User Panel
[#1]
Also the link to the add. Not sure if it’s allowed but I want this gun. Just looks too perfect.
https://gunspot.com/listings/detail/10784/beautiful-test-fired-only-colt-m16a2-wcolt-moderator/ |
|
|
[#2]
Yes....
|
|
|
[#3]
|
|
|
[Last Edit: 18B30]
[#4]
Originally Posted By sig-x: Meaning? From my research this looks like it was made in the 90s. How is this transferable? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By sig-x: Originally Posted By 18B30: Yes.... Meaning? From my research this looks like it was made in the 90s. How is this transferable? SN block registered in the early 80's, replacement receivers, ect. The first rule of "Colt transferable", is there are no set rules. Unless you are COLDBLUE, or have an insider's knowledge of Colt's registration data, your research will always be hampered by Colts Insha Allah's way of doing things when it came to the 1986 cutoff date. In the end, If the BATF&E says it is transferrable it is transferable. |
|
|
[Last Edit: JoshNC]
[#5]
Absolutely* no way that left the factory configured as such. Colt sold a bunch of transferable m16a2 lowers to dealers in the 90s, most all of which were then configured however the buyer saw fit.
The A2 receiver forging type checks out for a transferable, eg not one of the remanufactured lowers that seem to have all been done using the later forging type. I personally would not pay the asking price on that one. *Nothing is absolute with Colt. It’s possible an executive had that kooky configuration made for his own collection. |
|
|
[Last Edit: Villafuego]
[#6]
Originally Posted By JoshNC: Absolutely* no way that left the factory configured as such. Colt sold a bunch of transferable m16a2 lowers to dealers in the 90s, most all of which were then configured however the buyer saw fit. The A2 receiver forging type checks out for a transferable, eg not one of the remanufactured lowers that seem to have all been done using the later forging type. I personally would not pay the asking price on that one. *Nothing is absolute with Colt. It’s possible an executive had that kooky configuration made for his own collection. View Quote Lots of thats "executives" guns floating around .......many on receiver configurations/forging types that didn't exist prior to May of 1986 ...... I wouldn't touch any of them There have been lots of discussions on this exact subject They are transferables until someone decides they aren't |
|
|
[#7]
I am very disappointed.
|
|
|
[Last Edit: JoshNC]
[#8]
Originally Posted By Villafuego: Lots of thats "executives" guns floating around .......many on receiver configurations/forging types that didn't exist prior to May of 1986 ...... I wouldn't touch any of them There have been lots of discussions on this exact subject They are transferables until someone decides they aren't View Quote Totally agree. I wouldn’t touch one of those. They are very obvious when you see one and know what to look for. The one linked by the OP doesn’t appear to be one of those remanufactured Colts. But a factory configuration it is not, in my opinion. |
|
|
[#9]
Where are the roll marks on the receiver by the auto sear pin hole?
|
|
|
[#10]
I agree, "That's a hot potato" OP run...
|
|
|
[#11]
Originally Posted By sig-x: Where are the roll marks on the receiver by the auto sear pin hole? View Quote This is the biggest point of confusion personally, and a bit of a red flag. Every other part of this being a weird "one-off" Colt A2 on the market would have been fine in my opinion, except for that glaring detail. |
|
|
[#12]
So a 70’s moderator on a 1999/2000 lower receiver with a 90’s serial number…
|
|
|
[#13]
On further thought, yeah something about this doesn't add up. But hey, if someone wants it, by all means...
|
|
|
[#14]
I bought one of those 1990’s guns. F4 was approved w/o incident. Bottom line if the ATF says it’s good that’s good.
|
|
|
[Last Edit: Flevvy]
[#15]
I would still at the very least try and get the lower X-rayed to see if there are any surprises there.
If you buy it, get an approved F4 and never ever ask the ATF for a determination on it. "There are lots of guns in this range around. The problem is that many are rewelds. Be careful to look at the Hartford lettering as many were cut in that area. They may have either an uneven appearance or the lettering has been removed and the area built back up to hide the cut. Believe me.....I have one here at the house that was done by John Norrell (as many were) and you cannot tell that this gun is a reweld without x-raying the lower rec." Taken from this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/Serial-number-info-on-Colt-factory-M16s-UPDATED-5-12-2013-/23-199902/ |
|
|
[#16]
I have 3X M16A2s, all NIB, all Auto stamped. Two of them were manufactured in 2008, one was manufactured in 2004. All of them are perfectly transferable. They have two dates of manufacture with Colt, one in 1985 and one in the 2008/04. The O8 guns were known as the "Black Rifles" amongst dealers and collectors. There are about 15 of them in existence. All of the "Black Rifles" are serial numbers 80300XX. They came in 20" Config and 14.5" Carbine (Model numbers R0901 and R0977). They are the only transferable modernday factory made flat-top M4A1s and M16A4s known. The black rifles were commissioned by John Keosayian (Most powerful person at Colt) in 08 using previously registered 1985 serial numbers. They are called the black rifles, because they came in the modern day black colt finish. They were manufactured alongside export military orders. Only difference was they used M16A2 dies for Johns guns. Sometime between 2008 and 2013 the black rifles along with all the previous odd ball ones John had made over the years, transferred out of Colts possession to Johns personal FFL/SOT02.
Along with the black rifles, he had two dozen fixed carryhandle variants of all sorts. From Colt SMGs (I have a single digit serial number SMG from this collection) to various configs and unique serial number A2s. Some marked M16A2E3, some marked experimental with an X prefix. Just a huge variety. About half of the black rifles came with a bar code labeled bag and box. The labels are SN specific and models are again R0901 or R0977. One of the black rifles just listed on GB for 150K (Linked below). He has the last three digits blocked out but like I said it is going to be 80300XX. I kept record of all of them, and if I had to guess this one is 803008X through 803005X. https://www.gunbroker.com/item/946990587 In 2014, John sold I would say a total of around 40 guns (fixed carry handle variants of all sorts and the black rifles). They were sold by a joint team of David Spiwak, Chad at Chestercounty and Ed Holtz at Urban Armory. As soon as they were available I bought two which was all I could afford at the time. They were all sold out after a year. Most of them went to advanced collectors but will periodically pop up. I traced my 3rd one to a dealer/collector in TX about 5years later. They are sometimes referred to the John Keosayian collection for obvious reasons. All of the post 86 manufactured guns were manufactured with the 1985 registered serial numbers to my knowledge. They are perfectly legal, because as the ATF sees it, they never transferred out from the manufacturer. Colt sat on the registered serial numbers for 20 something years. ATF is fine with it as long as it never left the manufactures possession. Happened all the time post 86. Take Billistic for example. When Bill died, multiple shops finished manufacturing the many previously registered guns Bill had in que for his customers post 86, all the way into the early 90s. Vector arms is another example. I would not be surprised if they still crank out new ones here and there. Would explain why you can find them often still NIB. But once again, as the ATF sees it, it is perfectly legal. Once the SN transfers out from the manufacturer, that is a whole nother cup of tea. Long story short, the gun you are looking at is perfectly legal, it is most likely one from the Keosayian collection. If I had to guess, manufactured in 2004 using 1985 serial numbers. |
|
|
[#17]
|
|
|
[Last Edit: Stahlgewehr762]
[#18]
I can't say that I've ever heard of a "pre-'86 registered serial number" before.
My understanding is that transferable machine guns are the physical items (receivers, sears, etc.) which were in a state of completion sufficient to be considered a machine gun (STEn tube with slots cut = machine gun, STEn tube without slots = not a machine gun) AND were registered prior to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) becoming law on 5/19/86. Any physical items which became machine guns after 5/19/86 are, by definition, "post '86 machine guns", which are not transferable. A "registered serial number", existing on paper only with no physical "machine gun", would seem to be even more of a "gray area" than, for example, a serialized, but uncut STEn tube. The feds rescinded the transferable status of those "papered & uncut" STEn tubes, which were still in the manufacturer's inventory, after the passage of FOPA. The info released by the feds at the SHOT Show following the passage of FOPA was very illuminating, and disappointing, to many in the NFA community. It revealed many unbuilt and under-built "machine guns" would lose their transferable status, due to those items not being in a complete enough state to meet the definition of a machine gun prior to 5/19/86, as determined by (surprise!) the feds. This is why I find the notion of a standalone "registered serial number", even in the possession of an original manufacturer, to be a bit hard to believe. |
|
|
[#19]
One thing is it would be impossible for anyone to definitively prove in court when a gun was made. Did some M16s have post 86 features? Absolutely. A lot of them. How anyone can prove this was not a prototype (Also, a lot of them) is another thing. If I registered a MP5 sear in 1985 and only decided to manufacture it tomorrow, who would know when it was made? I don't think the ATF cares as long as they got their money and what was registered then (model), is what is registered now. Like form1s, there are plenty of registered SBRs without the manufacturer (you) information lasered into it. There are plenty that I know of that the manufacture "hasn't gotten around to engrave it". Is it illegal? No, it is non complying. If they "get around to engraving it" 5 years later, who cares? Certainly not the ATF, they got their $200 five years ago, and the engraved SBR is still the same AR15 model registered 5years ago.
One big grey area, more of a red area are the people that remanufacture a machinegun. Happens all the time, but again, next to impossible to prove, unless they left to original MG or registered component laying around. Do you think someone with a lightning link that breaks one is going to just toss it or keep rewelding it? No they are going to laser a new one out of a more robust material, engrave the original SN and destroy the original broken one. Probably 1000s of these situations floating around, sears. bolts etc. But again, how can the ATF prove any of those. The registered part is the same registered part as what was described in pre 1986. All of the display M16s that are cut away to see the internals. Registered as run of the mill M16s, I'm guessing 99% have now been turned into complete functioning rifles. Some how miraculously growing 1/3 of their missing receiver. One A2 sold this year for 25K and I regret not getting it in time. Do you think the new owner bought it to keep it as a cutaway display gun? Definetly not. Since this one was registered as a regular M16A2, they don't know when it was manufactured, nor do I think they care as long as it is the same model as originally registered. Going back to the Colts, it would be impossible to know when guns like the "black rifles" were made, especially when they were roll marked with Colt's tooling in the correct genuine font and size. I only know when they were made because I heard from the horses mouth. So likewise, it would be impossible for me to prove they were built in 2004/2008. Going back to the remanufacturing grey area. The grey/red area is destroying an original MG and making a new one with its serial numbers. For ones like the similar guns / parts like sears, I don't think anyone cares. Ones I do think people care about and in the Red area, is blatant remanufactured guns of different models. I came across one last week that I would steer clear of (in my opinion, not to sway anyone away from the sale). As the link shows, it is a "Russian" AK built from a Chinese Type 56 RR. I have two RR Type-56's so I was intrigued. I too would like to have a Russian or Yugo one so I started analyzing how they got the receiver to be compatible to the Russian parts. Upon inspection, the sheet metal stampings are different, the rivets are in different locations. A multitude of different component such as the mag release, triggerguard, indentions, engravings etc. Only the RR info from the type 56 was lasered on the bottom side, in non Kengs font. This all leads me to believe that this is a parts kit that has been engraved with the transferable serial numbers. I think it is too far in the red for me to consider doing to mine let alone buying this one. In my opinion, the ATF could have enough proof that it was remanufactured. Being that it is not even the same model that was originally registered. If someone remanufactured one out of a still NIB polytech/Norinco, it would be overlooked. If Kengs in Altanta, who is still around cranks out a new one with previously registered SNs, it would absolutely be overlooked and nobody can definitively prove when it was made. The russian ak however, is just asking for trouble since it is a different model than registered and the RR is completely different. https://chestercountyarmory.com/product/s-w-d-inc-russian-pp-19-vityaz-aks-9-9x19mm-nato-transferable-submachine-gun/ |
|
|
[Last Edit: far_right]
[#20]
Originally Posted By The-Snail: One big grey area, more of a red area are the people that remanufacture a machinegun. Happens all the time, but again, next to impossible to prove, unless they left to original MG or registered component laying around. Do you think someone with a lightning link that breaks one is going to just toss it or keep rewelding it? No they are going to laser a new one out of a more robust material, engrave the original SN and destroy the original broken one. Probably 1000s of these situations floating around, sears. bolts etc. But again, how can the ATF prove any of those. The registered part is the same registered part as what was described in pre 1986. View Quote The ATF asked my dealer for detailed engraving markings of my M16 before they would approve the transfer. (2019) That might not have happened in the 2010s and before, but they are building the file now... |
|
Dan_Gray: You're right
|
[Last Edit: The-Snail]
[#21]
Originally Posted By far_right: The ATF asked my dealer for detailed engraving markings of my M16 before they would approve the transfer. (2019) That might not have happened in the 2010s and before, but they are building the file now... View Quote That is interesting. First I heard of that in my 20 years of dealing with MGs. I bought and M16 in 2020 and did not have to do that. Yours must have either been flagged somehow, or they started a picture archive effort, then shortly abandoned it. I will say it would not surprise me if they start a picture archive moving forward. As a requirement for transfer, that would have to be done. Especially now that registered MGs are getting over the hill in age, remanufacturing them will become more and more common. It's is doubtful that the ATF has the resources to implement a system like that, but I can see something like that in the horizon. You would think if they cared or had the recourses to enforce, they would go after the low hanging fruit like that AK. The picture database would allow them to catch that kind of stuff, but otherwise they don't know what it originally looked like and they are not going to pursue it out of suspicion alone. |
|
|
[#22]
Originally Posted By The-Snail: That is interesting. First I heard of that in my 20 years of dealing with MGs. I bought and M16 in 2020 and did not have to do that. Yours must have either been flagged somehow, or they started a picture archive effort, then shortly abandoned it. I will say it would not surprise me if they start a picture archive moving forward. As a requirement for transfer, that would have to be done. Especially now that registered MGs are getting over the hill in age, remanufacturing them will become more and more common. It's is doubtful that the ATF has the resources to implement a system like that, but I can see something like that in the horizon. You would think if they cared or had the recourses to enforce, they would go after the low hanging fruit like that AK. The picture database would allow them to catch that kind of stuff, but otherwise they don't know what it originally looked like and they are not going to pursue it out of suspicion alone. View Quote That PP19 made from the AKS is no different than a Krink made from a Polytech AKS. Different caliber, and the original markings are still intact. Note the receiver dimples are still there, and the trunion was cut in such a way that the original SN was left intact..... not 100% PP19 accurate, but legal. The difference between it, and the M-16's in question, is that it was an NFA firearm that actually existed prior to 1986, not as just a serial number |
|
|
[#23]
Originally Posted By Villafuego: That PP19 made from the AKS is no different than a Krink made from a Polytech AKS. Different caliber, and the original markings are still intact. Note the receiver dimples are still there, and the trunion was cut in such a way that the original SN was left intact..... not 100% PP19 accurate, but legal. The difference between it, and the M-16's in question, is that it was an NFA firearm that actually existed prior to 1986, not as just a serial number View Quote How about the caliber? Kengs or Norinco/Polytech never made a 9mm (I don't know of any 9mm transferable AKs) and those caliber conversions from my understanding are not allowed by the ATF. Replaceable uppers are fine, but not permanent conversions. In my opinion, the first thing that will catch the ATFs eye is it being a 9mm AK. |
|
|
[#24]
Originally Posted By The-Snail: How about the caliber? Kengs or Norinco/Polytech never made a 9mm (I don't know of any 9mm transferable AKs) and those caliber conversions from my understanding are not allowed by the ATF. Replaceable uppers are fine, but not permanent conversions. In my opinion, the first thing that will catch the ATFs eye is it being a 9mm AK. View Quote Permanent caliber conversions are fine, as long as the BATFE is notified, and the registry is updated. Plenty of transferable AK's have been converted from 7.62x39 and 5.56 to 5.45. 9mm is no different. That being said, I tend to avoid "grey areas" when substantial amounts of $$ are involved. |
|
|
[#25]
Originally Posted By Villafuego: Permanent caliber conversions are fine, as long as the BATFE is notified, and the registry is updated. Plenty of transferable AK's have been converted from 7.62x39 and 5.56 to 5.45. 9mm is no different. That being said, I tend to avoid "grey areas" when substantial amounts of $$ are involved. View Quote I know notifying/updating them for the barrel length was fine, but did not know about being able to change/update calibers. But like you, I too would avoid wandering too far into the grey area. I would love to do a similar cronversion with one of type-56s into a Zastava M92. Though rare, there are transferable M72s, so it would be better to wait until one appears, then "convert" one of my Norincos. Mine are LaFrance guns, so transferring over through cut & weld Tim's billboard sized engravings would be a good bit more troublesome. I'll consider it if I can't find a M72. The only thing on the form-4 is AKML by LaFrance. Nothing about it being a converted Norinco Type-56S at its core. The engraving and location on mine are literally identical to this M92. The form-4 would be identical as well, minus the barrel length. I want the identical of this one in the link. https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_N__LAFRANCE_SPECIALTIES_REGISTERED_RECEIVER_YUGOS-LOT483718.aspx |
|
|
[#26]
ATF asked for pictures with measurements (ruler) in background for my last few GI/Vector mini Uzis. They started life at GI full sized flats bought by Vector in bankruptcy and chopped them to minis.
I’m going to pass on this rifle for now. Thanks for the help guys. |
|
|
[#27]
So the "story" is that Colt had a forging die to produce current-style, A4 lower receivers back in 1985. In 1985, the visibly-different A2 lower receiver was a component part of the brand new M16A2 rifle.
Also, for "reasons", Colt chose to only make a handful of those non-standard lower receivers, which are "coincidentally" dimensionally identical to modern A4 lower receivers. Then, Colt strangely marked those non-standard lower receivers with standard "A2" roll markings. Personally, I like a good story. |
|
|
[#28]
As long as we are sharing "stories," my understanding of the black Colts was that Colt held a number of pre-86 transferrable receivers in various forms and, as the original manufacturer, were allowed to "repair" them by any means they liked, including destroying the original and replacing with a new receiver that carried the same registration information. In this way, Colt was in full compliance with the requirement to have a fully complete functioning receiver pre-86, and then could do "repairs" as they judged best until ATF clarified they did not like this kind of "repair by replacement" work. The whole "at what point is a repair a new MG" question is one that it appears to me ATF has avoided testing in court b/c they are not ready to lose and can suppress 99+ percent of the behavior with just a "ruling" or public statement. Since the very concept of object identity is a classic mental exercise (normally in the form of a wooden ship being repaired over 100s of years and asking if it is the same ship) it isn't an issue you want to test in a court.
|
|
|
[#29]
Originally Posted By GPSIG: As long as we are sharing "stories," my understanding of the black Colts was that Colt held a number of pre-86 transferrable receivers in various forms and, as the original manufacturer, were allowed to "repair" them by any means they liked, including destroying the original and replacing with a new receiver that carried the same registration information. In this way, Colt was in full compliance with the requirement to have a fully complete functioning receiver pre-86, and then could do "repairs" as they judged best until ATF clarified they did not like this kind of "repair by replacement" work. The whole "at what point is a repair a new MG" question is one that it appears to me ATF has avoided testing in court b/c they are not ready to lose and can suppress 99+ percent of the behavior with just a "ruling" or public statement. Since the very concept of object identity is a classic mental exercise (normally in the form of a wooden ship being repaired over 100s of years and asking if it is the same ship) it isn't an issue you want to test in a court. View Quote That is one of the stories I heard as well. Originally I believed that Colt stored the bare/stripped receivers for 20+ years, then put them on the assembly line in 2008 to be assembled into rifles/carbines. In retrospect, it does not explain the latest features. It is possible that they prototyped the features into these 1985 receivers two decades in advance. Not likely, but still .0000043% possible. A few years later, I spoke to a guy that bought 3X Black rifles and his theory was identical to yours. Manufactured in 1985, then the receivers were destroyed and updated/repaired before transferring out from Colt. Legal since it never left the manufacturer. I started to think there was no original 1985 receiver, but now I think there was a physical receiver built in 1985. Whether it's the same receiver that transferred out from Colt 27 years later is anyone's guess. The database does not specify what was manufactured in 1985 and 2008, just has both as a manufactured date and model number and who it shipped to (shipped to Johns personal FFL). My initial guess was the 1985 date was when the receiver was manufactured, and the 2008 date was when the receiver was put on the assembly line and "manufactured" into a rifle. But again, too many uncertainties to make a call. Makes for a great campfire story to your gun buddies. The Tale of The Black Rifles... |
|
|
[#30]
The "remanufactured/replacement" M16 lower receivers are an area of legal ambiguity, to a certain extent.
Those M16 lower receivers were "milled and drilled" into machine guns after 5/19/86, which would seem to place them into the category of "post '86, non-transferable". The owners of the replacement M16 lower receivers do have legitimate paperwork which indicates a transferable item. However, the M16 lower receiver that is transferring via that paperwork is not the one which was originally registered prior to 5/19/86. Is that ever going to be a problem? I don't know, nor does anyone else, hence the "gray area" and "not with a 10 foot pole" comments. An interesting dilemma presents itself with these replacement M16 lower receivers: Was the replacement M16 lower created while the original one was still in existence, or after it was destroyed? If it was created while the original still existed, then there were two machine guns with the same paperwork and serial number, even if for only a short time. If it was after the original lower receiver was destroyed, then the "replacement" machine gun was basically created out of thin air, since the original receiver ceased to exist before the new one was created. The one potential saving grace for a "repair/replacement" M16 lower receiver is the possibility that ATF will permanently "grandfather" these by stating that it is/was legal to replace a pre-'86 transferable lower with a post-'86 replacement, and allow the transferable status to be applied to the post-'86 lower. However, according to Congress, ATF does not have the authority to "grandfather" anything. As it relates to this subject, they only get to define what is/isn't a machinegun. |
|
|
[#31]
I’m not sure about the “A” mark on the serial number. But I wouldn’t be at all concerned about what the upper is. The uppers can obviously be switched out for something that was not factory.
|
|
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery". - Thomas Jefferson
|
[Last Edit: JoshNC]
[#32]
At one time it was considered Kosher for the original manufacturer to replace a transferable receiver with a new receiver using the same serial number. Olympic Arms did so, making a1 receivers into A2 receivers. ATF stopped them because in most cases they converted other manufacturers lowers to FA and weren’t the actual manufacturer of the lower. Pete Athens sent a number of AUG A1 to Steyr for upgrade to A2. The original receivers were destroyed and replaced with A2 receivers using the original A1 serial number. There were a couple transferable AUGs in that group. And Colt did so as well for Keyosian. As I understand it, these were all complete receivers that were destroyed and the original markings and serial number applied to the new lowers. There were a few M16A1 marked lowers done this way on the A4 type forging too.
There were a few M60s that were determined to be post-86 manufacture after they’d transfered to non-SOT buyers. This was in the early 90s iirc. ATF said they could stay with those owners, but would be treated as post-86 upon the next transfer. Not a good financial position for those buyers. And we have the Akins Accelerator debacle. Then the reclassification of bump stocks to machinegun. ATF used to allow a manufacturer to destroy and replace a transferable and it would remain transferable.They don’t any more. It’s all arbitrary bullshit and totally unconstitutional, but I still wouldn’t want to own any of these in the event that ATF changes its mind on legality. Bottom line, we need a good organization to take ATF to court and repeal the 68 GCA, then go after 922(o). |
|
|
[#33]
Midwest Tactical is a well known reputable company..
I'd just contact them by phone and ask them. |
|
|
[#34]
Originally Posted By Ryo: Midwest Tactical is a well known reputable company.. I'd just contact them by phone and ask them. View Quote I bet they won’t know the details unless the current owner/seller for whom they are brokering the item knows the details. I’ve done many deals with them. They are great people. They often don’t know specifics/nuances, but they will refund you if it turns out to be not what you expected. |
|
|
[Last Edit: Heineken]
[#35]
Originally Posted By 18B30: I bought one of those 1990’s guns. F4 was approved w/o incident. Bottom line if the ATF says it’s good that’s good. View Quote This is horrible advice. If the ATF says it's good...it might be...until they say it isn't. When I was doing all my reaseach about transferable a2s I remember avoiding any with a letter prefix...I'll try to dig up my old research and why... As far as those special colts made on modern receivers....I have read both sides...technically they were made after 86...and some of them it would be very easy to prove (ie addy from the 90s on a pre86 lower...come on). History has shown ATF can change determinations of what they find acceptable...but what's written in law isn't as easy to change. No thanks...not worth the risk for my dollars. Also the fact ATF is now so concerned with roll marks and photos makes me glad I stayed away. I'm sorry but it makes me chuckle...someone will say the gun is legal...but then also state they were made in the 90s...the law is clear about being made before the cut off...I mean it's a direct conflict both can't be true. My advice OP, I would avoid that one, especially at that price... |
|
|
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#36]
Originally Posted By 18B30: … In the end, If the BATF&E says it is transferrable it is transferable. View Quote This. The paperwork is what’s worth the money. If the ATF approves it, that’s that. It’s not like it’s some sten rewelded into an M2 or M60… Nobody’s ever going to come around to inspect a factory receiver that has a paper trail predating 1986. Hell, I’d register a receiver that was made yesterday without a second thought if I knew ATF would approve it and the price was right. |
|
Dear NASA,
I was big enough for your mom. Sincerely, Pluto |
[Last Edit: Heineken]
[#37]
Originally Posted By Millennial: This. The paperwork is what’s worth the money. If the ATF approves it, that’s that. It’s not like it’s some sten rewelded into an M2 or M60… Nobody’s ever going to come around to inspect a factory receiver that has a paper trail predating 1986. Hell, I’d register a receiver that was made yesterday without a second thought if I knew ATF would approve it and the price was right. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Millennial: Originally Posted By 18B30: … In the end, If the BATF&E says it is transferrable it is transferable. This. The paperwork is what’s worth the money. If the ATF approves it, that’s that. It’s not like it’s some sten rewelded into an M2 or M60… Nobody’s ever going to come around to inspect a factory receiver that has a paper trail predating 1986. Hell, I’d register a receiver that was made yesterday without a second thought if I knew ATF would approve it and the price was right. The ATF approved braces a few years ago... Also what about the guys in the 90s who had ATF approved thier form 4...and then after determined the guns were post 86...saying that just because a gun was approved or transfered it is legit and good to go is just incorrect.... |
|
|
[Last Edit: jbntex]
[#38]
Just because the BATFE approves the transfer paperwork doesn’t make a machinegun legal and/or “transferable”.
What makes a machinegun legal and transferable is defined as an exception to 922(o) which states: (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. Machineguns in the United States per 922(o) are illegal. There are only two exceptions to this machineguns are illegal legislation is exception A which is basically a carve out for government use and exception B which states if the machinegun was “lawfully possessed” prior to the enactment statute (which is what “transferable” machineguns are) There is no clearly defined legislative exception for previously unused registered serial numbers a decade after the legislations enactment, partially complete guns that didn’t meet the legal definition of a machinegun prior to its enactment, recycling a serial number from an original “lawfully possessed” machinegun to a new one years later, etc. However, the BATFE is the current government agency with the regulatory power to make a best judgement determination on whether a machinegun was "lawfully possessed" prior to enactment and thus “transferable”. Its also clear the BATFE has not applied the exact same “lawfully possessed” standards 100% of the time and has either ignored and/or allowed certain activity to take place in the past (out of grace or incompetence), was defrauded in certain cases so they may or may not know, etc. with the end result being there is now what could be considered a bunch of legally “gray area” transferable machineguns when it comes to whether they were legally “lawfully possessed” prior to 922(o) enactment. -When FOPA was passed individual Form 1 submissions in the pipeline were allowed to be approved and the guns physically built after May 19th 1986. -Billistics guns that were not completed to machinegun specifications being allowed to be completed by other manufacturers post-86. -Fleming and Qualified Firearms installing improperly registered sears that clearly did not meet the definition of a machinegun into newly created machineguns receivers via a mill/drill operation after May 19th 1986. -Olympic replacing “lawfully possessed” pre 922(o) machineguns with new machineguns that they didn’t convert to machineguns in the first place. -Colt either replacing pre-86 receivers or using what would technically be fraudulently submitted Form 2s serial numbers (as a Form 2 is an affidavit of existing manufacture) to make new machineguns ~20 years after enactment -Allowing certain individuals to keep guns determined to be post-samples because of a paperwork mishap by the BATFE. (Stemple M60s) In some cases the BATFE has been very aggressive in cutting off these potentially gray area guns. You can look at Police Automatic Weapons Service vs. Benson where they deemed “registered” machineguns not complete enough to be “lawfully possessed” prior to enactment, US vs. Friesen where they claimed a transferable was replaced and even had the original manufacturer (Charlie Erb) come in and testify about whether the gun in question was the one he actually made pre-86 (which Erb did) but the ATF kept the seized gun anyway, all of the Greenberg/Clark/Goldstein serial number harvesting scheme guns where previously lawfully possessed machineguns serial numbers were migrated to new guns and were ultimately confiscated from their unwitting owners. In other cases they let the Billistics guns be completed post-86 and transferred, let Fleming and Qualified to install improperly registered sears into new machinegun receivers post 86 for about a year or so, the BATFE never came after the SGW replacement guns which were clearly unlawful to replace by Oly given they were not the original manufacture of the machinegun. There are probably no shortage of previously lawfully possessed pre 922(o) machineguns that have morphed into either “gray area” or flat out illegal guns over time that the BATFE doesn’t know about. SP1s that turned into Drop in Auto Sears (or vice versa), Lighting Links that turned into DIASs, Broadhead Armory MAC triggers which were installed into FN series beltfeds, registered receiver HKs that turned into registered trigger packs, damaged M16s replaced with new 80% lowers, and probably these specific Keosayian modern Colts M16s with recycled/reused serial numbers. Just because the BATFE approves a subsequent transfer on a gray-area or illegal gun doesn't now make it pre 922(o) "legal" and if it comes to light after the fact the BATFE absolutely has the regulatory legal authority to revoke the transfer and seize the gun. What does appear to be the case is that the BATFE sometimes lets things slide and/or lay dormant for years and other times has come after gray area guns and their owners with a vengeance. The key thing that appears to trigger a renewed interest in certain guns by the BATFE is when there is some sort of legal proceeding or other investigative activity at which point they then seem to apply the strictest standard of “lawfully possessed” and guns that have gray area legal attributes are then aggressively gone after. So what does this ultimately all mean…in my opinion these specific Keosayian M16s are probably fine for the current owners to keep until they are not. Maybe they will be fine forever and maybe they will catch the eye of the BATFE one day and be confiscated. I do know that its not going to be a big hurdle to show/prove that these Keosayian M16s didn't physically exist pre 922(o) as the forgings are a dead giveaway. If they didn't physically exist prior to 922(o)s enactment I am not sure how you could argue they were lawfully "possessed" given you can't really possess something that didn't exist. For argument sake, lets say the BATFE shows up one day with a surrender notice on your doorstep and you want to take them to court to get your gun back. I am sure it won't be hard for the BATFE to subpoena the line workers at Colt who made these guns 10 years ago or Keosayian himself who are probably not going to perjure themselves claiming these were found in the back corner of the proto room to save your gun. Trying to argue in court about guns that were physically made post 2000 were somehow lawfully possessed back in 1986 is just throwing good money after bad in my opinion. So what could potentially bring these guns to the attention of the BATFE? It could be somebody else who gets caught red-handed remanufacturing a pre-86 machinegun and/or an owner down the line gets pinched and who uses these M16s as an example in court to get their gun back. As example I heard the owner of "Old-Painless" the transferable M134 minigun from Predator got caught up in a receiver remanufacturing scheme with Garwood and it was seized/destroyed by the BATFE. i.e. Hey Colt did this and their owners get to keep their guns but why not me? They could be caught by a concerned NFA branch employee via a required picture submission during transfer or found during a routine audit of a dealer. I do know that the two previous lawsuits litigated by Stamboulieh against the BATFE (Watson and Hollis) about 7 years ago one of the legal arguments to allow new transferable machineguns was a 14th amendment “Equal Protection” aspect where the argument was there are all of these “transferable” Post-86 guns certain “special” people are allowed to keep. They were specifically canvasing this site (as well as others) asking people for examples that could be used against the BATFE in court in order to get full discovery of the NFRTR records with the ultimate hope of showing the ATF allowed/allows all sort of registration and possession shenanigans in regards to Post-86 machineguns. During legal arguments specific guns were used as examples of this (like the Stemple M60s and Form 1s approved but built post-86). The rumored response to this was that if the BATFE lost and had to allow discovery of the NFRTR that they were going to be forced to go through the full transferable list and effectively “clean house” to the best of their ability of any “gray area” transferable guns that could be used against them in future litigation to undermine the NFA and/or 922(o). It appears that there is some renewed effort to try and effectively judge/court shop similar Watson/Hollis legal arguments post Bruen with the hope to find a more sympathetic US District Court and/or US District Court of Appeals. It wouldn’t surprise me if these Keosayian M16s could be prominently featured in future legal arguments for 922(o) 14th equal protection violations or somebody who had a remanufactured gun seized uses these guns in their court arguments to get their gun back and the potential negative ramifications to these specific M16s future “lawfully possessed” transferability status as a result. I hope these guns all stay legal and an issue never arises regarding their status but it also wouldn’t shock me if the BATFE changes their mind one day either and comes after them, especially if somebody uses them as an example against the BATFE in court. Personally I wouldn't purchase one knowing the risks and well documented exposure these guns have but can also understand their allure and why somebody might decide to take the risk on them. |
|
|
[#39]
Originally Posted By sig-x: I am very disappointed. View Quote The dealer that sold the colt execs collection is local. When we got one of the guns we drove out to get it. Guy takes us into the basement, had a pile of the flat card board colt boxes, rolls of the colt static bags, bins of accessory packs. Old guy sitting on the stole was telling us how they had racks of M16’s, someone would a “NIB” gov prop marked M16A2, they would go grab one off the rack, fold the box, proper accessory pack, presto, new in box gun He then went on to comment about the SN 00004 9mm Ruben had posted(note, it might have been 2, or 7, but it was under 10) He goes yeah, we built those during the 1994 run of guns. Had a good laugh about it. Then said the real colt 9mm SMG’s started with 1001. There was multiple runs colt did. Last one we know of was 2004. @sig-x |
|
|
[#40]
Originally Posted By The-Snail: Here are some of mine. https://i.imgur.com/SeDBu1U.jpg https://i.imgur.com/dcGmvre.jpg https://i.imgur.com/HGSi1jO.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CYrc73g.jpg View Quote So the glaring issue with your take on these guns, is that colt that built the guns isn’t the same colt that registered them. Why did John end up with the guns? Cause he bailed them out of a bankruptcy. New company. New ffl. Not the “same” company as you claim. These guns will always have a question mark and or * attached to them. Questionable at best. YMMV. @the-snail |
|
|
[Last Edit: JoshNC]
[#41]
The listing has been updated by MWT. The gun in question is out of the Keyosian collection. Based on the description, to put it colloquially, I wouldn’t f&$k her with your d1$k and someone else pushing.
https://www.gunspot.com/listings/detail/10784/beautiful-test-fired-only-colt-m16a2-wcolt-moderator/ This gun was acquired from the collection of John Keosayian, the long-time Colt Executive who was instrumental in saving the company from going out of business. Colt "paid him back" with actual guns, so Mr. Keosayian was thus able to amass a large collection (600+ guns). From that collection, you will see Proto-Types, Experimental guns, guns that made the ATF registry AFTER 1986 (like this one), and guns that are unique and special. It was obviously pulled off the line and assembled for Mr. Keosayian for his personal collection, and therefore doesn't completely match other Colt Manufactured firearms. So this is a Rare Colt M16A2... |
|
|
[#42]
Originally Posted By JoshNC: The listing has been updated by MWT. The gun in question is out of the Keyosian collection. Based on the description, to put it colloquially, I wouldn’t F her with your D and someone else pushing. https://www.gunspot.com/listings/detail/10784/beautiful-test-fired-only-colt-m16a2-wcolt-moderator/ This gun was acquired from the collection of John Keosayian, the long-time Colt Executive who was instrumental in saving the company from going out of business. Colt "paid him back" with actual guns, so Mr. Keosayian was thus able to amass a large collection (600+ guns). From that collection, you will see Proto-Types, Experimental guns, guns that made the ATF registry AFTER 1986 (like this one), and guns that are unique and special. It was obviously pulled off the line and assembled for Mr. Keosayian for his personal collection, and therefore doesn't completely match other Colt Manufactured firearms. So this is a Rare Colt M16A2... View Quote And there it is ..... |
|
|
[#43]
Kind of feel bad I hope I didn’t mess up his sale. I backed out though. I don’t want to risk the money.
|
|
|
[#44]
Originally Posted By sig-x: Kind of feel bad I hope I didn't mess up his sale. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes You asked a legitimate question, and knowledgeable people showed up with the correct answers. I backed out though. I don't want to risk the money. |
|
|
[#45]
Originally Posted By sig-x: Kind of feel bad I hope I didn’t mess up his sale. I backed out though. I don’t want to risk the money. View Quote I would agree with Kitbuilder you have nothing to feel bad about. Its actually good to see the sales description was updated by Frank so that buyers can make their own choice about the risks involved. When all of these went on the market years ago the dealers that sold them after getting them from John to the best of my memory were completely tight lipped about what time machine portal these guns came from, the legal pedigree issues, and/or the potential risks presented to future owners. |
|
|
[#46]
Interesting
|
|
"I miss the days of being able to shoot all commies" G.B.
|
[#47]
Originally Posted By jbntex: I would agree with Kitbuilder you have nothing to feel bad about. Its actually good to see the sales description was updated by Frank so that buyers can make their own choice about the risks involved. When all of these went on the market years ago the dealers that sold them after getting them from John to the best of my memory were completely tight lipped about what time machine portal these guns came from, the legal pedigree issues, and/or the potential risks presented to future owners. View Quote Completely agree. And I remember when these first surfaced and all we had was speculation because the selling dealers weren’t sharing the details. |
|
|
[#48]
|
|
|
[#49]
|
|
|
[Last Edit: Stahlgewehr762]
[#50]
Originally Posted By RenegadeX: There are certain serial number ranges for almost all manufacturers that are known to be pre or post. That is what is meant. Similar to 94 AWB guns. View Quote My point was that ATF didn't allow for the registration of a serial number, followed by the manufacture of the physical machine gun after the 5/19/86 ban. This is the scenario posted by the OP, at the beginning of this thread. If ATF had allowed for papering serial numbers without a corresponding physical machine gun, individuals or manufacturers could've just made up long lists of serial numbers and filed ATF paperwork for these "yet to be made" machine guns, before 5/19/86. This would have guaranteed that machine guns would have been made for decades after the ban. It's really too bad it didn't work out that way. |
|
|
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.