When does a forging become a receiver?

[Steve O]

I have a machinist friend who is interested in making 40% and 80% receivers for cal gun members. However he is wondering at what point does a forging become a receiver, and does DOJ have a definition?
He would be doing this as a business. But because he would not be manufacturing any firearms only 80% receivers he would not need a FFL is this correct?

He is very interested in making both AR and AK 80% receivers!

[NeoWeird]

If he is going to do this as a business then he really need to send the BATFE a sample and have them determine whether or not it's a receiver. "80%" is not law; it's more like a guideline and there have been several people that have gotten multiple felonies for selling 80% receivers. One person in particular was selling 80% 1911 frames without rails cut and only pilot holes drilled (and maybe something else not finished) and the experts at the BATFE claimed they were in fact complete frames because if the rails were cut and the holes enlarged it would accept 1911 parts and would be a complete gun.

He REALLY needs to submit a sample to the BATFE and have them give a written response as to whether or not it's a firearm. There MAY be a fee involved, but it would be minimal considering the possible outcome.

I have to ask though, since he is going to make these, are they going to be forgings with work done to them, or billet milled down to an AR externally with possible internal work done?

[Steve O]

He was thinking of getting the forgings from Anchor Harvey. And basically doing it up like the AR15plus HPS receiver.

https://www.vbd.com/noc/shop/products_detail.asp?CategoryID=29&ProductID=122

Milling out the mag well and trigger hole.
From there he could sell them based on his time.

Or he could take it further and drill out the pivot pin,
so anyone form there can use a jig.

Perhaps Drill out buffer tube?? Or leave that alone to comply with 80% laws.

We are trying to think of a solution that will do all the milling work, so the customer can do just the drilling with the proper jigs and a sears drill press.

The problem with the HPS receiver is the milling is unfinished. I don't know if this because of an ATF requirement, or if the milling can be completed if say other drilling work was left to be completed by the customer. Perhaps it is an ATF/DOJ requirement that the person doing the actual building of the 100% receiver do both milling and drilling and taping? Who knows.

We are willing to submit a sample to ATF. We just don't know how its done.
Keep in mind here, we are just normal guys with a milling machine and machining skills.

I do appreciate everyone's information in regards to this matter...

[NeoWeird]

I've always been under the impression that an 80% firearm can NOT allow ANY parts to be installed without work being done. The ar15plus.com receiver (which I've used before) for example, has the fire control pocket milled .03" narrower than finish, no holes are drilled, and the buffer hole is drilled but severely undersized. An upper CAN be placed onto it, but it won't be able to be latched in place as the pivot holes are not drilled. The magazine catch MAY be able to be installed, but I can't remember - it's been a while. You can always contact the ATF offices to see what they have to say - from what I've heard and seen myself, the ATF is more about following the law and getting citizens to follow the law rather than badgering them like the CA DOJ does. This link MIGHT be helpful but probably not:

http://www.atf.gov/forms/5000.htm

I know on the Form 1 there is an area to denote it as a proto-type, perhaps they will have you do the same thing but fill in its description as "80% frame" or "incomplete".

As for Anchor Harvey, does he have a secondary line to get them or is he going to go direct? I ask more out of curiousity as I'd doubt they would deal in small numbers being a major forging house.

[domokun]

Most of the 80% receivers I've seen sold at shows don't have the fire control group area milled out to accept a fire control group nor the associated pins needed to install such fire control group parts.

[technique]

One just became a receiver in my garage 10mins ago.........seriously!!!!

[xxxx]

Some say at birth... some say at the moment of conception... ask the government and they will say, "when ever it is easiest for us to arrest you"

[CHS]

Basically, I just want to repeat what a few other posters have already said. If the guy wants to do this for himself, it doesn't matter. Just go straight to 100%. However, if you want to do business with "80%" receivers, DO NOT SELL a single one until you've sent a final production sample to the BATFE and gotten a clear letter decision as to whether or not this is a firearm, and if they can be sold unrestricted through normal channels. Don't just be content with getting a ruling that says it's not a firearm. Get a ruling that states specifically these can be sold by a non-licensed individual.

[Gunaria]

Have your buddy make 80% Ruger 10/22 receivers.

[eltee]

Kind of off topic, but kind of not. I deal in the entertainment industry with both live and prop guns. There is some info circulating among the prop gun world that I believe is FUD. I keep hearing "experts" warn that building a prop firearms receiver, even out of resin, pewter, etc. or 70 (sic) % receivers is unlawful as you are manufacturing a firearm w/o papers and the BATF ninjas will descend out of the dark to arrest you.

If a receiver is made 70%, 80%, out of soft materials, etc. and CLEARLY incapable of being used as a firearm, it is my belief that legally its a paperweight of no interest to the gvernment. I believe these "experts" are trying to scare prop gun creators into stopping the making of replica gun receivers.

Any opinions??

[NeoWeird]

Kind of off topic, but kind of not. I deal in the entertainment industry with both live and prop guns. There is some info circulating among the prop gun world that I believe is FUD. I keep hearing "experts" warn that building a prop firearms receiver, even out of resin, pewter, etc. or 70 (sic) % receivers is unlawful as you are manufacturing a firearm w/o papers and the BATF ninjas will descend out of the dark to arrest you.

If a receiver is made 70%, 80%, out of soft materials, etc. and CLEARLY incapable of being used as a firearm, it is my belief that legally its a paperweight of no interest to the gvernment. I believe these "experts" are trying to scare prop gun creators into stopping the making of replica gun receivers.

Any opinions??

Making a unrestricted firearm is perfectly legal for anyone legally allowed to own the gun. For example, I can build a Ruger 10/22 receiver myself as long as I don't violate any laws, so I can't make it a short barrel rifle, full auto, suppressed, etc.

That said, I'd imagine what the experts are warning against making a repro of a restricted firearm. You may THINK you're plastic AK-47 is just a replica, but if it can be made to fire it's not - it's a firearm. There have been LOTS of improvised materials used in guns, especially open bolt SMGs during WWII, so material alone means nothing. Functions means everything. You may also make a firearm that would blow up the second it's used. ATF may take it, wrap the entire thing in electrical tap an inch thick and use reduced power loads to get it to function and you have a full auto gun that is illegal.

When dealing with prop guns it's best to stay within the realm that is already set aside as being acceptable, such as plugged and welded barrels, bolt faces that use blanks ONLY (you know, opt for those odd ball blanks like the 6mm ones instead of the 9mm military ones), etc. I've heard some crazy stuff that ATF has done to get nick people - soaking and freezing front straps on Macs to make them vertical fore grips, coins in fire control groups to disable disconnectors, bubble gun in the bolt, etc. Obviously these methods can be fought, but being 'creative' to get something 'cool' can lead to some serious trouble. So if you REALLY want the prop gun, just make it the way that's already accetable.

Then again, MAYBE they are warning about making prop guns and selling them or using them in the film industry. At that point the ATF might view it as you are engaging in the business of firearms, even if just reproductions, and they might want you to be licensed.

[bwiese]

Kind of off topic, but kind of not. I deal in the entertainment industry with both live and prop guns. There is some info circulating among the prop gun world that I believe is FUD. I keep hearing "experts" warn that building a prop firearms receiver, even out of resin, pewter, etc. or 70 (sic) % receivers is unlawful as you are manufacturing a firearm w/o papers and the BATF ninjas will descend out of the dark to arrest you.

If a receiver is made 70%, 80%, out of soft materials, etc. and CLEARLY incapable of being used as a firearm, it is my belief that legally its a paperweight of no interest to the gvernment. I believe these "experts" are trying to scare prop gun creators into stopping the making of replica gun receivers.

Any opinions??

Likely FUD BS for BATF. If the zinc casting could fire one shot there is a risk (for example an AR lower). However I'd bet these dummy receivers are unmilled and are way away from 80% (a number which really doesn't exist in the law).

But there may be state/local concerns about 'lifelike replica firearms" that don't have red paint on muzzles, etc.