disapproved

[BigWaylon]

Is one really playing with fire in the sixth ring of Hell with the Devil's daughter if one puts 5.56 and is approved and then puts a .300blk upper on it?

Here's the best answer I've seen on that...from somebody in the NFA business:

Building the gun for the first time is a slightly different issue. The potential law you could break in this case isn't an NFA law, it's perjury on a government form. By signing the Form 1, you are swearing that the description of the firearm you are building is accurate. So if you knowingly apply to build a 5.56 rifle with an 11.5", and then instead build a 300 BLK rifle with an 8.0" barrel, you have lied on that form. There's not an NFA regulation that says you have to build it exactly according to the form, but if the ATF can prove that you purposely lied on a government form submitted to them, you could be charged with perjury.

The reality is if you have the 5.56 upper you put on the Form 1, or could borrow one, you'd meet the letter of the law by simply attaching that upper first...then removing it and running whatever 300BLK upper you wanted.

The underlined part above is key. As they'd also have to prove you didn't put the upper listed on the form on that particular lower first as well. (And I'm not suggesting that you build it any other way than what's on the F1)

[domestique]

I would say that's BS. 300blk is not a caliber. It's a cartridge. The caliber is .30 or .300, or whatever the technical term is.

However, I went back and looked at my paper form, and I put 300 Blackout and it was approved.

I hope something is worked out for you, but I don't buy the explanation.

Was it Kimberly Ramsburg? As Section Chief, she ought to be able to take care of it.

I just got my eform approved today. (9" 300 blackout upper).

My caliber is listed as "300".

I wonder if I should inform the ATF of a permanent caliber change. My other SBR forms (paper filed) are "300 blk".

[domestique]

Was discussing this on another forum.



Here is a good post basically making your rejection beyond laughable.

E-Form 1 instructions specifically stated that the ATF wants the base caliber, not specific variation.

They even used 300 BLK -> 300 as an example. You probably picked 300 from the pull down list (IIRC it was a pull down list). You are fine.

From the 9/17/2013 eForms Bulletin (Page 3):

Calibers in NFA
NFA uses only the ‘base’ caliber
for describing an NFA firearm
and no ‘.’ to start. For example,
we use ‘22’ rather than ‘.22,’
’22LR,’ .22 WIN,’ etc. Similarly,
we use ‘300’ rather than ‘.300,’
‘.300 Blackout,’ ‘.300 AAC
Blackout,’ etc.

For metric descriptions, we do
include the ‘.’ when it is internal
to the ‘base’ caliber, such as
‘5.56’ or ‘7.62,’ but we do not
use the further description to
the caliber such as ‘5.56x45’ or
‘7.62x39’ for example.

Also, how would a form 1 get kicked back for listing 300 as the caliber? The ATF doesn't know what the person is building.

[Bluto]

Their "base" caliber idea is not very well thought out...
I'm looking at some of my 300blk stamps...
Form 1 for a lower: "300"
From 1 for a lower: "300blk"
Form 4 for a thunderbeast arms 30 caliber suppressor: "30"
Form 4 for a surefire socom 30 caliber suppressor: "7.62"
All different. All approved with no problem.
These were all e-forms.
Go figure...

[domestique]

Their "base" caliber idea is not very well thought out...
I'm looking at some of my 300blk stamps...
Form 1 for a lower: "300"
From 1 for a lower: "300blk"
Form 4 for a thunderbeast arms 30 caliber suppressor: "30"
Form 4 for a surefire socom 30 caliber suppressor: "7.62"
All different. All approved with no problem.
These were all e-forms.
Go figure...

What do you have engraved on your lowers?

I have "300 blk" on mine. That was my main concern.

[AFshirt]

Was it Kimberly Ramsburg? As Section Chief, she ought to be able to take care of it.

Thats her, she said to mail it to her directly with a copy of our email conversation and she would take care of it.