Upper receiver now classified as a firearm.

[CLP]

Upper receiver now classified as a firearm.

This only applies to bolt action uppers, and apparently on to 50 BMG thus far. Their reasoning is that because the operation of the action is independent of being attached to a lower then its functionally as a firearm is unto itself and should be serialized. When coupled with an AR lower, you will have two firearms. What happens to folks with non-serialized uppers that have been sold to date? Not too many non-50 BMG bolt action uppers that come to mind except for some space gun uppers- I suppose this will apply to those as well. Let's hope this isn't a segue to semiauto upper assemblies.
Will manufacturers will now have to recall and serialize and existing stock?

The affected company has the following posted on their uppers product page: "Due to BATFE related complications we are not taking orders at this time. Standing orders have not been forgotten. As soon as the BATFE complications are straightened out order fullilment will resume."


Non-50 BMG bolt action uppers appear to still be available at the time of this writing from Uintah precision.

 

[beeenbag]

I'm going bet that all unmarked uppers in circulation now are exempt the same way that older firearms that did not have a serial number at all are today.

 

[rskent]

Any idea if anyone makes a similar setup for an AR15?

 

[deadin]

I imagine we can thank the 80% lower kits for this. An upper will be a little harder to finish from 80%. Once that becomes easier the next on the list will be barrels.

 

[troy fairweather]

they need to just make it in 416 Barrett to piss them off.

 

[troy fairweather]

Any idea if anyone makes a similar setup for an AR15?

this is a maker that does one that uses and ar15 i saw it in the whats was shotgun news i have to find the page for the name a google search shoud bring it up.

 

[CLP]

i've continued to check sites of other companies selling conventional calibers smaller than 50 BMG and nothing appears to be amiss with them.

maybe the caliber has something to do with this

 

[troy fairweather]

Any idea if anyone makes a similar setup for an AR15?

ok found the page its. safety harbor firearms inc. the shtf 50

 

[MachIVshooter]

It's really not surprising. The primary attributes of the AR lower which make that part the firearm is that it holds the magazine and firing mechanism. Since their .50 upper loads either single rounds or from a magazine that is attached to the .50 upper, it does not make use of the AR magazine well (or standard AR15 hammer), relegating the AR lower to a status similar to that of HK or FAL fire control groups. Their .50 upper could also pretty easily be made to work without an AR lower, something which a conventional semi-auto AR upper can't do. It really is a barreled action just like any other bolt gun, except that instead of affixing a trigger group and setting it in a stock, it gets pinned to an AR lower with a special hammer.

If Safety Harbor supplies the entire firearm, it would be one serialized firearm. I would also wager that if Safety Harbor begins serializing the uppers as firearms, they'd be able to sell a dedicated lower as an unserialized part, although that kind of defeats the purpose with the AR's modularity.

It kind of sucks, but we have to consider that the AR has always been an exception to the rule in that it 1) has two major receiver halves, rather than a primary component and another that's really just a fire control group, a la the HK or FAL pattern guns (and many others) and also that, 2) the lower receiver being the serialized firearm exist in almost no other case of two part receiver firearms, and can really only be attributed to the mag well being part of it.

I don't foresee ATF making any kind of new ruling on conventional uppers that make use of the magazine well and are not designed to be single loaded. That would require redefining and open them up to all sorts of legal challenges. They have pretty solid ground on the .50 upper ruling, but trying to make regular uppers separate firearms would upend over 60 years worth of existing policy.

 

[AlexanderA]

If Safety Harbor supplies the entire firearm, it would be one serialized firearm. I would also wager that if Safety Harbor begins serializing the uppers as firearms, they'd be able to sell a dedicated lower as an unserialized part, although that kind of defeats the purpose with the AR's modularity.

As I understand it, when the idea of "80%" lower receivers started, there was a choice of one of three areas to be left unfinished: (1) the magazine well, (2) the buffer tube hole, or (3) the FCG cavity. Now, "80%" lowers universally leave the FCG cavity unfinished. It seems to me that they could go back to leaving the magazine well area solid, and the lower would serve just as well for purposes of the Safety Harbor gun, while itself not having to be serialized.

 

[MachIVshooter]

As I understand it, when the idea of "80%" lower receivers started, there was a choice of one of three areas to be left unfinished: (1) the magazine well, (2) the buffer tube hole, or (3) the FCG cavity. Now, "80%" lowers universally leave the FCG cavity unfinished. It seems to me that they could go back to leaving the magazine well area solid, and the lower would serve just as well for purposes of the Safety Harbor gun, while itself not having to be serialized.

Unfinished magazine well or receiver extension hole were never qualifiers, as the lower can be mated to an upper and fire single shots with no magazine and no buffer or recoil spring. The original "80%" receivers had all the major milling operations done but were nearly devoid of cross holes. FTB determined that these were too close to finished and considered them firearms. Many submissions & determinations have been made, resulting in the current state of an unmilled FCG pocket being a non-firearm.

ATF simply evaluates submitted designs and determines that they either are or are not firearms. "80%" is a term the industry coined, not ATF; In terms of machining operations, an 80% lower is about 98% finished.

Regardless, when I say dedicated lower, I mean exactly that; one which would be dedicated to their upper, not usable as a standard AR lower. Which is also why I said it would defeat the touted modularity of the AR platform upon which SH is capitalizing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I don't find ATF's view here at all odd or unreasonable.

It looks like the upper here is conceptually no different from, say, a Remington 700 receiver with a barrel, but with the fire control system not attached. Something like that has long been considered the firearm and subject to the usual rigmarole. Why would this be any different?

 

[LocoGringo]

Yeah, the receiver is THREADED TO RECEIVE A BARREL. A regular AR barrel is NOT threaded into the upper receiver. They use a barrel extension that is wedged into the receiver (more or less). They are completely different mechanisms (both barrel and action). Nothing is being redefined here.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Yeah, the receiver is THREADED TO RECEIVE A BARREL. A regular AR barrel is NOT threaded into the upper receiver. They use a barrel extension that is wedged into the receiver (more or less). They are completely different mechanisms (both barrel and action). Nothing is being redefined here.

The threaded fitment doesn't have anything to do with it; plenty of firearms use non-threaded mechanical coupling of barrel & receiver.

If you look at virtually any other two (or more) part receiver, the serialized part is the main component that retains the barrel and, in the case of magazine fed weapons, has the magazine well/catch attached. AK, FAL, G3, M1A, etc. The AR is rather unique in that the upper and lower are sort of "equal", and I'm not sure that we have a good answer as to why it was the lower that became the firearm component. The only other I can think of are the MAC/Cobray type.

 

[deadin]

I'm not sure that we have a good answer as to why it was the lower that became the firearm component.

How about "Because that's what the regulations say". Trying to make sense of many regulations can be an exercise in futility.

 

[pdsmith505]

I don't find ATF's view here at all odd or unreasonable.

It looks like the upper here is conceptually no different from, say, a Remington 700 receiver with a barrel, but with the fire control system not attached. Something like that has long been considered the firearm and subject to the usual rigmarole. Why would this be any different?

Except in the case of a Remington 700, Savage, etc. bolt action firearm, the action provides the mounting/attachment for the fire control group.

The .50bmg uppers for AR's have no provision for housing the fire control group, and are no more capable of being used on it's own than a standard AR upper without the gas system.

The threaded fitment doesn't have anything to do with it; plenty of firearms use non-threaded mechanical coupling of barrel & receiver.

If you look at virtually any other two (or more) part receiver, the serialized part is the main component that retains the barrel and, in the case of magazine fed weapons, has the magazine well/catch attached. AK, FAL, G3, M1A, etc. The AR is rather unique in that the upper and lower are sort of "equal", and I'm not sure that we have a good answer as to why it was the lower that became the firearm component. The only other I can think of are the MAC/Cobray type.

Going the other direction, the Ruger MK pistols are arranged such that the action and barrel are the firearm, while the frame, fire control group, and magazine well are not.

And, going even another direction, the SIG P320 type handguns are defined as the fire control unit ONLY, not the barrel, slide, magazine well...

I suppose it goes to say that nearly any part that houses a combination or one of the following can be a firearm: bolt, fire control group, magazine well... It all depends on what the ATF says is what.

 

[Don Dayacetah]

The affected company has the following posted on their uppers product page: "Due to BATFE related complications we are not taking orders at this time. Standing orders have not been forgotten. As soon as the BATFE complications are straightened out order fullilment will resume."

Sounds to me like a convenient way for the company to foist it's responsibilities off on the ATF, while it takes the money and runs...

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sounds to me like a convenient way for the company to foist it's responsibilities off on the ATF, while it takes the money and runs...

If it's not fulfilling the orders the company is going to have a hard time keeping the money. A business makes money only when it can sell and deliver product.

A business can't generally get away for long with the sort of chicanery you describe before customers are going to stop doing business with it.