Serializing a 80% Polymer lower

[jeffsenpai]

So what I plan on doing, is purchasing a Polymer80 lower receiver to serialize and register for the upcoming AW registry.

How does one add a serial number to a polymer lower? Has anyone done this before?

I am going the 80% route because like being able to have them shipped direct to me, and avoid out of stock shops, silly dros fees and 10 day waits.

I am choosing polymer due to the ease of manufacture, and the newest polymer80 models seem the most user friendly and robust yet.

[LowThudd]

ATF wants serials to be on a metal plate, that cannot be removed from the receiver without destroying the receiver. Not sure how you can accomplish this.

[SlickmisterN]

CA DOJ is not ATF...

No one knows anythings about the requirements for registering and how it will be achieved at this time. Anyone claiming they do is simply wrong.

[iclypso]

Was this "requirement" issued in an ATF bulletin? This is the first time I've heard of it.

[jeffsenpai]

I am looking at the ATF regs, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearm...ation-overview

The only reference I can see to use of metal is:

"The depth of all markings required by this section will be measured from the flat surface of the metal and not the peaks or ridges."

Does CA DOJ require the serial in metal? These polymers are common enough now that there should be some knowledge on serializing them out there somewhere.

[SkyHawk]

Serial numbers can easily be removed from an aluminum receiver without destroying it or weakening it at all. You could skeletonize the whole mag well and completely remove the metal where the serial usually is found on most receivers, so it could never be recovered using any technique. If the ATF was really concerned with serials being removed, they would also have requirements for placement in places that mattered to function.

And as evidenced by the first receiver below, there is not a lot that needs to be there for a receiver to function.

You could also remove the serial plate from a Glock frame without affecting it.

So the requirement to use a metal plate on polymer seems like a joke, but yes I too have heard of this before.

But as mentioned, ATF is not CA DOJ and any marking of guns in the next year or two will be done to please CA not ATF, and there is no way to add metal plates to guns already made. If CA wants serial numbers, they will have to live with the fact that many are going to be in polymer.

[LowThudd]

Plum Carzy got thrown under the bus by the ATF for just the reason I mentioned. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-letter-batfe/

But, it is true, ATF doesn't GAF about CADOJ bullsheite. Maybe it isn't an issue.

[Subotai]

Use a soldering iron and scribble it in.

[LowThudd]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1608771_Holy_BATFE___Plum_Crazy_lowers_are_now_illegal.html

Yes, the ruling is stupid. Any metal frame serial can just as easily and quickly be defaced. But, that was the opinion of the ATF.

But, that being said, do you really expect the CADOJ to be more smart and fair than the ATF? lol

[Quiet]

Under CA laws...

Penal Code 29180
(b)(2)(B) If the firearm is manufactured or assembled from polymer plastic, 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel shall be embedded within the plastic upon fabrication or construction with the unique serial number engraved or otherwise permanently affixed in a manner that meets or exceeds the requirements imposed on licensed importers and licensed manufacturers of firearms pursuant to subsection (i) of Section 923 of Title 18 of the United States Code and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

[SkyHawk]

Under CA laws...

Penal Code 29180
(b)(2)(B) If the firearm is manufactured or assembled from polymer plastic, 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel shall be embedded within the plastic upon fabrication or construction with the unique serial number engraved or otherwise permanently affixed in a manner that meets or exceeds the requirements imposed on licensed importers and licensed manufacturers of firearms pursuant to subsection (i) of Section 923 of Title 18 of the United States Code and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

But this law applies to complete firearms, and I know of none described by this law that exist in CA although I will be the first to admit, I know little.

Even though a Glock and many other pistol frames, or a 100% polymer AR receiver is technically a firearm, none have 3.7 ounces of steel embedded inside the plastic. Yet the guns still meet this CA requirement because the components required to fire them make them detectable. Otherwise, there would be no Glocks for sale.

This law was passed during the hysteria around fantasy guns that would pass through metal detectors undetected.

[jeffsenpai]

Under CA laws...

Penal Code 29180
(b)(2)(B) If the firearm is manufactured or assembled from polymer plastic, 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel shall be embedded within the plastic upon fabrication or construction with the unique serial number engraved or otherwise permanently affixed in a manner that meets or exceeds the requirements imposed on licensed importers and licensed manufacturers of firearms pursuant to subsection (i) of Section 923 of Title 18 of the United States Code and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

Wasn't that part of the text of sb808, which was vetoed last go around?

[SkyHawk]

Plum Carzy got thrown under the bus by the ATF for just the reason I mentioned. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-letter-batfe/

But, it is true, ATF doesn't GAF about CADOJ bullsheite. Maybe it isn't an issue.

I hear you, and it is hard to tell from that article, especially the followup, what is going on - and no one has turned up a copy of 'the letter'.

Again I leave you with this to ponder - how many AR receivers would have anything left to read if this were done to them - yet they would still be functional. The ATF rule, if true, is being arbitrarily applied to polymer products, and is a fantasy. You could do this to a polymer lower, and just remove the section containing the metal plate entirely - who cares if it pops out with a screwdriver.

[Q]

Wild design!

[Quiet]

Wasn't that part of the text of sb808, which was vetoed last go around?

It's part of AB857 which was signed into law.

But this law applies to complete firearms, and I know of none described by this law that exist in CA although I will be the first to admit, I know little.

If you make an "80% receiver" into a complete receiver, then it applies.
Under Federal and CA laws, a completed stripped receiver is classified as a firearm.

This requirement, PC 29180(b)(2)(B), goes into effect starting 07-01-2018.

Starting 01-01-2019, any polymer firearm that does not comply with it will be illegal to possess.