BRMCII

1-1928 COLT marked 7.65 ARG.: dent-free jacket; AA/optic sight brackets; mixed numbers; sight bracket; missing top cover cross pin, grips (1917a1 grips included) and water plugs; very good plus condition; 1917a1 DLO registered side plate: $15k (above kit and plate can be purchased separately) 1-1917a1 DLO registered side plate, ready to install; $13k 1- Reising; .45; C+R; Numrich Military build on commercial numbered receiver; excellent wood; all correct military parts; 99% park; military mag; tested $5200 Further info and pics on request: MGs/plates out on taxed F4s from NFA savvy owner; buyer pays tax, SH+I

Seaman: pictures on request as noted in post. To which prices are you referring?

Sorry to post on wrong board. I tried to delete post on discussion board but it did not work.

2- 1928 COLT marked 7.65 ARG. KITs w/registered DLO 1917a1 side plates: #1 @ $15.5 and #2 @ $14.5k Kit #1: Colt; dent-free jacket; AA/optic sight brackets ; matching numbers; only missing wooden grips; very good plus, plus condition Kit #2: Colt; dent-free jacket; AA/optic sight brackets; mixed numbers; sight bracket; missing top cover cross pin, grips and water plugs; very good plus condition 1- Reising; .45; C+R; Numrich Military build on commercial numbered receiver; excellent wood; all correct military parts; 99% park; military mag; tested $5200 Further info and pics on request: MGs/plates out on taxed F4s from NFA savvy owner; buyer pays tax, SH+I

As with everything in the NFA world, let your conscience be your guide. If the risk, real or perceived, makes you uncomfortable, don't do it. Many buyers I've talk to over the years have decided that just the potential for the laws to be changed was too much risk. Others will lean way over the line against clearly stated NFA regulations. However, I am a firm believer in calculated risk and can only blame myself if I am wrong. Calculated risk must be based on factual evidence, not on anecdotes and stories. The realities of what ATF will prosecute compared what the average gun owner perceives that ATF will prosecute are vastly different. An interesting example is the Greenberg and friends prosecution, conviction and penalties. Their violations of clear and unequivocal NFA regulations were about as bad as anyone can achieve, yet the court case and penalties are quite interesting. With the huge number of a very wide variety of destruction requirements over many, many years of imported kits and many thousands with this same variety being dome by individuals and offered for sale and sold, I would like to see court references to actual prosecutions and convictions of individuals for violating the "destruction" protocols of any unregistered MGs. This does not include ATF's reversal of the previously accepted legality of imported kits that then suddenly were claimed to violate their "current" import destruction requirements. There are lot of those, of course, but they are not about individuals curing unregistered MGs. Anyway, if there are a few confirmed prosecutions for such low level violations, the percentage is some tiny fraction of the huge number of unregistered MGs cut up by individuals. I would like to see the cases where this violation is the main charge. What is the story about Thompsons being saw cut in the 1950s? Curious who had them, where they came from, why and where they were cut and what happened to them? FWIW

Would you please post references to actual court cases of prosecutions by ATF for incomplete or illegal destruction of an MG receiver by an individual. TIA.

RAMO built M2HB.50BMG; exc/new condition; 99% park; exc. tripod, T+E; some spares inc. and some spares at extra cost $29k/offers (2) 1928 COLT ARG. CONTRACT WC BMG kits; marked 7.65mm; optic mount; complete; not matching numbers; very good condition; excellent bores; excellent jackets; $1200 each/offers (2) 1917A1 DLO registered side plates; ready to build; $13k each/offers (1) Reising; .45; C+R; Numrich Military build on commercial numbered receiver; excellent wood; all correct military parts; 99% park; mag; tested $5200 Further info and pics on request: MGs out on taxed F4s from NFA savvy owner; buyer pays tax, SH+I

Max: need your e-mail address. Post me to bmg17a1@gmail.com

Well, saint's be praised, your queries have been productive! I neglected to look at the muzzle end of the barrel on the Marlin and there're all the correct stamps with date of 7 18, etc, so this Marlin seems to have taken the same or similar path to your Marlin.

You again? Don't you have some laundry or bowling to do? Nobody asked for cash at the door…. I did add a few things to the BAR listing above. The barrel is a 1918 configuration with the short breech profile so appears to me to be original. I don't know what date the markings were applied but assume for WWII Lend-Lease. Marlin first began BAR production for sales to Britain but I don't know how these barrels were marked from the factory at that time if marked at all. What do you have on this question?

RAMO built M2HB.50BMG; exc/new condition; 99% park; exc. tripod, T+E; some spares inc. and some spares at extra cost $30k/offers (2) 1928 COLT ARG. CONTRACT WC BMG kits; marked 7.65mm; optic mount; complete; not matching numbers; very good condition; excellent bores; excellent jackets; $2000 each/offers (2) 1917A1 DLO registered side plates; ready to build; $13.5k each/offers (1) Reising; .45; C+R; Numrich Military build on commercial numbered receiver; excellent wood; all correct military parts; 99% park; mag; tested $5200 each Further info and pics on request: MGs out on taxed F4s from NFA savvy owner; buyer pays tax, SH+I

Couple of things to address in the above post. Reactivation of a registered DEWAT, whether by an individual through form 1 application, or through Form 2 by an 07/02 licensee is defined by ATF as "making" an MG, and by ATF's definition that is a legal form of "manufacturing" and is NOT "repair' and ATF regs require any firearm that is "manufactured" to be marked with the name and address of the person or licensee doing the actual reactivation. So, any processed reactivation requires marking of the receiver. About fifteen or more years ago, I had a number of dialogues with the head of FTB and asked for the removal of the definition of a reactivation as manufacturing so the MG did not require marking. In my fire he marking is erroneous and defaces the MG. The MG was already registered as "manufactured" by the original arsenal, factory, etc and returning it to live fire does not constitute manufacturing by any logical assessment. ATF's response was that any work done to significantly alter the receiver of an MG was considered 'manufacturing". OK, whatever, no change was ever made. Anyway, reactivation is NOT repair. Now, the proper paper trail for a registered DEWAT to be reactivated is use of a form 5, tax exempt transfer to an 07/02. He does the reactivation, notifies ATF using a form 2 that the MG has been reactivated and then returns the gun by taxed form 4 directly to its owner. This is where the tax is paid for the "making" or change of status from DEWAT to live MG. for an individual to do the reactivation, he should have received the registered DEWAT by form 5, tax exempt. Then he files a taxed, form 1 to reactivate the MG and when he receives the approved form1, he can do the work He is required to mark the MG. The form 1 is his registration of the gun. Again, the ID of the manufacturer remains the same as noted on the original registration in the NFRTR. An exception to the above are registered DEWATs that have transferred by taxed form 4s. These MGs can reactivated without any further paperwork because they are already considered "live" MGs, having had the tax paid for the transfer. The registered "manufacturer/importer" ID of a registered DEWAT listed on the original registration form NEVER changes, unless it is clearly incorrect and a correction can be done by the registrant with a letter to ATF requesting that the correct ID be included with that serial number in the NFRTR. An 07/02 who reactivates a registered DEWAT does NOT enter his name as the "manufacturer" of the reactivation. He files a form 2 and checks the 'reactivation" box. The ID of the manufacturer/importer does not change from that of the original registration when reactivated. There is no requirement in the C+R regulations of the '68 GCA that a C+R listed MG to be in its original factory configuration. That is only stipulated for IMPORT of C+R title I firearms. MGs have been prohibited for importation for private transfer and possession since the end of the '68 Amnesty. The C+R status of some MGs is in a grey area since they have been materially altered. An example is a 1910 Russian Maxim kit built into a transferable example by installing the registered side plate of the German MG08 Maxim. Can just a side plate be transferred as a C+R firearm? Under NFA law, the registered component of an MG is the "machine gun", so following that logic then just a sideplate can transfer as a C+R if it came from a C+R MG. However the MG08 no longer exists, which was the C+R MG. The registration lists the MG as an MG08 but it is no longer an MG08. In my view, having built many of these hybrid, transferable Maxims, is that the gun should not transfer as C+R because it is materially no longer an MG08, and I have "manufactured' it as a 1910, so the fifty year old rule from date of manufacture applies. However, there is no record of the date of my re-manufacture, so when does the counting begin to fifty years from date of mfg? This is counting angels on the head of a pin. Some of my customers have wanted to ask ATF to change the registration ID of the gun to 1910 Maxim, but that creates the false impression that the gun was originally registered as a 1910 but it was not. IMO, it is best that these guns not retain their C+R status so as to keep the provenance clear. The example noted in the above post of the use of registered aircraft Vickers side plates to build ground guns suffers form the same issues. Since ATF never sees the hardware to understand that an MG has been materially altered and refers to the original registration to vet a transfer, such hybrids will sail through a transfer without an issue. Hope this helps…...

Yes it is…...

The Marlin has Lend Lease certification stamps on the breech end of the barrel, usual stuff, nitro, etc. Only other mark is the usual military 'P'. Only stamps on the barrel.