Saco M60E6 Unfired

[J Greene]

This is the nicest M60 I have ever personally seen. It was built on a Saco trunion by US Ordnance with all new parts and has remained unfired since it was received from them. I am listing this for a friend of mine. The gun is on a form 4 in Georgia and located just outside of Athens, Ga. It has Saco Defence Division listed as the manufacturer however it has a name, city, and  state marked on the trunion. You can see the marking in the pictures. This is as nice as it gets for a transferable M60E6 basically a new unfired US Ordnance build. It will ship as it was received form US Ordnance in there hard case with owners manual and extra barrel. Price is $100,000 buyer is responsible for shipping and insurance. Thanks Jeff

Edited July 30, 2023 by J Greene

[BRMCII]

Curious to see that JWL, J. Lawyer,  Bedford, IN appears to have "re-manufactured" this M60 as his ID is stamped on the trunnion. Does your paperwork note this ID under "manufacturer/importer"? TIA

[J Greene]

This is the current form 4 however it doesn’t mean it will transfer with Saco as the manufacturer again. To the best of my knowledge the factory markings puts this trunion as being manufactured from 1980 to 1984. I was told the trunion was new and with it being manufactured at that time I doubt it would have been from a demiled gun

[JoshNC]

Looks like J Lawyer registered an M60 using a Saco trunion and added his markings and unique serial number. Similar to early RIA m60s. 

[BRMCII]

5 hours ago, JoshNC said:

Looks like J Lawyer registered an M60 using a Saco trunion and added his markings and unique serial number. Similar to early RIA m60s. 

The three letter prefix and number is not a factory Maremont number. The serial numbers are very different for M60 production during the period when trunnions were marked only Maremont. Unfortunately, in my view, it is difficult to consider this M60 other than as a remanufacture by the maker ID'ed on the trunnion and serial and allegedly improperly registered as a SACO factory made gun by that person, or a subsequent registrant. If it was a post-'68 Amnesty import, it would be registered under the factory SACO serial number. As a reman, it still has significant value and its condition augments that. The current registrant is eligible to receive info from ATF on the original date of registration and ID of registrant but might require a letter. For it to be a factory Maremont the original date of registration will be during, or prior to the end of the '68 Amnesty. If post Amnesty, it is a reman. Some research would be very helpful to confirm its history. Apologies for questioning the provenance of the gun. I have been contacted by a prospective buyer who who raised the question. FWIW

[mattnh]

An old thread for some background info on factory Maremont SNs.

https://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?/topic/23511-transferable-maremont-serial-number-range/

 

BTW, beautiful gun - DO does great work & I suspect the next owner will be quite happy…

Edited July 4, 2023 by mattnh

[Aaron in Mohnton Pa]

I will shed some light on this mystery..............................  Indiana Army Surplus is located in Bedford, IN. It was owned by a gentleman named Jim Lawyer (James W. Lawyer)... Jim had mountains of M60 Trunions and other parts which he got from Navy Crane as scrap... He built several transferable M60s before the ban....Some of which are still owned by his son... Jim died 7 or 8 years ago....... Jim would have been able to find ANY type of M60 trunion he wanted in the tonnage of stuff he had for his builds (any markings from old to new at the time etc).... To include the one in the photos.... I personally have seen them sell factory marked M60e3 trunions which wouldn't have been issued until 1985-1986....

   The original Maremont serial number was likely milled off and his info stamped on. This was common practice at the time by some of the guys building transferable M60s.

 

Aaron - Mohnton, Pa

Sales@BeltFeds.Com

Edited July 4, 2023 by Aaron in Mohnton Pa

[Aaron in Mohnton Pa]

Also worth noting that this trunion is a very very nice one with good clear favtory Saco markings …..Jim would have built this with the finest hand picked parts available …. He had everything from Vietnam Vet demilled M60s to New old stock demilled M60s in the pile of parts. 
 

Aaron - Mohnton, Pa 

[J Greene]

Thanks Aaron for sharing the information. 

[Aaron in Mohnton Pa]

@J Greene No problem man. Beauty of a gun 

Aaron

[bigbore]

My take is It seems like what everyone is saying is, this is not an unfired  Saco M60E6, and the listing title may be honest but it is not the truth.

Edited July 7, 2023 by bigbore

[J Greene]

I’m not trying to deceive anyone. The trunion is the only thing of question and I appreciate Aaron shedding some light on this. The trunion was bought by my friend as new and then sent to US Ordnance to be built out of all new parts. From what I can tell from the factory markings on the trunion it was manufactured between 1980 and 1984. Thanks Jeff

[johnsonlmg41]

Everything that came out of the scrap yard was scrap.  The trunion came from a torched up gun and one can only speculate as to whether the gun that was torched was fired or not?  Either way it doesn't make much difference, it's a rebuilt "non-factory" gun, not a factory Saco E6, since that wasn't even a thing when the trunion was made. Anyone with a registered Saco trunion can send it out to US-ORD and have it rebuilt, but that actually diminishes the value over a factory gun with factory channels and rails assembled back in the day. 

You can slap on E6 parts onto any factory built gun, and that basically adds the value of those parts, nothing more.

It is highly likely Saco defense will stay on as the mfr. on the paperwork in subsequent transfers, however the trunion is the only thing on the gun that was made by them.  There are a large number of "non factory" M60's that were assembled from parts just like this from various C2's back in the day, none of them bring "factory"  Saco, Maremont, or Springfield money.....unless it's at some goofy auction maybe?

[bigbore]

1 hour ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

It is highly likely Saco defense will stay on as the mfr.

 

No. In my experience with a hundred or  so  efile transfers the manufacturer that shows on efiled forms is the original manufacturer.  If this gun only transfers on paper form 4s it may remain Saco.  If the next dealer transfers it via efile to the buyer, it will reflect the name of whoever originally filed the form 2. 
 

Edited July 7, 2023 by bigbore

[MGTedFL]

Agree, just like many other NFA items (i.e. MKIV Sterling's being reverted to "MK2", among others), and BATFE's desire to "clean up" the NFRTR... my money is on the next transfer registration listing the manufacturer as the original pre-86 F1 or F2 registrant, not SACO.  One of my RDTS MP5 SBR's still lists "Germany" as the manufacturer. BTW, I sent my RIA E1 to DO, along with a complete E6 kit. What was returned is a magnificent conversion/upgrade with all components (except the registered receiver) upgraded to current DO components, other than those supplied by myself. FWIW, Knowledge is King & Caveat Emptor, Ted

[johnsonlmg41]

Jim was the original form 1 registrant and listed Saco as the mfr., not himself.  This gun has only transferred once since it was registered, so it's not as if there were 7 transfers and multiple changes over the years that would get reverted back to original.  Saco is the original.    He registered a number of things, but was not "in the business" and rarely sold anything. 

Ted, yes Germany is the mfr, RDTS is the maker....two different things.  Germany would stay as the mfr on subsequent transfers if that is how it was registered originally, but RDTS might be listed in the additional markings box.....depending. 

[bigbore]

28 minutes ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Jim was the original form 1 registrant and listed Saco as the mfr., not himself.  This gun has only transferred once since it was registered, so it's not as if there were 7 transfers and multiple changes over the years that would get reverted back to original.  Saco is the original.    He registered a number of things, but was not "in the business" and rarely sold anything. 

Ted, yes Germany is the mfr, RDTS is the maker....two different things.  Germany would stay as the mfr on subsequent transfers if that is how it was registered originally, but RDTS might be listed in the additional markings box.....depending. 

 

Saco manufactured an M60 that was destroyed and sold as scrap.  After that Saco M60 was demilled/scrapped, it was no longer a machine gun, it's just scrap metal.  There is no manufacturer for a piece of scrap metal.  The form 4 should show the maker/manufacturer as JW Law, as he is the one who made it a machine gun on a form 2.   Not to say that aren't many improperly registered MGs out there..

Every HK sear host/receiver MG I've transferred that had HK or Germany on the paper form 4, came back with Vollmer, Fleming, etc.  Just as every FNC came back S&H instead of Belgium. 

YMMV, as this NFFA world is anything but consistent.


 

Edited July 10, 2023 by bigbore

[johnsonlmg41]

Yes, but it wasn't done on a form 2 and it was done a long time ago when the rules were a bit different, and since he didn't manufacture it, Saco did, that's what he put down, the same as a bunch of other guns he registered, thus that's the original info and won't be changed. 

It actually is pretty consistent, but not much of that generally benefits us other than things like this where parts were allowed to be registered vs. completed guns at the time. 

None of my HK stuff has had Germany listed, but it's all sears and trigger boxes other than  SBR's that I did myself and the mfr is Heckler and Koch  Germany on them.  Any future transfers will list that because they were done on a form 1, as an individual and not a C2 manufacturer, whom actually is technically manufacturing, while I am just making (read slapping together, not manufacturing).  This is the difference that you may be seeing?  Apples and oranges.  Stuff you touch has your name on it, stuff I do does not, since fortunately, I am not a C2 manufacturer.

[BRMCII]

On 7/10/2023 at 8:50 PM, johnsonlmg41 said:

Yes, but it wasn't done on a form 2 and it was done a long time ago when the rules were a bit different, and since he didn't manufacture it, Saco did, that's what he put down, the same as a bunch of other guns he registered, thus that's the original info and won't be changed. 

It actually is pretty consistent, but not much of that generally benefits us other than things like this where parts were allowed to be registered vs. completed guns at the time. 

None of my HK stuff has had Germany listed, but it's all sears and trigger boxes other than  SBR's that I did myself and the mfr is Heckler and Koch  Germany on them.  Any future transfers will list that because they were done on a form 1, as an individual and not a C2 manufacturer, whom actually is technically manufacturing, while I am just making (read slapping together, not manufacturing).  This is the difference that you may be seeing?  Apples and oranges.  Stuff you touch has your name on it, stuff I do does not, since fortunately, I am not a C2 manufacturer.

Individual Form 1 "making" and registration of an MG receiver between Dec1, 1968 and May 19, 1986,  is "manufacturing" and the "maker" is required to put his name on the F1 application as the "manufacturer" and since he has "manufactured" the new MG receiver from uncontrolled parts, he must mark the receiver with his ID. He did that. SACO is no longer the "manufacturer" of record. Is there any evidence that this gun was registered prior to or during the '68 Ammesty? What is the issue here? If he was an 07/02, etc, same rules.
Has anyone seen the original registration form? Allegedly a form 1 registration? FOIA needed or legitimate confirmation of manufacturer, date and form of registration......FWIW

[johnsonlmg41]

Not in this case, he is a maker and was unlicensed and registered the trunion in the 80's or earlier.  No FOIA needed, this is only the second transfer since it was built, so there are no changes since the original registration.  SACO will stay on as the mfr.  The trunion was already manufactured and marked and while it may be considered an uncontrolled part, it actually retains a bit of control since you can't also possess the rest of the box, which in theory is also just a part.  While the bureau likes to conflate making and manufacturing today, it's not the same thing, nor was it ever.  Assembling a bunch of parts "manufactured", and in this case also marked by someone else, is a stretch to refer to as manufacturing as noted below.  He certainly could have listed himself as the mfr. in the box, but wisely chose not to. 

Jim did a number of guns in the same manner, as did a lot of others in the 70's and 80's that retained the original mfr's. info as mfr. on the forms.  C2's did not have this option and had to be the mfr. of record, since the working theory is that they are/were bonafide mfrs. based on the license that says so.   There are no C2 makers last I checked?

Effectively it's better explained by this lawyers description below that I copied. 

When you are applying for a tax stamp using the ATF Form 1, you will need to enter in the, “Name and Address of Original Manufacturer and/or Importer of Firearm, and on the ATF 5320.23, you will need to enter in the, “Name and Address of Maker, Manufacturer and/or Importer of Firearm”.  But who is the maker and manufacturer of the ATF Form 1 NFA firearm?

If your title 1 firearm has already been engraved by a Manufacturer, e.g. KRISS USA, with their information, a serial number, model, and a caliber, then the information from the engraving will be used in Box 4 and is considered to be the “Original Manufacturer” on the ATF Form 1 and the “Manufacturer” on the ATF 5320.23. 

If your firearm is not currently engraved, then your information as the maker will go in Box 4 of the ATF Form 1 and the ATF 5320.23.  The maker would be your name and address as an individual or the name and address of your gun trust, corporation or other legal entity, if you are applying with a legal entity.  As a maker of an NFA firearm, you will need to engrave the below information on your firearm.

[bigbore]

1 hour ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Not in this case, he is a maker and was unlicensed and registered the trunion in the 80's or earlier.  No FOIA needed, this is only the second transfer since it was built, so there are no changes since the original registration.  SACO will stay on as the mfr.  The trunion was already manufactured and marked and while it may be considered an uncontrolled part, it actually retains a bit of control since you can't also possess the rest of the box, which in theory is also just a part.  While the bureau likes to conflate making and manufacturing today, it's not the same thing, nor was it ever.  Assembling a bunch of parts "manufactured", and in this case also marked by someone else, is a stretch to refer to as manufacturing as noted below.  He certainly could have listed himself as the mfr. in the box, but wisely chose not to. 

Jim did a number of guns in the same manner, as did a lot of others in the 70's and 80's that retained the original mfr's. info as mfr. on the forms.  C2's did not have this option and had to be the mfr. of record, since the working theory is that they are/were bonafide mfrs. based on the license that says so.   There are no C2 makers last I checked?

 

For the sake of educational discussion - - If you have a demilled M60 or for this example a demilled M14 in 1980. Are you saying someone could weld that TRW M14 receiver back together then register it on a Form 1 and "correctly" list the manufacturer as TRW?  Once a machine gun always a machine gun. Once demilled it's just scrap metal and the only maker/manufacturer is the person who filed the form 1 was my understanding.  The trunnion may have been manufactured by saco, but after the gun itself was demilled, that trunnion became no more than a piece of scrap metal as far as the atf was concerned.

 

It seems your example of making an SBR from an existing firearm is an apples to oranges comparison compared to making a machine gun from scrap metal(regardless what markings are on that scrap metal) back in the day.

Edited July 15, 2023 by bigbore

[johnsonlmg41]

Yes, at that time it was common to do so for many individual filed form 1's, since the original markings were still on the parts.  I've seen many examples over the years and own some guns that were registered in this fashion.  One of the guns is a colt AR-15 conversion where the guy drilled the hole, but listed Colts as the mfr.  and all of the relevant info on the forms that was already on the gun.  We've seen the same thing with H+R welded up M16's, M14's, and many others

While you may think of it as scrap metal, sometimes scrap metal can be a gun, then could be registered as a machine gun back in the day.  Side plates, sears, trunions, etc. are all scrap metal, yet were registered.  Many that retained original markings list those markings as the mfr.  in cases where the registrant is/was not a licensed mfr.  Then there's the flip side.  Illegal unregistered pre-68 guns where an enterprising C2 just engraved his info onto a live gun listing himself as the mfr., so it goes both ways.

You can claim it is/was not following the rules, but it happened on original registrations, thus that info is here to stay as in the case of the M60 and many other guns in the registry, because as we all know, the registry is 100% correct and now original......even if it may have errors in descriptions?  

The SBR example is relevant because if I cut an AR receiver in half and sell it as scrap, and the new guy welds it back together, he (as an individual) could use the markings still left on the receiver to register it again on a form 1 with Colts as the mfr. and him as the maker.  As a C2 mfr. that is not an option.  Same thing back pre-86 when there was freedom. 

 

[Aaron in Mohnton Pa]

  Just for context, on the M60, there is not one single registered part. It is a combination of parts. Per the ATF an M60 is a channel, a trunion, and a bridge (determination letter) … Even if not assembled…. Hence why Jim had a lot of trunions that were not cut up or damaged. I have never seen a channel or rails come out of there that weren’t cut with hydraulic shears or torched though … Which is likely why he just registered trunions, and in this case, never assembled the gun (it was sent to Desert Ord to be assembled with new parts). 
   Rock Island Armory , Charlie Erb, Metrotech , Taylor MFG , Central KY Arms, CATCO, and several others built M60s using USGI trunions, but of course they are listed as the manufacturers being they were all licensed Manufactures at the time.
  
   I am unsure if Jim was a FFL holder at the time he registered this. Johnson says he was not (The shop is now and has been for many years) … You would think if an individual (anyone other then Saco Defense) tried to put a Saco Defense M60 on the registry in the 1980s the ATF would hold the position “the amnesty ended in 1968. You can’t put a factory built Saco gun on the registry” … Perhaps I’m giving them too much credit and such details went unnoticed … but you’d think they would request a correction on manufacture….i did read the explanations above ..I have no experience from that time to speak on, so I’m just thinking out loud. 

   I think because this specific scenario is so uncommon (at least with M60s) it’s hard to draw a conclusion. 
 

Regardless, Good discussion going here. Educational. 
 

Aaron - Mohnton, Pa

Sales@BeltFeds.Com

 

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Aaron in Mohnton Pa

[bigbore]

41 minutes ago, Aaron in Mohnton Pa said:

Per the ATF an M60 is a channel, a trunion, and a bridge (determination letter) … Even if not assembled…

 … but you’d think they would request a correction on manufacture….I think because this specific scenario is so uncommon it’s hard to draw a conclusion.

 

 

Because they let so much slide back then is why almost every MG I have transfer from an estate (one not transferred in the last 25-30yrs) is guaranteed to get an error letter asking for more information and pictures because it doesn't match what it should be according to the registry.  


Also, correct me if I'm wrong here.  Anyone today can pick through a scrap pile and take home an undamaged M60 trunnion, channel or bridge and have 3 nice  nice paper weights, as those are just scrap parts regardless of markings. But if someone finds an undamaged 1919 right side plate in that pile and take it home, they are in possession of an unregistered machine gun.

Edited July 15, 2023 by bigbore

[Aaron in Mohnton Pa]

@bigbore incorrect on the M60. See excerpt below from a determination letter. … I will say that this doesn’t make much sense because you can’t do anything with just those 3 components …However, that is what the tech branch said. 
 

Aaron 
 

“A complete M60-type machinegun receiver consists of the following:

1. Trunnion block.
2. Rear bridge.
3. The "U"-shaped stamped metal channel.
4. Right rail.
5. Left rail.

When assembled, the first three components are sufficient to provide housing for the bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism and will accept a barrel at its forward end. Accordingly, we find the assembled combination of a trunnion block, rear bridge, and "U"-shaped stamped metal channel to be sufficient to constitute a firearm frame or receiver and is thus a "firearm" under both the GCA and NFA. Since, in your case, (1) this assembled combination would constitute the frame or receiver of an M60-type machinegun and (2) the frame or receiver of a machinegun is itself a "firearm" as defined, FTB cautions that even when they are not assembled, the mere possession of these three components qualifies as ownership of a combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled. Thus, such possession is tantamount to ownership of a Machinegun. “

Edited July 15, 2023 by Aaron in Mohnton Pa

[johnsonlmg41]

You're getting error letters for two reasons:

1. the current crop of examiners are unskilled, unsupervised (working at home), untrained, and instructed to pick out any dissimilarities from what they can see (which isn't much because they lack the training or skills necessary to do the job)

2.  a lot of paperwork was "corrected" sometimes by unscrupulous dealers, those that changed the configuration (sten to sterling) and then changed the paperwork on subsequent transfers, editing to save time, or innocently trying to correct descriptions that weren't correct originally.    There also seems to be a push to build a photographic registry, which IMO is not particularly legit and may be illegal?   But unchallenged, so it goes on like holding nics check info.

I wouldn't say they let stuff slide, just that in perspective these details really don't mean much in the big scheme of things.  You  sent in the forms and money, and it had to be approved, they actually didn't have much say in what did or didn't get approved, nor was it that big of deal since none of this stuff has any bearing on crime, thus what's the real point?  Pre86,  when filing a form 1 you sent in the paperwork for stuff you didn't have, or haven't made yet, so disapproving making a part into a MG was not really an option for them.  You sent in info and money for a carbine trigger, M60 trunion,  HK trigger box, or piece of steel plate that might be a browning or a Maxim,  and it got approved.....before you started to make the MG......from parts or scrap, that you may or may not possess yet?

As to this particular piece, at the time the markings could be well hidden to the point where makers info often can't be found and some guys never even bothered?  The M16 I referenced was marked under the grip, took 5 years before I ever saw the makers info.  RDTS used to mark some guns inside the chamber, so the bolt had to be back before you could see it....assuming were looking into the black markings inside the black hole?

Aaron is correct on the 60 stuff, but general thinking is a trunion and channels might be enough to get you in trouble which is why you never see parts kits with both parts.  Yes, you could pick through a scrap pile and take home an undamaged trunion, but finding random diamonds in the dirt is actually much easier these days?  And new diamonds are created every day, unlike registered M60 trunions which are a fixed supply and can no longer be mined? LOL

[BRMCII]

15 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Not in this case, he is a maker and was unlicensed and registered the trunion in the 80's or earlier.  No FOIA needed, this is only the second transfer since it was built, so there are no changes since the original registration.  SACO will stay on as the mfr.  The trunion was already manufactured and marked and while it may be considered an uncontrolled part, it actually retains a bit of control since you can't also possess the rest of the box, which in theory is also just a part.  While the bureau likes to conflate making and manufacturing today, it's not the same thing, nor was it ever.  Assembling a bunch of parts "manufactured", and in this case also marked by someone else, is a stretch to refer to as manufacturing as noted below.  He certainly could have listed himself as the mfr. in the box, but wisely chose not to. 

Jim did a number of guns in the same manner, as did a lot of others in the 70's and 80's that retained the original mfr's. info as mfr. on the forms.  C2's did not have this option and had to be the mfr. of record, since the working theory is that they are/were bonafide mfrs. based on the license that says so.   There are no C2 makers last I checked?

Effectively it's better explained by this lawyers description below that I copied. 

When you are applying for a tax stamp using the ATF Form 1, you will need to enter in the, “Name and Address of Original Manufacturer and/or Importer of Firearm, and on the ATF 5320.23, you will need to enter in the, “Name and Address of Maker, Manufacturer and/or Importer of Firearm”.  But who is the maker and manufacturer of the ATF Form 1 NFA firearm?

If your title 1 firearm has already been engraved by a Manufacturer, e.g. KRISS USA, with their information, a serial number, model, and a caliber, then the information from the engraving will be used in Box 4 and is considered to be the “Original Manufacturer” on the ATF Form 1 and the “Manufacturer” on the ATF 5320.23. 

If your firearm is not currently engraved, then your information as the maker will go in Box 4 of the ATF Form 1 and the ATF 5320.23.  The maker would be your name and address as an individual or the name and address of your gun trust, corporation or other legal entity, if you are applying with a legal entity.  As a maker of an NFA firearm, you will need to engrave the below information on your firearm.

"If your title 1 firearm has already been engraved by a Manufacturer, e.g. KRISS USA, with their information, a serial number, model, and a caliber, then the information from the engraving will be used in Box 4 and is considered to be the “Original Manufacturer” on the ATF Form 1 and the “Manufacturer” on the ATF 5320.23."

Cite of the regulations, please! This is the the correct procedure for a "reactivation" but, in my experience not for a Form 1 manufacture.

A form 1 application IS an application to "manufacture" (make) a firearm by the person applying, and who is applying to be the "manufacturer".  That's why it is taxed and why the receiver/controlled part MUST be marked by him because he is "making" a "NEw" firearm from non-gun parts and must be listed as the "manufacturer" in that box on the F1.
In the 1980's, there was no official designation of what parts constituted the "controlled" parts of a M60 receiver. The "combination of parts" evolved in later years as it did with other MGs. Registering a trunnion was one way, registering the channel was another way, etc, etc. Many other MGs had the same problem and often only one part was registered because there was no guidance or regulation by ATF. Look at HK's for some confusion from those years. ATF NEVER inspected the hardware so they had no idea of what parts were being registered so those of us on the street did what we thought would work. ATF just processed paperwork, NOT hardware. They never saw it.
The requirement for a Form 1  "making" of an MG receiver was basically the the same it is today: the controlled part HAD to be destroyed, first, rendering it a non-gun so the parts were no longer controlled as a firearm and could be made into a "new" firearm.

The "one cut" destruction back then was done in all sorts of ways, including NOT destroying the receiver. That's where so many "C+R" MGs come from that were never cut, but F2 registered as "reactivations" by CII's and sold as "original, factory" guns. They continue to be revealed by ATF currently as NOT C+R by the ATF vetters who research the NFRTR for DATE/FORM of original registration. Same for individuals F1 making and registering an MG receiver, but the "receiver" was never cut, just MARKED with his ID. 
A Form 1 BREN had the factory ID on it but as a From 1 "making", it was REQUIRED" to also have the Form 1 applicants name, address, etc on the gun. MARKING is the indication of having been "manufactured" S a "new" firearm from a "non-gun" by the F1 applicant

ATF regards a "reactivation" of a registered DEWAT as "manufacturing" requiring the person or FFL doing the work to MARK it with his ID. AND, in this case the ID of the factory manufacturer on the F5 does not change on the F1 application. The original factory ID remains on the approved F1 "registration" after the MG is reactivated.

The registration of the M60 trunnion as fhe "MG" is not at all unusual for the period. The maker did the correct thing and MARKED the trunnion with his ID for a reman. His ID should be on the form as manufacturer as it is on the trunnion of the gun. The SACO gun did not exist any more when the trunnion was registered. The trunnion was the controlled part, but not yet part of a "new firearm".
A cut and welded 1917 Westinghouse marked F1 registered BMG "new" sideplate will have the name of the F1 applicant on the paperwork and the sideplate since the 1917 Westinghouse BMG no longer existed as an MG once the plate had been cut. A properly registered controlled part can be made into a "new" MG at any time. 
The fact that it has been transferred only once is irrelevant. Seeing a copy of the original registration would be extremely interesting and helpful. Maybe something else is going on?
The protocols of today cannot be invoked to explain/excuse/%defend/den the protocols from forty years ago and longer. I bought my first registered MG, MG34, in 1970 and been involved as an FFL of one sort or another since the middle 1970's, and am still 07/02, so went through all this stuff with my eyes open as much as possible for all those years. 
All I got FWIW. Have at it!

 

[jrh]

"If your title 1 firearm has already been engraved by a Manufacturer, e.g. KRISS USA, with their information, a serial number, model, and a caliber, then the information from the engraving will be used in Box 4 and is considered to be the “Original Manufacturer” on the ATF Form 1 and the “Manufacturer” on the ATF 5320.23."

Bob:  I was told this same thing and is a recent change I think.  Friend working with a C3 in Dallas was doing a form 1 SBR on a UZI.  NFA kicked the form back because they wanted IMI listed as the manufacture.  He was told all transfers going forward would be done the same way.  I will check to see if he has a letter on this.

I don't believe there is a "rule" per-say but follows the direction they set with the pistol brace registration thing, and unknowledgeable people. 

IE:  If Vollmer converted a MP5, it transfered as Vollmer manufacture in the box since day 1.  Now it will be listed a H&K (assume HK gun).  This is going to create a huge mess in the registry and future sales descriptions. 

Get ready, it's going to be a cluster F.

[rhouston8]

tying into this discussion a bit obliquely and understanding that I am in no way as well versed as yall are in the ATF legalities of mgs.

 

I own a reg. tranf. Sten where the form 4 has as the manu:  "Form 2 registration"

I own a Sterling tranf. where the form 4 has manu listed as "UNKNOWN"

I have a Metrotech M60 which has an intact SACO trunnion which is also the serialized part for the Form 4.

[johnsonlmg41]

I guess we'll start with the basics.  An M60 trunion can easily be defined as a firearm receiver.  In this case it's a receiver only as defined by the original owner pre-86.  Many things can be described as a firearm receiver (unusual example https://gunspot.com/listings/detail/14046/very-rare-transferable-machine-gun-case/  ).  Pre 86 you could take an existing item that had info on it, or maybe you make up your own info, it's up to you on a form 1 individual registration.  As I mentioned before if you had an AR-15 you could use the original mfr. info and MAKE a machine gun from it the same way you make an SBR or SBS today.  You as the "maker" have the option to put in whatever info you want in block 4.a.  If what you consider the base item to be a firearm receiver is a rug, you can put Karastan as the mfr. of your receiver "rug", and once your form was approved, you could begin the conversion (making) of your receiver rug into a machine gun.  In this case you're a "maker" from existing manufactured marked parts, though you could manufacture them yourself if need be, without a manufacturing license (even though they attempted to take that away).  

Depending on when it was done, you may or may not be required to put your info in block 4.h.   I have older form 1's that have nothing listed in 4.h. since I am listed as the mfr. in 4.a.   I have a number of MG's that were conversions of existing firearms ( that were already manufactured once, so they cannot be manufactured again) where even the maker info was not apparently required in block 4.h. since all of the forms were approved anyhow.     These days they want the "maker" info in box 4.h.

We know that you can define just about anything as a receiver since we've been told an "80%" hunk of metal is a firearm and the 80% part is completely made up and has no definition. I believe this has recently been over-ruled, but again if you say you made a firearm, it's a firearm. 

At the end, you have stamp that signifies you paid a tax for the privilege of owning/moving interstate an item that is roughly described on the piece of paper (not even a form necessarily).  The minutiae on the paper is not all that relevant, since the entire scheme is unconstitutional in the first place, and everyone knows it, so there are compromises on both sides to make it what some people would call workable? HTH

[Buddy H]

I have moved this WTS ad to the NFA DISCUSSION board ….. since it was turned into a Discussion……