Zero Percent - 0% receiver?

[Yarome]

I'm saying that 80% is just a term of art for how the ATF determines what "easily" looks like...

I don't really recall reading anywhere in the rule that used 80% as a qualifer for what they constitute as "easily"... or any other clear definition of what "easily" actually means for that matter. Not that it doesn't. That's one friggin long document, but I simply don't recall seeing it.

Funny though... to me... a GG3 "0%" is what I would call "easiest" over an 80%. Buy it, set it, hit the button, walk away... come back later and bolt it together... you're good to go~!

An 80% is a much more time/skill intensive hands on job with a lot of intermittent and varied setup steps, varied tools... and a whole lot of mess.

By the "easily" standard, everything becomes subjective and difficult to define.

My own thought is they are leaving the maximum amount of wiggle room for current and future application and will likely apply more of an "intent" ruling. Meaning... if it's an item common sense would dictate is solely intended to be altered/milled/welded/manipulated/etc into a working firearm... it's gonna be classified as a "firearm" and be subject to serialization and BGC required. Or at least they are going to TRY to get away with that.

 

[Yarome]

Does anyone know why the chamber is not the serialized component?

You mean the explosive containment safety system? That doesn't cause anything to go "pew" from any direct or active mechanical action.

 

[RX-79G]

I don't really recall reading anywhere in the rule that used 80% as a qualifer for what they constitute as "easily"... or any other clear definition of what "easily" actually means for that matter. Not that it doesn't. That's one friggin long document, but I simply don't recall seeing it.

Funny though... to me... a GG3 "0%" is what I would call "easiest" over an 80%. Buy it, set it, hit the button, walk away... come back later and bolt it together... you're good to go~!

An 80% is a much more time/skill intensive hands on job with a lot of intermittent and varied setup steps, varied tools... and a whole lot of mess.

By the "easily" standard, everything becomes subjective and difficult to define.

My own thought is they are leaving the maximum amount of wiggle room for current and future application and will likely apply more of an "intent" ruling. Meaning... if it's an item common sense would dictate is solely intended to be altered/milled/welded/manipulated/etc into a working firearm... it's gonna be classified as a "firearm" and be subject to serialization and BGC required. Or at least they are going to TRY to get away with that.

It isn't "easy". You have to purchase a CNC machine shop. The difference is that the cost of a CNC machine shop has come down.

 

[RX-79G]

Does anyone know why the chamber is not the serialized component?

Summary of Final Rule 2021R-05F | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms On April 11, 2022, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, amending ATF’s regulations by removing and replacing the regulatory definitions of “firearm frame or...

www.atf.gov

If there was just one thing that was needed to make a 'firearm' a chamber seems like the one you can't really skip.
I get that you might use a couple of bricks to shoot a shotgun shell. (possibly earning a Darwin Award )


Just wondering.

You want to go through an FFL every time you wear out a barrel?

 

[RicInOR]

You want to go through an FFL every time you wear out a barrel?

My question is why? Why isn't the chamber the serialized component?

I am not saying we should do this, just trying to understand why.



If I am getting a replacement barrel I am probably doing that anyways. I do understand there are machinists who could make me one, but it's a lot easier to just go buy one. If a handgun, then I probably buy at my LGS . If a rifle, buy a barrel from LGS, then maybe have a gunsmith press it into the chamber.


Think of the Sig 320 - the serialized part can easily drop in to any replacement frame - big/small was the selling point - full size for on duty, compact for concealed carry off the clock. One gun.
On a Smith & Wesson M&P, the S/N is on the plastic frame. What if I want it in pink instead of black?
If I detail strip one, I could smack the ammo around with the plastic frame but am unlikely to get anything to ignite. ( if you try this, please hold your cell phone horizontally )









*Of course they are from the ATF and they don't need any reason for any of the multitude of strangeness they have come out with.

 

[Will_White]

My question is why? Why isn't the chamber the serialized component?

I am not saying we should do this, just trying to understand why.



If I am getting a replacement barrel I am probably doing that anyways. I do understand there are machinists who could make me one, but it's a lot easier to just go buy one. If a handgun, then I probably buy at my LGS . If a rifle, buy a barrel from LGS, then maybe have a gunsmith press it into the chamber.


Think of the Sig 320 - the serialized part can easily drop in to any replacement frame - big/small was the selling point - full size for on duty, compact for concealed carry off the clock. One gun.
On a Smith & Wesson M&P, the S/N is on the plastic frame. What if I want it in pink instead of black?
If I detail strip one, I could smack the ammo around with the plastic frame but am unlikely to get anything to ignite. ( if you try this, please hold your cell phone horizontally )









*Of course they are from the ATF and they don't need any reason for any of the multitude of strangeness they have come out with.

Because they were more concerned with unregistered machine guns then a registry when the rules were written.

 

[RX-79G]

My question is why? Why isn't the chamber the serialized component?

I am not saying we should do this, just trying to understand why.



If I am getting a replacement barrel I am probably doing that anyways. I do understand there are machinists who could make me one, but it's a lot easier to just go buy one. If a handgun, then I probably buy at my LGS . If a rifle, buy a barrel from LGS, then maybe have a gunsmith press it into the chamber.


Think of the Sig 320 - the serialized part can easily drop in to any replacement frame - big/small was the selling point - full size for on duty, compact for concealed carry off the clock. One gun.
On a Smith & Wesson M&P, the S/N is on the plastic frame. What if I want it in pink instead of black?
If I detail strip one, I could smack the ammo around with the plastic frame but am unlikely to get anything to ignite. ( if you try this, please hold your cell phone horizontally )









*Of course they are from the ATF and they don't need any reason for any of the multitude of strangeness they have come out with.

For the same reason that the VIN number is on your car's frame rather than engine or tires - barrels are replacement parts while receivers last essentially forever. So if you are going to choose a component to call the "firearm", the receiver is the closest thing to a car frame you're going to find.

However, AR15s are really weird in having the lower receiver be the "receiver". On a FAL, G3, M1A the receiver is the component that the barrel attaches to and holds the bolt. So the receiver on the AR really should be the upper. I think that part of the reason it is the lower is that the AR lower is likely more expensive to make than the AR upper, while the opposite is true of something like a G3.

 

[Yarome]

It isn't "easy". You have to purchase a CNC machine shop. The difference is that the cost of a CNC machine shop has come down.

It sounds like you're confusing cost with ease/diffiulty. For the ATF language purposes, and most practical standards, "ease" would be factored in term of things like time/energy/skill/effort/difficulty level to modify "item X" from it's starting state and into a functional "firearm".

Coming up with the money to buy a GG3 might be "difficult" for many people, but it's readily available for purchase and be delivered to your door with the most minimal of effort. No real skill, special tools or copious amounts of protracted effort required. The same goes for the other components and raw materials needed.

I would say mounting your blank, plugging it in and pushing "start" to go from a raw block to "Ta-Da!!" is exponentionally "easier" than milling an 80% with the most common method... using conventional tools.

 

[RX-79G]

It sounds like you're confusing cost with ease/diffiulty. For the ATF language purposes, and most practical standards, "ease" would be factored in term of things like time/energy/skill/effort/difficulty level to modify "item X" from it's starting state and into a functional "firearm".

Coming up with the money to buy a GG3 might be "difficult" for many people, but it's readily available for purchase and be delivered to your door with the most minimal of effort. No real skill, special tools or copious amounts of protracted effort required. The same goes for the other components and raw materials needed.

I would say mounting your blank, plugging it in and pushing "start" to go from a raw block to "Ta-Da!!" is exponentionally "easier" than milling an 80% with the most common method... using conventional tools.

No one is basing laws about objects based on whether the labor is automation or not. Labor is labor, whether performed by a robot or a person. The relative amount of labor needed being needed to make something or finish something is the same not matter how hard it is for you personally.

Certainly, a machine shop owner doesn't have to lift a finger to have a receiver made: Asking your employees to do it is no different than asking a robot to do so.

At some point someone will start selling nylon molds that you just need to wrap carbon fiber tightly around. The mold won't be a component, and the labor pretty quick and easy. It will also be 0%.

 

[Will_White]

No one is basing laws about objects based on whether the labor is automation or not. Labor is labor, whether performed by a robot or a person. The relative amount of labor needed being needed to make something or finish something is the same not matter how hard it is for you personally.

Certainly, a machine shop owner doesn't have to lift a finger to have a receiver made: Asking your employees to do it is no different than asking a robot to do so.

At some point someone will start selling nylon molds that you just need to wrap carbon fiber tightly around. The mold won't be a component, and the labor pretty quick and easy. It will also be 0%.

That exists already too.

 

[billdeserthills]

I am willing to bet this won't go through. They even say that they did all the hard work so the final assembly should take little time.

I've always wondered why not one was making something like this out of stacked plates and standoffs, though.

I can't find anything about it now but at one time JPFO sold an 80% AR 15 lower that was 4 pieces, it was so long ago that it was unfashionable, they would likely sell a bunch if offered today

 

[msgriff]

I can't find anything about it now but at one time JPFO sold an 80% AR 15 lower that was 4 pieces, it was so long ago that it was unfashionable, they would likely sell a bunch if offered today

There was "The Flat Spot" lower, but it had a lot more than 4 pieces. Also, 0% will be a lot easier without needing a receiver extension hub. Long stroke piston uppers like the JAKL might be a game changer for machining from billet.

 

[Will_White]

There was "The Flat Spot" lower, but it had a lot more than 4 pieces. Also, 0% will be a lot easier without needing a receiver extension hub. Long stroke piston uppers like the JAKL might be a game changer for machining from billet.

View attachment 1207512

Yeah, but wasn't super hard to put together just needed some fitting and tweaking.