First... THANKS to everybody that made it possible to have SBRs in Washington State AGAIN!!

I don't want to clog-up the original  "SBR Thread" with this question about local gunsmiths in the Seattle/Tacoma area who, after paying and receiving a SBR tax-stamp from the ATF, can legally convert Class I type weapons into SBRs. I don't see any issues with converting an Uzi carbine or an AR-15, but semi-auto carbines like the HK-94 and an A/O-Kahr Thompson M1927 would be a problem and something I would leave up to a true professional to do... As well as removing a pinned-on muzzle break from a FEG'/AMD-65 type AK.

I could be wrong, but I believe that only gunsmiths with a "special" license can make or modify a Class I weapon into a Class III SBR.  I know that there are my skilled gunsmiths that can do this work around the country, "BUT" I like the ideal of doing things locally... Plus, its easier to deal with any possible problems with the conversions.

I'm also hoping that there is a local business that can also laser engrave SBRs too.

Anyway, this is a great "Welcome Home" gift after being gone from home for the last 33 years of government service... I will be moving back to Western Washington at/or around the end of 2014 and looking to start the process of registering several rifles/carbines into SBRs.

Thanks for looking and again, thank you for all your hard work in changing the law!!

give fred a call, see what he says

[email protected]
253.642.7461

Removing the brake from an AMD-65 is super-easy. Did it back here in MD with a dremel in like five minutes after my stamp came back. One of my favorite AKs now... light and fast. Don't let a gunsmith take you for a ride on it. :)

I think a Class 2 SOT and a FFL 07 is required to do the conversion.

BUT, if one gets a Form 1....can someone else do the work(Class 2 SOT/FFL 07) or will the person/trust/etc. listed on the Form 1 have to do the conversion?

If you go by the exact wording of the law, none. Nor can you do a form 1. The law says possession is legal, but still uses the old language where it said they can only be manufactured for export. And the state might try to push that... just like we pushed them to follow the exact wording of the law regarding suppressor use versus possession previously.

If they actually apply common sense, then you'll need to find a Type 7 FFL with a Class 2 SOT, or a type 10 FFL who's paying the Class 02 SOT.  A 10 is a manufacturer of NFA items to include destructive devices.  A Type 7 can make NFA items other than DDs.

And if you find a place that doesn't want to do it because they don't know who has to pay the tax on it, you could remind them gently that they already did when they paid their SOT... that's what's it's for. I'm not sure if I ever got a store owner to understand that part one day or if he was too distracted by his ranting and raving and cussing because of his short temper and I just walked away from his temper tantrum.

John at West Coast Armory can do it. They have the S.O.T. and can do the work.

Ok, let's say for now they don't amend the wording allowing "manufacture" of SBR's by civilians filling form 1's.  Are you saying under the current wording I could pay a FFL Type 7 SOT to take my non-SBR firearm and turn it into an SBR?  The big downside I can see there, the rifle would sit at the FFL until the SBR paperwork returned, no?

It looks like even dealers can't since the wording of the law says manufacture can only done for export, or sale to police departments or the military. They didn't change that part of the law.
Here's the original, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.190
There is a link there to the way the change is written that will take effect soon. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5956.SL.pdf
It still says,
 Notice that it doesn't say the manufacture of them.
Hopefully the spirit of the law will be enforced in this case, but I can see some of our awesome leaders being a bit petty...

Sounds like you'd need to ship your gun out of state to be chopped (form 2), have it transferred to your local FFL on a form 3, and then get it transferred back to you on a form 4.

Bad news is that you wouldn't be able to shoot your gun while you wait, like you would with a form 1. It would also be a bit more expensive than a local gunsmith doing the chop (albeit not necessarily by THAT much).

Good news is that you would have a "real" manufacturer engraved on it, and not just your personal/corporate/trust name. That means resale value wouldn't take a huge hit, if you ever had to do that.

I've done it both ways here in MD; if you're patient, I don't think one is really better than the other overall.

Are there fees for all those forms?
I know of the $200 for the forum four.

Seems like a lot of extra work than filing a form 4 and throwing my barrel on my lathe once the stamp comes back.

Nothing for a form 2 or form 3. $200 for a form 1 or form 4.


I very much agree (albeit I think you meant a form 1). Hopefully the lawyers over there will get a clue and decide that "acquire" includes manufacture.

That said, my understanding is that the BATFE really doesn't like it when folks file a form 1 and have some third party do the chop. No one really gets busted for it to my knowledge, but they will beat you up a bit during audits.

yes, I meant form 1.

I agree, but for most people chopping the barrel is something that they cannot do at home.

Agreed - and those are the same people the BATFE would tell "don't file a F1, you're not the manufacturer/maker, the entity doing the barrel chop should do a F2 and transfer it back to you on a F4". There is a little caveat here, though... if you were to chop the barrel to get it just under 16" (ie, make it an SBR), and then send it off to a gunsmith for the "real" chop to 11.5" or whatever, that would be fine on a form 1 AFAIK.

I take it there's still no word from the powers that be on this issue?