M1 Garand rifles **less wood** questions

[morrcarr67]

Same. Never even thought twice about it, even though the rules may be as they are - I felt no moral obligation nor dirty and shameful upon doing so.

It's old, it's curio, and sometimes it's a relic. ( That sounds like a country song about an old truck.)

Rules of petty authority. I feel like ATF is the blueprint model for every HOA - and both want to shoot your dog.

---

[dfletcher]

I would take "frame or receiver" to mean only that - the Garand receiver, no barrel and no trigger group.

Original military configuration - I think ATF has tried to better define that with some specifics such as sights, stock, etc.

Is a conventionally stocked Inland M1 Carbine dropped into a repro folding stock "original military configuration"? A 308 Garand? A 1960's made AR with a DPMS upper? Or no upper?

I don't know that anyone knows for certain, kind of wonder if ATF cares. For now.

[Nardo1895]

This is a bit off topic, but what about a sporterized 1903 Springfield (or any other military firearm)? Its defiantly not in its original military configuration, but odds are it was sporterized more than 50 years ago. C&R or not? How do you prove it?

I think it is and have bought some as such. They only time I had to use a 01 FFL for a 1903 was when it was a striped receiver.

[19K]

The atf definition is not backed up by any law or regulation they has been publish or adopted.

[19K]

Without stocks they would not be C&R's. To be a C&R for FFL purposes the rifles should be complete and as issued.

Not true. The atf definition is not backed up by any actual law.

[SVT-40]

The atf definition is not backed up by any law or regulation they has been publish or adopted.

You do as you please, but understand your opinion is in conflict with what BATFE believes and has "published".

Do you have the $$$ to defend yourself if the BATFE audits your books and finds you have knowingly violated their "rules" and decides to federally prosecute you?


Repeat, a Barreled receiver CANNOT be shipped to a C&R license holder, It is not in its original configuration. ATF ruling 85-10 also states that a receiver itself is NOT considered a "relic". The ATF law C.F.R. S478-11 states that IMPORTED barreled receivers are not in their original configuration and therefore cannot be imported as a relic. Then ATF ruling 85-10 states that since an imported barreled receiver is not a relic since it is not in it original configuration IT ALSO APPLIES TO NON-IMPORT barreled receivers there fore they cannot be sent to C&R holders.

"the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has concluded that a firearm must be in its original condition to be considered a C&R weapon."

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/1985-10-surplus-military-frames-or-receivers-alone-denied-importation/download

[19K]

You do as you please, but understand your opinion is in conflict with what BATFE believes and has "published".

Do you have the $$$ to defend yourself if the BATFE audits your books and finds you have knowingly violated their "rules" and decides to federally prosecute you?


Repeat, a Barreled receiver CANNOT be shipped to a C&R license holder, It is not in its original configuration. ATF ruling 85-10 also states that a receiver itself is NOT considered a "relic". The ATF law C.F.R. S478-11 states that IMPORTED barreled receivers are not in their original configuration and therefore cannot be imported as a relic. Then ATF ruling 85-10 states that since an imported barreled receiver is not a relic since it is not in it original configuration IT ALSO APPLIES TO NON-IMPORT barreled receivers there fore they cannot be sent to C&R holders.

"the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has concluded that a firearm must be in its original condition to be considered a C&R weapon."


https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ru...ation/download

The biggest takeaway from 85-10 is that it deals with imports. The atf even says towards the end of 85-10 that it?s for meeting ATF definition for approval of imports.

Even if it were illegal, ATF will have much bigger fish to fry than a collector buying/selling a barreled receiver when you see many of the big vendors advertising and selling barreled receivers as C&R.

[echo1]

This is a bit off topic, but what about a sporterized 1903 Springfield (or any other military firearm)? Its defiantly not in its original military configuration, but odds are it was sporterized more than 50 years ago. C&R or not? How do you prove it?

I think it is and have bought some as such. They only time I had to use a 01 FFL for a 1903 was when it was a striped receiver.

I picked up an 03-A3 Smith Corona sport job from a LGS listed as milsurp. It was there so it had to go via 01 but I don't have an 03 so I don't know what the LGS would have done. PAX

[SVT-40]

The biggest takeaway from 85-10 is that it deals with imports. The atf even says towards the end of 85-10 that it?s for meeting ATF definition for approval of imports.

Even if it were illegal, ATF will have much bigger fish to fry than a collector buying/selling a barreled receiver when you see many of the big vendors advertising and selling barreled receivers as C&R.

Many people have been prosecuted by the BATFE for many different small violations... Especially today where any violation can be targeted, why take the risk?

So by all means you do as you please. But don't recommend for others to do something which could have serious legal consequences.

[19K]

Many people have been prosecuted by the BATFE for many different small violations... Especially today where any violation can be targeted, why take the risk?

So by all means you do as you please. But don't recommend for others to do something which could have serious legal consequences.

How many of those people were C&R FFL 03 holders? And what were those ?small violations??

Again, 85-10 was in reference to importation approvals from the ATF. Not transfers for inter or intrastate. The law they reference only refers to imports.

Ianal and neither are you so please don?t recommend for others to not do something which could not have have any legal consequences. This is no different than the CADOJ making extra requirements that have no legal backing.

[kcheung2]

Sidestepping the "is it C&R or not" debate and go back to OP's intent to sell off some stock-less Garands, I suggest that he just list it for sale as-is, and it requires going to a regular FFL01. Let the buyer chose what stock they want, either a new one from Fulton/DuPage or something contemporary to the gun. I suspect a majority of potential buyers don't have FFL03+COE so it will have to go the regular PPT route anyway, the same as if he were selling off a Glock or AR. In that case the C&R debate is moot.

Maybe if he wants to be accommodating, he could get a stock from DuPage for $205 and raise the price by $205. Cost wise it's the same, but some buyers like a complete ready-to-go setup.