View Full Version : How is the Colt OEM recorded on the 4473? Is it a candidate for being a pistol?
So the Colt OEM that's sold with no stock (just a bare receiver extension), is that a candidate for putting a brace on with a short upper and turning into a pistol?
So the Colt OEM that's sold with no stock (just a bare receiver extension), is that a candidate for putting a brace on with a short upper and turning into a pistol?
It’s a complete rifle and is sold as such.
https://i.imgur.com/UhFIRy3.jpg
Diamondback
09-04-22, 14:12
Depends on what Colt calls it from the factory. I could see it being an "Other Title I" like the Troy A4, but if it's marketed as a rifle Colt probably papered it that way and "first rifle forevermore rifle."
I would check the copy of the form that you have. You did keep the copy and stored it in an organized fashion correct? :cool:
Evil Black Rifle
09-04-22, 19:40
The Brownell's Spares lower Colt P/N SP633784 from about 2017 is probably the only Colt lower that is pistol eligible.
.
https://i.ibb.co/xs4fHMy/Colt-spare-lower-Brownells-2.jpg (https://ibb.co/mBxX8Hm)
OutofBatt3ry
09-04-22, 20:00
I KNOW someone will correct if I'm wrong. What's written on the 4473 is "just paperwork"
IE: If you bought a pistol, or stripped lower, and it was marked as "rifle"..it doesn't matter, it was an error on paperwork.
If it didn't have a stock, and it was too long to be a pistol (26"+ OAL) then it can't be a rifle, by their definition. It's an "any other weapon", "firearm" or "title 1" if over 16" barrel installed.
Sorry, that's hard to process after reading it 13 times, re-writing, deleting it, then writing again.
"This is legal, except if that, but unless you do this, and then maybe that, but we haven't got that far" - AFT
How bad do you want a fight it in court at a later date, that's up to the owner.
Now if said lower was previously purchased as a rifle, and had a stock on + literally any functioning upper, it's always going to be a rifle. (The way the law is written) The stock is very important. "designed to be shouldered" So if one built a virgin <16" gun with a stock, it would still always be a rifle, regardless of barrel length. (Don't even get into NFA, legality, etc). Here's the real kicker...stocks don't define shit until it has a barrel installed. Complete lowers with a stock = other until pinned to a functioning upper.
If it's a functioning gun that had a stock, it's a rifle, done and done. (does it matter if the gun is functional before the stock was installed? Need a trial to decide that..the way the law is written, no, but maybe IE constructive possession, etc, etc)
The laws are ridiculous and the fact I had to edit this 17 times makes me realize it more.
To answer your question directly, if it didn't have a stock, it's legally impossible for it be a rifle by the black/white definition as you bought it, as long as it wasn't previously sold as a rifle or SBR.
This is the THING you need to know....if it is virgin, you can put a <16" barrel. If it's cherry was popped with a stock than any functional upper...it's a rifle.
So what happens if you buy a "firearm" IE no stock but over 26". I don't know. I'd assume it was never a rifle so pistol to rifle and back is GTG. I'm sure some will correct me.
Once again...the laws are silly.
Even in my best attempt, I managed to be hypocritical in my text...gerrrr...That's how the laws are written.
Back to OP. You bought a functional gun, with no stock....was it factory fresh? You need to figure that out.
I KNOW someone will correct if I'm wrong. What's written on the 4473 is "just paperwork"
IE: If you bought a pistol, or stripped lower, and it was marked as "rifle"..it doesn't matter, it was an error on paperwork.
If it didn't have a stock, and it wasn't a pistol, (IE whatever the AFT determines [less than 26 inches is their latest interpretation of "not pistol, but too short to be a rifle"]barrel length to qualify, but also doesn't have a stock...Not even going to get into rifled vs smooth bore) or it was a stripped lower, it was an "other"
How bad do you want a fight it in court at a later date, that's up to the owner.
Now if said lower was previously purchased as a rifle, and had a stock on it, it's alw
ays going to be a rifle.
The laws are ridiculous and the fact I had to edit this 17 times makes me realize it more.
To answer your question directly, if it didn't have a stock, it's legally impossible for it be a rifle by the B/W definition as you bought it, as long as it wasn't previously sold as a rifle or SBR.
This is the THING you need to know....if it is virgin, you can put a <16" barrel. If it's cherry was popped with a stock, then >16"+...it's a rifle.
So what happens if you buy a "firearm" IE no stock but over 26". I don't know. I'd assume it was never a rifle so pistol to rifle and back is GTG. I'm sure some will correct me.
Once again...the laws are silly.
That was my understanding as well. No stock, can't be a rifle period.
The Brownell's Spares lower Colt P/N SP633784 from about 2017 is probably the only Colt lower that is pistol eligible.
.
https://i.ibb.co/xs4fHMy/Colt-spare-lower-Brownells-2.jpg (https://ibb.co/mBxX8Hm)
Interestingly enough, without going back to view the thread, someone called Colt to inquire about the lowers sold by Brownell’s, and Colt informed they had come from complete rifles. Something along those lines.
You can make this as convoluted as you want. Remember, what any law says isn’t all it says. That’s why we pay lawyers. It’s your call whether something a simple as using a different lower as a pistol is inconvenient enough (or muh rights enough) to be the test case.
I KNOW someone will correct if I'm wrong. What's written on the 4473 is "just paperwork"
IE: If you bought a pistol, or stripped lower, and it was marked as "rifle"..it doesn't matter, it was an error on paperwork.
If it didn't have a stock, and it was too long to be a pistol (26"+ OAL) then it can't be a rifle, by their definition. It's an "any other weapon", "firearm" or "title 1" if over 16" barrel installed.
Sorry, that's hard to process after reading it 13 times, re-writing, deleting it, then writing again.
"This is legal, except if that, but unless you do this, and then maybe that, but we haven't got that far" - AFT
How bad do you want a fight it in court at a later date, that's up to the owner.
Now if said lower was previously purchased as a rifle, and had a stock on + literally any functioning upper, it's always going to be a rifle. (The way the law is written) The stock is very important. "designed to be shouldered" So if one built a virgin <16" gun with a stock, it would still always be a rifle, regardless of barrel length. (Don't even get into NFA, legality, etc). Here's the real kicker...stocks don't define shit until it has a barrel installed. Complete lowers with a stock = other until pinned to a functioning upper.
If it's a functioning gun that had a stock, it's a rifle, done and done. (does it matter if the gun is functional before the stock was installed? Need a trial to decide that..the way the law is written, no, but maybe IE constructive possession, etc, etc)
The laws are ridiculous and the fact I had to edit this 17 times makes me realize it more.
To answer your question directly, if it didn't have a stock, it's legally impossible for it be a rifle by the black/white definition as you bought it, as long as it wasn't previously sold as a rifle or SBR.
This is the THING you need to know....if it is virgin, you can put a <16" barrel. If it's cherry was popped with a stock than any functional upper...it's a rifle.
So what happens if you buy a "firearm" IE no stock but over 26". I don't know. I'd assume it was never a rifle so pistol to rifle and back is GTG. I'm sure some will correct me.
Once again...the laws are silly.
Even in my best attempt, I managed to be hypocritical in my text...gerrrr...That's how the laws are written.
Back to OP. You bought a functional gun, with no stock....was it factory fresh? You need to figure that out.
The only error I see is handguns can become rifles. If you put a 16" barrel on a 1911, you can add a stock.
But rifles can not become handguns and can only go shorter than 16" by becoming an AOW (no stock) or a SBR (short barrel rifle).
That was my understanding as well. No stock, can't be a rifle period.
A rifle is always a rifle unless you NFA.
However you can take an AR pistol, change the upper to minimum 16" barrel length and then add a stock.
A rifle is always a rifle unless you NFA.
However you can take an AR pistol, change the upper to minimum 16" barrel length and then add a stock.
So is the OEM a rifle or an "other?"
Evil Black Rifle
09-05-22, 10:48
The Colt Spares P/N SP633784 from Brownell's were never a rifle.
The ATF has no sense of humor, if your lower was not transferred as something other than a rifle, no amount of "But I read it on the Internet, it has to be true.", will save your ass.
https://i.ibb.co/3zV5wJh/Colt-Pistol-Lower.jpg[
The Colt Spares P/N SP633784 from Brownell's were never a rifle.
The ATF has no sense of humor, if your lower was not transferred as something other than a rifle, no amount of "But I read it on the Internet, it has to be true.", will save your ass.
https://i.ibb.co/3zV5wJh/Colt-Pistol-Lower.jpg[
What about the OEM though? It's technically not a rifle since it's sold without a stock, correct? I mean it can't be can it?
Evil Black Rifle
09-05-22, 11:35
What about the OEM though? It's technically not a rifle since it's sold without a stock, correct? I mean it can't be can it?
The OEM1 and OEM2 pictures show a lower, assembled to a rifle barreled upper, thus "rifle" if you ask me.
What does the 4473 state ?
.
The OEM1 and OEM2 pictures show a lower, assembled to a rifle barreled upper, thus "rifle" if you ask me.
What does the 4473 state ?
.
Idk, that's what I'm asking.
What the 4473 states does not define the weapon. The configuration of the weapon does. ATF says a rifle has a stock. ATF says a pistol does not have a stock.
There are probably other weapons that would be easier to prove were a pistol from the factory, but by ATF definition, if it's made without a stock, it's a pistol.
The OEM1 and OEM2 pictures show a lower, assembled to a rifle barreled upper, thus "rifle" if you ask me.
What does the 4473 state ?
4473 is irrelvant.
The pictures I have seen I would call it a pistol.
They did not have stocks (so not a rifle) and did not have front handguards (not designed to be fired with two hands). This is thus a pistol.
Evil Black Rifle
09-05-22, 14:31
An alleged FFL writes this:
When an FFL transfers a OEM6920 to a buyer, it's recorded on the Form 4473 as "Other Firearm" on Question 16 and "firearm" (or barreled action/barreled receiver) on Question 27.
After the buyer leaves he can configure that firearm however he wants: OEM6920 with one grip= "Pistol"
I would make sure your 4473 says the right things, and you get a copy of it.
Good luck.
.
4473 is irrelvant.
The pictures I have seen I would call it a pistol.
They did not have stocks (so not a rifle) and did not have front handguards (not designed to be fired with two hands). This is thus a pistol.
You're an FFL if I remember right?
You're an FFL if I remember right?
yes....
eta
It meets this definition:
(30)The term “handgun” means—
(A)a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B)any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled.
So it is a handgun, and then within handgun it is a pistol.
So is the OEM a rifle or an "other?"
Depends how the manufacturer papered it. Given that it has a rifle stock buffer tube, I imagine they are all rifles.
The OEM1 and OEM2 pictures show a lower, assembled to a rifle barreled upper, thus "rifle" if you ask me.
What does the 4473 state ?
.
The 4473 is meaningless and can't change a manufacture designated rifle to anything else.
Depends how the manufacturer papered it. Given that it has a rifle stock buffer tube, I imagine they are all rifles.
It’d be easier to just go around and around on definitions instead of accepting this.
yes....
eta
It meets this definition:
(30)The term “handgun” means—
(A)a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B)any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled.
So it is a handgun, and then within handgun it is a pistol.
Sweet! So you wouldn't have any qualms about putting a brace and short upper on it, then?
Depends how the manufacturer papered it. Given that it has a rifle stock buffer tube, I imagine they are all rifles.
Does it though? Either it meets the definition or it doesn't. They can call it whatever they want, but it is what it is. I can't see any way it can be legally called a rifle without a stock on it.
The 4473 is meaningless and can't change a manufacture designated rifle to anything else.
Does the FFL see the original designation when they receive a lower half direct from the manufacturer?
Does the FFL see the original designation when they receive a lower half direct from the manufacturer?
No. The actual designation would be a line item in their bound book.
Sweet! So you wouldn't have any qualms about putting a brace and short upper on it, then?
None it is a handgun so you can do handgun things to it
None it is a handgun so you can do handgun things to it
Thanks for the info!
Does it though? Either it meets the definition or it doesn't. They can call it whatever they want, but it is what it is. I can't see any way it can be legally called a rifle without a stock on it.
A BARE receiver can be designated a rifle or a handgun by the manufacturer. So absolutely it matters how the manufacturer classified it. This is why a "receiver only" designation was created so people could build as either. The determination is made at the manufacturer level, not by whatever box a FFL checks off on a 4473.
A BARE receiver can be designated a rifle or a handgun by the manufacturer. So absolutely it matters how the manufacturer classified it. This is why a "receiver only" designation was created so people could build as either. The determination is made at the manufacturer level, not by whatever box a FFL checks off on a 4473.
I'm not sure that's right. I'm not one to blindly trust randos on the internet, but Renegade seems pretty confident and what he said meshes with what I've been told in the past.
I'm not sure that's right. I'm not one to blindly trust randos on the internet, but Renegade seems pretty confident and what he said meshes with what I've been told in the past.
Do you really think ATF would leave it in the hands of a FFL to determine if a firearm is a handgun or a long gun?
Renegade is usually on point so I was waiting on him to check in, but if you take a rifle back to a bare receiver, it's still a rifle. And the determination is made by the manufacturer last time I checked. If he has something more current or if something changed I'm prepared to accept it.
Do you really think ATF would leave it in the hands of a FFL to determine if a firearm is a handgun or a long gun?
Renegade is usually on point so I was waiting on him to check in, but if you take a rifle back to a bare receiver, it's still a rifle. And the determination is made by the manufacturer last time I checked. If he has something more current or if something changed I'm prepared to accept it.
Well I think what Renegade is saying is that the determination is made by what it is, defined by its features, irrespective of what the manufacturer or FFL chooses to call it. There are legal definitions that aren't open to interpretation. It has no buttstock and therefore can't be a rifle, it would seem.
Well I think what Renegade is saying, and what my understanding was coming into this, is that the determination is made by what it is, defined by its features, irrespective of what the manufacturer or FFL chooses to call it. There are legal definitions that aren't open to interpretation. It has no buttstock and therefore can't be a rifle, it would seem.
Again, take a AR-15 rifle and break it down to just the receiver, now try and legally build an AR handgun.
Also take a HK-91 and put a flat cap on it. Guess what, even without a buttstock it is absolutely still a rifle.
Again, take a AR-15 rifle and break it down to just the receiver, now try and legally build an AR handgun.
Also take a HK-91 and put a flat cap on it. Guess what, even without a buttstock it is absolutely still a rifle.
If they came from the factory with stocks, then yes that's obviously true.
This might be a good time to mention this isn't the only place I've asked this specific question about this specific model, and Renegade seemingly isn't the only FFL to tell me what he did. I'm not 100% ready to say case closed and put a brace on one yet, but it's looking pretty close to being a settled question at this point, and the unanimous opinion of FFLs so far is that Renegade is correct.
If they came from the factory with stocks, then yes that's obviously true.
This might be a good time to mention this isn't the only place I've asked this specific question about this specific model, and Renegade seemingly isn't the only FFL to tell me what he did. I'm not 100% ready to say case closed and put a brace on one yet, but it's looking pretty close to being a settled question at this point, and the unanimous opinion of FFLs so far is that Renegade is correct.
If the receiver is NOT designated as a rifle, you are good to go. Really thought I said that earlier. But IF the manufacturer designated it as a rifle, then it's EXACTLY the same as if it came with stocks. It's a rifle. This is why everyone loves the pistols with braces, even the one's with 16" barrels. Put a stock on it and it's now a rifle.
A BARE receiver can be designated a rifle or a handgun by the manufacturer. So absolutely it matters how the manufacturer classified it. This is why a "receiver only" designation was created so people could build as either. The determination is made at the manufacturer level, not by whatever box a FFL checks off on a 4473.
No a bare receiver is just that, a receiver. Classifying it any other way is an error.
There are two issues being confused here
1 is what is it at time of mfg, and in this case a receiver is a receiver at time of mfg. It is not yet a rifle or handgun
2 is what it is after it has been made into something and remade into something else. This is the confusing part as some definitions have the wording “remade” which mean it is not what it appears to be since it was remade.
See definition of handgun I posted above. Handguns cannot be remade from another weapon like rifles can.
No a bare receiver is just that, a receiver. Classifying it any other way is an error.
There are two issues being confused here
1 is what is it at time of mfg, and in this case a receiver is a receiver at time of mfg. It is not yet a rifle or handgun
2 is what it is after it has been made into something and remade into something else. This is the confusing part as some definitions have the wording “remade” which mean it is not what it appears to be since it was remade.
See definition of handgun I posted above. Handguns cannot be remade from another weapon like rifles can.
Ok, help me with my confusion.
In the past 1911 kits have allowed you to install a 16" barrel and then a stock, thus creating a 1911 rifle from a handgun.
I agree the designation begins at the time of mfg. but when Colt makes OEM models with 16" M4 barrels and M4 stock tubes, is that not a rifle even if it doesn't yet have a stock?
And finally the big one, if Colt makes a receiver ONLY but they designate it as a M4 "long arm" receiver, how can you make a handgun from that when it's been designated as a long gun by the manufacturer?
It is really possible to undue their stated configuration by how we enter the classification in our bound book?
I once had a FMP receiver and the ATF inspector really wanted me to indicate it as a handgun or long gun but I explained to her that it was neither yet and wasn't sure what the build was going to be. So I know it some cases that does happen but FMP to the best of my research didn't import them as rifle receivers.
I agree the designation begins at the time of mfg. but when Colt makes OEM models with 16" M4 barrels and M4 stock tubes, is that not a rifle even if it doesn't yet have a stock?
If it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder, it is not a rifle. The "Stock Tube" is more accurately called a buffer tube, or a receiver extension tube, and is not a stock, nobody shoulders it nor is it designed to be shouldered.
And finally the big one, if Colt makes a receiver ONLY but they designate it as a M4 "long arm" receiver, how can you make a handgun from that when it's been designated as a long gun by the manufacturer?
No such legal designation as "long arm' receiver. Just frame or receiver. So that would be an entry error and should be corrected to just receiver.
It is really possible to undue their stated configuration by how we enter the classification in our bound book?
Yes as above if it is an error, you can correct it.
I once had a FMP receiver and the ATF inspector really wanted me to indicate it as a handgun or long gun but I explained to her that it was neither yet and wasn't sure what the build was going to be. So I know it some cases that does happen but FMP to the best of my research didn't import them as rifle receivers.
Most IOIs now know this is incorrect and it is just a receiver.
If the receiver is NOT designated as a rifle, you are good to go. Really thought I said that earlier. But IF the manufacturer designated it as a rifle, then it's EXACTLY the same as if it came with stocks. It's a rifle. This is why everyone loves the pistols with braces, even the one's with 16" barrels. Put a stock on it and it's now a rifle.
You're not getting it. You're talking about taking the stock off of a factory rifle and making a pistol out of it, whereas I'm talking about putting a brace on a firearm that left the factory without a stock in the first place.
If it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder, it is not a rifle. The "Stock Tube" is more accurately called a buffer tube, or a receiver extension tube, and is not a stock, nobody shoulders it nor is it designed to be shouldered.
Thank you. I had not realized that. I called it a "stock" tube to differentiate from the shorter "receiver extension tubes" that used to be encountered on AR pistols. I also recall a few people who tried to install standard "receiver extension tube" on AR pistols and ATF came back hard with the "would be an unregistered SBR" crap, but this was before the first arm braces were developed.
Hammer_Man
09-07-22, 11:51
I just called Colt customer service, and I was told by their representative that the OEM models are sold as rifles, and designated as rifles on the 4473. You’re welcome.
I just called Colt customer service, and I was told by their representative that the OEM models are sold as rifles, and designated as rifles on the 4473. You’re welcome.
They're not the ones who fill out the 4473. And like Renegade and others have said, that's not what determines what it is.
They're not the ones who fill out the 4473. And like Renegade and others have said, that's not what determines what it is.
By all means add a short upper and a arm brace then. Nothing anyone says here is gonna change your mind.
By all means add a short upper and a arm brace then. Nothing anyone says here is gonna change your mind.
So let me get this straight.
I'm constantly accused by you and your posse of ignoring "SMEs."
And here I am following the advice of the resident SME on this subject, which, as I've stated already, just so happens to be in agreement with other FFLs on other boards.
And somehow that's still not good enough for you???
What the actual F dude...
My dude.
https://i.imgur.com/GqwExKb.jpg
It’ll be OK. Yes, I’m jabbing at you. But it’ll be OK. Things aren’t as clear as some might want to present. If the ATF picks you out of millions to pick at, they will present their case before a judge that likely knows nothing. And this specific scenario can absolutely be spun in different ways. You asked about a specific weapon and you received a mixture of responses about general scenarios and this specific scenario. Pick what you want to do, go to classes, and post pictures.
I just called Colt customer service, and I was told by their representative that the OEM models are sold as rifles, and designated as rifles on the 4473. You’re welcome.
LOL.
The first clue they were making things up was claiming they knew how 4473s were being filled out. I am sure they think they are rifles. Just like they thought it was legal to replace M16A1 Machine Gun receivers with M16A2 Machine Gun receivers after 1986. Oops.
It is pretty simple really. The US Code has definitions, and anyone can read them to see where this fits.
The core problem, which Colt created, was selling a firearm that was not completed, and not understanding the consequences of how it could get completed.
So let me get this straight.
I'm constantly accused by you and your posse of ignoring "SMEs."
And here I am following the advice of the resident SME on this subject, which, as I've stated already, just so happens to be in agreement with other FFLs on other boards.
And somehow that's still not good enough for you???
What the actual F dude...
I said go ahead.
I said go ahead.
You were being a total dick to me for no reason, and gaslighting me and everyone else on top of it.
On the contrary, my mind was changed. Just not by you.
The core problem, which Colt created, was selling a firearm that was not completed, and not understanding the consequences of how it could get completed.
Serious question.
I remember RRA selling lowers that were designated as pistol lowers (short stock extension) and ones that were designated as rifles (common receiver extension) but without a stock because they offered several options.
RRA would sell you a short upper with the pistol lowers but would NOT sell you one with the common stock extension because it would be a SBR and they made you order a registered SBR if you wanted that config.
Did something recently change with the addition of "receiver only" classification being added, and by "recent" I think about 5 years ago, to allow manufacturers to add a common stock extension and still allow for assembly as a handgun? Because I really thought that fell into "readily converted" territory.
I remember they used to perm mount those damn pistol receiver extensions which made converting to a registered SBR a bit of a pain.
You were being a total dick to me for no reason, and gaslighting me and everyone else on top of it.
On the contrary, my mind was changed. Just not by you.
You can go ahead and believe all that too if you wish.
Serious question.
I remember RRA selling lowers that were designated as pistol lowers (short stock extension) and ones that were designated as rifles (common receiver extension) but without a stock because they offered several options.
RRA would sell you a short upper with the pistol lowers but would NOT sell you one with the common stock extension because it would be a SBR and they made you order a registered SBR if you wanted that config.
Did something recently change with the addition of "receiver only" classification being added, and by "recent" I think about 5 years ago, to allow manufacturers to add a common stock extension and still allow for assembly as a handgun? Because I really thought that fell into "readily converted" territory.
I remember they used to perm mount those damn pistol receiver extensions which made converting to a registered SBR a bit of a pain.
Evil Black Rifle answered that three pages ago. Even if they did have stocks, they still wouldn't be rifles. RRA was simply looking out for the lowest common denominator, as a courtesy.
For something to be a rifle, it must have a buttstock and a rifled barrel.
As Renegade and several others have pointed out, these are definitions set forth by congress that can't be changed by the manufacturer or FFL by misidentifying it on a form. Interesting you accused me of being incapable of changing my mind when it seems you're the one whose mind simply can't be changed on this matter.
Evil Black Rifle answered that three pages ago. Even if they did have stocks, they still wouldn't be rifles. RRA was simply looking out for the lowest common denominator, as a courtesy.
For something to be a rifle, it must have a buttstock and a rifled barrel.
As Renegade and several others have pointed out, these are definitions set forth by congress that can't be changed by the manufacturer or FFL by misidentifying it on a form. Interesting you accused me of being incapable of changing my mind when it seems you're the one whose mind simply can't be changed on this matter.
Wasn't asking you, I already know what you think.
It should be a firearm and not a pistol as it’s over 26” oal and it has a longer than 16” barrel, however colt and the NFA/atf with their asinine laws kinda screws us over here.
I’m under the impression that what Colt lists on their AFMER absolutely matters, and in the case of the OEM that would be a rifle. Colt also advertises it as a rifle https://www.colt.com/detail-page/colt-le6920-oem1-556-161-a2-blk
This statement from the ATF reinforces this
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-i-purchase-firearm-and-manufactureremanufacture-it-different-firearm-do-i-need-report
There is also this which is an excellent read.
https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download
Wasn't asking you, I already know what you think.
It's not what I think, it's what the ATF said in black and white, and if you had actually bothered to read the thread you would know the question you just asked had already been definitively answered four pages ago.
It's not what I think, it's what the ATF said in black and white, and if you had actually bothered to read the thread you would know the question you just asked had already been definitively answered four pages ago.
I think we have arrived at the part of the discussion where I'm going to be forced to use "I know you are...but what am I?"
Again, didn't ask YOU. Not interested in what YOUR belief is in the matter. Not seeking YOUR opinion on the issue. Not asking you to direct me to the information you happen to agree with.
It should be a firearm and not a pistol as it’s over 26” oal and it has a longer than 16” barrel, however colt and the NFA/atf with their asinine laws kinda screws us over here.
I’m under the impression that what Colt lists on their AFMER absolutely matters, and in the case of the OEM that would be a rifle. Colt also advertises it as a rifle https://www.colt.com/detail-page/colt-le6920-oem1-556-161-a2-blk
This statement from the ATF reinforces this
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-i-purchase-firearm-and-manufactureremanufacture-it-different-firearm-do-i-need-report
There is also this which is an excellent read.
https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download
I agree it strikes me as being a "firearm" (which is why I initially assumed it would be recorded as "other" if not as rifle), but that shouldn't affect its ability to take a brace and sub 16 inch barrel should it? That is, despite being a "firearm" and not a pistol, it would still be legal to put a brace and short barrel on it, or...? I'm vaguely aware that some people make the OAL greater than 26 inches so they can put a VFG on it.
I think we have arrived at the part of the discussion where I'm going to be forced to use "I know you are...but what am I?"
Again, didn't ask YOU. Not interested in what YOUR belief is in the matter. Not seeking YOUR opinion on the issue. Not asking you to direct me to the information you happen to agree with.
https://i.ibb.co/3zV5wJh/Colt-Pistol-Lower.jpg
And I'M not the one answering you. And it is not MY belief. It's right there from the man himself in black and white.
Hammer_Man
09-08-22, 06:12
Things are getting a bit heated here. I also wrote an email to Arms Unlimited regarding the matter, hopefully they respond quickly.
I can see how these could be classified as a “other” or “firearm”. As such you would have to be 21 to buy one.
Serious question.
I remember RRA selling lowers that were designated as pistol lowers (short stock extension) and ones that were designated as rifles (common receiver extension) but without a stock because they offered several options.
RRA would sell you a short upper with the pistol lowers but would NOT sell you one with the common stock extension because it would be a SBR and they made you order a registered SBR if you wanted that config.
Did something recently change with the addition of "receiver only" classification being added, and by "recent" I think about 5 years ago, to allow manufacturers to add a common stock extension and still allow for assembly as a handgun? Because I really thought that fell into "readily converted" territory.
I remember they used to perm mount those damn pistol receiver extensions which made converting to a registered SBR a bit of a pain.
ATF clarified that a receiver without a barrel is a receiver, even if it has a stock on it. They even wrote this on the 4473 instructions so FFLs would get it right.
It should be a firearm and not a pistol as it’s over 26” oal and it has a longer than 16” barrel]
I posted the definition of handgun above. There are no OAL or BBL length restrictions on handguns. The only restrictions are short stock and designed to be fired with one hand.
It is complicated as some firearms meet more than one definition.
https://i.ibb.co/3zV5wJh/Colt-Pistol-Lower.jpg
And I'M not the one answering you. And it is not MY belief. It's right there from the man himself in black and white.
Oh a determination letter, that's slightly more useful than your opinion. Please stop replying to me.
ATF clarified that a receiver without a barrel is a receiver, even if it has a stock on it. They even wrote this on the 4473 instructions so FFLs would get it right.
So this was a recent change with the updated 4473s that had "Other Firearm (receiver, frame) option? Looks like this was revised May, 2020. Is the new ATF position concurrent with that?
So this was a recent change with the updated 4473s that had "Other Firearm (receiver, frame) option? Looks like this was revised May, 2020. Is the new ATF position concurrent with that?
Yes I think the clarification was much earlier than that. Keep in mind nothing changed, they just helped FFLs who were incorrectly identifying firearms in the a&d book or 4473s
I posted the definition of handgun above. There are no OAL or BBL length restrictions on handguns. The only restrictions are short stock and designed to be fired with one hand.
It is complicated as some firearms meet more than one definition.
So you're saying it meets both the definition of a handgun and a firearm?
I did wonder about the OAL and barrel length. If you search Google there are people saying handguns have to be under 16" and 26" OAL but where they're getting it I don't know. I was able to find some revolvers with 16" barrels.
But in any case, it's hands down without a doubt a handgun and should be marked that way, correct?
Oh a determination letter, that's slightly more useful than your opinion. Please stop replying to me.
Right back atcha there. If you would stop trolling up my thread though that would be awesome! Unlike you I have an actual question that can't be answered with a quick Google search.:rolleyes:
So you're saying it meets both the definition of a handgun and a firearm?
No I meant the overall process, did not mean to confuse
I did wonder about the OAL and barrel length. If you search Google there are people saying handguns have to be under 16" and 26" OAL but where they're getting it I don't know. I was able to find some revolvers with 16" barrels.
Yeah lots think that but the law says otherwise.
But in any case, it's hands down without a doubt a handgun and should be marked that way, correct?
It meets the definition of a handgun, no stock and designed for one hand.
This is not hard. Just look at the federal definitions and see which one fits.
Yeah lots think that but the law says otherwise.
It meets the definition of a handgun, no stock and designed for one hand.
This is not hard. Just look at the federal definitions and see which one fits.
Right on, appreciate it. I'm 100% satisfied you're correct about it being a handgun. Just no other way to slice it, from a classification perspective.
On the issue of the manufacturer reporting it as a rifle, though, do you know if the ATF has ever addressed that issue? Can you just ignore that completely or could that possibly have some implications down the road if the ATF were to ever cross reference the serial number?
On the issue of the manufacturer reporting it as a rifle, though, do you know if the ATF has ever addressed that issue? Can you just ignore that completely or could that possibly have some implications down the road if the ATF were to ever cross reference the serial number?
ATF likely does not know. These are effectively 6920 with two parts missing. It seems Colt is putting them in the book just like a 6920.
I have never heard of anyone getting jammed up, whether it is one of these or even a receiver where it is undisputed it was originally a rifle.
ATF likely does not know. These are effectively 6920 with two parts missing. It seems Colt is putting them in the book just like a 6920.
I have never heard of anyone getting jammed up, whether it is one of these or even a receiver where it is undisputed it was originally a rifle.
I'm surprised there's not an open and shut answer to this one. It seems like it's probably really common for manufacturers to misidentify stuff in their reports, and I would have to assume it goes way beyond the obvious like the OEM. Like I would imagine a lot of the lower receivers that shipped with stocks from various manufacturers were probably misidentified by employees as rifles.
To that point, is it even remotely possible that Colt could have had these made as rifles with furniture, then subsequently removed said furniture to sell them as OEMs? I feel like that in and of itself would be an admission of wrongdoing on Colt's part if that's the claim they're making, because that would be remanufacturing an already manufactured rifle into a handgun without reporting it, would it not?
ATF likely does not know. These are effectively 6920 with two parts missing. It seems Colt is putting them in the book just like a 6920.
I have never heard of anyone getting jammed up, whether it is one of these or even a receiver where it is undisputed it was originally a rifle.
And that is the part that concerns me. ATF is famous for not adhering to their own definitions. Christ they have foreign SBRs defined as "presample machine guns" for purposes of classification and we just recently saw them change the definition of a "machine gun" to include things that are certainly not machine guns.
So when taken with things like "once a rifle, always a rifle" I'm less than comfortable trusting that ATF is going to be good to me if I brace something like an OEM and then point to their definitions or determination letters.
One last thing, and here I thought I was 100%. Are you saying at the manufacturing level (Colt, BCM, RRA, etc.) these items are NOT recorded as a rifle, handgun or other firearm?
To that point, is it even remotely possible that Colt could have had these made as rifles with furniture, then subsequently removed said furniture to sell them as OEMs?
Would not surprise me in least if these were built out as 6920s and they de-furnitured them. That would a text book Colt move.
One last thing, and here I thought I was 100%. Are you saying at the manufacturing level (Colt, BCM, RRA, etc.) these items are NOT recorded as a rifle, handgun or other firearm?
They have to go into the A book as something and according to the guy above who called Colt, they enter them as rifles.
They have to go into the A book as something and according to the guy above who called Colt, they enter them as rifles.
So with the rule change, does that mean you can now take a firearm a manufacturer has designated a rifle and simply by removing the stock and the upper (or barrel) and change it's classification to a handgun?
Would not surprise me in least if these were built out as 6920s and they de-furnitured them. That would a text book Colt move.
If Colt did admit to doing that though, that would technically be a crime, wouldn't it? If I understand the ATF guidelines, they're saying that once manufactured as something, any addition or subtraction of parts that changes the category is considered remanufacturing and must be reported?
I guess what I'm getting at is if Colt did have stocks on these at some point maybe they're not likely to ever admit it? And if they did admit to it, that would be on them, not the dude who bought the gun in whatever configuration they shipped it out in?
So with the rule change, does that mean you can now take a firearm a manufacturer has designated a rifle and simply by removing the stock and the upper (or barrel) and change it's classification to a handgun?
No rules have changed. Rifles cannot become handguns
If Colt did admit to doing that though, that would technically be a crime, wouldn't it? If I understand the ATF guidelines, they're saying that once manufactured as something, any addition or subtraction of parts that changes the category is considered remanufacturing and must be reported?
I guess what I'm getting at is if Colt did have stocks on these at some point maybe they're not likely to ever admit it? And if they did admit to it, that would be on them, not the dude who bought the gun in whatever configuration they shipped it out in?
No crime. If it really was a 6920 then it was correctly entered. Removing stock from a rifle does not make it a handgun. It can never be a handgun
But they should tell folks when selling it it has been modified since being made.
No crime. If it really was a 6920 then it was correctly entered. Removing stock from a rifle does not make it a handgun. It can never be a handgun
But they should tell folks when selling it it has been modified since being made.
This isn't quite the same since Colt didn't acquire it from another manufacturer, but I'm wondering if maybe the same rule applies to a manufacturer that "remanufactures" their own rifle into a pistol.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-i-purchase-firearm-and-manufactureremanufacture-it-different-firearm-do-i-need-report
You are a licensed manufacturer (type 07 or type 10 FFL) and obtain a rifle from a licensee other than a type 07 or type 10 FFL, or from a non-licensee. You then remanufacture the rifle into a pistol and sell it. This would be included in your AFMER report because your modification resulted in a change to the firearm’s type (i.e. from rifle to pistol). This would also be reportable for rifles turned into short-barreled rifles, semi-automatic weapons turned into machineguns, or any other remanufacturing that changes the AFMER classification of the weapon.
So in that hypothetical where Colt had taken the furniture off of already manufactured LE6920s, it seems like at least in certain situations the ATF considers that to be "remanufacturing."
No rules have changed. Rifles cannot become handguns
So in that case, IF Colt entered these as rifles and even if no stock was ever put on it, and they were 6920s pulled before the furniture was added, how can they possibly be considered handguns?
No crime. If it really was a 6920 then it was correctly entered. Removing stock from a rifle does not make it a handgun. It can never be a handgun
But they should tell folks when selling it it has been modified since being made.
That was MY original understanding.
I posted the definition of handgun above. There are no OAL or BBL length restrictions on handguns. The only restrictions are short stock and designed to be fired with one hand.
It is complicated as some firearms meet more than one definition.
No crime. If it really was a 6920 then it was correctly entered. Removing stock from a rifle does not make it a handgun. It can never be a handgun
But they should tell folks when selling it it has been modified since being made.
True, 26” oal is what atf considers the limit for concealing.
And yes the oem could be classified as either, which makes it complicated. Unfortunately colt advertises it as a rifle which imo kills any chance of it being a pistol.
So in that case, IF Colt entered these as rifles and even if no stock was ever put on it, and they were 6920s pulled before the furniture was added, how can they possibly be considered handguns?
Well if it never had a stock, it was never a rifle to begin with. So they erred when they entered it as a rifle. And it should be corrected to whatever it is.
True, 26” oal is what atf considers the limit for concealing.
Yes and that is backed up by Case Law of a guy who mailed an SBS.
Well if it never had a stock, it was never a rifle to begin with. So they erred when they entered it as a rifle. And it should be corrected to whatever it is.
Thanks for taking the time. Seriously not trying to play any "gotcha" games, I know you are usually up on this crap. But I wouldn't want to trust my well being to "Colt made a mistake" when potentially dealing with the ATF.
This isn't as nebulous as 922r compliance where most ATF agents couldn't begin to tell the difference between a domestic and foreign manufactured part. My concern is ATF would simply look at how Colt registered the firearms in question and that would be the end of any discussion or debate.
I can remember when guys were getting jammed up for having M-16 bolt carriers in their AR-15s, and then Olympic and I think even Colt (for a time) starting using M-16 bolt carriers and ATF had approved them. Went on back in the 80s if my memory is working correctly.
I can remember when guys were getting jammed up for having M-16 bolt carriers in their AR-15s, and then Olympic and I think even Colt (for a time) starting using M-16 bolt carriers and ATF had approved them. Went on back in the 80s if my memory is working correctly.
Who exactly got jammed up for having an auto carrier?
Anyone?
Who exactly got jammed up for having an auto carrier?
Anyone?
People I knew. Pre internet days.
Pretty sure it was covered by Dan Shea in the Machine Gun Dealers Bible as well. These days it's zero problem. But it's an example of the evolving rules and regs that ATF enforces.
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 10:51
This is definitely worth 9 pages of speculation.
This is definitely worth 9 pages of speculation.
And yet you still felt the need to reply. Fascinating.
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 18:42
And yet you still felt the need to reply. Fascinating.
Not nearly as fascinating as iron sights innagrass threads but it'll do.
Not nearly as fascinating as iron sights innagrass threads but it'll do.
FYI, the system logs your visits to my profile page when you're stalking me around the site. Seriously, dude, I'm not into you. Flattered but no thank you!
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 20:55
FYI, the system logs your visits to my profile page when you're stalking me around the site. Seriously, dude, I'm not into you. Flattered but no thank you!
I clicked your profile a few weeks ago to find your red dot thread so I could show it to a few friends who missed it. I mean, if that's what it takes for you to jump to "hey this guy wants to sex my butt" that says a lot more about you than it does me.
I clicked your profile a few weeks ago to find your red dot thread so I could show it to a few friends who missed it. I mean, if that's what it takes for you to jump to "hey this guy wants to sex my butt" that says a lot more about you than it does me.
Yea dude it's creepy as ****. The fact that you say it like it's not makes it ten times creepier than it was already.
Yea dude it's creepy as ****. The fact that you say it like it's not makes it ten times creepier than it was already.
:confused:
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 22:01
Yea dude it's creepy as ****. The fact that you say it like it's not makes it ten times creepier than it was already.
The left sees Nazis everywhere because they want them to be there
Okie sees dudes that wanna play hide the salami because he wants them to be there
:confused:
Months ago he and I had a very minor difference of opinion, and ever since then I can't start a thread or comment in a thread without him showing up to troll (this thread being a typical example).
So of course I'm wondering, how does this guy manage to be johnny on the spot every time I post on this site?
Well lo and behold, I noticed your profile page will not only tell others all the posts you made, but will also tell you who's been looking (handy little feature).
And sure enough, for months now, he's always in the "10 most recent visitors" on my profile page.
The left sees Nazis everywhere because they want them to be there
Okie sees dudes that wanna play hide the salami because he wants them to be there
Dude, I'm genuinely asking you to leave me alone, for your own good if nothing else. It's not normal for a grown man to have a very minor disagreement with a stranger on the internet and his response be to stalk that person for months. You can make light of it if you want, but it is what it is.
The first time I noticed your name pop up on my profile wasn't "a few weeks ago," it was a few months ago, and it's been there ever since.
And it wasn't coincidence that I went and looked either. It was already beyond obvious by that point that you were somehow stalking me around the site.
And speaking of months ago...dude, it was months ago. Just let it go already.
FYI, one click on a username views the profile. It’s not like it’s a big secret or a grand conspiracy either way.
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 22:34
Dude, I'm genuinely asking you to leave me alone, for your own good if nothing else. It's not normal for a grown man to have a very minor disagreement with a stranger on the internet and his response be to stalk that person for months. You can make light of it if you want, but it is what it is.
The first time I noticed your name pop up on my profile wasn't "a few weeks ago," it was a few months ago, and it's been there ever since.
And it wasn't coincidence that I went and looked either. It was already beyond obvious by that point that you were somehow stalking me around the site.
And speaking of months ago...dude, it was months ago. Just let it go already.
Your red dot thread is one of the greatest threads in the history of the internet because it shows just how little someone can know about something and just how far they're willing to go to double down on their stupidity in order to avoid admitting they're wrong. The search function on this site blows so I went to your profile to find the thread to link to a couple people that missed it. That's it. I know you wish it was more but it just isn't.
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 22:35
FYI, one click on a username views the profile. It’s not like it’s a big secret or a grand conspiracy either way.
To him it is.
To him it is.
It wasn't "one click," dude. C'mon, let's at least be honest here. You go there on a regular basis to see what posts I've made so you can make troll posts in response. Just like you did in this one. I've been too much of a gentleman to call you out on it before now, and honestly thought you'd found something better to do with your time, but I guess not.
FYI, one click on a username views the profile. It’s not like it’s a big secret or a grand conspiracy either way.
Coming from the dude who admitted to coordinating with his BFF Vicious prior to coming into someone else's thread to hijack it for the express purpose of trolling me, just like Five Point Five Six did here.
How do I know you're one of the "friends" he was alluding to a few posts ago.:rolleyes:
I guess when he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar he had to PM some reinforcements.:lol:
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 22:54
Coming from the dude who admitted to coordinating with his BFF Vicious prior to coming into someone else's thread to hijack it for the express purpose of trolling me, just like Five Point Five Six did here.
How do I know you're one of the "friends" he was alluding to a few posts ago.:rolleyes:
I guess when he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar he had to PM some reinforcements.:lol:
Waylander isn't. I don't believe he and I have ever communicated. But keep up with your wild conspiracies if it makes you happy.
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 22:55
It wasn't "one click," dude. C'mon, let's at least be honest here. You go there on a regular basis to see what posts I've made so you can make troll posts in response. Just like you did in this one. I've been too much of a gentleman to call you out on it before now, and honestly thought you'd found something better to do with your time, but I guess not.
I found this thread by opening General AR Discussion. It was the first or second thread.
Waylander isn't. I don't believe he and I have ever communicated. But keep up with your wild conspiracies if it makes you happy.
C'mon dude, tell the truth. We were all there at the okie meeting last week. It's where we formed our "How are we gonna get even with okie because we want him so badly" plan of action. We all agreed that YOU would be the one to click on his profile and gather important information and the rest of us would act as internet stealth operators who were seemingly independent actors.
But we have underestimated okie and his brilliant strategic mind, we are discovered.
Waylander isn't. I don't believe he and I have ever communicated. But keep up with your wild conspiracies if it makes you happy.
Yes, it's pure coincidence that you find yourself in an embarrassing situation and two minutes later Waylander shows up to your rescue. Waylander, the other dude who's been stalking me, the dude who not more than a week ago made a not so thinly veiled tribute thread to me.
I believe that as much as I believe you've only been to my profile "one time a few weeks ago."
C'mon dude, tell the truth. We were all there at the okie meeting last week. It's where we formed our "How are we gonna get even with okie because we want him so badly" plan of action. We all agreed that YOU would be the one to click on his profile and gather important information and the rest of us would act as internet stealth operators who were seemingly independent actors.
But we have underestimated okie and his brilliant strategic mind, we are discovered.
Coming from one of the main participants in Waylander's "let's bash Okie" thread, your sudden presence here supports that notion, yes.
Coming from one of the main participants in Waylander's "let's bash Okie" thread, your sudden presence here supports that notion, yes.
Sorry I'm too busy thinking about okie to respond to okie. I might even click on his profile, but that will make him think he's Epic and I don't want him to know he's Epic.
Also I've been here since Page 1, my presence isn't "sudden."
:lol:
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 23:25
C'mon dude, tell the truth. We were all there at the okie meeting last week. It's where we formed our "How are we gonna get even with okie because we want him so badly" plan of action. We all agreed that YOU would be the one to click on his profile and gather important information and the rest of us would act as internet stealth operators who were seemingly independent actors.
But we have underestimated okie and his brilliant strategic mind, we are discovered.
The Fox is in the hen house. Shut it down.
The Fox is in the hen house. Shut it down.
Authorization Code acceptable. Will revert to stealth ops, and stay “sub” on “WASFCD”. Contact my supervisor, and check. Over and out.
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 23:28
Yes, it's pure coincidence that you find yourself in an embarrassing situation and two minutes later Waylander shows up to your rescue. Waylander, the other dude who's been stalking me, the dude who not more than a week ago made a not so thinly veiled tribute thread to me.
I believe that as much as I believe you've only been to my profile "one time a few weeks ago."
I'm not embarrassed for anyone but you.
This is quite funny though, the list of people "stalking" you just keeps growing.
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 23:34
Yes, it's pure coincidence that you find yourself in an embarrassing situation and two minutes later Waylander shows up to your rescue. Waylander, the other dude who's been stalking me, the dude who not more than a week ago made a not so thinly veiled tribute thread to me.
I believe that as much as I believe you've only been to my profile "one time a few weeks ago."
I clicked on Waylander's profile to find that thread. Is that stalking him? Should he be scared?
I'm not embarrassed for anyone but you.
This is quite funny though, the list of people "stalking" you just keeps growing.
If you're not embarrassed then why did you lie about how often you visit my profile?
Five_Point_Five_Six
09-09-22, 23:45
If you're not embarrassed then why did you lie about how often you visit my profile?
I didn't. But let's say I visit your profile every day. What are you gonna do? Gonna cry? Piss your pants maybe? Maybe even fardt and shidt?
I didn't. But let's say I visit your profile every day. What are you gonna do? Gonna cry? Piss your pants maybe? Maybe even fardt and shidt?
I can't prove it, that's true, but I know you know I know, and that's good enough for me.
And you can downplay it all you want, but there's no excuse for a grown man harboring such ill will that he would take a friendly disagreement for months on end to this extreme. I honestly don't know what I said that would rustle your jimmies so hard that you would still be on this...what...like three or four months later??? I mean, seriously, how long has it been?
It's time to let it go.
Hammer_Man
09-10-22, 00:26
Our forum has reached a new low. This is why we can’t have nice things around here.
Our forum has reached a new low. This is why we can’t have nice things around here.
Hey look! It's another frequent flyer on the Okie profile express! What are the odds...
I have to admit, as shamed as I am to admit this, I truly would like to read the PMs flying around yall's little clique right now.
As for having nice things, we were having a nice thing here in this thread until you guys showed up (well for the most part).
Hammer_Man
09-10-22, 00:52
Hey look! It's another frequent flyer on the Okie profile express! What are the odds...
I have to admit, as shamed as I am to admit this, I truly would like to read the PMs flying around yall's little clique right now.
As for having nice things, we were having a nice thing here in this thread until you guys showed up (well for the most part).
I recall a thread was created by someone claiming that the only way to get a true mil spec trigger, was to purchase a full auto Colt trigger and modify it to make it semi auto. I thought that thread might have come from you, so I looked at your profile to see if it was in your history.
You’re on a public forum, anybody registered as a user on this sight can view your profile. Lots of people have visited my profile as well, doesn’t mean they’re conspiring against me.
Hey look! It's another frequent flyer on the Okie profile express! What are the odds...
I have to admit, as shamed as I am to admit this, I truly would like to read the PMs flying around yall's little clique right now.
As for having nice things, we were having a nice thing here in this thread until you guys showed up (well for the most part).
LOL. EVERYONE is after okie. "Always after me lucky charms."
I found this thread by opening General AR Discussion. It was the first or second thread.
The super secret squirrel stalker feature I used is Timeline or New Posts if one is using a web browser. Tell all your/our friends.
C'mon dude, tell the truth. We were all there at the okie meeting last week. It's where we formed our "How are we gonna get even with okie because we want him so badly" plan of action. We all agreed that YOU would be the one to click on his profile and gather important information and the rest of us would act as internet stealth operators who were seemingly independent actors.
But we have underestimated okie and his brilliant strategic mind, we are discovered.
Okie found MY thread. I think he’s stalking ME now!
I recall a thread was created by someone claiming that the only way to get a true mil spec trigger, was to purchase a full auto Colt trigger and modify it to make it semi auto. I thought that thread might have come from you, so I looked at your profile to see if it was in your history.
You’re on a public forum, anybody registered as a user on this sight can view your profile. Lots of people have visited my profile as well, doesn’t mean they’re conspiring against me.
I totally forgot about the epic Colt LPK thread. Almost as good as innagrass.
I recall a thread was created by someone claiming that the only way to get a true mil spec trigger, was to purchase a full auto Colt trigger and modify it to make it semi auto. I thought that thread might have come from you, so I looked at your profile to see if it was in your history.
You’re on a public forum, anybody registered as a user on this sight can view your profile. Lots of people have visited my profile as well, doesn’t mean they’re conspiring against me.
That's giving yourselves way too much credit. More like an online clique of grown ass men acting like middle school girls.
The super secret squirrel stalker feature I used is Timeline or New Posts if one is using a web browser. Tell all your/our friends.
Okie found MY thread. I think he’s stalking ME now!
I totally forgot about the epic Colt full auto lower thread.
LOL. Go to any search engine and type "m4carbine.net okie innagrass" and you get the greatest hits. No need to click on his profile which he thinks is the same as sending a valentine.
That's giving yourselves way too much credit. More like an online clique of grown ass men acting like middle school girls.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51856571691_ee0587e034_z.jpg
Looks like you need to add utahjeepr, Alpha-17, Inkslinger, LowSpeed_HighDrag, B Cart, titsonritz and a few others from this thread to your "Enemies of Carlotta" list.
Epic Thread #1
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?233971-Am-I-the-only-one-starting-to-prefer-iron-sights
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51856571691_ee0587e034_z.jpg
Looks like you need to add utahjeepr, Alpha-17, Inkslinger, LowSpeed_HighDrag, B Cart, titsonritz and a few others from this thread to your "Enemies of Carlotta" list.
Epic Thread #1
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?233971-Am-I-the-only-one-starting-to-prefer-iron-sights
And here we come to the crux of the issue. A thread made six months ago, that rustled their jimmies so hard they apparently just can't let it go. And apparently now have to stalk me and troll every other post I make for the rest of eternity, all because their egos can't handle someone having an original thought that's outside their little box.
Normal people can politely disagree and move on. Psychopaths not so much.
And here we come to the crux of the issue. A thread made six months ago, that rustled their jimmies so hard they apparently just can't let it go. And apparently now have to stalk me and troll every other post I make for the rest of eternity, all because their egos can't handle someone having an original thought that's outside their little box.
Normal people can politely disagree and move on. Psychopaths not so much.
So now we are psychopaths AND homosexual stalkers, got it.
Funny thing is several of the people on that list call me out on my shit frequently and we either figure out they are right, I am right or this is a disconnect. And then we tend to move on.
Ironically, on that thread, I actually agreed that under certain conditions I also prefer iron sights (Page 4, post #40), but don't let that stop you from being convinced we are all out to get you because you are secretly smarter than all of us.
What's funny is you spent Page 5 mostly agreeing with me and calling out pretty much everyone else.
Eurodriver
09-10-22, 07:52
I have been on M4C for over a decade and this is only the second time I can remember a thread turning into a complete shit show without my help outside of GD (of which I have been banned since Obama was President for saying if LE didn’t get their act together they’d face immense backlash…hmm…).
Ironically, the first thread was also featured Okie. Now I gotta visit Okie’s profile.
ETA: A Colt OEM is a rifle.
Posted from innagrass
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-10-22, 11:09
My goodness, this thread got wild. I forgot Okie was "innagrass". I actually looked at his profile and he only has 170 visitors listed on his page, I have 2007. WTF guys, am I being stalked? Do I need a protection order? Should I buy a gun for my own safety? Am I the only one starting to prefer iron sights?
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?233971-Am-I-the-only-one-starting-to-prefer-iron-sights&highlight=
So now we are psychopaths AND homosexual stalkers, got it.
Funny thing is several of the people on that list call me out on my shit frequently and we either figure out they are right, I am right or this is a disconnect. And then we tend to move on.
Ironically, on that thread, I actually agreed that under certain conditions I also prefer iron sights (Page 4, post #40), but don't let that stop you from being convinced we are all out to get you because you are secretly smarter than all of us.
What's funny is you spent Page 5 mostly agreeing with me and calling out pretty much everyone else.
Oh really? Are you finally ready to admit then that gravity is an inverse square of distance, while apparent size is inversely proportional?:lol:
the AR-15 Junkie
09-10-22, 11:56
Unsubscribing, another thread ruined by SteyrAUG.
-CLEANUP-
Aisles 5 - 7 - 13 and 19 please.
Hammer_Man
09-12-22, 19:11
I got a reply from Arms Unlimited. They confirmed the information I received from Colt. The 6920 0EM is sold as a rifle, and should be entered as such on the 4473. Let’s put a fork in this one, it’s done.
I got a reply from Arms Unlimited. They confirmed the information I received from Colt. The 6920 0EM is sold as a rifle, and should be entered as such on the 4473. Let’s put a fork in this one, it’s done.
If you think that's an answer then you probably haven't been reading the thread. That much we've known since like page two.
FYI though, if you research this question you'll find that there are other retailers logging them as handguns. And as Renegade pointed out, the FFL is directed to log it according to its features, not what the manufacturer calls it, so whoever you talked to at AU is wrong on that count.
The situation as it stands is that yes it should and probably will be logged in as a handgun by most FFLs (they pretty much all agree that's how they would do it), but the million dollar question is can a pistol misidentified by a manufacturer still be a pistol?
We'll probably need the ATF to give the final word on this, but it's looking like the determination is made by what it actually is. Which stands to reason, because if misidentifying it changed what it is then rifles could be sold as pistols, which of course we know is not possible. The AFMER and 4473 could say handgun all day long and it wouldn't matter if it had a stock on it from the factory. Following that same logic, a handgun misidentified as a rifle should still be a handgun.
Hammer_Man
09-12-22, 21:04
If you think that's an answer then you probably haven't been reading the thread. That much we've known since like page two.
FYI though, if you research this question you'll find that there are other retailers logging them as handguns. And as Renegade pointed out, the FFL is directed to log it according to its features, not what the manufacturer calls it, so whoever you talked to at AU is wrong on that count.
The situation as it stands is that yes it should and probably will be logged in as a handgun by most FFLs (they pretty much all agree that's how they would do it), but the million dollar question is can a pistol misidentified by a manufacturer still be a pistol?
We'll probably need the ATF to give the final word on this, but it's looking like the determination is made by what it actually is. Which stands to reason, because if misidentifying it changed what it is then rifles could be sold as pistols, which of course we know is not possible. The AFMER and 4473 could say handgun all day long and it wouldn't matter if it had a stock on it from the factory. Following that same logic, a handgun misidentified as a rifle should still be a handgun.
Seems like you need to do some of your own leg work then. Just make sure to update your findings from the ATF.
Seems like you need to do some of your own leg work then. Just make sure to update your findings from the ATF.
Yea I think you're right. Seems like everything else will be somewhat speculative until there's an opinion letter on the subject.
Leonidas24
09-13-22, 19:20
Yea I think you're right. Seems like everything else will be somewhat speculative until there's an opinion letter on the subject.
Good call. Best to check with the benevolent overlords at the AFT what they think. After all, nothing bad has ever come of that.
FWIW it's a rifle. Stop wearing your butt for a hat.
Good call. Best to check with the benevolent overlords at the AFT what they think. After all, nothing bad has ever come of that.
FWIW it's a rifle. Stop wearing your butt for a hat.
How can you possibly be that ignorant??? It's NOT a rifle. If you had read even one single page of this thread at least that much would be apparent to you. It's a handgun that was mislabeled by the manufacturer on their AFMER as a rifle. And apparently there's no definitive answer whether that affects anything in terms of whether the gun can be configured as a pistol or not.
I guess finding actual answers to real questions isn't in this place's wheelhouse. I'm sorry to have distracted everyone from the really important stuff, like whether 9mm or .45 is better, and which lube will make your gun more deadlier. Obviously those are the real pressing issues we should be dedicating our time to.
Leonidas24
09-13-22, 23:48
How can you possibly be that ignorant??? It's NOT a rifle. If you had read even one single page of this thread at least that much would be apparent to you. It's a handgun that was mislabeled by the manufacturer on their AFMER as a rifle. And apparently there's no definitive answer whether that affects anything in terms of whether the gun can be configured as a pistol or not.
I guess finding actual answers to real questions isn't in this place's wheelhouse. I'm sorry to have distracted everyone from the really important stuff, like whether 9mm or .45 is better, and which lube will make your gun more deadlier. Obviously those are the real pressing issues we should be dedicating our time to.
Whatever dude. You've obviously made up your mind. You received enough information from others that confirmed what you wanted to be true and that's that.
FWIW, I did gun sales for 7 years, 3 of which as a sales manager and when I bought OEM1s and OEM2s from Lipseys, Accusport, RSR, etc, they all shipped as long guns from the distributor. They were logged as long guns in our A&D book, and sold as long guns on 4473s.
Yup-turkey is done, stick a fork in it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.