I'm completely new to Sig rifles, so bear with me.  Anyone here get a 553 and put a stock on it yet?  What did you do about compliance parts?  I don't know where to get any that wouldn't seem to diminish the outward appearance, and the easiest route might be to buy a US rifle and start switching internals.  Anyone have a sig 922r parts list?

I'm in for the answer to this also. I'm strongly considering one of these for my next purchase. I've seen some pictures of these SBR'ed and the outward appearance looked the same.

I was in this same conundrum when considering if I should get a Swiss 553 pistol to SBR or to just get a domestic 556 Patrol and have it cut and parts swapped. I figured I was going to get trapped parts swapping no matter what, resulting in a half-breed gun either way so I opted for the easier (and debatably cheaper) road of staying with the 556.

As I saw it at the time, the 7 or 8 big important parts that had to be changed on the swiss gun were:

- Bolt
- Bolt Carrier
- Flash Hider
- Trigger
- Hammer
- Sear
- Buttstock
- Magazine Floorplate

Many of those items are of dubious compatibility however.

Manticore arms has a warning on their website that their 552 charging handle is not compatible with 553 carriers due to a difference in the slot between the US 556 guns and the Swiss 553 guns. I don't know if this means the US 556 bolt / carrier / handle are incompatible with the Swiss 553 pistol or not. If they are incompatible then I don't think it is possible to successfully build a 922r compliant 553 SBR.

There is a US made clone buttstock made by Sig for their domestic 556 rifles. The stocks look pretty much like the SAN stocks, the only problem is they don't sport domestic markings so unless you keep a receipt as proof of origin the buttstock could be a point of contention.

Another quirk is the trigger / hammer / sear. You would need to find a Sig USA trigger and get a set of the US made Shootingsite hammer and sear. If these parts are compatible with the aluminum receiver the 553 pistols ship with is another question I had. If they aren't, then once again you have an impasse as you will never get enough parts without them.

Lastly you have the magazine floorplate. It was rumored that a domestically made floorplate was coming out but I have not seen anything past that. I imagine the project was either scrapped or vaporware unless someone knows more than I.

If said 553 (pistol) is converted-ie..buttstock, You have an NFA SBR item, which if I  remember correctly, is exempt from 922r due to it being class3/NFA item. $200 plus 2-8 months wait time. Any one want to chime in on this???

As with everything involving the ATF I have read conflicting opinion letters on the subject. One letter said no it did not apply, the other said it did.

Some say that 922r's original intent was to limit manufacturers and not individuals... however when one Form 1's a weapon they are the manufacturer of record.

As with anything involving the government straight answers are hard to find and I take the stance of better safe than sorry. But that is only opinion and not "fact".

Just throw on a sig brace and call it a day.

 Umm.....NO

while the above is true, there really is not a real world example of 922(r) being applied to individuals as the BATF does not have the assets to enforce the regulation, and local jurisdictions lack the expertise to tell the difference between a piece of plastic made in the USA or Switzerland. slap a Swiss folder on it and be done. cousin of a close friend is an BATF agent and had no clue what 922(r) was when brought up in a conversation. slap a swiss folder on it and be done.

that's unless your the type of person who adheres to random laws/regulations like playing cards on sundays or giving somebody a tour of DC

for example stuff like this is on the books in ohio:

it is against state law to get a fish drunk.
•It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.
•No one can be arrested on Sunday or the 4th of July.
•You must have a license to keep a bear.
•Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.
•If your car breaks down and you phone for a cab, you will be ticketed if you opt to ride on the cab’s roof.
•In Canton, people wearing roller skates cannot share the streets with cars.
•In Cleveland, it is unlawful to leave chewing gum in public places.
•In Columbus, it is illegal for stores to sell Corn Flakes on Sunday.
•In Marion, you can’t eat a donut and walk backward down a city street.
•In Oxford, authorities will ticket you if you consecutively drive around the town square more than 100 times.
•In Oxford, it is illegal for a woman to undress in front of a man’s picture.
•In Paulding, policemen are permitted to bite a dog if they believe it will calm the dog down.
•In Youngstown, it is illegal to run out of gas.

I would be far be worried about getting caught whaling on Sunday than where a piece of plastic was made

A form-1 results in the individual being the "maker", not the manufacturer. There is a difference.

A recent ATF letter deals with the topic and states that making an SBR from a complete imported firearm would not fall under 922(r). It does state that making an SBR from imported parts (ie not imported as a complete firearm) must comply with 922(r). Similarly a firearm imported under the sporter clause of the '68 GCA (ie SAIGAs, USCs, SL8s, etc) must comply with 922(r) if features are added that would make it not readily importable under the sporting clause. Clear as mud.

Interesting. That is another letter that I had not seen... so two for, one against.

Interestingly though the other two letters related to 922(r) and SBRs deal with rifles being made from parts.  Those two are the conflicting letters.


Here is the 1994 letter:





And the 2006 letter:

Good thing we have all these clear cut, easy to understand regulations in place to prevent the misuse of $3000+ imported Swiss pistols by the criminal element that registers their weapons with the NFA branch. I feel much safer.

I think this is pretty clear,
Making a SBR from imported parts=must comply with 922R
Making a SBR from an imported rifle=no 922r so long as it stays in its neutered condition
Making a SBR from an imported rifle=must comply with 922r when you make it into a non-importable firearm
And it also says nothing about pistols.

That's my take as well, though the 2010 letter infers that 922(r) does not apply to pistols made into SBRs. It rather absurd. The 2010 letter specifically asks about pistols and ATF does not directly answer the question, though it is inferred:

Talked with an ATF agent on Friday. Was in the shop for background check info. As far as they have been informed, any pistol can be registered to be and NFA SBR. At the point of registeration, it no longer is a pistol, but becomes and SBR or AOW ( for pistols with vertical grips) at that point, the 922(r) does not apply since you have changed the designation to and NFA regulated item.

I like the sound of this, can we count on it and file our forms and pay the tax now on our 553's?  "Talked with an ATF agent on Friday. Was in the shop for background check info. As far as they have been informed, any pistol can be registered to be and NFA SBR. At the point of registration, it no longer is a pistol, but becomes and SBR or AOW ( for pistols with vertical grips) at that point, the 922(r) does not apply since you have changed the designation to an NFA regulated item."

There is nothing currently (nor has there been) stopping you from filing a form-1.

Something people fail to realize is that each ATF "Letter" that is sent to MR Smith, is ONLY for MR Smith. Its not meant to be a ruling.

I disagree, otherwise Sig or anyone else would not include those letters with their products. They're written to be a policy guide.