I've always thought that the main difference between A1 and A2 receivers was the increased reinforcements around the front pivot pin and the receiver extension.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_127/589064_.html
and
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_123/294264_.html

Then I came across an A1 that looks like it has the later A2 reinforcements:
http://autoweapons.com/photos14/sep/vk340m16m.jpg
http://autoweapons.com/photos14/sep/vk340m16d.jpg

Full pictures here:
http://autoweapons.com/photos14/sep/vk340m16.html

Is there anything odd about this? I know there are lots of knowledgeable people in this forum, so please educate me!


Edit - Changed photos to links as per the photo owners request (complaint). Please do not post inline images from that site. -- gb

That's pretty strange, it does look like A2 model but is labeled A1. Best guess I can make is it was made right during the transition between the two models.

It's one of a few Colt remade a few years ago on current pattern lowers before the ATF put the kabosh on it.

So this isn't a transferable MG?

To my understanding, yes it is transferable.  Basically, Colt used latest M4-style lowers, serialized and roll marked exactly as the old transferable A1 lowers (which were destroyed) to remanufacture them.  No idea how many were done like that.  They pop up for sale once in a blue moon.  This all came to an end after some shenanigans involving silencers being remanufactured and BATF ruled it verboten.


That is also true, but the lower in the OP has the latest style (late 90s to present) reinforcement.  Which is to say there are differences between the reinforcement between generations of A2 lowers, particularly at the receiver extension boss.

The manufacturer's rollmark shows it to be a factory-replaced receiver from the late 90s to early 00s, as mentioned above.  An A1 made with transitional A2 reinforcements would have used the "Colt's Firearms Division" manufacturer roll mark and not used the extra-heavy receiver extension reinforcing if it were from the mid 1980s.

It's not an A2 lower - it's an A3 lower.  Because A3 lowers didn't exist on May 19, 1986, they aren't covered by the grandfathering exemption in 922(o):

- - - - -
(o)

1. Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.


2. This subsection does not apply with respect to—
   
   
   (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
   (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

- - - - -

Transferable machine guns can't be replaced/remanufactured/whatever with post-86 machine guns since they wouldn't be covered by the exemption either.  And BATFE doesn't have the authority to allow/approve/whatever transferables that have been replaced with post-86 machine guns.  If they haven't gone after them yet, that doesn't mean they're legal.  It just means they haven't gone after them yet.

If anyone believes that these post-86 machine guns are legal (let's ignore the equally illegal post-86 machine guns made using trusts), please identify the relevant exemption in 922(o).

No doubt, but I've seen them on the market from time to time for at least the last 6-7 years.

M11s that magically turned into Thompsons, 1919s, etc were on the market for years too, until they weren't.  Granted, they were a different type of fraud, but the end result was the same - post-86 machine guns papered as transferables.

They are legal and have been transferred before and put up for sale before.  I almost bought one but it sold too fast before I bought my carbine.

If it was MFG'd after 05/19/86 it is illegal, there are no  exceptions and no case law exceptions. There is some case law for adding guns to the registry after 05/19/86, but the guns were made prior.

There is lots of illegal stuff out there with valid papers, it will probably continue to be xferred as short of a full blown investigation, it will never be discovered.

Again, please identify the relevant exemption in 922(o) that allows machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986 to be transferred to non-SOTs or government entities.

Also, please note that the following statements are not the same, and shouldn't be used interchangeably:
- Something is true.
- I believe something is true.

While you may believe that post samples papered as pre-86 transferables (like A3 lowers that didn't exist in 1986) are perfectly legal, and you've seen them for sale, and you've seen them transferred, and you almost bought one, note that none of these things is a valid exemption to 922(o) which very unambiguously makes their transfer or possession illegal.

I may be wrong, however, I seem to recall Olympic transferring the S\N of a damaged lower ,to a new replacement lower, then, destroying the original.
This was probably ten years ago.

It's unfortunate that people with legal transferable machine guns traded them for illegal post samples merely papered as legal transferables.

You are correct that both Olympic and Colt did this in the early 2000s. It didn't even have to be damaged, people were getting replacements just because they liked the newer A2 profile and reinforcements. Like many other things ATF has decided, they changed their minds and disallowed the practice.  There was extensive discussion about the practice here and elsewhere which you can still find in the arf archives.  I don't know if non-team members can search the archives here or not, but the wayback machine almost certainly has them available, too, even for non-team members.

As long as ATF keeps turning a blind eye to those replaced receivers, they'll remain transferrable (pseudo-transferrable?), but there was never a basis in law for ATF to allow the receiver replacement, and they can change their mind at any time, or may some day be ordered by a court to round up all of those illegal replacements.