Archived Posts » 59,821,464
Uppers now regulated?
7/22/2011 9:05:51 AM
There is a locked thread from just a few days ago that seems to say that ATF has reclassified the AR type uppers as complete firearms. Can anyone confirm if this is true or horseshit?
It would not surprise me given the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania right now but this is the first I have heard of it too.....Anyone?
It would not surprise me given the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania right now but this is the first I have heard of it too.....Anyone?
7/22/2011 9:14:40 AM
So far, from reading messages on other boards, and in corresponding with several upper manufactures, there has been no official BATFE documents seen confirming any change to selling or ownership. If anything comes out of this, it would mean serializing uppers, then transferring them via an FFL. Most, if not all, upper manufacturers are currently licensed to produce firearms.
7/22/2011 9:24:50 AM
Good to hear.
7/22/2011 10:47:40 AM
Yeah but how confusing is that going to be to own one rifle that is two firearms?
7/22/2011 11:09:38 AM
not going to happen.. it would be a hot mess...
7/22/2011 11:56:12 AM
7/22/2011 12:52:52 PM
He was either trying to get people to panic buy his product or he pissed off someone at the ATF.
None of the other manufacturers have heard anything about this..
None of the other manufacturers have heard anything about this..
7/22/2011 1:55:17 PM
The only upper I've heard about being classified as a firearm was that MG42 based upper. And that's because it could function without the lower.
7/22/2011 8:47:10 PM
That they ATF tech branch may be checking out his products wouldn't surprise me. It wouldn't be the first time they shut down a small company making an affordable AR product. Dropping all dem names was a little tasteless.
7/22/2011 8:50:30 PM
Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
The only upper I've heard about being classified as a firearm was that MG42 based upper. And that's because it could function without the lower.
The only upper I've heard about being classified as a firearm was that MG42 based upper. And that's because it could function without the lower.
I believe the SCAR has a serialized upper as opposed to the lower.
7/22/2011 9:27:12 PM
Originally Posted By BillyDoubleU:
I believe the SCAR has a serialized upper as opposed to the lower.
Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
The only upper I've heard about being classified as a firearm was that MG42 based upper. And that's because it could function without the lower.
The only upper I've heard about being classified as a firearm was that MG42 based upper. And that's because it could function without the lower.
I believe the SCAR has a serialized upper as opposed to the lower.
I was referring to the AR pattern rifle specifically.
This is the upper: XMG
http://www.brpguns.com/categories/Firearms/XMG-Belt%252dFed-AR%252d15%7B47%7DM16-Upper-Receiver/
In fact, since the upper above is a title 1 weapon in and of itself, it can't be put onto a full auto lower without becoming a post-sample. Basically the receiver acts as a conversion device for a firearm it was not originally designed for. Yay... ATF... another disaster averted...
7/22/2011 9:38:22 PM
Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
I was referring to the AR pattern rifle specifically.
This is the upper: XMG
https://store-817fb.mybigcommerce.com/product_images/uploaded_images/xmgadc.jpg
http://www.brpguns.com/categories/Firearms/XMG-Belt%252dFed-AR%252d15%7B47%7DM16-Upper-Receiver/
In fact, since the upper above is a title 1 weapon in and of itself, it can't be put onto a full auto lower without becoming a post-sample. Basically the receiver acts as a conversion device for a firearm it was not originally designed for. Yay... ATF... another disaster averted...
Originally Posted By BillyDoubleU:
I believe the SCAR has a serialized upper as opposed to the lower.
Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
The only upper I've heard about being classified as a firearm was that MG42 based upper. And that's because it could function without the lower.
The only upper I've heard about being classified as a firearm was that MG42 based upper. And that's because it could function without the lower.
I believe the SCAR has a serialized upper as opposed to the lower.
I was referring to the AR pattern rifle specifically.
This is the upper: XMG
https://store-817fb.mybigcommerce.com/product_images/uploaded_images/xmgadc.jpg
http://www.brpguns.com/categories/Firearms/XMG-Belt%252dFed-AR%252d15%7B47%7DM16-Upper-Receiver/
In fact, since the upper above is a title 1 weapon in and of itself, it can't be put onto a full auto lower without becoming a post-sample. Basically the receiver acts as a conversion device for a firearm it was not originally designed for. Yay... ATF... another disaster averted...
Oh I see what you mean and damn, never seen that before. Crazy!
7/22/2011 11:22:16 PM
message deleted
7/23/2011 12:57:10 AM
Plenty of designs use the upper as the "firearm": UZI, SCAR, FAL, FNC, HK 90 series....
7/23/2011 3:17:33 PM
I told Dan Franklund of Bismark North Dakota (inventor of the Watson's Weapons upper) that the kit he was selling to make your own upper actually included a receiver and a bolt. That was in June of 1999. Prior to Watsons Weapons selling complete uppers, Dan was selling packets of plans along with the bolt and "nut" as he called it. I have packet Number 8.
You can take that "barrel extension nut", which is a receiver, screw a barrel on it, screw in the bolt, and fire a round. That my friends, is a firearm by anyone's definition.
Tony
You can take that "barrel extension nut", which is a receiver, screw a barrel on it, screw in the bolt, and fire a round. That my friends, is a firearm by anyone's definition.
Tony
7/23/2011 3:27:15 PM
Originally Posted By TonyRumore:
I told Dan Franklund of Bismark North Dakota (inventor of the Watson's Weapons upper) that the kit he was selling to make your own upper actually included a receiver and a bolt. That was in June of 1999. Prior to Watsons Weapons selling complete uppers, Dan was selling packets of plans along with the bolt and "nut" as he called it. I have packet Number 8.
You can take that "barrel extension nut", which is a receiver, screw a barrel on it, screw in the bolt, and fire a round. That my friends, is a firearm by anyone's definition.
Tony
I told Dan Franklund of Bismark North Dakota (inventor of the Watson's Weapons upper) that the kit he was selling to make your own upper actually included a receiver and a bolt. That was in June of 1999. Prior to Watsons Weapons selling complete uppers, Dan was selling packets of plans along with the bolt and "nut" as he called it. I have packet Number 8.
You can take that "barrel extension nut", which is a receiver, screw a barrel on it, screw in the bolt, and fire a round. That my friends, is a firearm by anyone's definition.
Tony
Pictures? Is this an AR product?
7/23/2011 3:29:01 PM
It's the AR-15 upper that uses the screw-in bolt.
This whole issue goes back 100 years.....manufacturers arbitrarily decide which part they want to serialize as the "receiver," with no regard to the actual function of the part.
In the AR-15, the barrel extension is actually the receiver since it "receives" both the barrel and the bolt, and a round can be fired with those three parts (and a rock). It could be argued that since you can't really view the extension with the gun assembled, the upper receiver actually receives the barrel ASSEMBLY and the bolt ASSEMBLY and therefore, should be marked with the Serial Number.
So, this whole AR-15 upper BS, goes back 50 years when Colt/Armalite decided to slap the S/N on the wrong part.
Tony
This whole issue goes back 100 years.....manufacturers arbitrarily decide which part they want to serialize as the "receiver," with no regard to the actual function of the part.
In the AR-15, the barrel extension is actually the receiver since it "receives" both the barrel and the bolt, and a round can be fired with those three parts (and a rock). It could be argued that since you can't really view the extension with the gun assembled, the upper receiver actually receives the barrel ASSEMBLY and the bolt ASSEMBLY and therefore, should be marked with the Serial Number.
So, this whole AR-15 upper BS, goes back 50 years when Colt/Armalite decided to slap the S/N on the wrong part.
Tony
7/23/2011 3:50:47 PM
message deleted
7/23/2011 3:55:23 PM
I agree completely, Dave. The decision was made 50 years ago and there is really no way of changing it now, without making a complete mess.
Tony
Tony
7/23/2011 4:17:03 PM
message deleted
7/23/2011 5:22:04 PM
I don't know of any "guidlines" persay, other than engraving the serial number on the "receiver" of the gun. The receiver is defined as the part that receives the barrel and the bolt. But that definition is vague at best and neither the ATF nor the Manufacturers have any history of following any systemic procedure for making that determination.
Even if a formal process was put in place now, the cat is already out of the bag on previously built guns. I don't see it even possible to change a serial number to a different part in a previously built gun, since then you could assemble it with no serialized parts......or asssemble it with two serialized parts. That happened once. There were some parts kits imported into the states (I think they were AR-180's) with the Serial number on the uppers, not on the lowers, like the guns in the states. I don't recall what all transpired, but there was a big dust up about it.
Tony
Even if a formal process was put in place now, the cat is already out of the bag on previously built guns. I don't see it even possible to change a serial number to a different part in a previously built gun, since then you could assemble it with no serialized parts......or asssemble it with two serialized parts. That happened once. There were some parts kits imported into the states (I think they were AR-180's) with the Serial number on the uppers, not on the lowers, like the guns in the states. I don't recall what all transpired, but there was a big dust up about it.
Tony
7/25/2011 8:30:26 PM
look on the bright side. now you can show the wife the thread on uppers fixing to be outlawed and use it to help justify purchasing one. 
8/2/2011 10:23:00 PM
message deleted
8/2/2011 10:39:03 PM
Translation: A manufacturer of questionable ethics let his alligator mouth overload his chickenshit ass... again.
8/3/2011 6:41:58 AM
Originally Posted By chargerkid5:
Translation: A manufacturer of questionable ethics let his alligator mouth overload his chickenshit ass... again.
Translation: A manufacturer of questionable ethics let his alligator mouth overload his chickenshit ass... again.
+1
All he was doing was to try to get people to buy a sub standard product out of panic..
8/3/2011 7:42:09 AM
Why in the hell in this day and age when facts are so easily checked, would a person make such a claim?
He has been such a lightening rod for controversy, surely he had to realize that his claims would be checked?
But then again, he was an idiot of the highest order. Couldn't even figure out primary extraction.
He has been such a lightening rod for controversy, surely he had to realize that his claims would be checked?
But then again, he was an idiot of the highest order. Couldn't even figure out primary extraction.
8/3/2011 8:04:33 AM
so is this all bullshit?
8/3/2011 9:48:09 AM
message deleted
8/3/2011 11:24:04 PM
Originally Posted By TeamFerret:
I received some information about this issue today. Enjoy.....
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
This email is an attempt to respond to several inquiries the Fifty Caliber Institute (FCI) has received regarding the question, "has ATF classified .50 BMG
upper conversions for AR-15 rifles as firearms?
As far as we can determine there has been no decision by ATF to change the ruling regarding AR-15 upper conversions.
What we have found out is, there is only one manufacturer who has made any claim on this. All the other manufacturers that one fellow claimed are covered. All deny any notice from ATF of any issue of the sort. That maker has (by his own admission) been banned from numerous blogs and boards. This same person has had numerous suits brought against him for fraudulent business practices.
My source of information is currently attending the ATF Importers Conference and has had discussions on this subject today (8-2-11) He states Head of Firearms Technology Branch says one manufacturer got a letter from one field division asking him to send a sample to FTB due to law enforcement complaints. He wouldn't detail the complaints because the gun hasn't been received, let alone examined. He assumes that if it happens, the letter will be all over the net pronto.
Hope this helps. At this time I recommend we all just remain calm and I've asked to be notified if any changes come down the road. FCI will make everyone aware of those changes as we receive them.
John Burtt, Chmn
FCI
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I received some information about this issue today. Enjoy.....
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
This email is an attempt to respond to several inquiries the Fifty Caliber Institute (FCI) has received regarding the question, "has ATF classified .50 BMG
upper conversions for AR-15 rifles as firearms?
As far as we can determine there has been no decision by ATF to change the ruling regarding AR-15 upper conversions.
What we have found out is, there is only one manufacturer who has made any claim on this. All the other manufacturers that one fellow claimed are covered. All deny any notice from ATF of any issue of the sort. That maker has (by his own admission) been banned from numerous blogs and boards. This same person has had numerous suits brought against him for fraudulent business practices.
My source of information is currently attending the ATF Importers Conference and has had discussions on this subject today (8-2-11) He states Head of Firearms Technology Branch says one manufacturer got a letter from one field division asking him to send a sample to FTB due to law enforcement complaints. He wouldn't detail the complaints because the gun hasn't been received, let alone examined. He assumes that if it happens, the letter will be all over the net pronto.
Hope this helps. At this time I recommend we all just remain calm and I've asked to be notified if any changes come down the road. FCI will make everyone aware of those changes as we receive them.
John Burtt, Chmn
FCI
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Originally Posted By TeamFerret:
Yes, BS of the highest order.
For the sake of entertainment, I wonder why he got a letter from one field division asking him to send a sample to FTB due to law enforcement complaints. Could there be yet another OOBD?
Yes, BS of the highest order.
For the sake of entertainment, I wonder why he got a letter from one field division asking him to send a sample to FTB due to law enforcement complaints. Could there be yet another OOBD?
While that does appear to pull the BS flag up on "The Real Story on Bohica," it's too early to be jumping to conclusions. The truth will come out eventually. "Law enforcement complaints" could encompass a lot of things, though it certainly doesn't sound good.
The products are not what I'd call "substandard," but I can't say the same of the business practices.
ETA:
If there's one thing I'd scrutinize about the uppers is how critical hammer width/design is to the inherent safety. I would personally not feel safe using a thin profile and/or floating hammer as supplied with some target triggers.
8/4/2011 9:17:07 AM
I for see a tennis or ping pong match in the making.
8/4/2011 10:22:18 AM
message deleted
8/5/2011 11:54:40 PM
Most of the other uppers don't rely on the hammer, per se. They rely on a safety cam. The hammer can be a variable. You know what I'm saying.
8/6/2011 11:54:52 AM
message deleted
8/6/2011 8:24:12 PM
As the lower receiver components are the only parts the consumer is in control of that is where my concern lies. I'm sure these manufacturers know what components work, but it's the one's that don't that are the real question.
ETA:
This, of course, is mostly speculative.
ETA:
This, of course, is mostly speculative.
8/6/2011 9:38:15 PM
I have seen lower parts that don`t work well at all. I don`t know where the seller got the lower parts but in the overall scheme of things, failure to get the lower FCG to work, didn`t. I am now skeptical of any lower parts and who makes them. That may very well be what has caused one manufacturer on these forums, major problems.
