What is 80% frame?

Alan0354

New member
I kept hearing about 80% frame, my neighbor told me about buying 80% AR15 frame and drill the rest of it. Now I see they sell 80% pistol frames.

How does that work? I supposed it's not going to be registered. Are you taking a chance in kalif?
 

JohnKSa

Administrator
Federal law allows a person to make a firearm for their own use. An 80% receiver is manufactured only up to the point that federal law allows without it qualifying as a firearm under federal law.

The limit is supposedly 80%, although the actual assessment is somewhat subjective.

Anyway, the idea is that a person can purchase an "80% receiver" that is not a firearm under federal law (and is therefore unregulated under federal law), and make it into a gun a good deal more easily than if they had to start from scratch.

Notice how I've been careful to emphasize 'federal' in the explanation above. States can pass laws relating to the manufacture of firearms from 80% receivers, and they can also regulate the resulting firearms. Just because the feds aren't going to come after you doesn't mean your own state won't.
 

Alan0354

New member
If it is illegal to make the gun in Kalif, will the online dealers sale and ship to Kalif?

I am not sure I want to buy and build like this, I see a lot of Glock frame, but I can buy Glock in Kalif, why do I want to make one myself? The only Glocks I might interested but not selling in Kalif is 42 and 43, but I only want those for concealment as they are small. I think it would be dangerous to carry those out as it's not legal. I might get into big trouble if police find it on me outside my home.

My friend was talking about AR15 80% frame, I am not particular interested in it.
 

shurshot

New member
Just buy yourself a real Glock via an FFL and you won't have anything to worry about, aside from obtaining ammunition. The 80% kits are not going to save you much money and will become a source of serious headaches and legal issues for many in the future. I researched them myself last year as it looked fun to build, but in the end opted for a genuine Glock 20 after weighing out the pros and cons.

Google "Ghost Guns", or do a search on here for some interesting banter on the subject, and although there are strong opinions on both sides, it's pretty easy to see why they are being banned in numerous States. https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/11/us/atf-raid-ghost-gun-manufacturer-invs/index.html

The Feds are reviewing their options / new agenda and already have some of the records of who has purchased what, where and when, etc. from at least one store that was raided. Most of these were / are sold online via credit cards and sales and shipping addresses are recorded for tax purposes, advertising, etc. Dealers will provide this info to the authorities when asked, one way or another, they always do when the pressure is on.

Pretty easy to track down who bought the 80% kit guns in the age of information when the time comes and the authorities want to send out letters or knock on doors. Ironic that so many people thought they were being clever & avoiding State and Federal Agencies from knowing that they purchased a gun by buying these easy to assemble 80% kits without serial numbers online and now are likely ON a list, under the radar from the same Government Authorities they were trying to escape notice from in the first place...:rolleyes: :D:D

Here is a link previously posted by another member in a different thread. Apparently the the Feds ARE starting to come after people who bought these 80% kit guns. Times are changing... :eek:https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/12/11/polymer80-kits/

Not worth the hassle when you can just legally obtain a genuine Glock, through an FFL, that will function flawlessly with a full warranty. And, you won't have to worry about State law enforcement or Federal ATF Agents tracking you down and banging on your door in the future either! ;)
 
Last edited:

shurshot

New member
"Yes, they do, its called obeying the law."

Most people DO obey the law. However some people, occassionally even FFL Dealers or Buisness owners, are resistant to cooperating with investigators and require a bit of "encouragement" to get them to share information. That was my point, that even unwilling individuals who dislike Government will suddenly fully cooperate when leaned on.
 

stinkeypete

New member
In my youth, I worked in the machine shop of the Physics Dept. of my university. It was run my a cranky little Irishman. If one swept the floors, wiped the machines down, put away messes left by others and generally loved and respected the shop, Johnny tended to give preference and would teach some of us the basics of what we were trying to make for our lab gear. Old school learning, a sort of modified limited apprenticeship for a select group of eggheads willing to commit to the common good. Those who helped care for the shop learned lessons as they were needed.

Years later I was interested in the AR craze and had a mind to build a crazy accurate open class target rifle. I bought a couple lower receivers, upper receivers, a regular trigger group and a two stage target trigger group. It all went together like lego blocks, with no disrespect to kids today, but from my mindset of accurized bullseye target pistols and owning a revolver from Hamilton Bowen and owning his book as well as a few by Taffin, bolting together an AR is not “gunsmithing” in my mind any more than throwing a frozen dinner in the microwave is being a chef.

When I looked at the AR lower, the registered piece, my eye saw a nicely machined bit of cast aluminum. As I happened to have done a bit of work in Fiberglas, carbon fibers, epoxies and acrylics... as well as silicone mold making my passing thought was “I bet I could make a mold for this part easy!” Then using the right mixture of epoxy and carbon fiber filler and a few threaded sleeves just pour a lower, let it harden and voile. Instant lower.

Once the mold and a couple of aluminum sleeves are made, making a lower would be easier than making instant brownies. Certainly in my mind a heck of a lot more than 80%, yet an insult to the art of creating by hand a better product. My goal in building was to make something better than I could buy.

Next I thought of machining a lower from a billet of Aluminum. That would test my skills as a machinist with very limited training, but I bet I could do it. A billet receiver would be stronger, shinier, slicker. But I didn’t have access to a proper shop anymore and my goal was a rifle, not a machining project.

Those that make their own target 1911s are heroes and I love watching YouTube videos of these guys problem solving and machining. For their time and money, they could hire a pistolsmith twice, but I get it. It’s a sort of art project and keeps a man off the street or from foolishness like building his own airplane.

Then I look at some kits available where you buy a jig, hog some material out with a router (shudder!), drill some holes with a hand drill and presto, you have an ugly bit of rubbish that will go “bang” and skirts federal law. Bleach.

Next I wonder what an 80% receiver for a Sig 320 looks like, as the whole “receiver” looks about like the trigger group of a HighPoint pistol to me.

A few people are making what in my opinion are works of art from legitimate forgings. A lot of people are only out to dodge the letter of the law making yet another boring adequate pistol.

It’s a good thing I am not king, I would hold to the spirit, not letter, of the law.
 
Last edited:
stinkeypete said:
A few people are making what in my opinion are works of art from legitimate forgings. A lot of people are only out to dodge the letter of the law making yet another boring adequate pistol.
I have to disagree. People who make their own firearms from 80% receivers are not in any way "out to dodge the letter of the law," any more than someone who drives 64 MPH in a 65 MPH zone is "out to dodge the letter of the law."

Federal law allows anyone who is not a prohibited person to manufacture a firearm for their own, personal use. Federal regulation has been interpreted to mean that as long as the chunk of metal (or plastic) is not more than 80% complete when Harry Handyman obtains it, completing it is legally the same as if he started with a bare ingot of steel or aluminum alloy.

Let's not fall into the anti-gunners' trap of thinking that completing an 80% receiver is somehow nefariously exploiting a "loophole" in the law. It's not. If something is allowed by law, it's not illegal. I dislike referring to perfectly legal activities as "out to dodge the letter of the law."
 

JERRYS.

New member
out of my ignorance what constitutes an 80% receiver/lower/frame...? as in what is left to be done to make it 100%?
 

shurshot

New member
Jerrys, Instead of asking on here :eek:..., as you will get various opinions, some accurate, some outdated, some egotistical but well intentioned and others illegal with a generous sprinkling of BS... why not go straight to the source... ATF. :D

Here is the ATF link and phone # indicating that (contrary to what some on here will tell you :rolleyes:), some 80% kits ARE considered firearms under the Federal GCA of 1968.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are...nfinished-or-80-receivers-actually-considered

Current posted "80%" definition...
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-“80”-or-“unfinished”-receivers-illegal
 
Last edited:

JohnKSa

Administrator
That is correct. Just because someone claims a receiver is an 80% receiver doesn't mean that it is. The BATF has the final say on the matter and the assessment is, of necessity, somewhat subjective. It's not like being able to measure the barrel on a smoothbore and being sure that because it's over a certain length, measured by the BATF's method, that it's not an NFA item.
I have to disagree. People who make their own firearms from 80% receivers are not in any way "out to dodge the letter of the law," any more than someone who drives 64 MPH in a 65 MPH zone is "out to dodge the letter of the law."
I have no doubt that there are at least a few people out there who have made a firearm from an 80% receiver because they could not legally buy a firearm.
 

44 AMP

Staff
I have no doubt that there are at least a few people out there who have made a firearm from an 80% receiver because they could not legally buy a firearm.

Quite probably. But that would be a crime, no matter if they used an 80% frame/receiver or dug the raw ore from the ground and refined it to for use.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are a prohibited person, you cannot legally POSSESS, buy, or build a firearm for yourself.

The entire argument that "bad guys" will make guns from 80% receivers and therefore we should restrict them is a red herring.

As to the ATF raiding some businesses over "80% receivers", is also a bit of "spun" information. What is not being made clear is (as far as I can determine at this time) that 80% receivers are Fed legal, and parts kits are Fed legal, BUT including the underfinished receiver IN a parts kit (so that all needed parts are in a single source kit) can turn that "kit" into a firearm under Fed law. Something certain "parts kit" sellers are not licensed to sell (and ship to a non -FFL).

I understand the matter is still pending a court decision, but it could very well be that in this matter, under existing law, the ATF is right.
 
A few years ago there was also a vendor of 80% AR-15 lowers who was also a manufacturer of actual, 100%, serial-numbered lower receivers. As I understand it, on Saturdays they would host 80% days -- anyone local enough to make it to their facility could come in, pop their newly-purchased 80% receiver into the comapny's CNC machine, push the button ... and however many minutes later out would come a finished AR-15 lower receiver.

Somebody blew the whistle on them, the BATFE got involved, and I don't recall the details. The result, per my fuzzy recollection, was that the BATFE ruled that when they said people were allowed to complete the final 20% themselves, that meant the people had to complete the final 20% themselves. Putting the receiver in somebody else's CNC machine, programmed with somebody else's program, and just pushing the START button doesn't qualify as finishing the last 20% yourself. To be honest, I don't have a problem with that. To me, doing that (if that is, indeed, what they were doing), does strike me as skirting the letter (not to mention the intent) of the law.

Then somewhere along the way I heard or read that the BATFE had extended that to mean that even if you did all the work on a traditional Bridgeport milling machine, you had to actually own the machine. I'm a lot less sure about that, and I don't know how to verify or refute it.
 

JohnKSa

Administrator
Quite probably. But that would be a crime, no matter if they used an 80% frame/receiver or dug the raw ore from the ground and refined it to for use.
That is certainly the most likely scenario.

The comment was made that people who make 80% firearms are not out to dodge any laws. I think that we can take it as a given that some people who do 80% builds are doing so because they feel that's the option that is least likely to get them caught trying to acquire a firearm illegally. Which would certainly be dodging laws.
The entire argument that "bad guys" will make guns from 80% receivers and therefore we should restrict them is a red herring.
I don't think we should restrict them because some people will take advantage of the availability of 80% receivers to do illegal builds. BUT, that's not the same thing as saying that people never do 80% builds to dodge laws.

Along exactly the same lines, I certainly don't think we should restrict guns because some people do illegal things with them, but it would be ludicrous for me to claim that no one ever uses guns to break the law.
 

44 AMP

Staff
Then somewhere along the way I heard or read that the BATFE had extended that to mean that even if you did all the work on a traditional Bridgeport milling machine, you had to actually own the machine. I'm a lot less sure about that, and I don't know how to verify or refute it.

It is certainly plausible that the ATF could take that position. They are, after all Govt funded and can "afford" about any position they care to take and it stays in place until refuted in court.

That being said, I don't see where they have a valid leg to stand on, requiring you to OWN the tools used. People make all kinds of things with rented, borrowed or leased tools.

If you were making a rifle for yourself, and you rented the chambering reamer, or a torque wrench, or some other tool (including the lathe) does this mean the ATF would claim you violated the law??

Suppose I had the funds to rent the CNC setup, (complete with programming) and I put the part in the machine, and I pushed the button, how is this NOT me doing it myself??

As far as I can see, the LAW doesn't address what tools may or must be used, or the level of difficulty needed to manufacture a part. Those are ADMINISTRATIVE decisions on the part of the ATF and while enough to possibly land you in court, its up to the court to decide if you actually violated the law based on how you did what you did.
 

1911_Hardball

New member
The post about prohibited persons got me thinking...................
If I had an AR rifle lower and a complete upper with a barrel less than 16" but possessed neither a pistol receiver nor a rifle length upper it could be considered constructive possession of a SBR even if the short upper was not attached to the lower.
If a prohibited person posses an 80% lower and a parts kit would that be constructive possession of a firearm?
 

44 AMP

Staff
If I had an AR rifle lower and a complete upper with a barrel less than 16" but possessed neither a pistol receiver nor a rifle length upper it could be considered constructive possession of a SBR even if the short upper was not attached to the lower.

I understand the ATF has charged people for that. Do knot know how it worked out. The key to their bringing charges seems to be that you have both under your control in the same location. If the short barrel upper is in your cabin in Michigan and the lower is in your house in Utah they don't seem to care much. But if one is in your basement, and the other in your attic, despite the fact that they are not physically assembled together they do make an issue of it.


If a prohibited person posses an 80% lower and a parts kit would that be constructive possession of a firearm?

I don't know. If the ATF says it is, you get charged. We often hear a little bit about people getting charged and never hear about the final results.

And, the law is not exactly ...consistent about many things. There are situations where, if you CAN do something (have all the parts) the law treats it the same as if you actually did the thing. Some places, You can have a "loaded firearm" without having any ammunition physically in the gun. "Constructive possession" is a slippery slope to be sure.

If you build a bomb, you can be arrested. If you try to build a bomb. you can be arrested. You could be convicted even if the bomb doesn't go off. You can even be convicted if your your bomb is so crappy it cannot go off. Govt agents have supplied inert material to potential "mad bombers" during undercover investigations, and busted them when they used it trying to make a bomb.

Sell some one dope that isn't actually dope but some other chemical and you can be busted as well. Make a silencer that doesn't work and you can be busted for that. Sometimes, all the law requires is intent, not physical action.

Right now, the law is interpreted as saying an 80% finished frame is not a firearm. But an 81% finished frame would be. Who makes that call? The govt. Proving them wrong requires a court to rule in your favor.
 
Top