I have a Vector clone and need the barrel cut to standard 8.85" and threaded 1/2 x 28. Yes I have form 1 complete for sbr.

Does anyone know who can do this and what is a reasonable price?

M60 joe did my vector 33k.

Price and turn around time was pretty good if I remember.

S&H Arms lists "3 Lug barrel conversion with thread pattern of your choice" for $150 including a 3-lug http://www.sandharms.com/HnK.htm in their gun smithing page.  You more than likely know but for those that are tuning in, with a Form 1 you are the "maker".  The "maker" is the entity that actually changes the configuration of the firearm.  So you, as the "maker" would need to cut off some of the barrel such that the barrel is less than 16".  If you send the firearm to have a smith shorten the barrel, with a barrel of 16" or greater, then to the BATF&E, the smith would be the "maker."  This could make for legal problems for the smith and the entity that filed the Form 1.  YMMV.

Scott

That doesn't sound right...  I feel like people have places like ADCO cut barrels to SBR length all the time, am I missing something?  I had thought even though you are the '"maker" you're simply subcontracting some of the gunsmithing work on the gun, so as long as the smith is, I think, an 07/SOT then they can do it no problem. I had a smith build me an SBR AK from a parts kit, which people do all the time, how is that different?

I know of at a few tier one AK builders that won't touch these builds for this reason.

 

Like a lot of NFA, sort of a grey area.  But like anything with the ATF, if you sit down and really think about it...  It's better to be safe then sorry.

Are they cutting the BBL or making an SBR? Cutting a BBL is gunsmithing, making an SBR is making or manufacturing. ATF has put out many examples of gunsmithing vs manufacturing over the years.



It is different because the smith did not "make" any parts. He assembled from parts you gave him, presumably. No different than an AR. I engrave lower, get upper than take it to smith to place upper on lower. Only difference is any idiot can put AR together, AK is a little more complicated for most folks.

M60Joe has a jig that allows this to be done without removing the bbl. He did mine years ago.

The correct way to do this is to not send the complete firearm. only send the barreled upper. Then a rifle is not being made into a sbr.

No different than replacing a 16 inch AR upper with a 12.5 inch bbl. No SBR is made if lower is not present. Then when you get it back, you install lower, stock., thus "making" the sbr.

Gotcha. That makes more sense. Thanks to the other informative comments as well guys. Gotta love all the little technicalities.

Renegade, this is incorrect. The upper receiver is the firearm on the HK roller lock pattern firearms. If the firearm in question is a rifle, then cutting the barrel below 16" makes it a SBR regardless of whether the lower is attached.

Or are you saying that you send off just the upper after receiving your approved form-1?

Oops, double tap

The receiver IS the firearm to the BATF&E.  With a roller locked firearm the barrel is pressed into the trunnion witch is welded to the receiver.  If that receiver is a Title I rifle and it is shipped with a 16" barrel, it remains a Title I rifle because the receiver is a firearm whether a complete firearm or just the barreled receiver, whether you filed a Form 1 or not.  If a smith receives this Title I rifle and cuts the barrel, the rifle is no longer in Title I rifle configuration.  A rifle with a barrel less than 16", it is now a rifle in Title II configuration.  So how would it be that the shipper is the "maker" of the SBR?  Your firearm, your responsibility.  If you can find a smith down with that, go for it.  That is not something I would do.  YMMV.

Scott

No it is not incorrect. " only send the barreled upper." barreled uppers do not have stocks, thus it could be a pistol. There is nothing wrong with chopping a 16 inch pistol BBL down to 8 inches.

A barrelled upper receiver is not a rifle, it is just a firearm.

eta

This is not a rifle. It is a barreled upper. Nothing wrong with sending it to a smith to chop BBL or remove fake silencer (depending upon what your version has).

The last time I filled out a 4473, the type of firearm is declared, whether a rifle, pistol, or a bare receiver.  The way I read the OP, the firearm in question was purchased as a complete rifle.  It is my understanding that just because you pull the other parts off the receiver, that receiver remains a rifle receiver from there on.  Can the receiver's status be misrepresented?  Of course it can.  Is it very likely to get found out?  No, but I bet you could buy a HK registered sear cheaper than what it would cost to defend yourself in Federal court if some prosecutor wanted to make an "example" of you.  This is a firearm forum for adults.  Your gun, your responsibility.  If you choose to take such a risk, that is your choice.  I don't choose to to take such a risk.  YMMV.

Scott

ETA The barrel receiver (pictured above), is just that, a barreled receiver.  It is my limited understanding that if that is how the firearm was purchased then the 4473 would be made out as a firearm receiver, not a rifle or pistol.  If you made it into a rifle, who would know?  But if the dealer received this as a complete rifle and a 4473 was made out listing that receiver as a rifle, it is my understanding that firearm receiver will always be a rifle to the BATF&E.  Again, you could strip a rifle receiver down and ship it as a barred receiver, but if a 4473 was filled out listing that receiver as a rifle, there could be hell to pay if that was found out.

Look there are a lot of ways to do this legally. I have named one, I am not going to name them all, but here is one more - assuming it was born a rifle like an HK-94, just use a hack saw and rough cut the BBL to 10 inches. Now he has legally made the SBR and can send the entire SBR/gun to smith to cut/crown the BBL to specific length.

Jayson at IGF did an MP5 clone for a friend of mine. He sent the stripped firearm (no bolt group, trigger housing or stock) and a copy of the Form 1. I think it was around $175 and included a couple extra repairs due to the nature of the original work (SW), threading and finishing the machined areas.

Which is what I originally suggested.  Although all that needs to be done is cut enough that the barrel is less than 16".  Half an inch off a 16" barrel would do it.  YMMV.

Scott

No, an HK94 or similar clone that is a rifle cannot be a pistol because it started life as a rifle. And many barreled uppers with 16" OAL barrels are indeed rifle receivers, so one must be absolutely certain that the barreled upper has never been considered a rifle.


If you cut the barrel on a HK94, you have made a SBR regardless of whether a stock and lower are attached. If you have a registered HK sear or trigger frame this can be done without the need to register as a SBR, because MG trumps SBR. But in that scenario the sear or frame is "married" to the gun and cannot be moved to another host without registering the current host as a SBR. This is the entire reason that pistol hosts are so enticing to those with HK sears/frames.




Exactly.

No it is only a rifle if it is in rifle configuration. Without a stock, it is just a firearm. Here is ATF guidance.



Note this phrase:

If a frame or receiver can only be made into long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun.

Without a stock, it is not intended to be fired from shoulder. Thus even if it is marked "HK-94" which we know were all born rifles, it is treated as a firearm, not a rifle if there is no stock. So you can chop BBL and have not created a rifle till the stock goes. You sell it to an FFL, he enters it as "other" He goes to sell it, it goes out as "other" and must be to someone 21+.

But that is specifically related to the "other" class of firearm, not a firearm that began life as a rifle. You are correct if we are talking about a barreled mp5 clone receiver that has never been a rifle or pistol. Not so for a firearm that started life as a rifle.

I have to agree with "JoshNC".  That reads to me about the disposition of a "Frame or Receiver" that has not been built into a complete firearm.  If someone wants to prove that you can pull the guts out of a rifle and it is just a "Frame or Receiver", write a letter to the FTB.  I'll send a $100 PSMO to the author, if the FTB say that pulling the guts out of a rifle just makes that rifle receiver into a barreled receiver like it had never been a rifle.  I'll stand behind that statement. You send me a copy, I'll send the $100 PSMO to the name and address on the letter.

Scott

Letters are for fools. If you cannot read and understand the CFR, get out of the business. The CFR definitions are crystal clear. What you are both missing is it  does not matter what it might have been, what it actually is does matter.

I am FFL. You send me a receiver, I have [eta - no] idea if it was a rifle, SBR, pistol, etc. I just know what it is as I look at it. It is a receiver. I enter it into my books as a receiver, and when I send it back to you or sell it, it goes out as a receiver. I have bought and sold thousands of these, and this is the correct procedure. You do not enter what it might have been at some prior time in its life.

Markings mean nothing. I get plenty of guns marked "M16", "MP5" that are not machine guns. So even if receiver is marked "HK94", I cannot assume it was a rifle. It might have be a clone built from a flat or a re-weld. I have to enter it based on what I see it is, not what it might have been.

I am gonna guess neither of you have an FFL in your name and have never received a receiver to enter into your books.

This 100%.

There is nothing in the code, regs nor rulings, nor does ATF even try to claim via opinion that a barreled receiver known to have been previously a "rifle" is still a "rifle". The idea that "Other" inherently means it's a never-before-built virgin receiver is incorrect. Stripped receivers that formerly were part of rifles are commonly sold and are sold as "Other". If the FFL is selling these as "rifle" on the 4473 simply because they used to be a "rifle", then there is a mistake occurring.

If there is no buttstock present, it ain't a "rifle", period.

18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(7) and 27 CFR § 478.11

The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

Well, all hail the high and mighty FFL holder!  Run your business the way you want.  I've met several FFL holders that don't have a clue.  The most egregious was an idiot with a nice little shop in an out of the way town.  I was driving through on the way home from a job.  I was looking for an original SP1 carbine.  I asked the guy claiming to be the owner if he had one.  He responded that he only had a Title I FFL and couldn't have such things..

If you choose to run your business this way, your choice your license.  I don't agree with your interpretation.  That is okay with me.  The last I knew the BATF&E was the Federal Agency that oversees Firearm Regulation.  If you feel I am a "fool" that is your right.  A lot of great people have given the ultimate sacrifice so you are free to express your opinion.  I don't agree with your interpretation.  BTW, I am a FFL holder.  But just because I applied and received a FFL and a big pile regulations, doesn't mean I understand those regulations any better than anyone else.  It is my understanding the whole point of these forums is to exchange information and opinions.  IMHO, I bet you put your pants on the same way I do.  So just because you are a FFL holder doesn't make you any more knowledgeable of firearm regulation than I am.  We have a difference of opinion.  Lets leave it at that.  I'm all for "hurray for my opinion".  But I do have an issue with derogatory comments about others opinions.  YMMV.

Scott

Nobody called you a fool. Letter writes are fools. jeez.

Both I and HomeInvader have cited Law/CFR or BATFE documents on what a receiver is. You have cited nothing, just opinion. It has pretty much been explained to the point of common sense. You say you have an FFL. OK. I send you a Title I receiver. What do you enter in your A&D? Handgun? Shotgun? Machine Gun? Or Receiver?  Duh.

Don't get so offended because you were wrong on a point of regulation on the Internet.

This is getting kind of silly.

If the firearm in question is purchased as either a Rifle or Pistol, then the owner is the person that files for the ATF/NFA Form. Then the firearm needs to be engraved as per the NFA requirements BEFORE it can be operated as an SBR. Once the Form is approved by the ATF/NFA, it can be changed over.

Sending it to a smith to do the work is well within the confines of this, as we and other smiths do this weekly.

Why cut the barrel? A new RCM barrel is about the same price. Unless you are wanting to avoid the cost to recoat.


And please, before you just send the barreled upper, check with who you are sending it to. We request that ALL pieces come, as we test the firearm to verify that any changes made leave the firearm functional.

Make sure the smith has their SOT as well.

I would site the same:

<a href="http://s839.photobucket.com/user/Umbrarian/media/BATFE/Instruction18.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/Instruction18.jpg</a>

You wrote:



At least the way I read what is quoted above is the disposition of of a new "firearm receiver" from a 07 manufacturer, not a firearm that has been completed.  If what you say is true than please explain to me the NFA term: "A firearm made from a rifle or shotgun"?  If all you had to do is pull the stock off a rifle receiver and it becomes like a newly made receiver then why would the BATF&E use such a term?  And if what you say is true, why can't I pull the stock off that HK94, it becomes like a new made receiver, convert to MP5 specs (3-lug barrel, paddle mag release and remark), I put a pistol cap on it, and call it a pistol?  Why, because that HK94 receiver was imported as a rifle.  If what you are saying was true, the HK 94s that were converted and "married" to a sear, would never have been "married" in the first place.  Just pull the stock and put a pistol cap on it.  That flys in the face of what little I know about SBRs.

I don't claim to have all the answers.  But my interpretation is different from yours.  If you choose to put a HK94 that is shipped to you without a stock in your book as just a receiver, that is your choice.  If I received a barreled receiver from someone, I need to know what it is before I would enter it.  If the shipper can't answer the question then start with the manufacturer.  Is that a PITA?  Yes, but I am responsible for what is entered.  Your way is certainly easier.  But the HK94 as just a receiver doesn't "fly" with me.  Your mileage certainly varies from mine.

Scott

So you would put what it was (HK94 Rifle) in your books, and not what it is (HK94 Receiver)? Here comes the Fail Train......

Billy sells you an HK94 upper. He tells you it was a rifle (true). So you enter rifle as firearm type in your books. Then Tommy comes in to buy it. You sell it to Tommy. Tommy is 20 years old. You just violated 922(b)(1), and ignored Q18 guidance. You should have entered Receiver and only sold it to 21+.

Enjoy your FFL while you still have it!

eta

Forgot the 3 false entries you made to your records too 922(a)(6). Acquisition, Disposition and 4473. None of which would happen if you had read the Q18 instructions:

If a frame or receiver can only be made into long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun.

A true HK94 upper can only be made in to a long gun, but ATF says enter it as a receiver anyway. Can you not read that?

I give up trying to help you if you cannot read that sentence.

"Other" does not inherently mean newly-manufactured. Removing the buttstock from a rifle does not allow you to create a "pistol" out of that receiver.

18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11

The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:
- a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);
- and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

"Pistol" uses the phrase "originally designed..." which is unique in all respects and does not appear in any other definition. A "pistol" cannot come from what was once a rifle or shotgun because it would then not be "originally designed" to be fired with one hand. This one word is what allows a pistol to be made into a rifle, then legally return to a "pistol" while the reverse is not legal. This is why, for example, MechTech conversion uppers do not permanently make the pistol receiver unusable as a "pistol", you may go back and forth from, say, the 1911 pistol to MechTech rifle.

A "firearm" that was once a "rifle" can return to "rifle" with the re-introduction of a buttstock, however that "firearm" cannot become a "pistol."

So I have this clear, you guys are saying that I buy a Vollmer converted 94 that is "married" to a Fleming sear, I can pull off the stock off the 94 and put that sear in another host because the 94 isn't a rifle anymore because it doesn't have a stock?  That flies in the face of of everything I've ever read about rifles and registered conversion devices.

Scott

Exactly. If what they are saying was correct, no one would register a married HK host as a SBR.

No I am saying follow ATF Regs and log receivers in as receivers, not long guns, just like it says right here:

If a frame or receiver can only be made into long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun.

You are introducing another set of legal circumstances when talking about existing NFA firearms, registered (or unregistered) sears, etc.

Simply removing the buttstock of a Title II firearm doesn't revert anything due to "constructive possession". You would need to remove the qualifying part or parts from your control as well.

So I posited this question on Subguns, as it has the highest traffic of FFL/SOTs of any other forum. Will be interesting to follow the discussion there.  I still contend that you cannot legally cut down the barrel of a barreled HK94 upper as you suggest without registering as a SBR.

http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=841384


18 USC 921(d)(8) states: "The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches."

The HK94 started life as a rifle.  It cannot have a short barrel without being registered as a short barreled rifle.  

Also, Homeinvader, the Thompson Center case essentially nullified the idea of constructive possession if the possessor has a lawful use for the parts.  So, in that scenario one should be allowed to simply remove the stock from their "married" clone, remove the sear pack, and install in another host without running afoul of the law because they can lawfully install the stock when the sear pack is installed.  

Regarding Thompson Center case, the T/C Contender is only one firearm, the receiver, with parts to build several different configurations. How that one firearm could be assembled with the various parts was the heart of the case. And, yes, they determined that being able to assemble a legal firearm and an illegal firearm eliminated the possibility the CP could be used to force an illegal configuration for purposes of prosecution. SCOTUS didn't affirm any "lawful use" condition, simply that the illegal configuration must be the only way to assemble that firearm. Collecting parts with no intent to build would be a lawful use, but not one that would be exempt from Constructive Possession.

While there exists a lot of case law for NFA and Constructive Possession, there are no cases I'm aware of that address a multiple firearm scenario where there are compatible NFA and Title I firearms intermingling. For example, someone who owns an AR-based SBR with several different NFA-length accessory uppers as well as Title I AR pistols or, even more complicated, stripped receivers. Everyone seems to have their own way to address this, but there is no case law guidance to follow. And because these scenarios involve multiple firearms rather than just one, it's likely that T/C could not be used as precedent anyway.

With an HK sear and complete host gun, you have two different firearms. Add the presence of another complete HK host and you now have three firearms. If you have a registered sear installed on a complete HK host with a short barrel, then remove that sear and install it in another complete host, then what is left is an unregistered SBR. It is no longer protected by being a "machine gun" and in all likelihood the SBR is already assembled anyway, so CP is somewhat non-applicable. This is why there exists a lot of two stamp HKs, to cover the sear condition and the SBR condition in the event that the sear is moved to another host. It's also helpful  and desireable to be able to shoot that SBR host when the sear is not installed, hence the separate SBR registration.

If you had short-barreled receivers and only one buttstock that followed the registered sear and was only installed on the host, then there would be no violation either directly or through CP since it's simply a "receiver" with no parts to complete it.

This is a good discussion.  The point I am making is that I believe you are incorrect in your assertion that a HK94 with a short barrel is legal without the stock if it is not registered as a SBR.  My SOT posed this question to his ATF examiner, who said that in fact it is not legal.  Now, with that said, I have personally had an examiner tell me incorrect information.  I was told that a rifle I purchased (which had been an SBR) was not legally a title-1 rifle despite having had a barrel extension permanently added because no letter was sent to ATF declaring it to have been made title-1.  This despite the fact that there is a posted ATF FAQ that directly contradicts what he said.  I didn't fight it and instead asked the SOT who added the extension to send the letter.  He actually had already sent it and had proof of receipt.  So much for the NFTR being accurate (note sarcasm).

Here is the question you posed:

There is a discussion going on over at ARFCOM in the HK discussion forum where a gent is insistent that it is legal to take a barreled HK94 upper and chop the barrel sub-16" without registering as a SBR so long as no stock is attached, because without a stock it is not a rifle and cannot therefore be a short barrel rifle.

That question is fucking bullshit and is not even close to what I told OP. Even a fucking idiot knows you cannot do that. JFC if that is the kind of deceit you have to pull to win an internet discussion GTFO.

Renegade, what's with the attitude?  Deceit?  Come on, seriously man?  Step back and calm down.  I'm not attacking you, so I'm not sure what your issue is.

I am not trying to win an internet argument, merely want to get valid opinions.  You have directly stated that you believe it is legal to cut the barrel on a HK94 upper without registering as a SBR.
Here is your post, where you state exactly what I posted on subguns:

Well this went above and beyond.  


Thx guys.

Whoops.  That's a question no one here is talking about.

And I don't think you can edit posts over on subguns...

If that is what you think I said (your subguns post), then we are done here as I agree - a person cannot take stock off HK94, and chop BBL down < 16 without SBR paperwork. Obviously a misunderstanding. My apology on language.

I owe you an apology. I just re read all of your posts and I clearly misunderstood what you were suggesting. I understand it now - take a hk94 with an approved form-1, send just the barreled upper to the smith and the "making" of a SBR has not occurred until the stock is installed by the registrant after having the barrel cut.

I thought you were staying that a barreled upper could have its barrel cut and so long as no stock was installed it didn't require registration.

This was very poor reading comprehension my part. Please accept my sincere apology.

<group hug>

All said though, my recommended best practice is to follow canon advice, make SBR yourself by chopping BBL < 16 then send to smith for cleanup.

Yeah, that smarts. I posted an update under my original thread on subguns.