[gotgraham]

I am getting ready to start building a semi-auto Suomi M31 off a prexis reduced ID receiver. The original barrel length is shorter than 16" which leaves me with a few options -

1. Register the gun as a SBR
2. Modify the gun so that it cannot accept the original barrel / jacket and install a 16"+ barrel.
3. Build it as a pistol.

My question surrounds option #3. If I build it as a pistol, I don't have any of the 922(r) requirements or barrel length. I can also leave the original barrel quick detach feature alone (I would prefer this).

I would like the ability to add a stock and a 16" barrel in the future (using the original jacket and mount system). According to US vs Thompson / Contender this is perfectly legal and would not constitute constructive posession of a SBR.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=504&page=505

When I build this, do I need to specifically engrave the receiver with a designation that says that it is a pistol receiver? Something like this:

"G-31 Pistol"

I figure that way I will be covered, as homebuilds don't ever get 'registered' a pistol or rifle when they get manufactured.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

 

[gotgraham]

Does my thought process on this sound correct? I'd like to make sure that I'm going about this right.

 

[waffendude]

i think you are right
rifles equal 922
pistols--922 does not apply (so i understand)
however if you make it interchangable with a std soumi barrel/stock--that might be "constructive possesion"

i think ? ?
waffen

 

[gotgraham]

I thought about the constructive posession part...but it seems like its ok as its a 'pistol'. This would be why you can buy carbine kits for handguns. It would seem (to me) that this would be the same scenario I am going for. The ATF doesn't consider those who have a pistol and a carbine kit to be in constructive posession - even know they could build an SBR by keeping the original length barrel on the pistol when attaching the carbine stock - its not until the two are actually assembled together that an sbr has been 'made'. I probably should just contact the BATF about it. It seems like a legit way to have both barrels / stocks and be legal, but I could be wrong.

 

[Lone Ranger]

Although your conclusion about ATF's view on a collection of parts not being a SBR is very logical, it is, unfortunately, incorrect. Despite TC vs. US, ATF has declared the ruling only covers the contender - nothing else.

If you register it as a SBR, you can pretty much do what you want when you want in regards to configuration... kinda up to you.

 

[gotgraham]

Dang!! I figured there would be a gotcha. Thanks!

Ok in that case I have question regarding SBR. On the Form 1, it asks that I state the original manufacturer. Since I am the original manufacturer, I would enter my information here. It also asks that I supply a design drawing for the firearm.

How detailed does this need to be? Can I give a basic dimensioned external diagram of it?

 

[Rory]

How detailed does this need to be? Can I give a basic dimensioned external diagram of it?

here's what i would send

 

[Lone Ranger]

Well, I need some help here as I am not familiar w/the Prexis receiver you mentioned. Is it a firearm in itself - like a ATF approved semi receiver of some kind?

Whenever someone talks about making a semi based on a MG, I get VERY cautious about handing out advice with my main concern being a semi that ATF would not view as a semi. I assume with the reduced ID bit, it is good to go - designed to be semi-only?

In the manufacturer block on the F-1, if the receiver is something marked and serialed as a firerarm already, just put that info in. If it is something you fabricate from scratch like bending a flat into a receiver, your name/address goes there.

Anyway, a diagram should do it or sometimes people will use a photo of an existing firearm and explain any proposed differences. If you have a pic of a rifle version, you could probably send that in saying "I want to build this with a short barrel". Actually, you may be able to slide with no diagram. If you are fabricating something from scratch, I would do so. If you are just hanging a parts kit on an existing firearm, you can probably skip it.

 

[Lone Ranger]

You almost got it Rory. Just move the cut line back to the receiver and you have the ATF response to his proposal.

 

[gotgraham]

Well, I need some help here as I am not familiar w/the Prexis receiver you mentioned. Is it a firearm in itself - like a ATF approved semi receiver of some kind?

Whenever someone talks about making a semi based on a MG, I get VERY cautious about handing out advice with my main concern being a semi that ATF would not view as a semi. I assume with the reduced ID bit, it is good to go - designed to be semi-only?

That is correct. I am building an ATF approved semi-auto design. It's a striker based design that recently got approved (have a copy of the letter).

 

[gotgraham]

You almost got it Rory. Just move the cut line back to the receiver and you have the ATF response to his proposal.

LOL. Yeah that's too bad about my idea. It certainly makes sense, in light of that court case. I guess you can never be too careful. I'll get the SBR approval before I get the receiver, build it, etc.

 

[Conch1]

I am facing a similar question with my M56 build. I think that it is easier to go ahead and do the build with the 16" barrel, then file a Form 1 requesting permission to utilize the original barrel for "authenticity sake." If you can establish the original firearm as a legal Title one firearm and change it back, it would certainly be easier. I suspect that BATFE would rather get the $200 tax for the gun in that fashion. Comments?

 

[Chad G]

if its got interchangeable barrels build it in the legal fashion, apply for the F1 get approved then switch it. Its not much different than owning an AR thats got a 16" barrel on it and applying for the F1 approval to change it to a 10.5" barrel.
NFA approvals are taking much longer so I'd get that in the mail asap ARFCOMer's figure 2-3 months for approval right now, BATF case load has increased 1000% this year compared to other years.

 

[Lone Ranger]

Using a semi-only receiver will make things much easier:

Complete the F-1 using your info as maker/manufacturer. On the firearm description portion, use any existing markings on the receiver. If there is no model, you can make one up or nothing at all - not required.

When you finish, it must be marked with serial (must be on the receiver, in your case already there), caliber, & your name/city/state (these can be on receiver or barrel).

As for plans - Just my opinion which as my sig line says is worth every penny you paid, I would make a diagram or include a photo of a similar completed firearm (either SBR or not) since you will be doing something just a bit off the beaten path from the typical AR upper swap. Also might want to send along a copy of the ATF letter saying your receiver is semi-only. Hopefully it will get imaged with the rest of your app and permanently recorded should you need it later.

 

[Lone Ranger]

I am facing a similar question with my M56 build. I think that it is easier to go ahead and do the build with the 16" barrel, then file a Form 1 requesting permission to utilize the original barrel for "authenticity sake." If you can establish the original firearm as a legal Title one firearm and change it back, it would certainly be easier. I suspect that BATFE would rather get the $200 tax for the gun in that fashion. Comments?

I think I follow you: Get the build classified as a legit semi-auto first, then F-1 to SBR?

Safer like that since it would stink to do the hassle of a F-1, build your SBR, then have it classified as a MG and cut up.

 

[Woodbutcher]

ATF approved semi-auto design

That is correct. I am building an ATF approved semi-auto design. It's a striker based design that recently got approved (have a copy of the letter).

I am also planning to build a semi-only Soumi. Could you provide a link to the letter you have?

 

[gotgraham]

The letter comes on the CD that Greg Clark puts out - www.gunbuilds.com. The CD outlines the whole build, lots of pics. It's worth the $30 or so it costs. He's got the only ATF approved suomi build that I'm aware of.

 

[Lone Ranger]

One point of clarification: List the original manufacturer of the semi receiver in the firearm ID section. I should have used the word "applicant" for where your name/address, etc. goes. Sorry for the poor text.

 

[blackrifles]

LR,

This topic is on every gun board I visit, almost every day someone asks same question, to my knowledge there are no "easy-to-understand examples" on how to properly fill out those forms, I know that mistakes SERIOUSLY backlog NFA examiners, I mean they're hammered and this might help them out.

Small Arms Review said the number 1 reason for NFA rejections was mistakes on applications, with all the gun sites, you'd think by now they'd have form fill-out examples, networked across gun boards/search engines so anyone could find it. It's not a black art, and should not be so much mass confusion in this area.

Perhaps ATF should offer (easy to understand) examples on their site, you know, for the "legalese-challenged" folk. Wait one, that would make sense in GOV, can't do that BS, or will common sense prevail?

 

[Lone Ranger]

BR,

Great minds must think alike. Someone in there has had the idea for some time to create exactly that - a "forms manual" for addition to the handbook (which includes posting on the website)... a step by step reference Item 1= ______, item 2=_______, item 3=_______. Trouble is he's so buried with reactive junk and other ongoing crusades there isn't much time to construct such a thing.

Of course, what's to stop me from doing such a thing? It used to be a goal but I pretty much forgot about it until you mentioned it. No promises, but I'll try to focus on it over the next 2-3 weekends. Have I told you lately that you stink?