ATF: AirSoft M16 Is a Firearm

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bubbles

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
3,148
Location
Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
I want to see someone slap an upper on an airsoft lower and fire it - without getting hurt.

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives

Office of the Director
Washington, DC 20226

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3): DEFINITIONS (FIREARM)
27 CFR 478.11: DEFINITIONS (FIREARM FRAME OR RECEIVER)

Air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile using compressed air,
carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas) replicas of AR/M-16 variant
firearms that provide housing for a hammer and firing mechanism with
substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers, and
mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel and
bolt, are "firearm frames or receivers," and are, therefore, "firearms,"
as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B), and its implementing
regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.

ATF Rul. 2010-4

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has
received requests for evaluation and classification of air gun replicas
of AR/M-16 variant firearms. Specifically, ATF was asked whether these
air guns are considered "firearms" under Federal law.

The M-16 is a military style combat machinegun. The AR style firearm is
a semi-automatic version of the M-16, and both are produced using a
variety of model designations. ATF evaluated two air gun replicas of
AR/M-16 variant firearms. These particular air guns are manufactured
with non-ferrous metal and duplicate the appearance of various types of
AR and M-16 rifles. They are designed to expel projectiles using
compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas.

The first sample ATF examined was an air gun replica of an M-16 rifle
that has the physical features of an M-16 firearm. It has all M-16
fire-control assembly pin holes formed or indexed for fire-control
components (i.e., hammer, trigger, disconnector, selector lever, and
machinegun sear). It utilizes fire-control components that differ only
slightly in design from M-16 fire-control components. The receiver of
this air gun is identical to an M-16 receiver, except for two features.
The slot for the bolt-stop has been altered to make room for a
proprietary bolt-stop by reducing the height of the wall separating the
fire control cavity from the magazine well. Also, the ledge has been
removed from the fire-control cavity upon which an M-16 machinegun sear
would normally sit.

In conducting the evaluation of sample #1, the upper assembly was
removed, the existing bolt-stop was removed to allow movement of the
hammer, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed. A test fire was then
performed with the original automatic fire sear, and the test
demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing a conventional .223
caliber cartridge semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the
action of an explosive. The original automatic fire sear was then
replaced with an M-16 machinegun sear. A second test firing was
performed, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of
firing semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an
explosive. Sample #1 did not expel more than one projectile by a single
function of the trigger and is not a "machinegun" as defined in 26
U.S.C. 5845(b).

The second sample ATF examined was an air gun replica of an M-16 rifle
that has the physical features of an M-16 firearm. It has all M-16
fire-control assembly pin holes formed or indexed, and utilizes a
proprietary drop-in fire-control mechanism that did not include an
automatic-fire sear. The receiver of this air gun is identical to an
M-16 receiver, except for two dimensions. The length between the
takedown pins is approximately 1/8 longer than on an M-16 receiver, and
the width of the fire-control cavity is approximately 0.31 greater than
an M-16 receiver.

ATF conducted a test of this air gun. In conducting the evaluation of
this sample, the upper assembly was removed, the proprietary drop-in
fire-control mechanism was removed, the proprietary bolt-stop was
removed, the indexed pin holes were drilled to allow installation of
M-16 fire-control components, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed.
A test fire was then performed, and the test demonstrated that the
sample was capable of firing semi-automatically, expelling a projectile
by the action of an explosive.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), and its implementing
regulation, 27 CFR 478.11, define the term "firearm," in part, as "any
weapon...including a starter gun...which will or is designed to or may
readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon..." Under 27 CFR
478.11, the term "firearm frame or receiver" is defined as "[t]hat part
of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock,
and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward
portion to receive the barrel."

The air gun replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms examined have the
appearance, dimensions, and substantially the same design as AR/M-16
variant firearm receivers and completed weapons. The air gun replicas
provide housing for a hammer and firing mechanism, and mounting points
for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel and bolt. Because
the air gun replicas provide housing with substantially the same design
as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers, they incorporate firearm
receivers. Moreover, though not necessary for classification, once the
upper assemblies (and, in the second sample, fire-control components)
were installed and test fired, they both expelled projectiles by the
action of an explosive. Because the air gun replicas of the AR/M-16
variant firearms incorporate firearm receivers, they are "firearms," as
defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), and its
implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.

Held, air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile using compressed
air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas) replicas of AR/M-16
variant firearms that provide housing for a hammer and firing mechanism
with substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers,
and mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel
and bolt, are "firearm frames or receivers," and are, therefore,
"firearms," as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B), and its
implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.

To the extent this ruling is inconsistent with any prior
classifications, they are hereby superseded.

Date approved: November 5, 2010

Kenneth E. Melson
Deputy Director
 
Awhile ago there was a situation where the ATF claimed some airsoft M-16s were real guns and a lot of people disdained it; it seems the result was these were "high-end" airsofts that are OK overseas but not here-- because they CAN be mated to real guns and work, according to some reports I read.
In any case, this happened a number of months ago. Has this been repeated or is this some new report of a similar incident .... or a report that has come out after an investigation of the earlier incident?
 
In any case, this happened a number of months ago. Has this been repeated or is this some new report of a similar incident .... or a report that has come out after an investigation of the earlier incident?
Determination date is 11/5/10. This was released less than a week ago.

They already did! Read everything that you posted...
Sorry, should have specified mag dump fired from the shoulder. Usually when these things get tested they get strapped into a rest and someone pulls a string attached to the trigger to get it to fire - in case things don't go as planned...
 
Here in WA, in Tacoma I think, there was a fiasco between the ATF and a importer/dealer of the higher end replica airsoft rifles. The ATF has seized several of his shipments, into the tens of thousands of dollars worth. Some of the news reports breakdown how the ATF doesnt even have jurisdiction over airsoft whatsoever, also one of the seizures involved the fact that the muzzles werent painted orange. The ATF ended up having a press conference where this A Hole gets in front of the camera, saying how anyone with minimal knowledge could easily convert one of the mostly plastic M4 replicas into a fully automatic machine gun, though when the ATF was pressed to backup that statement, they hid behind the freedom of information act. This happened back in March and I havent heard anything else about it. Here's a link to get you started if youre interested http://www.firearmstruth.com/2010/owner-of-seized-airsoft-guns-responds
 
they hid behind the freedom of information act

huh? how do you hide behind that?

if you read the article up there at the top, the ATF actually assembled real gun parts into the airsoft lowers and fired them with real ammuntion. In one case, they simply dropped in the parts. in another case they wallowed out the take down and pivot pin holes to make it work. That means these lowers are guns by law, and ATF does have jurisdiction. Why is this so hard to believe? the lower has none of the pressure containing components.

you know there are actual polymer receiver ARs out there, right?
 
An AR lower is a very simple thing.

As long as a few pin holes are in the right place, an upper will probably fire at least once.
 
Seems to me like the manufacturers of these replicas could very easily solve their problem by making the lower and upper one piece, with the takedown pins being simulated.
 
Until or unless the BATFAE* is abolished they will continue down this road. In this case, the ruling is an attempt to cover the hindquarters of a field agent who made the initial ruling.

That's the culture they've developed.


*Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Arson, and Explosives; pronounced Batt Fays.
 
...the upper assembly was removed, the proprietary drop-in
fire-control mechanism was removed, the proprietary bolt-stop was
removed, the indexed pin holes were drilled to allow installation of
M-16 fire-control components...
There is a line in the manufacturing process where a piece of metal becomes a "firearm". Maybe the makers of this airsoft should find out how many steps away from that line is needed to remain a non-firearm.
 
M-16 Airsoft is defined as a firearm?

Whattt?! It's absurd to the point my stomach hurts. I wonder if there is a process by which the ruling may be argued? There are no words.
 
An AR lower is a very simple thing.

As long as a few pin holes are in the right place, an upper will probably fire at least once.
Yeah, pretty much.

I've always wondered about this,
Take only an AR barrel, and a bolt. Chamber a round. Put bolt in gun. Strike firing pin with something (block of wood, maybe even your bare hand). Would it not fire, and not explode? The lower is technically a firearm, yet nothing I just listed above is.
 
I want to see someone slap an upper on an airsoft lower and fire it - without getting hurt.

In conducting the evaluation of sample #1, the upper assembly was
removed, the existing bolt-stop was removed to allow movement of the
hammer, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed. A test fire was then
performed
with the original automatic fire sear, and the test
demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing a conventional .223
caliber cartridge semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the
action of an explosive. The original automatic fire sear was then
replaced with an M-16 machinegun sear. A second test firing was
performed
, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of
firing semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an
explosive.

ATF conducted a test of this air gun. In conducting the evaluation of
this sample, the upper assembly was removed, the proprietary drop-in
fire-control mechanism was removed, the proprietary bolt-stop was
removed, the indexed pin holes were drilled to allow installation of
M-16 fire-control components, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed.
A test fire was then performed, and the test demonstrated that the
sample was capable of firing semi-automatically, expelling a projectile
by the action of an explosive.


Seems like someone at ATF was able to fire sample 1 at least twice, and sample 2 at least once, without getting hurt. Did you even bother to read the ruling you posted?
 
Seems like someone at ATF was able to fire sample 1 at least twice, and sample 2 at least once, without getting hurt. Did you even bother to read the ruling you posted?
And obviously you didn't read what I posted about how tests are done. I wouldn't want to be holding that thing when it went off either - GS pay ain't all that good!
 
How they fire them is irrelevant. That they fire is all that is relevant.

This is one of those rare cases where too much is being made of the ATF's actions. One of the AR's great design characteristics that we love is that you can replace parts easily. The upper half where most of the action takes place and the vast majority of the forces come into play can be secured on a lower with just a couple of pins to hold it. The desire for realism in the Airsoft community motivates manufacturers to simulate real firearms as closely as possible. Take the AR lower being designed to exchange parts like a Leggo set and the desire for realism and there was no need to extensively modify the lower on the Airsoft to drop parts for a firearm into it to get it to take a real upper and fire live ammunition. Nothing sinister on either party is even needed for this to have occurred, just the desire on the part of the manufacturer to make something that feels and looks like the real thing.

It doesn't matter how many rounds have to be fired before it comes apart because just functioning and firing once without extensive modification makes it a firearm. There's no need on the ATF's part to test to failure or destruction since their only relevant criteria is whether it fires or not.
 
This is a bit off topic, but why is it the lower that is considered the firearm? The upper is where most of the important things happen.
 
Well technically it's not about uppers v. lowers, it's about what part is the "frame or receiver." It just so happens that on AR-15/M-16 style rifles that's the "lower." However, take a look at a most pistols and the "lower" is also the frame or receiver, but there are exceptions like a Ruger MkII pistol, where the "upper" is the frame or receiver. Also, take a look at what is considered the frame or receiver an MP-5, which some might describe as an "upper" if they are familiar with AR-15/M-16 nomenclature.
 
Well technically it's not about uppers v. lowers, it's about what part is the "frame or receiver." It just so happens that on AR-15/M-16 style rifles that's the "lower." However, take a look at a most pistols and the "lower" is also the frame or receiver, but there are exceptions like a Ruger MkII pistol, where the "upper" is the frame or receiver. Also, take a look at what is considered the frame or receiver an MP-5, which some might describe as an "upper" if they are familiar with AR-15/M-16 nomenclature.

So they have nothing better to do with my tax dollars than to pay people to sit around and make somewhat arbitrary decisions about which part of the firearm is the receiver and which parts aren't? People wonder why things are such a mess?
 
So they have nothing better to do with my tax dollars than to pay people to sit around and make somewhat arbitrary decisions about which part of the firearm is the receiver and which parts aren't? People wonder why things are such a mess?
Sure, we clearly see how absurd the whole thing is. The problem is that most people know next to nothing about firearms. They form their opinions based on emotion. I've tried to explain how the ATF's antics are so stupid, but their eyes just glaze over.

You then have to remember that the actual job of the ATF is to justify their own existence (Government in general). They rely on funding, and as long as there is a "problem", they are good.
 
So this would fall under their interpretation of "easily convertible".

Does anyone know which brand of AirSoft lowers were found to be "firearms"?

mbogo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top