Why is the Upper the Firearm...

[lysanderxiii]

Just to muddy the waters: my first rifle was a Nylon 66 (actually, I had the non-tubular magazine version, whatever model that was). The serial number was on the U shaped piece of metal that wrapped around the action - a dust cover really. It wasn't a functional part, other than perhaps keeping the ejector from falling out (it's been a few years, I don't have the rifle anymore, alas). So, if I remove the serialized dust cover and use a piece of duct tape to keep the ejector in, is the firearm the removed dust cover, or the rest or the rifle?

The answer, I think, is 'It depends' - specifically, it depends on what law we're talking about. If the law in question defines 'gun' along the lines of 'an object that uses chemical energy to propel a projectile...' then the dust cover isn't the gun. For another law, maybe the dust cover is the gun, and everything else is just parts. In other contexts, maybe both are guns - strange alchemy indeed!

You'll go insane trying to formulate a general rule; I don't think there is one.

Nylon 77.

If you look through all the rifles ever produced, and look at which part is the "receiver" or "the serialized part", you will find there is no rhyme or reason.

Pistols, it is almost always the frame.

 

[Deus Machina]

If you look through all the rifles ever produced, and look at which part is the "receiver" or "the serialized part", you will find there is no rhyme or reason.

Yup. Basically the part labelled the 'firearm' is where the manufacturer chose to put the defining serial number, and the governing bodies didn't argue.
There's no specific reason.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

One part must be the serial numbered part of the gun for tracking purposes.

Ruger has always put the serial number of their semi-auto pistol on the receiver (upper) rather than on the lower (trigger frame).
With the original Thompson Submachine Gun, both the upper (receiver with barrel and bolt) and lower (trigger frame with fire control group) left the factory with matching serial numbers. When Thompsons went into military arsenals for refurbishing, no effort was made to keep uppers and lowers matching. The inventory control used the serial number on the gun's upper.
My semi-auto Thompson TM1 has a serial number on the upper but not on the lower. Most rifles have the serial number on the receiver that takes the barrel and bolt.
Most semi-auto pistols have the serial number on the frame with no serial number on the slide.
My C96 Mauser pistol has serial numbers on the upper (barrel extension/receiver) and on the grip/trigger frame. ATF goes by the serial number on the C96 lower.
Why the AR15/M16 have the serial number on the lower (trigger frame with fire control group) only may have something to do with the AR15 lower accepting a semi-auto only fire control group and the M16 lower accepting a select-fire semi-auto or full-auto fire control group, with the upper being the same or similar whether AR15 or M16. Or it may have something to do with the upper being treated as a replacable/interchangeable part.

One can speculate that Ruger may have decided to put the serial number on the machined steel receiver because the gripframe was stamped sheet metal or perhaps they envisioned the gripframe as a replacable or interchangable part.

 

[Sistema1927]

What does the "receiver" do? By namesake, it "receives" the recoil. For a semiauto pistol, that effectively is designated as the part which provides the stopping resistance, first hand, of the action operation. The assembly pin in the upper of the Ruger Mark series pistols places that action force upon the UPPER. Contrarily, for a 1911, Glock, AR-15, etc, the recoil springs anchor to the grip frame, hence the grip frame for those models "receives" first and provides the gross resistance the force of the action's cycle.

Are there some models which are marked in a manner whic doesn't follow that rule? Sure. But overall, this is the most basic rule one can attribute to what qualifies as the receiver, and what does not. But overall, if you ignore the fire control group (it's a receiver, not a "firer" after all), and focus upon the location of the supporting structure against which the recoil spring is anchored, more often than not, you'll have the right answer.

This makes a lot of sense, at least to me. It also accounts for the difference in my OP, where I compared the 22/45 to an AR15. Thanks for giving me some hope for sanity in this arena.

And thanks to all who have contributed. It has certainly been an interesting discussion.

 

[Tirod]

The AR15/M16 serial number location may have more to do with Armalite and Colt wanting to put it on a flat surface for production purposes. The '68 GCA was years off and unknown - but what was a long standing requirement was serial number inventory for accountability in the military. That was a known requirement and would be performed regularly.

It would be more difficult to put it on the upper - there's little space for it and mostly curved surfaces. But the mag well and above the trigger guard is a big flat billboard for advertising and such. Easy peasy.

Some times it's just a production thing.

 

[Elkins45]

I would think in the case of the M16-AR15 a very practical reason for serializing the lower is because if a barrel gets shot out or damaged the unit armorer might just swap out a complete upper. The GI would still have the same rifle and no new serial number to remember or to track in inventory.

 

[grampajack]

I checked, and it is indeed possible to mix 22/45 and Mk series uppers and lowers with what the ATF would likely consider to be minimal modification. So that's probably the answer right there. The ATF probably ruled that the 22/45 was part of the Mk series, and would therefore have to retain the serial number on the upper. Otherwise, if the serial number were on the lower, someone could hypothetically assemble a firearm from aftermarket parts using a Mk series lower and a 22/45 upper.

Let's just say hypothetically that all ARs were serialized on the upper receiver. And now a company comes along and wants to make an AR variant with the SN on the lower. The ATF isn't going to let that happen in a million years. Every "type" of firearm has to adopt the SN placement of its brethren if the parts are even remotely interchangeable with parts already on the market.

 

[acdodd]

What about them? Not required prior to GCA 1968.
Not to be confused with Grandpa's Gun which is his USGI service pistol from which he deleted the serial number and USP in 1946 to cleverly conceal from the MPs and the FBI that he had misappropriated government property. Not legal.

I know all that.
I guess I should have been clearer.
If there is no serial number then what part would be restricted by ATF?
Seems like the previous posters are correct.
The serial number is not what is important.
What the ATF decided is a registered part is all that matters.

 

[Jim Watson]

A legitimate non-serialized firearm is recorded by the FFL by its physical description.

 

[Sam1911]

If there is no serial number then what part would be restricted by ATF?

Jim described how it works in reality: A dealer writes down the description on a 4473 form but puts "none" or "N/A" in the serial number box. There are instructions on the form for dealing with just that.

That might not quite be the answer to acdodd's question, though as it only deals with sales of an older gun that was manufactured with no serial number and is now being sold through a licensed dealer.

But what about other possibilities? For example, if you're building your own gun. Or if you are selling a gun or parts of a gun to someone else, and it (lawfully) has no serial number?

In those instances, if you're building your own gun on a common design -- a 1911 or AR-15, for example, the ATF would simply regard the part they already recognize as the controlled "firearm" as the firearm portion of the gun you made yourself. Even though you'd have no need to mark it unless you wanted to.

If you've created something as a "one-off" new invention (like some of MachIVshooter's great projects!) the question would have to be directed to the ATF to be answered, or decided, properly. But it wouldn't matter unless you wanted it to matter. E.g.: you're going to make these for commercial sale, and they'll need to have a serial number and controlled part determined.

If you've got an old gun and you want to sell it to someone, through a dealer (let's say it's going across state lines), it would transfer as a firearm but with the serial number recorded as "none."

The only scenario I can think of which might really be questionable is if you're parting out an old gun with no serial number. In other words, you're going to go on GunBroker and sell the barrel to someone, the trigger group to someone else, the stock, the sights, etc. Almost all of the gun could be sold across state lines with no 447s dealer transfer required, except for SOME part which is "the firearm." And that might be easy to determine (e.g.: most of us could pick out that the receiver of a bolt-action rifle is always the controlled "firearm", not the barrel or trigger group), or it might need a determination letter if it's really obscure. The set of circumstances where this would be unclear is probably pretty small.

 

[dogtown tom]

"...Because that's what the BATFE decided..." Exactly. Unelected civil servants making law by regulation. Call your elected representatives and ask why that's allowed....

I don't need to call my elected representatives to know why. If you spent five minutes on Google you would too.
ATF can develop regulations only from an enabling Federal law, just like the IRS, DEA, EPA and hundreds of other Federal agencies.

Common sense should tell you Congress doesn't need to discuss, debate or pontificate on the merits of where an AR15 should have its serial#.
Good grief.

 

[dogtown tom]

..... So, if I remove the serialized dust cover and use a piece of duct tape to keep the ejector in, is the firearm the removed dust cover, or the rest or the rifle?.

It would be no different than prying out the serial# plate on a Glock or other polymer frame pistol.......you still have a gun, but have committed a felony by removing the serial#.

 

[pintler]

"It would be no different than prying out the serial# plate on a Glock or other polymer frame pistol.......you still have a gun, but have committed a felony by removing the serial#"

Then there's a heckuva lot of felons out there - removing the dust cover is step one for field stripping. Or maybe step two, after pulling the bolt handle ... been a few years.

 

[grampajack]

"It would be no different than prying out the serial# plate on a Glock or other polymer frame pistol.......you still have a gun, but have committed a felony by removing the serial#"

Then there's a heckuva lot of felons out there - removing the dust cover is step one for field stripping. Or maybe step two, after pulling the bolt handle ... been a few years.

He's talking about defacing the serial number, removing it permanently. Prying the metal plate from a polymer frame would be the same as filing it off.

 

[MistWolf]

The answer is quite simple. Which part constitutes the serialized firearm is decided by the manufacturer upon approval by the BATF.

I think it's Sig that serializes the fire control group of one of their handgun models. All of the rest of the parts are just parts, making various grip frames etc easy to buy

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Firearm frame or receiver. That 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.

1. Location of the hammer (assuming this would also be the striker)
2. Location of the bolt or breechblock
3. Location of the firing mechanism
4. barrel threads
I suspect that two parts came down to 2 of the above 4 each (as in an AR15) it would be arbitrary.

Mike

 

[lysanderxiii]

1. Location of the hammer (assuming this would also be the striker)
2. Location of the bolt or breechblock
3. Location of the firing mechanism
4. barrel threads
I suspect that two parts came down to 2 of the above 4 each (as in an AR15) it would be arbitrary.

Mike

- M14, M1, M1 Carbine, VZ-52, SKS, STV, 10/22, heck, just about every gas operated semi-auto with a conventional stock - hammer and firing mechanism in a separate trigger housing group, so, only two of your four parts in the receiver.

- Johnson and just about all recoil operated rifles - barrel threads in barrel extension, with all the trigger parts in a separate trigger housing group, only one part of your four in the "receiver".

- Just about all rifles of the 1800s, the only part in the receiver, of your four parts, is the barrel.

- Most all pump shotguns have a separate trigger housing group, leaving two parts in the "receiver".

Your formula is only non-arbitrary in bolt action rifles....

The simple fact is the "receiver" is whatever they deem the most "important".

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It's not my formula. It's the definition of a receiver in 27 CFR 478.11

Mike

 

[lysanderxiii]

It's not my formula. It's the definition of a receiver in 27 CFR 478.11

Mike

Firearm frame or receiver. That 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.

According the that, no receiver actually fits the definition of 'receiver', because almost no 'receiver' provides all of those functions.

 

[grampajack]

According the that, no receiver actually fits the definition of 'receiver', because almost no 'receiver' provides all of those functions.

I think for the most part it just boils down to whatever the ATF and the manufacturer can agree on. Lots of guns, probably most, the answer is obvious and probably not worth fighting the ATF over. Like the SCAR for example. FN, had they wanted to hypothetically, could have fought to have the upper serialized, but since it followed the pattern of ARs it was pretty much written in stone which part was going to be the receiver.

Others are more tricky, like the FAL and CETME. Is the trigger housing a lower receiver, or just a trigger housing? Then with other guns there's a historical precedent that predates the laws. The Ruger in question seems to fall into that category. Were the Mk1 submitted today the frame would absolutely be the serialized part, and I don't think Ruger could do anything to convince the ATF otherwise. But since there's already a precedent, now they can't change it, even though the parts for the 22/45 are technically not interchangeable with the Mk series.

Just another example of why the government should never be allowed to regulate anything. They're bound to screw it up and make everything so complicated no one knows what the hell is going on anymore.

 

[jdc1244]

"...Because that's what the BATFE decided..." Exactly. Unelected civil servants making law by regulation. Call your elected representatives and ask why that's allowed.

Nonsense.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Federal agencies are tasked with the responsibility of implementing the laws passed by Congress.

The development of policies and regulations pursuant to acts of Congress is not 'making laws.'

 

[CraigC]

May have something to do with serviceability. A receiver like that could hardly wear out. Bill Ruger was first and foremost a pragmatist. What does it really matter? It's not something we can do anything about.

 

[Dr.Rob]

It's an added pain, can't buy a new barrel (threaded for example) without paying a transfer tax since the upper is the 'gun'. Can't sell them in CA, not on an 'approved list' though it's just a barrel.

It makes Ruger's parts more expensive to the consumer.

 

[Ryanxia]

As far as I know, the Ruger .22 semi auto pistol is the ONLY handgun that has the serial number on the UPPER FRAME .

Better known as the barrel and bolt.

Check all your other guns,you will find the serial number on the LOWER part of the actual FRAME.

Nope, my PPS 43 is legally a pistol from the factory and the upper is the receiver. Just depends on manufacturer. There are others too, and then you have Sig's M17 which the receiver is a weird little component since the frame and slide can be replaced.

 

[MistWolf]

Nonsense.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Federal agencies are tasked with the responsibility of implementing the laws passed by Congress.

The development of policies and regulations pursuant to acts of Congress is not 'making laws.'

The BATF has been "making laws" by being allowed broad interpretations of the law. Just look at the recent change in defining a "wipe" as a silencer part and subject to a $200 tax, the recent arm brace fiasco, labeling a shoe string as a machine gun, or when they defined the full auto carrier as a machinegun part. While don't have the authority to make law, they have have certainly overstepped their bounds

It's an added pain, can't buy a new barrel (threaded for example) without paying a transfer tax since the upper is the 'gun'. Can't sell them in CA, not on an 'approved list' though it's just a barrel.

It makes Ruger's parts more expensive to the consumer.

Is the barrel and the receiver all of one piece?