Advice on SBR Form1

[plodder]

I'm ready to file an eFile Form 1 for SBR. I have a decent shooting Bushmaster carbine that I could use as the host lower. Or I could obtain a new "80%" lower.

Questions:
1. If using the Bushmaster lower, when I file do I use that lower's serial number on the Form 1?
2. If using an 80% lower, do I invent my own serial number to use on the Form 1?

 

[GarySTL]

Yes to both, and don't forget you need the manufacturer's info on the 80‰. Which would be you of course.
Clarification : if you make your own lower from an 80% you don't need a serial #, but I don't believe you can do an SBR without one. I await correction if I'm wrong.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

You are going to save a lot of engraving using an existing rifle.

Personally I would go with a better lower, even a Colt, esp. if the Bushy is civilian pattern as mine is.

Mike

 

[Ryanxia]

The stickies are helpful in this section, answer a lot of questions including the ones you asked.

According to the sticky, the ATF insists on you using the serial number already on the existing lower. When you go to engrave all you should need to put on the receiver is the name of the 'manufacturer' (your name or a trust if you're filing as a trust which I recommend) and the City/State of your address.

E-filing for a trust seems to be taking about 30 days right now on form 1's which is much better than waiting 8-12 months

 

[Elkins45]

The only reason for the existance of the 80% lower IMO is to build a gun without a 4473. Why go to the trouble to mill out an 80% lower and then turn around and register it as an NFA item? Just save yourself the trouble and expense and build it on a finished commercial lower, and use the highest quality one you can buy to minmize the chance of having to pay for another stamp if it fails.

 

[dogtown tom]

Some of you guys need to learn the difference between "manufacturer" and "maker".......two distinctly different marking requirements.

 

[Ryanxia]

Some of you guys need to learn the difference between "manufacturer" and "maker".......two distinctly different marking requirements.

I may have used manufacturer/maker the wrong way but the requirements on what needs to be marked are correct (as far as I know and according to the sticky in this section).

Edit - From the sticky:

Obviously if you buy an NFA firearm from a dealer, you're not “making” or “manufacturing” anything. But what about if you want to submit a Form 1 and build an NFA firearm? Well, that makes you a manufacturer, regardless of whether you're building a suppressor or rifle receiver from a hunk of raw metal or just shortening the barrel on a rifle you already own.

For instance, if you have a complete AR15 (one of the most popular rifles to make into a short-barreled rifle) or even a stripped AR15 receiver, and you want to make an SBR, then you're going to be considered the manufacturer. You're the person who is turning the Title I firearm into a Title II firearm. Just because someone else originally made it and put a serial number doesn't mean you're not the manufacturer of the SBR.

 

[Elkins45]

I don't know exactly what you're quoting, but it's technically incorrect. Read the top of the form: it says make a firearm not manufacture a firearm. If you do a form one using the online system you'll see that ATF explicitly wants you to use the serial number that the manufacturer put on it. And in the case of an SBR you don't get to pick yourself as the manufacturer. You pick the name of the factory that it came from, such as Colt or Bushmaster.

You do pick yourself if you're making your own silencer, because you aren't starting with the product that has already been manufactured.

 

[Aaron Baker]

It's my quote from the sticky, and you're correct: I should have used the term "maker" instead of "manufacturer." There's a discussion of that in that sticky thread after my posts, I think.

Regardless, on an existing lower, you use the existing serial number and manufacturer. If you build an 80% lower into a Title I firearm, it doesn't need a serial or manufacturer name. If you make it into a Title II firearm, it will need the serial and manufacturer, which will be you.

Making an NFA firearm makes you a "maker."

Manufacturing an 80% lower makes you a manufacturer.

Manufacturing an 80% lower and making it NFA makes you a manufacturer and a maker.

Aaron

 

[Elkins45]

It's my quote from the sticky, and you're correct: I should have used the term "maker" instead of "manufacturer." There's a discussion of that in that sticky thread after my posts, I think.

Regardless, on an existing lower, you use the existing serial number and manufacturer. If you build an 80% lower into a Title I firearm, it doesn't need a serial or manufacturer name. If you make it into a Title II firearm, it will need the serial and manufacturer, which will be you.

Making an NFA firearm makes you a "maker."

Manufacturing an 80% lower makes you a manufacturer.

Manufacturing an 80% lower and making it NFA makes you a manufacturer and a maker.

Aaron

Slightly off topic, but as I mentioned in another thread in this section I cannot see the logic behind using an 80% lower for an NFA item. If you are going to spend the $200 for the stamp then it just makes sense to use the best quality item you can find for the investment. Why go to the trouble to build a lower that avoids the 4473 only to turn around and enter it into the NFA registry?

 

[Aaron Baker]

I agree that I don't see any reason to use the 80% lower.

I don't know that I'd worry about what brand my lower was, though. If it's milspec and everything fits, I'd call it good. I've used a few S&W lowers for SBR builds, but only because that's what I happened to have. I'd use a lesser known brand as well, if that's what I happened to have. I don't see any reason why not to use a Bushmaster, for instance.

I wouldn't register a polymer lower, but that's just my preference. I think they're the most likely to break and cause you to have wasted a $200 stamp.

The nice thing is that $200 is a lot less than it used to be, and with Form 1s on eForms taking about 30 days right now, it's easy for someone with a trust to just jump right into NFA ownership with both feet without crazy wait times.

Aaron

 

[plodder]

Thanks all. Good advice on using the best quality lower for a SBR. I will heed that advice.

 

[Elkins45]

I agree that I don't see any reason to use the 80% lower.

I don't know that I'd worry about what brand my lower was, though. If it's milspec and everything fits, I'd call it good. I've used a few S&W lowers for SBR builds, but only because that's what I happened to have. I'd use a lesser known brand as well, if that's what I happened to have. I don't see any reason why not to use a Bushmaster, for instance.

I wouldn't register a polymer lower, but that's just my preference. I think they're the most likely to break and cause you to have wasted a $200 stamp.

The nice thing is that $200 is a lot less than it used to be, and with Form 1s on eForms taking about 30 days right now, it's easy for someone with a trust to just jump right into NFA ownership with both feet without crazy wait times.

Aaron

Here's a reason that occurred to me for making the extra effort to use the best quality lower you can: the proposed rules change on trusts. We can redo a broken SBR relatively easily now, but if the proposed changes for submissions by trusts are approved there might be people who can't replace due to a CLEO that won't approve.

Fortunately for those of us in KY we have a new law requiring NFA sign offs for lawful purchasers (yay)!