Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 15 to 21 of 24

Thread: 922(r) and SBR

  1. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,894
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    We transferred one a few days back, it looked like ass.
    Just the finish, or were there other issues?

    Sorry to nag but I'm getting funds put together for one right now and would rather not waste the money if these things are that bad.

  2. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,723
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by decodeddiesel View Post
    Just the finish, or were there other issues?

    Sorry to nag but I'm getting funds put together for one right now and would rather not waste the money if these things are that bad.
    Rough metal, just seemed poorly assembled. If it were my money I'd buy a real pre-89 HK.

  3. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,894
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gotm4 View Post
    Rough metal, just seemed poorly assembled. If it were my money I'd buy a real pre-89 HK.
    Well that's disappointing.

    Back on topic...

    How would this ruling effect the construction of Krinkov type SBRs from imported kits? I see what Robb is saying about changing the status of the weapon, but the whole thing is confusing as hell.

  4. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,211
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kdcgrohl View Post
    This has been the longstanding ruling of the ATF. Recently, a letter issued contradicted that. The issue is currently under review.
    Not the original, but you can see from the date it was "setlled" long ago:


    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
    Washington, D.C. 20226

    MAR 22, 1994

    LE:F:FE:RLB
    3312.5

    Mr XXX
    Address
    City, State

    Dear Mr. XXX:

    This refers to your letter of February 28, 1994, in which you
    inquire as to whether the making of certain National Firearm Act
    (NFA) weapons is prohibited by Title 18 United States Code
    (U.S.C.), Chapter 44, Section 922(r). The weapon in question is a
    FN/FAL type firearm having a barrel length of less than 16 inches
    which is assembled from an imported British L1A1 parts kit and a
    domestically manufactured frame or receiver.

    Title 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922(r) provides that it shall
    be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any
    semiautomatic rifle or shotgun which is identical to any rifle or
    shotgun prohibited from importation under 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44,
    Section 925(d)(3), as not being particularly suitable for or
    readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

    However, the Bureau has previously determined that the lawful
    making of an NFA weapon would not violate Section 922(r), since the
    section only addresses the assembly of "nonsporting" firearms, and
    not the making of NFA weapons. Therefore, the lawful making of a
    short barreled rifle would not be precluded by Section 922(r)
    .

    If you decide to proceed with your project, it will be necessary
    for you to obtain prior approval by first submitting an ATF Form 1
    (Application To Make and Register a Firearm) and paying the
    appropriate $200 making tax. Additional information relative to
    this procedure may be obtained from the following source:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
    NFA Branch, Room 5300
    650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
    Washington DC 20026

    We trust that the foregoing was responsive to your inquiry. If we
    may be of any further assistance, please contact us.

    Sincerely yours,
    [signed]
    Edward M. Owen, Jr.
    Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

  5. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,894
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Not the original, but you can see from the date it was "setlled" long ago:...
    Thank you for posting that. I have been looking for it for days.

    It's funny how every single thread I have seen on HKPro, TOS, etc. about the MKE AT-94s has turned into an NFA vs. 922(r) discussion.

  6. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    18
    Feedback Score
    0
    I know I will not make any non 922r non compliant SBrs myself.
    But I still give it a few months there will be a new letter stating the opposite of
    what the most recent one.

  7. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    3,894
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Read Renegade's post.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •