User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/2/2001 6:03:32 PM EDT
[#1]
According to info at old ar15.com, Eagle arms s/n's DID NOT begin with EA prefix, but Essential Arms DID. Check for yourself. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2001 6:11:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Eagle Arms are the best guns ever made.
Since this one looks like it is a hack job it would be an Essential Arms which never sold complete guns but only receivers and then home hackers assembled them usually with surplus kits from Nesard. The only reason it has value is because of course it is a pre-ban. A Pre-ban Eagle Arms gun would be a great find. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2001 6:19:38 PM EDT
[#3]
EA is Essential Arms. The lowers are all preban as they went out of business in 93.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2001 6:26:43 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: EA is Essential Arms. The lowers are all preban as they went out of business in 93. Just because a lower was produced before the ban (9/13/94) does NOT mean that it is pre-ban. Please check the legal forum; this is definitely a FAQ. Unless you owned the gun on the date the ban went into effect, you need some kind of written proof of the lower's preban status, or a court would consider the lower to be postban. The fact that the lower was *manufactured* before 1994 is not enough evidence. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2001 6:30:30 PM EDT
[#5]
It was definitely a hack-job. Mixed and matched. It had an A1 upper, triangular hanguards,a birdcage flash suppressor, an A2 stock, and an A2 stowaway grip. I won't even describe the lower parts kit here. He said that he has played around with it the last 6 or so years, but has never cleaned it as he did not even know how to remove the lower receiver. The bolt carrier and bolt were FULL of carbon. The firing pin was so corroded that the chrome was ruined. It looked like the inside of an old engine. I scraped what I could off with a knife for him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2001 6:35:17 PM EDT
[#6]
Troy, this guy said he bought it in its present form at a pawnshop. There is no way that I can get verification in writing as to its form on 9/13/94. Is all hope gone?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2001 6:42:58 PM EDT
[#7]
Unless the pawn shop can direct you to the previous owner, and you can backtrack it that way (and GOOD LUCK there), the rifle is a post-ban. Sorry.
-Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2001 6:49:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Oh, well, a guy can dream, I guess...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2001 6:59:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Try to find out more about when he picked it up. 7 years ago is "about 6". If he can remember better when and where he got it you may be able to trace it before the ban. I think it's worth looking into, yes you could discover 5 is almost 6 also, but you won't know unless you dig a little further.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2001 10:40:34 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: EA is Essential Arms. The lowers are all preban as they went out of business in 93. Just because a lower was produced before the ban (9/13/94) does NOT mean that it is pre-ban. Please check the legal forum; this is definitely a FAQ. Unless you owned the gun on the date the ban went into effect, you need some kind of written proof of the lower's preban status, or a court would consider the lower to be postban. The fact that the lower was *manufactured* before 1994 is not enough evidence. -Troy I heard about this case. The rifle is not grandfathered the gun owner is. That is basicly what the courts have decided. The rifle when changes owners it becomes a post ban gun. You open yourself up to federal lawsuits. I can't see the fuss about spending the money and taking the chance of a stupid lawsuite that even if won in court would probably bankrupt you for a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug. I own post ban guns only and have no problem with them at all. It is not worth the trouble,effort or money! You guy's do what you want but let me ask you this. Say you are at a range and you are shooting and a Fed asks you for paperwork on a preban rifle. You can produce it say within a normal amount of time (10 days) you can't produce this. What do you do? Is all the hassel and money worth it for the lug and supressor. That is why I say thank God we can still own post ban rifles. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2001 11:36:17 AM EDT
[#11]
Yeah, it was just a thought. I owned two pre-ban AR-15s (back before the '94 gun ban was even enacted). I had no inclination then to install a collapsing stock or a bayonet. I have long since sold them. The only thing I miss is the flash suppressor. I don't even care about flash reduction, I just like the cosmetics of the suppressor. Now that I have learned about the Wilson Combat brakes, I can have what I want in a post-ban configuration. So really, I could care less about owning a pre-ban. I guess the only reason I would want a pre-ban is because the government has raised so much hell about them. It is sort of a collector's item. Thanks, all.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
