An odd question about rifle receivers.

[Brian Pfleuger]

If what you say is true then there can't be AR15 pistols since the AR 15 "is produced as a rifle." The Ruger Challenger can't be made as a pistol either since 10/22s are "produced as a rifle." Same deal for the Chiappa Mare's Legs, since the Winchester copy receivers are "produced as a rifle."

The word you're missing is "only". Not produced "as a rifle", but "produced only as a rifle".

AR15 *are* manufactured as handguns and Ruger *does* make 10/22 handguns and Chiappa *is* a manufacturer and they manufacturer handguns from those receivers.

Nobody is saying that manufacturers can't do it. Obviously they can. It's the *individual* who can't take a receiver that is not made into a handgun *by a manufacturer* and make it into a handgun.

The language of the law is crystal clear. It's really not logically refutable.

 

[gyvel]

The language of the law is crystal clear. It's really not logically refutable.

And again I have to disagree. The wording is vague and ambiguous. My interpretation of "only as a rifle" means a fully assembled shootable rifle. That weapon is not fully functional as a rifle until it is barreled.

At any rate, this all stems from a now rather heated discussion at my LGS, so I will see what the latest argument is later this afternoon.

It's pretty clear that a new, virgin unbarreled and never has been barreled receiver is not a weapon.

OK, I know that, but I was again, using "weapon" in the generic sense as in a weapon that is capable of discharging a round. I know that Fed laws still classifiy a receiver (or other serial numbered part) as a firearm.

I think the only ones that can answer this question is BATF themselves, and it will be interesting to see what they have to say.

 

[gyvel]

Hi, gyvel,

I am willing to bet a small coffee that Ruger's pistols may have receivers that look like 10/22's but are not marked 10/22, since that is a rifle.

BATFE generally takes two basic positions that undercut your argument. One is that the receiver is the gun; the other is that a gun is what it says it is.

Ruger says a Model 77 is a rifle, not a handgun, so BATFE says that a rifle receiver marked as a Ruger 77 is a Ruger 77 and that is a rifle, barrel or no barrel.

All very interesting points, but does the application of a name or model designation have any legal standing in any sense?

But, like I said, today's meeting at the LGS should prove interesting, as the discussion is becoming very heated and very intense.

I'm too lazy to contact BATF, but maybe one of the other guys at the shop can shoot off a letter and get a final answer on this.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

My interpretation of "only as a rifle" means a fully assembled shootable rifle. That weapon is not fully functional as a rifle until it is barreled.

You're mixing two different concepts. "The receiver", as in the exact one in question laying on the desk at the LGS is not what is under consideration of "only as a rifle". It's how the manufacturer sells that generic product. If they sell THAT KIND of receiver "only as a rifle" then it makes no difference whether or not THAT SPECIFIC receiver has ever been anything at all. It IS, by definition, "only a rifle".

If it is "produced only as a rifle" then it IS a rifle and putting a short barrel on it (without the requisite paperwork) makes it an illegal Short Barreled Rifle.

In any case, the whole opinion as written by the ATF (in Skan's link) makes it all pretty clear to me. You should read it, if you haven't. If you have, well, neither one of us is an authoritative opinion so we could argue it until the cows come home without any meaningful result.

 

[raimius]

What did the original 4473 say? If it was not "rifle," then you should be able to configure it as any legal firearm (non-NFA rifle or pistol).

Also, why are you going on about barrels? The stock is the make or break issue here, no?

 

[johnwilliamson062]

By the time a receiver gets to a customers hand it has been transferred at least once previously, from the manufacturer to the FFL. Often it also goes through a distributor and sometimes a second FFL. All those transfers involve documentation of what the receiver "is".

If the manufacturer sends it out the door as an "other", I believe "other" is the actual classification but I may be wrong, and everyone along the line makes the transfer as such, it can be made into either. If the manufacturer transfers it as a rifle or anyone along the line does so, it is a rifle.

I've never been a manufacturer or worked for one, but it is my understanding the process for registering a rifle and a pistol is slightly different with the pistol registration being slightly more time consuming or costly. The manufacturer has to make some sort of decision before they send it out the door. There is a paper trail the whole way.

I would be very surprised if there aren't a whole lot of pistols made on rifle receivers out there. Just like there are a whole lot of SKS rifles that have been converted to non-sporting configurations without meeting 922(R) requirements.

There is a thread on ar15.com where iNeXile556 took the time to post all the relevant laws concerning pistol barrel length:
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=122&t=517803
Length of a pistol barrel is not limited by law and neither is OAL. There are rifle minimums, but not pistol maximums.

As far as manufacturers changing names and designs slightly, my guess is that is to circumvent restrictions. Concerns about things like CA deciding the charger is illegal in CA, so Ruger can't import 10/22 rifles either.

 

[gyvel]

An answer to my question:

BATFE response letters repository

Lets see if we can put together a large repository of ATFE letters. Would be an easy thing to reference in posts and when talking to people off the forum about these issues.
Loronzo posted a link to one yesterday, so I will start with his:

"Angled foregrips on pistols"

(Link is in post; you must go to the post in its original forum to open).

Unfortunately cutting and pasting the link doesn't work, nor does trying to cut and paste any text of the BAFTE letter.

This letter in NFA stickies pretty much says that a bare receiver can be made into a pistol with no payment of tax. Since they specifically listed an AR15 in the response as an example, it follows that any "rifle" receiver that left the factory as an unassembled and unbarreled item can be made into some kind of pistol, even though an "AR15" was originally "made" as a rifle. In fact, per this BATFE letter, it does not become a rifle until it is barreled and documented by the factory as a rifle.

Some of you responded, saying that the wording "assembled as a rifle" applied to an unbarreled receiver, quoting the wording of the regulations. However, it seems apparent that BATFE looks at a receiver as neither rifle or pistol IF it was originally obtained from the factory as such and never manufactured or barreled as a rifle.

Of course, documentation is required. As was also pointed out several times, BATFE isn't going "to take your word for it."

 

[raimius]

It is not about the barrel!

The determinant between rifle and pistol is the stock. If it is not designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder, it is not a rifle. As stated earlier, you can have a pistol with a long barrel. You can also have a rifle with a short barrel (NFA title II rules there). The difference is the stock.
If I have a generic receiver and stick a 16.5in barrel on it...it is still a "firearm" rather than a rifle or pistol. If I take that same receiver, remove the barrel, and stick a stock on it, I have now made a rifle.

 

[gyvel]

It is not about the barrel!

The determinant between rifle and pistol is the stock. If it is not designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder, it is not a rifle. As stated earlier, you can have a pistol with a long barrel. You can also have a rifle with a short barrel (NFA title II rules there). The difference is the stock.
If I have a generic receiver and stick a 16.5in barrel on it...it is still a "firearm" rather than a rifle or pistol. If I take that same receiver, remove the barrel, and stick a stock on it, I have now made a rifle.

The example I had in mind when I made the OP was a Remington 700 receiver or similar. What brought it to mind was Frank de Haas talking about the availability of unbarreled actions available at one time from the factories to use in custom builds in his book Bolt Action Rifles.

My take on it was that, since you can take an AR15 receiver (and now specifically confirmed by that BATFE letter), then you could do the same thing with a Remington 700 receiver, PROVIDED it was sold to you by the factory as a bare receiver AND you have all the docs needed to authenticate it.

I understand what you are saying about the barrel but, at that point it starts to slip into a gray area. Some the posters in this thread were (I believe) misinterpreting the wording in the BATF reg about "produced as a rifle. My contention was that, once the barrel was installed it was, in fact, "being produced as a rifle." However, your comments about pistol barrel lengths being irrelevant makes sense, since a barreled receiver would not become a rifle until stocked and specified by the maker as such.

At any rate, the BATFE letter about an "AR15" bare receiver being perfectly legal for making into a pistol pretty much infers that any bare receiver can be made into a non NFA pistol PROVIDED you have the original documentation that it was never anything other than bare receiver, regardless of what its model name is.