper work is required at this time. In other words it wouldn't surprise me if this changed.
This has been an on going problem with the rules. The interpretations seem to change. Another one that has my attention is how they are trying to re define manufacturing. I have read where they have even ruled that re-bluing a gun is now considered to be manufacturing.

BTW, this gun is not new. For awhile JB CUSTOMS was selling this same Rossi made gun.

[Doc Hudson]

So in other words, though the Ranch Hand/Mare's Laig handguns are now legal, there is no assurance that one day the BAT-men won't come knocking at the door demanding your guns and arresting you for having a non-taxed NFA Firearm.

Is that more or less correct/ And have not the BAT-men done that very thing in the past?

[Charles]

I guess sales are off, so they troll some mutant abortion by the public hoping for a few bites. Other than that, I really don't have an opinion of the gizmo.

[DPris]

There is NEVER any assurance that what the ATF ruled last week will not be re-interpreted next week, on any type of gun, under any conditions.
Never has been & never will as long as that agency's in business.

Denis

[Buck Elliott]

It may suffer the same fate as Taurus' Gaucho... Discontinued "due to popularity...'

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

It may suffer the same fate as Taurus' Gaucho... Discontinued "due to popularity...'

They didn't catalog it so I bet it's a planned limited run. Probably left over parts from the JBCUSTOMS deal.