[obiebeekeeper]

Guys and Gals,
I was looking around the internet and could not find anyone that makes 80% RHSP for the m2 or m3 50 cal. Does anyone make them?

 

[GBYENKO]

Guys and Gals,
I was looking around the internet and could not find anyone that makes 80% RHSP for the m2 or m3 50 cal. Does anyone make them?

KMP, Karma Metal Products
It is a 80% but it is also serial numbered and requires going thru an FFL. As far as I no they are the only game in town for M2/M3 side plates.
They are good to deal with.
Greg

 

[Lucky#13]

ATF no longer allows the old 80% side plate without a paper trail. They interpret those to require a 4473 transfer, and this applies to both .30 and .50 cal plates. As far as they are concerned, the finished profile and charging handle slot features are what makes it a "firearm," not any percentage of finish. That last concept is one they call an "industry term." It's a gun, or it's not a gun, and the old 80% spec is considered a gun.

 

[obiebeekeeper]

Lucky#13

I am confused. How come a 80% ar15 receiver does not need a 4473 and can be shipped directly to me but a 30 and 50 cal RHSP are consider a firearm and must go to an FFL? I am confused by this logic.

 

[Mr.Maim]

Not to be flippant, but Lucky#13 perfectly explained why.

ATF no longer allows the old 80% side plate without a paper trail. They interpret those to require a 4473 transfer, and this applies to both .30 and .50 cal plates. As far as they are concerned, the finished profile and charging handle slot features are what makes it a "firearm," not any percentage of finish. That last concept is one they call an "industry term." It's a gun, or it's not a gun, and the old 80% spec is considered a gun.

The BATFE doesn't like to not be able to "track" sideplates, regardless of percentage of completion.

 

[Starvingboy]

Vendor: Hey ATF, can I sell this without FFL? It requires metalworking to make it functional..

ATF: sure, I don’t see why not

John Q Public: Whoo!! These sure are cheap and easy! Hurray!

ATF: Hang on a sec, let me take a closer look...


Happens over and over. Too much fun and the fun police get involved.

 

[Lucky#13]

Lucky#13

I am confused. How come a 80% ar15 receiver does not need a 4473 and can be shipped directly to me but a 30 and 50 cal RHSP are consider a firearm and must go to an FFL? I am confused by this logic.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Plus, you missed the point I made that the term "80%" has no meaning other than as an industry marketing term. ATF has no standard based on percentage of work required to finish a receiver. They have a standard, if one that can be considered arbitrary and malleable. That standard is that it is a gun, or it is not a gun, and what distinguishes that is quite different from one firearm design to another. In the case of the 1919 or M2/M3, mere drilling of rivet holes is considered so simple that anyone with a power drill or drill press can finish it quickly. On the other hand, imagine a plate where all the holes are present, but there is no charging handle slot and the profile is a perfect rectangle. You have a hand power drill and/or a drill press. How long is that going to take you to carve out the slot and the feedway, not to mention a couple of other features? Few home builders have the equipment and ability to do that. Of course, there is the KMP offering that is marketed as a "70%" plate, which has those features milled most of the way through the plate, leaving .030" or so to cut through. But it is still a rectangular plate with no features on one side, and I believe no holes drilled through. ATF has said that is not a gun, because it does require time consuming work to finish the feedway and the charging handle slot, in addition to drilling and chamfering all the holes. To them, that's good enough.

Now some might argue that it isn't a gun until the box gets riveted together. I might argue that makes perfect sense. However, when your side plate is finished, a couple of hours in your garage and you can have a functioning gun assembled. That's the ATF view. If it's that easy to complete the manufacturing process, then the state of the receiver plate is where the rubber hits the road. If anyone want's to collect a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million, and sue ATF over this standard, please go for it. Otherwise, they get to enforce their standard.

An 80% AR receiver is a different animal. You need a mill, or you need one of those fixtures and a some time just to get the receiver finished to usable state. I have not done those, and don't have a feel for the time and tooling. But I am pretty sure it's far more complicated than drilling an old 80% Browning plate. To sum it up, just because both Browning RSPs and AR 15 lowers have been marketed as "80% receivers," it doesn't mean the same standard is applicable.

 

[42rocker]

Lucky#13
------------------ Well Said -------------------

Later 42rocker

 

[MSG]

Oh well. I was thinking about clearing out some surplus materials, but this new interpretation complicates things a bit. MSG

 

[ScottD]

.

An 80% AR receiver is a different animal. You need a mill, or you need one of those fixtures and a some time just to get the receiver finished to usable state. I have not done those, and don't have a feel for the time and tooling. But I am pretty sure it's far more complicated than drilling an old 80% Browning plate. To sum it up, just because both Browning RSPs and AR 15 lowers have been marketed as "80% receivers," it doesn't mean the same standard is applicable.

Spend 80 bucks on an AR15 receiver 'machining template kit' and you will get everything you need to mill an aluminum receiver. Total time invested will be about 2 hours, and that's with a crappy drill press and hand tools. I also questioned why an 80% receiver required an FFL for a M2/1919 and not an AR, but as other have stated, these things are often best left unmentioned.

If its fun, easy and makes sense, DO NOT bring attention to it.

 

[obiebeekeeper]

Newbie just trying to learn

Hey Guys,
As I stated before, I'm a Newbie and while Mr. Lucky#13 explained it perfectly, I was unable to understand his explanation, even thou I read it a number of times it seemed illogical to me. I assume you have worked with and owned 1919a4 and m2's for many years. This is all new to me and I was confused. I was confused by his explanation which I admitted to and wanted help to understand more clearly.
Hopefully, I have not offended you. I just wanted you to understand that when I'm among a number of experts like you and Mr. Lucky #13, I like to ask questions about subjects that I know nothing about.

 

[ScottD]

Hey Guys,
As I stated before, I'm a Newbie and while Mr. Lucky#13 explained it perfectly, I was unable to understand his explanation, even thou I read it a number of times it seemed illogical to me. I assume you have worked with and owned 1919a4 and m2's for many years. This is all new to me and I was confused. I was confused by his explanation which I admitted to and wanted help to understand more clearly.
Hopefully, I have not offended you. I just wanted you to understand that when I'm among a number of experts like you and Mr. Lucky #13, I like to ask questions about subjects that I know nothing
about.

We've all been in your shoes brother. Better to ask questions here than to make expensive or illegal decisions elsewhere.

 

[Lucky#13]

Hey Guys,
As I stated before, I'm a Newbie and while Mr. Lucky#13 explained it perfectly, I was unable to understand his explanation, even thou I read it a number of times it seemed illogical to me. I assume you have worked with and owned 1919a4 and m2's for many years. This is all new to me and I was confused. I was confused by his explanation which I admitted to and wanted help to understand more clearly.
Hopefully, I have not offended you. I just wanted you to understand that when I'm among a number of experts like you and Mr. Lucky #13, I like to ask questions about subjects that I know nothing about.

Not to worry. I did my share of learning like the rest here. I was trying to give a short, concise answer, but went into more detail the second time around. Key here is to let go of the percentage figures like "80%," as they have no bearing on the legal status of the plate or receiver. Those are terms used strictly by the industry and are meaningless to the federal regulators. I am not even aware that any maker had an "approval letter" for just a Browning side plate in the semi auto realm. Usually, that applied to a complete, assembly. About 12 years ago, a major maker of 1919 and M2HB semi side plates was raided by ATF. They insisted that the rules had always been what I described above. That the industry had coined the term "80%" and sold plates like that as non firearms for years meant nothing to them. While they didn't press any charges on the maker, they threatened to. The net result is that the accepted configuration standard was enforced and the well known makers all changed the way they do business.

Now to MSG's concern, I don't think an individual has much to worry about. If one is an FFL, the scrutiny is much different. There are still old style plates out there that are what we used to call 80%, even some small shops have made them recently. But it is not something an 07 FFL wants to play with these days. I have seen how ATF inspectors deal with non compliance.

 

[MSG]

....If its fun, easy and makes sense, DO NOT bring attention to it.

Don't even think about mentioning the "80%" Glock frames that take about 30 minutes to finish...

 

[Mr.Maim]

Don't even think about mentioning the "80%" Glock frames that take about 30 minutes to finish...

But... you just did!

 

[Lucky#13]

I have no experience with the Glock frames, but remember the standard is going to vary with each firearm design. Your description makes me wonder, as ATF seems to be largely concerned with just how easy it is, and how much time is required, to finish to the level where they consider it a firearm receiver. One thing we can always count on with ATF is inconsistency, about faces, and different answers to the same question from different personnel. Remember, they did mess with one or two makers of the molded AR lowers, eventually calling off the dogs when challenged. But I saw enough with the 1919 plates, knowing the maker well and hearing the tale direct, as well as having discussed issues with my IOI during my own inspection. For a regulated FFL, there is always potential scrutiny. For the individual, much less to worry about. Depending on your state, of course, having an old style 80% plate is not a problem, nor is selling it so long as your state rules allow private sales, for example. Obviously, we are not talking California here...

 

[MG08]

Lucky 13 makes good points. As an 07, and just having completed a compliance inspection, I can tell you that the inspectors are looking at EVERYTHING in a different light than 3 years ago, or 15 years ago. Not only paperwork, but firearms and really going over form 2 stuff. Add to that the fact that their records are STILL incomplete at best ( too long a story to go into here) the entire 80% plate thing is a minefield. I used to build 1919 type Post samples, we did a batch of RPDs and Sterlings too. I had plate stock left, ( 4140) cut out in the approximate form of a side plate. NO other work done, not cuts, no holes , nothing. Inspector wanted me to have them serialized. I pointed out that there were just pieces of steel, like a tube or a block of aluminum. She really went off when she saw the box of RPD sideplates ( replacement sections) fully machined, but not welded to anything ( I Dont even have any RPD kits) . We had a chat with the tech branch folks in WA DC and she calmed down. But I can tell you, I thought I was in real trouble. My experience may be different from others, but it is almost not worth the 07 for all the trouble in inspections - Did I mention their records suck ? Still spent 2 days here.

 

[MG08]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Plus, you missed the point I made that the term "80%" has no meaning other than as an industry marketing term. ATF has no standard based on percentage of work required to finish a receiver. They have a standard, if one that can be considered arbitrary and malleable. That standard is that it is a gun, or it is not a gun, and what distinguishes that is quite different from one firearm design to another. In the case of the 1919 or M2/M3, mere drilling of rivet holes is considered so simple that anyone with a power drill or drill press can finish it quickly. On the other hand, imagine a plate where all the holes are present, but there is no charging handle slot and the profile is a perfect rectangle. You have a hand power drill and/or a drill press. How long is that going to take you to carve out the slot and the feedway, not to mention a couple of other features? Few home builders have the equipment and ability to do that. Of course, there is the KMP offering that is marketed as a "70%" plate, which has those features milled most of the way through the plate, leaving .030" or so to cut through. But it is still a rectangular plate with no features on one side, and I believe no holes drilled through. ATF has said that is not a gun, because it does require time consuming work to finish the feedway and the charging handle slot, in addition to drilling and chamfering all the holes. To them, that's good enough.

Now some might argue that it isn't a gun until the box gets riveted together. I might argue that makes perfect sense. However, when your side plate is finished, a couple of hours in your garage and you can have a functioning gun assembled. That's the ATF view. If it's that easy to complete the manufacturing process, then the state of the receiver plate is where the rubber hits the road. If anyone want's to collect a few hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million, and sue ATF over this standard, please go for it. Otherwise, they get to enforce their standard.

An 80% AR receiver is a different animal. You need a mill, or you need one of those fixtures and a some time just to get the receiver finished to usable state. I have not done those, and don't have a feel for the time and tooling. But I am pretty sure it's far more complicated than drilling an old 80% Browning plate. To sum it up, just because both Browning RSPs and AR 15 lowers have been marketed as "80% receivers," it doesn't mean the same standard is applicable.

Bravo. Succinct and well stated. I was going to jump in and could not have said it better. I have this discussion here about once a month with guys who want to build a 1919 or AR or AK on the cheap and low down.