80% AR reciever info needed

[mauritz45]

my search-fu must be lacking. is there a thread here concerning any BATFE info as to what constitutes an 80% reciever?
i have the mfg of my OLL looking into making these, but he wants to make sure its legal to do so.
thanks-cam

[technique]

Make sure any info you do get is current. I believe the ATF has a new standing on 80%'s as of this year or late last year.

[cdmurphy]

I've looked into this quite a bit when I was contemplating building a 1911 frame from scratch, and the short answer is that there is no such thing as an "80%" frame. The BATF simply regards items as either firearms, or not-firearms. Any hunk of steel that is made into a complete frame, at some point transitions from "not-firearm" to "firearm". The rub is that where that transition occurs is pretty much up to their discretion. The general consensus is that to be safe, the person who makes it a "firearm" from a "not-firearm" must do quite a bit of work to it, of a manufacturing nature -- i.e. removing metal, or adding metal to complete the frame, not just drilling out some holes, or finishing cosmetic features. Unfortunately the BATF seems to be intentionally vague on the subject, as they undoubtedly are trying to discourage homebuilt firearms.

Hope this helps,

Cameron

[goober]

I've looked into this quite a bit when I was contemplating building a 1911 frame from scratch, and the short answer is that there is no such thing as an "80%" frame. The BATF simply regards items as either firearms, or not-firearms. Any hunk of steel that is made into a complete frame, at some point transitions from "not-firearm" to "firearm". The rub is that where that transition occurs is pretty much up to their discretion. The general consensus is that to be safe, the person who makes it a "firearm" from a "not-firearm" must do quite a bit of work to it, of a manufacturing nature -- i.e. removing metal, or adding metal to complete the frame, not just drilling out some holes, or finishing cosmetic features. Unfortunately the BATF seems to be intentionally vague on the subject, as they undoubtedly are trying to discourage homebuilt firearms.

Hope this helps,

Cameron

pretty much this^
BATF, in their typical style, publishes NO standards on what is or is not a firearm. every "80%" or "partially finished" or "non-gun" receiver is evaluated by BATF individually, according to whatever standards they decide to use at the moment. a vendor hoping to sell such products must submit a sample to them in order to receive a declaration letter stating that their product is or is not a firearm. but BATF does not make it easy by publishing a set of guidelines or anything like that.
going from the recent declaration letters that several vendors have received, we can pretty much surmise that as far as the AR-style platform goes, just about everything is fair game as long as the FCG pocket remains completely solid and there are no center-drill or other markings for the FCG pins/components. for the 1911, things are much less defined, and beyond that, its a crap shoot.
but the real key is that "80%" is purely a colloquialism... a convenient term to refer to something that is on its way to being but is not yet a gun. there is no magically safe "percentage", and no one spends their time totaling up the time or effort or cost of finishing a lump of metal into a gun and says "THIS much is 80%"... rather there are certain features which in combination are considered by BATF to be over the line or too close to it, and if those things are present, its a gun. if not, its a paperweight.

[mauritz45]

thanks folks

[crob241]

80% anything

Pretty much is you need a FFL to buy it it is a firearm, if the mfg. will send it without a FFL then it is not. Example Sarco has "gunsmith special" frames require FFL, castings no FFL. Tannery has 80% and 60% whatever that are not much more then castings for 10 times the money with no FFL, don`t know about that. ATF keeps close track of people selling frames not needing a FFL and I can`t imagine them letting someone flood the market with 1911 or AR-15 frames just needing a few holes drilled without a FFL, 40 or 50 years ago maybe so but not today, thats just my .02 cents worth

[FJKernel]

Started to post this last night but stopped...

The real question is two-fold. First, is the regulations and second is more of a subjective opinion about the work required to complete an item.

The regulations are simple. Can the "part" accept a barrel and fire control components? And, once you consider that, now think about what the BATFE consider a firearm. More precisely, what would allow your part to go BANG just one time. Answer those questions and that's the first part.

The second part is not so clear. Taken from a ATF determination letter: "Generally, if the receiver-blank can not accept a barrel and the fire-control components can not be installed (or it can not easily be modified to accept such components), it is not a firearm."

But as you see, by the statement of can not be easily modified we're throwing in the subjective opinion of someone else. With no "ruler" to measure by, this becomes a hurdle also. What's easy for me to complete might be quite difficult for someone else or the opposite might be true.

There's one example I've seen for the ATF and a AR-15 lower. The fire control pocket was milled partially and there were no fire control holes. The ATF tester ground down the sides of the hammer and trigger then proceeded to drill the required holes with a drill press. Took a total of less than 22 minutes from the start to get to the point a first shot could be taken and was subsequently ruled to be a firearm.