M-1 Receivers NOT C&R?

[Farnham]

I got my Southern Ohio Gun flyer today, and while looking through it noticed the following:

"WWII Winchester M-1 Receivers

FFL Required.
Not C&R eligible.

These rare, very collectible vintage WWII receivers are in good to fair condition..." etc, etc. (Rare and collectible...hmm)

The point I'm sticking on is WWII and NOT C&R eligible. The rules I got from the ATF with my C&R pretty much say 50 years or older, and it's C&R. So how can a receiver from WWII NOT be C&R?

S/F

Farnham

 

[cracked butt]

It has to be a complete rifle in its original form to be considered a C&R.

Things that are not C&R:
receivers
barreled receivers
sporterized military rifles (can be changed back to C&R status by dropping back into original stock or replacement of the same style stock so long as its not bubba'd.

 

[DMK]

However... You can order an M1 receiver though CMP with your C&R and membership in a CMP affiliated club. Not because the receiver is C&R elidgable, but because your C&R qualifies as proof of marksmanship.

 

[ocabj]

It has to be a complete rifle in its original form to be considered a C&R.

Things that are not C&R:
receivers
barreled receivers
sporterized military rifles (can be changed back to C&R status by dropping back into original stock or replacement of the same style stock so long as its not bubba'd.

This is correct. Though, I still logged the Garand receivers I bought from the CMP. If and when I do get audited, I'd like to have those receivers listed in my bound book, even if the receivers are not technically C&R firearms. I'd rather get chided for having too much in my bound book than getting in trouble for not having something in my bound book.

 

[cracked butt]

This is correct. Though, I still logged the Garand receivers I bought from the CMP. If and when I do get audited, I'd like to have those receivers listed in my bound book, even if the receivers are not technically C&R firearms. I'd rather get chided for having too much in my bound book than getting in trouble for not having something in my bound book.

Smart idea. If you built them into a rifle, they might actually consider that as 'acquiring' a c&R firearm. I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Farnham]

sporterized military rifles (can be changed back to C&R status by dropping back into original stock or replacement of the same style stock so long as its not bubba'd.

So why, in the same flyer, do they have Enfield #5 Carbine Sporters "fitted in black sporter stock" marked as C&R eligible? Last I checked, Britain never built an Enfield #5 with a "black sporter stock." (especially one that looks like it came from cheaperthandirt.com )

This is what it says on the letter that accompanied my C&R package:

A licensed collector is a collector of curios and relics only and is licensed and regulated under the provisions of 27 CFR Part 478. To be considered a curio or relic, a firearm must meet one of the following requirements:

Have been manufactured at least 50 years ago; or

Be certified as a curio or relic of museum interest by the curator of a municipal, State, or Federal museum that exhibits firearms; or

Derive a substantial amount of its monetary value from the fact that it is novel, rare, bizarre, or associated with some historical event, period, or figure.

A firearm must meet ONE of the requirements. These receivers, if truly manufactured during WWII, hit that mark in '95. If the ATF claims that receivers ARE NOT firearms, I ought to be able to buy AR-15 lowers over the internet. If the ATF claims that receivers ARE firearms, these ARE C&R.

Skullduggery and shenanigans!

Thanks for your replies, gents, I appreciate all you can teach me.

S/F

Farnham

 

[cracked butt]

So why, in the same flyer, do they have Enfield #5 Carbine Sporters "fitted in black sporter stock" marked as C&R eligible? Last I checked, Britain never built an Enfield #5 with a "black sporter stock." (

Maybe I'm wrong about the stock part then.
I do know for a fact though that the receivers and barreled receivers have to go through a 01 FFL, as I was looking at buying a couple of 1909 Argie barreled receivers awhile back.

 

[Zundfolge]

So why, in the same flyer, do they have Enfield #5 Carbine Sporters "fitted in black sporter stock" marked as C&R eligible? Last I checked, Britain never built an Enfield #5 with a "black sporter stock." (especially one that looks like it came from cheaperthandirt.com )

If the sporter stock was put on 50 or more years ago than it would still be C&R (although I'd think it would be difficult to prove). It might be in a gray area if they also include an original wood stock in the box.

My guess is that the sporterized Enfields are mis-marked as C&R eligible.

 

[Trebor]

Read the whole book on C&R regs that the ATF sent you. Don't rely on just that letter. Whole firearms are C&R eligible. Just receivers are not.

 

[kfranz]

The receiver is the firearm. Some folks sell barrelled receivers to C&R's, others don't. No rhyme or reason that I can tell.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Read the whole book on C&R regs that the ATF sent you. Don't rely on just that letter. Whole firearms are C&R eligible. Just receivers are not.

Typical. They spend years telling us that the receiver itself is the firearm, now all of a sudden it's not.

Nice.....:banghead:

 

[ocabj]

Typical. They spend years telling us that the receiver itself is the firearm, now all of a sudden it's not.

Nice.....:banghead:

I base the C&R ruling of a receiver on the wording that the firearm must be in it's original configuration to retain it's C&R status. A receiver by itself is not a C&R simply based on the notion that since it lacks all of the other parts to make it a rifle, it is not in it's original configuration.

For how a dealer is able to sell an Enfield with a synthetic stock as a C&R firearm, I don't know. All I know is that I wouldn't buy one (even if I wanted one) just to cover myself.

 

[Farnham]

For how a dealer is able to sell an Enfield with a synthetic stock as a C&R firearm, I don't know. All I know is that I wouldn't buy one (even if I wanted one) just to cover myself.

I'm with you on that one.

Oh well, I didn't really want one anyway, was just curious about what I was missing. Thanks again.

S/F

Farnham