M16 price

[Quarterbore]

Well, a rifle is designed to be fired from a shoulder... If the extra grip is removable, I still don't see a legal reason that would not be allowed.

The ATF may try to say it's an AOW, but when we make an AOW they require that it is perminant. With the pistol in this case, you could add the vertical grip and later remove it and you are back to the same pistol....

I can't look up and post the definitions but I think this would be a great case for somebody to pay their $200 tax and then sue the BATFE for a refund saying that the registration isn't needed. Hell, I would consider doing it if I wasn't so poor and unable to represent myself in court.

 

[xm15e2s]

remember the whole olympic replacement debate?

well..... here is one on the market that proves olympic is replacing their RR with brand new ones.

http://www.jbarms.citymax.com/catalog/item/871198/688053.htm

 

[tony k]

remember the whole olympic replacement debate?

well..... here is one on the market that proves olympic is replacing their RR with brand new ones.

http://www.jbarms.citymax.com/catalog/item/871198/688053.htm

There has never been any question that Olympic is doing this procedure. Just like there was never any question that Cole's was legally selling Uzi kits ... up until BATF changed their mind, ruled that Cole's Uzis were insufficiently demilled, and went door-to-door collecting them.

AFAIK, neither BATF nor Cole's ever reimbursed Uzi kit purchasers for their losses. I wonder if Olympic will, if/when BATF realizes what they are doing?

All I suggest is that Oly conversion owners take a look at BATF's track record and weigh the risks.

 

[Deanh]

Personal opinion, and my own personal opinion.

I would not buy one of these receivers.
I would not have Olympic replace my RR with one of their new ones unless it was damaged beyond repair.

I see a great big, wide open, how can they not, chance that BATF will rule these post samples at some point.

 

[tony k]

A new BATF letter on the subject (I opaqued out the recipient's name and address).

This particular letter was specifically in reference to an Oly receiver converted by a different C2, which AFAIK applies to the majority of Oly RRs: Very few, if any, were both made and registered by Olympic itself.

Please read the next-to-last sentence: "Any making of ... a machinegun would be subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 922(o), which restricts the possession of a machinegun to use by government agencies."

In other words, BATF considers them posties.

 

[dmsdog]

This is what I have always been told by the ATF.

1. If a CL3 manufacturer makes the original firearm, as Auto Ordnance made my 1928, they can make a replacement receiver with the same sn. I believe that Mr. Owen told me this info several years ago.

2. If a CL3 manufacturer modifies an existing firearm into a CL3 weapon, the original manufacturer cannot remake the CL3 weapon since they did not do the CL3 work in the first place.

3. What if OLY remade the non-NFA weapon and that non-NFA went back to bushmaster, the CL3 manufacturer. Could they then "remake" the class 3 mods? I think not.

4. Even on my M10 on a Form 1 that I personally made. I am told by the ATF that I cannot "remake" it if it becomes unservicable.