Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56

Thread: Form 1 -"overall length"

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    S. Florida
    Posts
    543
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by irishluck73 View Post
    I've been searching and can only come up with the same information as already posted. My interpretation of extreme ends of the weapon would be to have the stock fully extended, extreme being the key word. I doubt the BATFE and I agree on all definitions but I'm sure if you call them and speak to 3 different agents you'll probably get at least 2 different answers
    That would not surprise me.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    5,963
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by RojasTKD View Post
    revised April 1, 2009

    http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...7cfr479.11.htm

    Says basically the same thing. Doesn't mention how the ATF interprets "extreme ends of the weapon".
    Yep, I re-read it and while the language is clear on what it DOES say, it does not specifically say stock extended.

    I'd call for sure. It won't get rejected if you put a reasonable single measurement in there either for extended or collapsed.

    We know that's true based on some being approved with the extended OAL being used and with some being approved with the collapsed length being used.

    Even if they change their minds, you do not indicate collapsed or extended in the form, so a small variation in OAL is typically a non-issue once it's actually registered.

    At least to date.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    S. Florida
    Posts
    543
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SHIVAN View Post
    It won't get rejected if you put a reasonable single measurement in there either for extended or collapsed.
    I believe this to be true also. Still it would be nice if it was spelled out clearly.

    Reading around the internet I have found conflicting answers, Some say extended other collapsed.
    Last edited by RojasTKD; 08-04-09 at 21:51.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    S. Florida
    Posts
    543
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    To a different issue for now.

    I understand the ATF is now requiring certain info to be on you SBR lower. This is said to now include you caliber (correct?). My lower is marked "Multi" (unacceptable to put on form 1) I put 5.56 on my form. Do I have to have 5.56 ebgraved in my lower along with my trust name and location?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    out of reach
    Posts
    317
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RojasTKD View Post
    To a different issue for now.

    I understand the ATF is now requiring certain info to be on you SBR lower. This is said to now include you caliber (correct?). My lower is marked "Multi" (unacceptable to put on form 1) I put 5.56 on my form. Do I have to have 5.56 ebgraved in my lower along with my trust name and location?
    Is your barrel stamp or engraved 5.56? If so then you do have your caliber marked. Clearly from other post they require the caliber to be listed on the form 1, not Multi. At least that's what I'm hanging my hat on.
    Peace, Jerry

    I don't drink the koolaid

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    S. Florida
    Posts
    543
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fireglock View Post
    Is your barrel stamp or engraved 5.56? If so then you do have your caliber marked. Clearly from other post they require the caliber to be listed on the form 1, not Multi. At least that's what I'm hanging my hat on.
    You are correct... I was just associating all marking with the lower. But then again, the lower itself is considered the firearm.
    Last edited by RojasTKD; 08-04-09 at 23:05.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    888
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    My NFA Law Attorney helped me a lot with my first Form 1, and when he measured it for the OAL portion of the form, he measured it with the CTR Stock collapsed. So that is now how I measure it myself when SBR-ing a lower.

    I also have an 11.5" and a 10.5" upper(s) now, so I also wrote 10.5"/11.5" in the box for "Length of Barrel" on my most current Form 1.

    And just to be on the safe side, I have written a typed letter to the NFA Branch of BATFE notifying them that an 11.5" barrel will also now be used on my other SBR'd lowers that I had previously only written 10.5" down for the barrel length originally.

    This is just stuff that I personally did on my own Form 1's, and BATFE Approved them and they are good to go.

    -Paul

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    2,405
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Looks like you have your answer but I will also chime in. I went with collapsed because to me the ATF is more worried about short weapons as opposed to long ones so I wanted to specify all the shortest dimensions. Like a 10.5" (or even shorter) bbl length so that way I'm approved for that length on my lower and anything longer is closer to legal so it should be acceptable. Shorter would possibly be questioned if someone really wanted to I suppose. In other words, say you put 12" and then get contacted by the ATF in person when you're running a 10.5" upper. Technically you weren't approved for an upper that short but... I don't know that anything would happen. SBR is an SBR the way I read it so the actual length really shouldn't matter. Seemed like common sense to me but what do I know?

    For the reason I was advised by someone who knows way more about NFA than me to put: 'All lawful purposes and collecting.'
    Last edited by Jer; 08-05-09 at 01:35.
    I'm not fat, I'm tactically padded.

    Tactical Commander Fast Action Response Team (F.A.R.T.)

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Posts
    4,079
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    ATF is looking for the smallest form factor that the carbine can present in an unmodified, usable state; as such, the stock collapsed measurement is correct.

    It would be less correct, though still somewhat logical, to list the length of the weapon in the firing configuration (i.e. with stock partially extended), but it would make very little sense at all to list the fully extended position, unless it were pinned in that position for whatever reason. The weapon is functional with the stock collapsed; hence, that is the measurement with which the law is primarily concerned.

    Put another way, a non-NFA AR-15 carbine with an otherwise legal (16") barrel would still run afoul of the rules if it failed to meet overall length requirements with the stock collapsed. The purpose of a collapsing/telescoping/folding stock is to achieve compactness -- and it is this "compactness" aspect that the law is concerned with when determining NFA compliance.

    AC
    Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here. -- Captain John Parker, Lexington, 1775.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    4,859
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Is there any issue with putting both collapsed and extended length on the form, annotated as such? Even if that's kosher, is there a chance that they'll interpret that to mean that you are referring to two seperate weapons?

    EDIT: Never mind, I did something crazy and actually looked at the Form1. Dumb question.
    Last edited by JSantoro; 08-05-09 at 10:37.
    Contractor scum, AAV

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •