Messages
800
Reactions
1,575
...it will have to be something cost effective and relatively practical for the 'end user' to make/create.

Heck I considered an 80% kit a couple years ago as a fun project - and I had the opportunity to buy the remaining parts from a G-17 from a guy who destroyed his frame, but that got bypassed for other things.

My point is while the 80% concept was a practical and easily 'doable' undertaking I wouldn't ever consider something like a liquid polymer & mold tray scenario.
Agreed. And I would toss in a fully reliable end product, if done correctly.

As a fun project, it is a "go", but would never consider it if was highly complicated, required specialized tools, an unreasonable start up cost or the end product would be less than fully reliable.

Things like the GG3 or 3D printing, at it's current level of sophistication, really hold no appeal to me. Start up costs are too high, the GG3 type 0%'s kills a lot of the "fun factor" when all you are doing is pushing a button and the machine does all the work, and 3D printing... the same... but also a highly unreliable/durable end product.

The new rule will certainly cramp a lot of folks style for the forseeable future, but I know people are incredibly clever these days and don't think we've seen the end of "easily" and "readily" legal products yet. Whatever the new form takes though, I dunno, and may be some lag time before whatever form it takes to really mature into a reliable product... but no doubt there will be alternatives somewhere down the pike.
 
Messages
12,983
Reactions
23,140
The new rule will certainly cramp a lot of folks style for the forseeable future,
Well, no doubt this is true but I can't help but to think (and believe) there were probably a lot of 'boiler room' operations that cropped up for the sole purpose of 'producing' guns and of course selling them illegally, and the ATF probably figured they could 'nip this in the bud' fairly easily by adding the serial number requirement to 80 % receivers. The ATF may not be the brightest bulb in the store but they probably figured this was the least invasive way to accomplish their goal of eliminating the 80% market.

As far as 'cramping styles' most shouldn't be too upset really. I mean if the original rule stays the same, IE home built guns can be made and kept unserailized unless sold, then what is the complaint exactly?

My point is 80 % kits have only been around for how long? maybe 10-12 years? And how many other things in life have come along, got popular and then later discontinued or made illegal as well? Remember lawn darts?

I just hope some of the 'styles' that may be cramped aren't potentially otherwise law abiding gun owners who may have discovered a lucrative 'sideline' with 80% kits....
 
Last Edited:
Messages
800
Reactions
1,575
I mean if the original rule stays the same, IE home built guns can be made and kept unserailized unless sold, then what is the complaint exactly?

...aren't potentially otherwise law abiding gun owners who may have discovered a lucrative 'sideline' with 80% kits....
Mainly that any new builds using 80%'s will not longer be unserialized. They'll have to use an FFL if they want to purchase those parts... IF... the new rule doesn't crash the 80% market entirely.

Also to consider... on top of the additional FFL/transfer fees... mfg's will have additional costs for licensing, tooling to apply the serial numbers and additional paperwork they'll be required to generate/maintain. All that means higher base pricing on 80%'s, too.

Affordable unseralized builds being the attraction for many. Yeah... they are "fun", but let's face it... unserialized is a major attraction. I'm not sure many will be willing to pay even more than it already does over a fully ready lower if it still requires an FFL and solely for the "fun factor".

I guess there is that niche market share for those that want to start with "raw" to do custom engraving and/or custom finishes. I doubt they make up a large enough share to support the market, though.

I'm not sure how you can be "law abiding" and have a "lucrative sideline" hussle with 80% kits. Staying legal means your home builds are intented solely for personal use.
 
Messages
12,983
Reactions
23,140
I'm not sure how you can be "law abiding" and have a "lucrative sideline" hussle with 80% kits.
Thats why I said:
I just hope some of the 'styles' that may be cramped aren't potentially otherwise law abiding gun owners who may have discovered a lucrative 'sideline'.

It might be easy for some to overlook the 'law abiding' part with a 'will not comply' attitude...
Things like the GG3 or 3D printing, at it's current level of sophistication, really hold no appeal to me. Start up costs are too high, the GG3 type 0%'s kills a lot of the "fun factor" when all you are doing is pushing a button and the machine does all the work, and 3D printing... the same... but also a highly unreliable/durable end product.
And reality being what it is - how many receivers would one plan to make?

One would really need to have another reason to own said equipment to justify it other than making a few receivers.
 
Messages
800
Reactions
1,575
And reality being what it is - how many receivers would one plan to make?

One would really need to have another reason to own said equipment to justify it other than making a few receivers.
Precisely. Your average law abiding citizen, for personal use, isn't going to produce in the numbers needed to even begin to justify that kind of cash outlay.

Ironically, many that would pony up are likely to be those criminal elements the new rule is trying to hamper. Either for mass production to other criminal elements or those unable to legally procure a firearm any other way.

Well played, Joe~!!
 

arakboss

Messages
16,248
Reactions
25,682
Mainly that any new builds using 80%'s will not longer be unserialized. They'll have to use an FFL if they want to purchase those parts... IF... the new rule doesn't crash the 80% market entirely.

Also to consider... on top of the additional FFL/transfer fees... mfg's will have additional costs for licensing, tooling to apply the serial numbers and additional paperwork they'll be required to generate/maintain. All that means higher base pricing on 80%'s, too.

Affordable unseralized builds being the attraction for many. Yeah... they are "fun", but let's face it... unserialized is a major attraction. I'm not sure many will be willing to pay even more than it already does over a fully ready lower if it still requires an FFL and solely for the "fun factor".

I guess there is that niche market share for those that want to start with "raw" to do custom engraving and/or custom finishes. I doubt they make up a large enough share to support the market, though.

I'm not sure how you can be "law abiding" and have a "lucrative sideline" hussle with 80% kits. Staying legal means your home builds are intented solely for personal use.
Will a firearm tax now be required?
 
Messages
8,992
Reactions
18,304
This is essentially the equivalent of requiring serials and transfers in the 1960s for these .... which had they existed in the 1700s-1800s, would have been their equivalent of 80% stuff..
mk-1002p-50_500x214.jpg 53-5060.jpg eng_pl_Pirate-Pistol-Kit-45-Ardesa-1204_2.jpg
 

arakboss

Messages
16,248
Reactions
25,682
Some kind of additional nationwide firearm tax you mean?

I dunno. I haven't heard anything about it, but quite honestly don't have a clue one way or the other.
Yes the excise tax, my understanding is it that the tax is charged for every firearm including frames and receivers?


"A tax if 10 percent of the sales price is imposed on pistols and revolvers, and a tax of 11 percent of the sales price is imposed on other portable weapons (e.g., rifles and shotguns) and ammunition. The excise tax is not imposed again unless the firearms and ammunition are further manufactured"


Source: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...rcent,and ammunition are further manufactured.
 
Messages
800
Reactions
1,575
Yes the excise tax, my understanding is it that the tax is charged for every firearm including frames and receivers?


"A tax if 10 percent of the sales price is imposed on pistols and revolvers, and a tax of 11 percent of the sales price is imposed on other portable weapons (e.g., rifles and shotguns) and ammunition. The excise tax is not imposed again unless the firearms and ammunition are further manufactured"


Source: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-ammunition-and-implements-war-firearms#:~:text=A tax if 10 percent,and ammunition are further manufactured.
Ahh... that! That's nothing new. The FAET tax on imports and sales goes back awhile and only affects buyers indirectly since those excise taxes are the responsibility of the importer/retailer. The impact to the end buyer basically being inflating the purchase price.

There have been some efforts to try and increase the excise tax to 30% for firearms and 50% on ammunition, but they never made any ground.
 

arakboss

Messages
16,248
Reactions
25,682
Ahh... that! That's nothing new. The FAET tax on imports and sales goes back awhile and only affects buyers indirectly since those excise taxes are the responsibility of the importer/retailer. The impact to the end buyer basically being inflating the purchase price.

There have been some efforts to try and increase the excise tax to 30% for firearms and 50% on ammunition, but they never made any ground.
It would seem that tax will now apply to "80%" frames and receivers since they will be considered a firearm with the new rule in place?
 
Messages
800
Reactions
1,575
It would seem that tax will now apply to "80%" frames and receivers since they will be considered a firearm with the new rule in place?
Generally speaking I would guess no, since the majority of 80% lowers are produced in the US and not subject to the ATF import excise tax.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
800
Reactions
1,575
It would seem that tax will now apply to "80%" frames and receivers since they will be considered a firearm with the new rule in place?
The better question might be about State imposed taxes on firearms. For the states that do tax firearms sales I would imagine that will apply to 80%'s and probably going to cause a few headaches for online retailers... or buyers if they make it a "must report" kinda thing. Certainly going to be interesting to see how that issue get's addressed, but no skin off our noses in Oregon. ;)

Again, that's assuming the new rule doesn't completely wipe out the entirety of the 80% market.
 

arakboss

Messages
16,248
Reactions
25,682
The better question might be about State imposed taxes on firearms. For the states that do tax firearms sales I would imagine that will apply to 80%'s and probably going to cause a few headaches for online retailers... or buyers if they make it a "must report" kinda thing. Certainly going to be interesting to see how that issue get's addressed, but no skin off our noses in Oregon. ;)

Again, that's assuming the new rule doesn't completely wipe out the entirety of the 80% market.
Do US firearm manufactures not have to pay the tax?

Screenshot_20220525-045756.png
 
Messages
800
Reactions
1,575
Do US firearm manufactures not have to pay the tax?

View attachment 1206763
From that it appears they might. I was looking at the FAET sheet on the ATF site, that only mentions imports, but maybe there is a domestic tax as well?

I dunno, and not really well versed on firearm related taxation. If so though, I would guess it would also be applicable to 80%ers once the new rule goes active.
 

arrowshooter

Messages
770
Reactions
1,451
Possession is fine, you just can't sell it without having it serialized.... is my understanding.

For now....

My understanding as well - and if this is the case (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) but in effect the basic law of not being able to sell it without serializing it essentially stays the same as it ever was correct?

The only thing changing is making it illegal for companies to Mfg. and sell 80% kits correct?
I would like to add that if you take it to a gunsmith for an issue that you simply cannot figure out, and the gunsmith has to keep it over night, the gunsmith is required to serialize it and put it on the books. This will also include form #whatever be sent in to the ATF and now it is registered. I am not clear as to whether or not a BGC will also be done, but the ATF will have all the information to run one themselves.
 
Messages
800
Reactions
1,575
I would like to add that if you take it to a gunsmith for an issue that you simply cannot figure out, and the gunsmith has to keep it over night, the gunsmith is required to serialize it and put it on the books.
One potential way to avoid that is to never include your lower when requesting any professional gunsmith work and having good communication with the gunsmith before submitting a job. Each smith may handle things a bit different so you need to have a good understanding of how he intends to handle your gear and decide accordingly to proceed or not.

As you can imagine, some FFL's and shops are more accustomed to dealing with and sympathetic to home builders while others won't touch your gear with a 10' pole.

Ie., They might do work on your upper over the course of several days then have you bring your lower in for a final fit, function and/or adjustment when they are able to do the finishing work on the spot or within the same business day.

It just depends on the gunsmith. Remember, many like to avoid paperwork whenever possible, but yeah... there are those that are quite overzealous and will want to make a paper trail on anything they touch a finger to... even if it's just mounting an optic.
 

bolus

Messages
5,544
Reactions
17,553
A quick search shows files for 52 3D printable receivers for a whole manner of firearms. I found that in 1 minute of looking. A lot require existing parts kits minus the receiver, others are 100% made at home without existing firearm parts.

I wonder if these turnips taking years trying to plug all the "loopholes" around 80% receivers even know the community is like 100 miles ahead of them.
 

arrowshooter

Messages
770
Reactions
1,451
I wonder if these turnips taking years trying to plug all the "loopholes" around 80% receivers even know the community is like 100 miles ahead of them.


The availability of "on-line" files for printable firearms/receivers has been a thing that the ATF has tried to get banned for many years. I believe that they (ATF) lost a case in court, with the court finding that the files do not break any laws.
 

bolus

Messages
5,544
Reactions
17,553
The availability of "on-line" files for printable firearms/receivers has been a thing that the ATF has tried to get banned for many years. I believe that they (ATF) lost a case in court, with the court finding that the files do not break any laws.
even when they did, they went after that very first printable single shot horrible 22 lr one. Meanwhile you can rifle a steel tube in a bucket at home for $100 in tools making quite accurate barrels from scratch.
 

Upcoming Events

Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top