Upper/lower is the weapon?

[diddler]

Ok, I'm not trolling, and I'm not looking for smarmy answers about applying logic to gun laws, etc.

Simply put, just trying to figure out why in history it came down that the lower receiver in an AR type rifle is the registered component, while the upper receiver shares that fame in a FAL type rifle.

Other than the fact that the magazine well is in the AR lower and in the FAL upper, all other functional aspects between either lower or either upper are basically the same. Is there a good reason why this decision was made? Is it really just where the magazine attaches?

Thanks!

[russ69]

I could be wrong but the manufacturer may make a suggestion to the BATF and the BATF will review and approve it (or dis-approve). The one that bugs me the most is the Ruger auto, the barrel assembly is the controlled part. You can't switch barrels.

Thanx, Russ

[OleCuss]

OK, I won't claim to actually know the answer, but I'd bet that the legislators/regulators just went with the existing reality for the AR's.

I'd bet the original AR manufacturer found it more convenient to stamp the serial number on the lower receiver. So the BATF views the part with the serial number as the firearm.

I know even less about the FAL but I wouldn't be surprised if the reason why it's upper is considered the firearm is for a reason just as banal.

[PsychGuy274]

Ok, I'm not trolling, and I'm not looking for smarmy answers about applying logic to gun laws, etc.

Simply put, just trying to figure out why in history it came down that the lower receiver in an AR type rifle is the registered component, while the upper receiver shares that fame in a FAL type rifle.

Other than the fact that the magazine well is in the AR lower and in the FAL upper, all other functional aspects between either lower or either upper are basically the same. Is there a good reason why this decision was made? Is it really just where the magazine attaches?

Thanks!

You've made a crucial mistake by assuming gun laws have to be rational...

[the_quark]

I'd bet the original AR manufacturer found it more convenient to stamp the serial number on the lower receiver. So the BATF views the part with the serial number as the firearm.

I'd started to reply with this idea, but then it occurred to me that I don't believe this is true on my M1911. Granted, that's a very old gun, but it made me think maybe the determination is more complex than "the part the serial number is on," because, by that logic, it'd be the slide on that pistol.

ETA: Or, am I mistaken, and, on my (manufactured in 1914) M1911, is the slide the "firearm", since it has the serial number?

ETFA: I was actually just mistaken, period - the serial number is on the frame. D'oh!

[OleCuss]

I'd started to reply with this idea, but then it occurred to me that I don't believe this is true on my M1911. Granted, that's a very old gun, but it made me think maybe the determination is more complex than "the part the serial number is on," because, by that logic, it'd be the slide on that pistol.

ETA: Or, am I mistaken, and, on my (manufactured in 1914) M1911, is the slide the "firearm", since it has the serial number?

That really is quite an interesting question. But my guess is that if you put your slide on a different frame that the BATF would still consider the firearm with that serial number to be the gun with the slide which hold that serial number. To that extent I'd say that your slide is the firearm - but if the firearm is disassembled I don't know if the BATF would consider that slide to be a firearm.

You're more expert on this stuff than I am, so if you disagree I'll likely adopt your viewpoint.

[Kharn]

The ATF's decisions seem to revolve around the most complex part.

[wash]

When did we get serial number requirements?

1914 is a long time ago, AR's were first manufactured in the 60's I think and FAL's are older than that.

It could be that at the time there were no requirements so the manufacturers did what they thought was right and ATF went along with it...

[KWA-S]

Granted, that's a very old gun, but it made me think maybe the determination is more complex than "the part the serial number is on," because, by that logic, it'd be the slide on that pistol.

Is your 1911's frame serialized? I believe registered component should be the frame or receiver, or the part of said frame or receiver that is serialized. "the part the serial number is on" is also a really poor definition, because for weapons where the serial is printed several time, such as my SKS, which iirc, has its serial on its receiver, barrel, stock, gas tube, bolt carrier, bolt, extractor, and magazine, interesting questions get raised, such as which one (or several?) of those parts is the firearm.

[Kharn]

The frame is the firearm for a 1911, the original serial number may have been lightly stamped and wore off or it was a 'lunchbox special' by one of the factory workers. Serial numbers were first required as part of the 1968 GCA but Colt was using them long before that, IIRC every Colt 1911 has a serial number.

[bwiese]

The frame is the firearm for a 1911, the original serial number may have been lightly stamped and wore off or it was a 'lunchbox special' by one of the factory workers. Serial numbers were first required as part of the 1968 GCA but Colt was using them long before that, IIRC every Colt 1911 has a serial number.

Yes, I don't see old 1911s with un-/poorly-marked frames all of a sudden making the slide the FFL-required part. All 1911s have the frame/receiver as the key component, and the slide (regardless of marking) is not FFL transfer-controlled.

[cineski]

It's all about the trigger.

[Kharn]

It's all about the trigger.

Not for the FAL, SCAR, FNC, Ruger MkII, Sten, Sterling, HK 91, 93, 94, etc.

[CHS]

I'd started to reply with this idea, but then it occurred to me that I don't believe this is true on my M1911. Granted, that's a very old gun, but it made me think maybe the determination is more complex than "the part the serial number is on," because, by that logic, it'd be the slide on that pistol.

ETA: Or, am I mistaken, and, on my (manufactured in 1914) M1911, is the slide the "firearm", since it has the serial number?

That's a pre-'68 gun, so it doesn't legally even have to have a serial number on it. That's why it doesn't matter.

The BATFE at some point decided that the frame of a 1911 is the "firearm" (most likely post-68), and that's why 1911's today are serialed on the frame and not the slide.

Your 1911's frame is still the actual firearm, even though it has no serial number. While it would be blasphemy, you could in fact legally strip the gun down to just the frame and transfer the frame to someone in say a PPT. The FFL would not be able to record a serial number, and that would be ok. Still legal.

I love pre-'68 guns

[trashman]

That's a pre-'68 gun, so it doesn't legally even have to have a serial number on it. That's why it doesn't matter.

Exactamundo.

For those of us, uh, that weren't shooting/collecting in '68, it is worth remembering that something as simple as legally required "unique serial numbers" is a relatively late innovation in gun laws.

The one quirk I don't fully understand is why a CETME (or HK91) has the upper receiver serially numbered -- when the trigger pack, hammer, etc, are all installed in the lower receiver (and that is not a controlled part - like the upper of an AR).

--Neill