80% Glock Build Legality?

[relatively-anonymous]

I forgot to add that if you are going to try and register an 80% handgun build, they want you to upload pictures of the build in compliant single shot format. Don't initiate the process unless you have the ability to do that!

My thought on this one: If you intend to build a Polymer80 into the bolt-action long-barrel mod first: take pictures of the equipment you will use (single-shot magazine, bolt, and long barrel) next to an INCOMPLETE (still needs drilling/milling) Polymer80 frame. That should decent enough proof that you intended to build it as a single shot first.

[jakebb44]

Apologies for reviving a relatively dead thread but I wanted to make sure my understanding of this is correct. The general consensus I can see is that the only way to complete one of the new polymer 80 lowers into semi auto as the end product is currently questionably legal at best? And that until there is a test case for the 9th circuit any person that builds one is risking a felony charge?
While not cost effective this looks like a fun project, interested to see if anyone can figure a solid legal way to complete this.

[edgerly779]

^^ Plus how to embed 3.7 ounces of stainless steel to be legal.

[relatively-anonymous]

If I read it correctly and if home-building is ruled as "manufacturing" in the context of the roster law, it's a misdemeanor.

[9mmContagion]

^^ Plus how to embed 3.7 ounces of stainless steel to be legal.

The 3.7oz does not start until July 2018. But any firearm built before will need to be serialized in accordance before then. If the firearm is polymer, it will need to be serialized on an embedded plate that can not be easily obliterated, ex. Glock, Springfield, New Frontier Lowers. (Reference Plum Crazy lowers and ATF letter on obliterating serial plate). I don't believe their is a weight spec in current form. The 19 frame would be your safest bet to meet current regs so long as it's serialized by July 2018. As far as SSE2.0 do your homework

[9mmContagion]

If I read it correctly and if home-building is ruled as "manufacturing" in the context of the roster law, it's a misdemeanor.

Single shot is exempt from roster

[edgerly779]

Home built polymer firearms must have a 3.7 ounce stainless embedded mfgs like plum crazy/nfa have nothing in common with homebuilt.

[9mmContagion]

Home built polymer firearms must have a 3.7 ounce stainless embedded mfgs like plum crazy/nfa have nothing in common with homebuilt.

That reg does not take effect until July 2018

[JackRydden224]

Thanks for clarifying. I was worried that my Flock might be no good some July 1st 2018.

The 3.7oz does not start until July 2018. But any firearm built before will need to be serialized in accordance before then. If the firearm is polymer, it will need to be serialized on an embedded plate that can not be easily obliterated, ex. Glock, Springfield, New Frontier Lowers. (Reference Plum Crazy lowers and ATF letter on obliterating serial plate). I don't believe their is a weight spec in current form. The 19 frame would be your safest bet to meet current regs so long as it's serialized by July 2018. As far as SSE2.0 do your homework

[jakebb44]

Does anyone have knowledge that SSE 2.0 for home builds is gtg? After researching it some SSE 2.0 would definitely add some cost to the project, but would allow me to end with a functioning semi auto home build while keeping things strictly legal. The transition from single shot bolt action to semi auto seems shady to me, sifting through threads on the topic hasn't yielded me a solid answer.

[Cokebottle]

Does anyone have knowledge that SSE 2.0 for home builds is gtg? After researching it some SSE 2.0 would definitely add some cost to the project, but would allow me to end with a functioning semi auto home build while keeping things strictly legal. The transition from single shot bolt action to semi auto seems shady to me, sifting through threads on the topic hasn't yielded me a solid answer.

We can't be 100% sure, but with the wording of some of the new laws it appears that "manufacturing" would still be performed by removing the SSEv2.0 compliance parts and installing semi-auto parts.

You are absolutely 100% legal in building an SSEv2.0 compliant pistol, but it appears that it is illegal to convert to semi-automatic, and will remain to be the case unless and until there is either a test case, or Pena prevails.

[jakebb44]

Oh I see, that makes a lot more sense. I will have to wait and see before I commit to taking this on as a project. Good luck to all those that are going for it regaurdless

[Cokebottle]

Oh I see, that makes a lot more sense. I will have to wait and see before I commit to taking this on as a project. Good luck to all those that are going for it regaurdless

I have a feeling that many taking on these projects have no intention of being California residents much longer.

[Andersonmatt1125]

There seems to be people in this thread saying it's impossible to put 3.7 oz of steel in a glock frame.


Wouldn't it be trivial to just put it on the accessory rail, then permanently affix it with epoxy and then pinned/welded?

[boopiejones]

There seems to be people in this thread saying it's impossible to put 3.7 oz of steel in a glock frame.


Wouldn't it be trivial to just put it on the accessory rail, then permanently affix it with epoxy and then pinned/welded?

the problem is the sheer size of 3.7oz of steel. if you could find a way to put a 1/4 inch thick piece of steel somewhere on the frame, the surface area would still need to be nearly 4 square inches... 2x2 inches, or 1x4 inches, etc... that's a huge hunk of metal to be attaching to a polymer frame.

if the metal was 1/8 inch thick (which is a much more realistic thickness for attaching to a handgun frame), the surface area of the plate would need to be over 6 square inches... where are you going to stick a 2x3 inch metal plate on a handgun?

the serialized metal plate that companies like glock embed within their accessory rail is extremely thin and lightweight. probably about 1/8 ounce.