Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
sardo_67

Re-manufactured tranny MGs?

Location:

24 posts in this topic

Saw someone post a remanufactured Oly AR-15 in another forum.  I know that was kind of a gray area and then the ATF said no.  Are those guns legal now or did the ATF want them cut up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones oly replaced the reciever? I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot stick. For a while the ATF allowed the original manufacture to replace a reciever with the same sn. I don't know if it was "legal" but it also wasn't "illegal". One of those grey area things. 

But from my stand point, mind you I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay in a holiday inn express last night, is those guns are 100% illegal. Just because the lower was an oly lower, 99% of them were converted by someone else. Like PAWS or Weapon specialities. So if push came to shove I could see the ATF making a very good case that when oly destroyed the pre86 lower to replace with a new one, they weren't the "original" manufacture, as they weren't the ones who registered it in the first place. As we are seeing with the colt collector guns coming out, colt appears to have done that to some extent as well, but in colts case at least they were the same colt. But again the arugement could be made that after the bankruptcy the "new colt" isn't the same company as the "old colt" who registered the gun. Splitting hairs at that point, but I could see a lawyer wanting to argue it that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes that's my understanding on it, similar to how if you have a bad baffle strike on a can that destroys the tube you cant just have the MFG make another with the same SN and give it to you.  the gun is on Arfcom for 22k, which seems very high to me. 

if this were the case I'm sure people would be having their 30+yr old lowers re-manufactured with new fancy CNC ones.

 

I know Colt did it a lot as well but you had to know someone there who could hook you up, they also didn't really keep track of the ones they did so really only a few people knew it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, damcv62 said:

The ones oly replaced the reciever? I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot stick. For a while the ATF allowed the original manufacture to replace a reciever with the same sn. I don't know if it was "legal" but it also wasn't "illegal". One of those grey area things. 

But from my stand point, mind you I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay in a holiday inn express last night, is those guns are 100% illegal. Just because the lower was an oly lower, 99% of them were converted by someone else. Like PAWS or Weapon specialities. So if push came to shove I could see the ATF making a very good case that when oly destroyed the pre86 lower to replace with a new one, they weren't the "original" manufacture, as they weren't the ones who registered it in the first place. As we are seeing with the colt collector guns coming out, colt appears to have done that to some extent as well, but in colts case at least they were the same colt. But again the arugement could be made that after the bankruptcy the "new colt" isn't the same company as the "old colt" who registered the gun. Splitting hairs at that point, but I could see a lawyer wanting to argue it that way. 

Except you would be wrong.  Those have been around a long time and there's never been an issue other than when they were told to stop, they did and that was the end of that.   Owners today have a receiver with a serial number that matches the number on the cancelled tax stamp and that is all that really matters.  Colt's didn't make their own receivers either so that argument doesn't hold much water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Except you would be wrong.  Those have been around a long time and there's never been an issue other than when they were told to stop, they did and that was the end of that.   Owners today have a receiver with a serial number that matches the number on the cancelled tax stamp and that is all that really matters.  Colt's didn't make their own receivers either so that argument doesn't hold much water?

Oh yeah? How am I "wrong"? Did Olympic register the lower? No. They did not. I've actually never seen an Olympic made M16. Just because their reciever was used doesn't mean they were the manufacture of the M16. I've got a PAWS M16, on an Olympic reciever. Who made the gun? PAWS. So if anyone should have replaced the reciever, PAWS should have. Not Olympic. Just because something has "been around a long time" does NOT mean it's in any way, shape or form legal. The ATF has a long history of saying things are ok, until the one day they aren't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympic is the mfr of the receiver.  Paws is a maker, not a manufacturer in this case, which is why all the Olympic info is on the gun and forms and why for a time they were allowed to replace them as were others back in the day.   Paws nor anyone else was allowed to obscure the original markings on the firearm as they did not "manufacture" it, they "made" it.   I assume Olympic drilled  the holes on the new receivers so they did in fact make "M16's" at that point, which is the crux of the problem post 86 for anyone and why the policy was halted.   No one is coming to get them that I am aware of and that is generally old news.  I never bought one as the price vs. quality ratio was never good enough IMO, or I would have some, but they would have been fixed here and running fine as most are today. 

 I think it's hilarious you have issues with an olympic, but you are totally fine with brokering one of the guns on the NFA board?  Ponder that yourself personally as I am not getting any further into that right here. 

I haven't seen atf backtrack on much other than some things that had been incorrectly registered or approved in error, but if you read the fine print you'll notice they are not responsible for errors they may have made when corrected......exactly like every other gov. agency.  Guys have sold post samples as transferables and gotten a couple thru, but they were eventually caught and reclassified as post samples, but the guys were allowed to keep them until they sell, then they go back post.  Pretty fair in my book?  If you have a specific example I'd be happy to try and explain if I can?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with johnsonlmg41. I've transferred a couple of them over the years and I can say that you are spot on with what you said. The ones I transferred have changed hands a couple times since then and no issues that I am aware of with the transfers and no black helicopters. For the right price I'd have no problem owning one. They are modern milspec lowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Witnessed 1 change hands after a sale and it went with no issues.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm sure if I do enough paperwork shuffling I can get the ATF to approve a full auto PKM form 4'd to my trust.  

 

I've seen PAWS conversions where they welded over all the original markings on a Colt AR-15 and put their own.  I found that weird.  The pony and colt markings were all gone.  

 

Was that legal?

 

 

The ATF only checks numbers and trust/personal/state law info, not NFA item inspection. 

Edited by sardo_67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Double post 

Edited by sardo_67
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 7, 2017 at 8:45 PM, johnsonlmg41 said:

Olympic is the mfr of the receiver.  Paws is a maker, not a manufacturer in this case, which is why all the Olympic info is on the gun and forms and why for a time they were allowed to replace them as were others back in the day.   Paws nor anyone else was allowed to obscure the original markings on the firearm as they did not "manufacture" it, they "made" it.   I assume Olympic drilled  the holes on the new receivers so they did in fact make "M16's" at that point, which is the crux of the problem post 86 for anyone and why the policy was halted.   No one is coming to get them that I am aware of and that is generally old news.  I never bought one as the price vs. quality ratio was never good enough IMO, or I would have some, but they would have been fixed here and running fine as most are today. 

 I think it's hilarious you have issues with an olympic, but you are totally fine with brokering one of the guns on the NFA board?  Ponder that yourself personally as I am not getting any further into that right here. 

I haven't seen atf backtrack on much other than some things that had been incorrectly registered or approved in error, but if you read the fine print you'll notice they are not responsible for errors they may have made when corrected......exactly like every other gov. agency.  Guys have sold post samples as transferables and gotten a couple thru, but they were eventually caught and reclassified as post samples, but the guys were allowed to keep them until they sell, then they go back post.  Pretty fair in my book?  If you have a specific example I'd be happy to try and explain if I can?  

This is so wrong I just don't even. You can't destroy "maker" by your words, or manufacture marks. Correct?

So when Olympic destroyed the reciever with PAWS info on it, now the receiver isn't "marked" by the "maker". If it is "remarked" that's illegal. Just because the ATF hasn't done anything about it yet, doesn't mean it's "legal". They just haven't been made aware, or issued a statement on it. Sure, they might say it's ok for what was done, but they haven't. So for you to claim they are "legal"? That's just dumb. 

And I don't know who you think I am, but I'm not "brokering" shit. So please enlighten us to this so I can "ponder" it. Clearly you are confused about who I am, and what's listed on the board, so I'd be hesitant to trust you on any other "views" you might have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 7, 2017 at 0:56 PM, Rudolf said:

Witnessed 1 change hands after a sale and it went with no issues.

 

 

Just because the ATF approves the transfer in no way, shape or form mean it's good. They don't know what 90% of the guns are, and that's why we have seen in the last 3-4 years a huge increase of requests from the ATF asking for photos of markings and stuff on guns. Because they are trying to correct the registery, which I'm fine with, but these Olympic replaced guns haven't been addressed. (That I know of). The ATF told them to stop. If it was legal for them to be doing it, why would the ATF tell them to stop? Riddle me that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 7, 2017 at 8:45 PM, johnsonlmg41 said:

 

I haven't seen atf backtrack on much other than some things that had been incorrectly registered or approved in error, but if you read the fine print you'll notice they are not responsible for errors they may have made when corrected......exactly like every other gov. agency.  Guys have sold post samples as transferables and gotten a couple thru, but they were eventually caught and reclassified as post samples, but the guys were allowed to keep them until they sell, then they go back post.  Pretty fair in my book?  If you have a specific example I'd be happy to try and explain if I can?  

Fair? Hardly. So if some new buyer buys one of these lowers with out knowing the whole story on them because people like you say they are good to go, and next year ATF decides that the guns are in fact illegal and are now post samples, that's "fair"? I'd be pretty pissed, and I'm willing to bet you'd be pissed as well. That's why it pays to know what you are buying, and forums like these people ask questions. But for you to claim it's "fair" is laughable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was hashed over back in the 90's if I recall, by atf so I guess it's old news and predates a lot todays folks on the web.   The guns were "made" pre 86 into MG's which isn't really all that relevant as to the maker, when the original manufacturer was also manufacturing  them.  The key is that the manufacturer was allowed to replace them for a time, same as colts, ruger, and some others did and they were all told to stop creating new MG's post 86 and to halt the practice.  There was a recent thread regarding the colts that you may want to look at.    As a "maker" that would never have been allowed even at that time since many "makers" had no license to do any repairs or anything for that matter .  I get that the terms are somewhat confusing for most, but that's how it's laid out.  PAWS markings mean little since they were a "maker" on someone else's manufactured item, not much different than if you SBR'd a colt, marked the barrel with your info, then discarded the barrel and sold off the receiver without your "maker" info on it, it was still an item manufactured by colts and you can't alter those markings.  That said there are still some differences regarding markings on title II items, but that's too deep for this discussion.

Was there not a discussion last week about you and EMgunslinger brokering some guns that got nixed with a lot of drama?  If that was not you, I apologize for my feeble memory.

I've had request for a few pictures on some items, but they've been mostly very old guns with extremely poor information or some info missing on the original registration.  That said, they are not actually correcting anything, just adding info mostly.  RIA recently "corrected" a form because they thought atf wanted things correct.  On the next transfer atf put all the info back to original....which was 80% wrong, but correct in that it matched the original registration of which I had a copy of.  So the short answer is they are not "correcting" anything, they are verifying some physical aspects of some guns and going back to mostly incorrect information (but matching the original registration) on the forms.    HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Because it was hashed over back in the 90's if I recall, by atf so I guess it's old news and predates a lot todays folks on the web.   The guns were "made" pre 86 into MG's which isn't really all that relevant as to the maker, when the original manufacturer was also manufacturing  them.  The key is that the manufacturer was allowed to replace them for a time, same as colts, ruger, and some others did and they were all told to stop creating new MG's post 86 and to halt the practice.  There was a recent thread regarding the colts that you may want to look at.    As a "maker" that would never have been allowed even at that time since many "makers" had no license to do any repairs or anything for that matter .  I get that the terms are somewhat confusing for most, but that's how it's laid out.  PAWS markings mean little since they were a "maker" on someone else's manufactured item, not much different than if you SBR'd a colt, marked the barrel with your info, then discarded the barrel and sold off the receiver without your "maker" info on it, it was still an item manufactured by colts and you can't alter those markings.  That said there are still some differences regarding markings on title II items, but that's too deep for this discussion.

Was there not a discussion last week about you and EMgunslinger brokering some guns that got nixed with a lot of drama?  If that was not you, I apologize for my feeble memory.

I've had request for a few pictures on some items, but they've been mostly very old guns with extremely poor information or some info missing on the original registration.  That said, they are not actually correcting anything, just adding info mostly.  RIA recently "corrected" a form because they thought atf wanted things correct.  On the next transfer atf put all the info back to original....which was 80% wrong, but correct in that it matched the original registration of which I had a copy of.  So the short answer is they are not "correcting" anything, they are verifying some physical aspects of some guns and going back to mostly incorrect information (but matching the original registration) on the forms.    HTH

But that's the problem. PAWS was the "maker" ATF has clearly stated that you can make changes to a receiver if you can't do so with out changing the original engraving. So if Olympic destroyed the reciever that has PAWS info on it, and then engraved PAWS info on it, they have changed the makers marks. That's not legal. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I sure as hell wouldn't buy one of those replaced lowers. Because it's one ATF letter away from becoming contraband. Might it happen? Maybe. Maybe they will never look into it? Maybe. But why take that chance? Buy a gun that has no questionable history behind it. If so,some knows it's questionable and still buys it? Ok, that's on them. 

And you are 100% wrong, so please edit your post. You have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't appreciate people posting crap about me that they know nothing about. A user called me a scammer because he had stipulations on a gun and I couldn't meet those. He thought we had a deal, but we did not, as he had stipulations. And then he got upset and started threatening me, saying I had to cover his $3,000 in losses or sell him the gun or he was going to call me a scammer. Not sure how you took that to mean I was "brokering" a replaced Olympic lower, as the gun in question was a bring back AK, but if your mind is that feeble I'd suggest not posting at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll jump in here with this comment. ATF has different terms for "manufacture" like "maker" etc but the manufacturing regs make NO distinction. PAWS is designated as the "manufacturer" and marked the lower with their ID and serial when they converted the AR15 semi receiver to select-fire and all "manufacturing" regs applied to PAWS at the time. Olympic DID NOT manufacture the gun as select-fire, so they had no legal authority to replace the receiver. None. It is illegal to transfer the serial and ID of a registered MG to an unregistered receiver, in this case a lower. That is a federal regulation so Olympic had no legal authority to replace a PAWS converted lower. None. I've seen all sorts of shenanigans with registrations on both pre-'68 and '68 to '86 MGs on all sorts of MGs in more than forty years dealing with NFA. for example there are lots of MGs not registered by the end of the Amnesty, but were never cut to comply with then current destruction requirements, but just registered and sold. Many of these esame guns were registered as reactivated DEWATs by form 2 by CIIs and sold as C+R, but they now show up with registration dates after the amnesty through FOIAs. ATF is years away from understanding the street level history of these mistaken or deliberate misregistrations by gun manufacturers, CIIs and individuals and it is unlikely they will make any effort to pursue these guns unless the guns show up in the bright light of a crime. I've petitioned ATF to legitimize half a dozen really compromised registrations with Gary Schaible's help and every time the resolution of the issue came down to the fact that the gun had transferred quite a few times and was now in the system. they'll leave it alone. These guns are not pre-Mays incorrectly transferred or registrations caught up in the absurd and illegal crackdown by ATF just post '86 when they used a much stricter interpretation of what constituted a "registrable' part than was considered "industry" just to reduce the number of new MGs.  Anyway, just more to add to the mix…...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are brokering the set of guns along with emgunslinger.   Nowhere did I mention anything about an AK and that was not the gun I was referring to it was another gun you are apparently representing (by your own admission at this point).   The purse fight regarding the AK has nothing to do with my point about what you are selling or your practices about brokering brokered stuff that you apparently haven't seen or know anything about as one of the items is far more compromised than any Olympic lower, that was my point.  I have no intent to jeapordize your sale by going into any further detail (course it's not really your sale since you don't own it, but whatever?).

Bob authority means nothing, they did it along with others at the time and as you know it was allowed for a time then halted.  There is no disputing that fact.   That dog has been laid to rest years ago on those specific items.   It is what it is, but no one is going around and collecting them up is the point of the thread.    And yes there surely is a difference between making and manufacturing.   When you fill out (not you in this case since you do a form 2) a form 1 to reactivate a MG it is an "application to MAKE and register a firearm"  by reactivating it you are "making" it, not manufacturing it, since that's been done already and two people cannot "manufacture" the same item.   Example:  One company manufactures a lower with a serial number which cannot be obliterated.  Company or individual B "makes" or registers it further into the NFA registry due to some type of conversion utilizing the same serial number but adding their "maker" information.        I "make" a number of NFA items out of already "manufactured" receivers by someone else , but I don't manufacture them, so I am a "maker", thus I need no manufacturer's license to do so in that example.   It's really not that complicated, I'm not sure I can simplify it any further? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>When you fill out (not you in this case since you do a form 2) a form 1 to reactivate a MG it is an "application to MAKE and register a firearm"  by reactivating it you are "making" it, not manufacturing it, since that's been done already and two people cannot "manufacture" the same item.<

Sorry, this is not correct under the marking regulations which was my point. Under ATF marking regulations, "making" and "manufacturing" are IDENTICAL! I went around with ATF on this twenty or more years ago about the notion that the MG is already "manufactured" so I should not have to mark it with my ID and address which is a "manufacturing" requirement. ATF claimed "making" is actually "manufacturing" under their definition because of the marking requirement and that the long standing pre '86 use of  "making" on a form 1 was actually "manufacturing", actually fabricating the receiver, and registering a new MG. The issue is that marking requirements are identical between the two terms and any violation of the marking requirements voids the registration. The distinction between 'making' and 'manufacturing" does not exist in reality. Bluing and parkerizing are now "manufacturing" processes according to ATF requiring an FFL07/SOTII.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea what 62 is saying sounds like what I've always read about.  Guns were allowed to be replaced with the original SN by the original manufacturer, then when MGs came into the mix the original manufacturers figured why wouldn't this apply MGs as well.  I'm in CT and have met a lot of Colt guys over the years who have personally seen Colt MG receivers being replaced with new M-16A2 castings, but you kinda had to know someone there who could hook you up.  Ruger would do this as well with their AC556 guns as well, one could send in your beat up MG and they'd replace anything that was bad up to and including the MG receiver with same SN.  These guns aren't so much in question as the semi to FA 3rd party guns.

 

The question arises with the 3rd party conversions, either a home built F1 in Joes garage or a PAWS, Wilson, ect ect ect.  if you have a bushmaster converted by PAWS and sent it to bushy to get re-made or even an SP-1 conversion and wanted colt to re-man it to a new lower how can they legally engrave someone else's info on it?  PAWS, Joe or Wilson would have to do the work no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making & manufacturing are the same activity, only distinction is whether the one doing it pays SOT.  See definition of "make" in 479.11.  

There is no process in law or regulation for replacing anything paperless.  Build it = register it unless you have a variance and in this scenario that is not a realistic possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not the same activity.

Make from 479.11  . This term and the various derivatives thereof shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this part), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.    Manufacturing can be construed as one method of "making",  making can also mean assembly or any of the above, thus by ATF's definition they are not the same.

If you "make" or derivative "assemble" an SBR AR-15 by putting together the two parts you have not manufactured a new firearm since the receiver is already a firearm, you have only "made" a SBR from an existing firearm and another part (which is not a firearm).   Had you manufactured the receiver from scratch: ( Manufacturing is the value added production of merchandise for use or sale using labor and machines, tools, chemical and biological processing)    and then added a short barrel, you not only would have manufactured the firearm receiver, but also made it into an SBR.  You would not have manufactured two firearms (the receiver and the new SBR), it is still only one firearm.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow! an interesting thread to say the least and way to much legal back and forth for my mind to handle.  over all i agree totally with johnsonlmg41 as presented as in any legal matter the presentation is everything. the way i see it everything falls back to the original registration. 1 who did it, what they were ( individual or manufacturer) and how it was marked at the time it was done. and was it a form 1. some manufacturers did in fact remove all markings and remark the receivers  with their info which was completely legal for a lic manufacturer to do so and many did. many changed the receiver's IE hk push pin etc. atf has ruled many times that push pin receivers had to be done when registered to be legal and others cant be changed to that after the fact . the term maker and manufacturer means exactly that . a manufacturer can do much more than a "maker" but must follow strict procedures. form 1 alterations are just that, a conversion of something someone has already built but a manufacturer CAN take something all ready built and manufacture something else out of it . completely removing ALL markings. In 75 or 76 I blew up an early colt AR-15 mg. when i asked atf about options, I was advised to take it to a manufacturer, they could apply the old serial number to a colt receiver, removing the new serial no add their logo and enter it in their log showing the old rec destroyed. it was stressed a class 2 manufacturer only could do this which we did at that time. in 1996 we asked about the options in that circumstance  and of course its a loss and nothing can be done.

 someone brought up the C+R issue in this thread.  a REGISTERED DEWAT is already manufactured and if done so 50 yrs prior can be "rewatted" by ANYBODY and is STILL  a C+R. where the problem and confusion comes up is with older guns, like the bren registered AFTER the amnesty before 1986 on a form one or by a lic manufacturer from parts or "whatever". that would NOT qualify as a C+R under the law. I personally own several "rewatted " C+R guns. that were done on a form 1 by me. It all boils down to the ORIGINAL REGISTRATION PAPERWORK. some manufacturers like today did not understand the law and marked the registered "rewatts" with their logo and filled out papers as them the manufacturer even though they were ALL READY REGISTERED AS "DEWATS"  sadly that would NOT be a legal C+R.   hope i didn't confuse things more and helped clear a few points up cheers mike

 

 

 

 

 


I only accept postal money orders. contact me DIRECTLY before sending any funds                                           email  myoldiron@outlook.com        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that is not mentioned in this thread is that ATF has changed interpretation of the laws several times over the years. Debating the legal merits of the issue on current ATF interpretations is ridiculous since ATF's look at the laws is a moving target. Just look at what is considered to be a legal demill/dewatt over the years and yet there has not been any law changes. Replacement of suppressors changed as well and so has the replacement of MG receivers by the listed manufacturer. Even the registration paperwork on many of these receivers is a mixed confusion on the manufacturer name since I have seen more than one with manufacturer;s name of the actual semi receiver on it even though it was converted by a class 2.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MONGO, I AGREE and that was my point. the tem "maker" would not apply in all cases. when a lic manufacturer takes an existing firearm and converts it, he could indeed leave the original markings and add his. that would make him the "maker"  HOWEVER, a manufacturer can in fact take an existing firearm, alter it and become the manufacturer of that item TOTALLY as it was just so much metal after he started the work. many did not remove the old markings, or put them on the transfer forms.  many dealers left "other markings appearing" off form 3's and 4's when selling them and that's one of the BIG HANGUPS with NFA paperwork today. new forms MUST MATCH the original forms . more than half of the transfers to me since 2006 have been kicked back for corrections. some are quite confusing. no longer will MkI or MkII work on a bren or Vickers. my forms for Vickers were all changed to VICKERS only and a INGLIS bren was corrected to MkI from bren. I foresee a picture to establish the exact gun involved for all transfers in the future. that will certainly clear up all the maxims with mac 10 paperwork out there.  mike


I only accept postal money orders. contact me DIRECTLY before sending any funds                                           email  myoldiron@outlook.com        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0