Is this the real reason for rising crime?

Henry Boyd said:
Yes it is, but there are significant restrictions, namely you personally can not sell it, or give it away (even to a relative as a gift). That’s fine for you, or me, but does pose problems for law enforcement because none of the parts are serialized and everything can be bought without going through a FFL on the internet with just a credit card. And as the old car insurance commercial used to go, “Even a caveman can do it!”. So the bar for a person with no legitimate access to a gun (felon, underage, unqualified for a license in a license state, etc.) is now ridiculously low.

I personally don’t get the attraction for Polymer80 projects; the end result is a Gen 3 pistol in a Gen 5 world for about the same money.
Click to expand...
You can't BUILD IT WITH THE INTENTIONS TO SELL IT, but you can sell it after it's built and you're tired of it. I don't know where I stand on the whether or not 80% guns SHOULD be illegal.... I think it's too easy, but I'm certainly going to take advantage of it while I can. Personally, I HATE glocks, I hate how they advertise a shitty gun as being "perfection". It's one of the worst designs that I've ever seen, and I refuse to give them any of my money. I have a Keltec that uses glock magazines, so I figured I might as well have a pistol that does as well, which is where the polymer80 comes in. I can build a Glock 19 clone without giving any money to Glock.

Once you build a polymer 80 the next step is a 80% 1911. That's a challenging project, but once you get that right, you feel like you've accomplished something. Now those are perfection. Next up is a 2011, but I will need to sell off an old pistol before tackling one of those. I will order a serialized frame for this build, just in case Brandon gets his way.
 
Gofirstclass said:
He knows, but he's too chicken to admit it and go after criminals with the laws that are already on the books.
Click to expand...
Maybe not so much chicken , but letting the baddies loose so as to scare the general populace into believing that disarming us would be a "good idea".
 
I think you should double check the ATF letter and their FAQ that covers 80% builds. As I recall a builder can only build for his personal consumption, but can't sell it, or give it away unless he is licensed gun manufacturer (Federal and State if applicable). So intent never comes into the discussion, you can make a gun from scratch under the present regulations, but the instant you pass it on you go from hobbiest to manufacturer.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if 80% receivers were serialized by the builder and had to go through a FFL. Sig is essentially doing that now by selling the FCU (a serialized trigger and action) for their P320 model and then allowing you to buy the rest as you choose. I've got a full size M17 and just bought a compact slide for it.

I agree with you on the Glock, I don't get it either but a lot of people love them though. I have a couple of friends who are retired Mass State Troopers who are the last people you would expect it from that are complete Glock fan boys.

A few years ago I looked at an 80% 1911 receiver & kit that was built by Briley. If you're not familiar, they are mainly known for their shotgun chokes, barrel work and sub-gauge tube sets for competition shotguns. They also branched out into 1911s with pretty much everything you would need to upgrade your own. This one was quite a challenge if you lacked a machine shop because the builder had to mill out the rails to match the slide.
 
Henry, I've never owned a Glock, but having been a firearms instructor and armorer for about 14 years before I quit LE, I can tell you that the Glocks experienced the fewest malfunctions of just about any other brand.

That includes the most common which was failure to feed, followed by stovepipes and on down the line.
 
Henry do you have a link to this atf ruling?

There are several “jigs” now that let you mill a 1911 frame without using a milling machine. You mill it by hand. I’ve used one from stealtharms and it turned out great.
 
I have had 2 Glocks (model 22 and model 27, still have the 22). Have fired over 3000 rounds through the 22 and about 500 rounds through the 27 and never had a single level 1 or level 2 malfunction. I do agree that for the sport shooter Glocks probably aren't the best choice but that wasn't their design intent. These are purpose built for simplicity and reliability (specifically for law enforcement and military) and I feel they have accomplished that.
 
Glock, the AK-47 of pistols.
 
jmauld said:
Henry do you have a link to this atf ruling?

There are several “jigs” now that let you mill a 1911 frame without using a milling machine. You mill it by hand. I’ve used one from stealtharms and it turned out great.
Click to expand...

I have been looking with no direct result. So I went looking for the concept of intent being a loophole that allows a homemade firearm to be sold. I found a website 80lowerjig.com that is a seller of various 80% kits. They lay out the basic premise a private citizen can “make a firearm for their sole personal use”, etc. because no license is required to do so. But that a license is needed as a manufacturer to sell or distribute. They quote the ATF and provide a link to the ATF, that confirms that point by stating a private citizen may make their firearm without a license, but they can not sell it without being licensed as a manufacturer. It’s important to note that the ATF makes the point about needing a license as a manufacturer to distribute immediately after saying the a license was not needed to build it.

In a following section this website goes into the notion of intent to sell being being the criteria that differentiates a hobby builder from a manufacturer, but they don’t provide a link to the ATF as they did in the earlier licensing section, but the prior section about licensing says nothing about the intent as an additional criterion. I tried to find a citation in the ATF regulations that suggests something to support the intent loophole and was unsuccessful.

I then looked at the Polymer80 website, and the third question in their FAQ about making for personal use they (polymer80) state that it’s ok to make a firearm except to sell, or distribute, and provide a link to the ATF that says:

QUOTE
9. May I lawfully make a firearm for my own personal use, provided it is not being made for resale?
Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the GCA provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as set forth in regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF. An application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for the official use of a Federal, State, or local government agency (18 U.S.C. § 922(o),(r); 26 U.S.C. § 5822; 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.39, 479.62, and 479.105).

UNQUOTE
I bolded the section above from the ATF that is pretty direct that selling or distributing a homemade gun is not acceptable. The Polymer80 site does not show anywhere I could find a mention of an intent test as a loophole allowing someone to sell a completed 80% kit.

And as everyone has said when doing this, “I am not a lawyer, and you should do your own research”. I personally don’t see any reason to change my interpretation, a person can make an 80% kit into a gun, but can’t sell it or give it away without being a licensed firearm manufacturer.

I take the point others have made about Glock dependability, I suppose I kind of do the same myself with pistols by only owning designs that have military pedigrees on the belief that millions of dollars and tens of thousands units in use over several years indicates the bugs have all been worked out.
 
I see your point although I don’t interpret the ruling the same. The only ruling I could find is speaking directly to manufacturers. Not hobbyist. The ATF appears to be silent on this issue. It doesn’t really matter though because the expensive part of building an 80% is the other parts. The parts kits, slide, barrel, etc. IF I decide to sell one of them and I am in doubt I will just disassemble it and sell the pieces than toss the frame back into the gun safe.
 
jmauld said:
I see your point although I don’t interpret the ruling the same. The only ruling I could find is speaking directly to manufacturers. Not hobbyist. The ATF appears to be silent on this issue. It doesn’t really matter though because the expensive part of building an 80% is the other parts. The parts kits, slide, barrel, etc. IF I decide to sell one of them and I am in doubt I will just disassemble it and sell the pieces than toss the frame back into the gun safe.
Click to expand...

I also agree on how “intent” could be one interpretation, I just couldn’t find anything to suggest the ATF shared that position. The discussion on unique serialization also doesn’t help the intent idea in that serialization is not required by the ATF, but they recommend it as a safety in the event of “loss or theft”. If sale or gift were in the mix you would think they’d have added that to the serialization recommendation.

I had come to the same economic conclusion on the Polymer80 kit that $150 for the grip frame was short money compared to the other stuff if I really wanted to try it out. I also looked at the stealth 1911 how to instructions. That’s pretty neat how they handle the process and you have to have a reasonable amount of skill to do a good job. I might give this a try. The last two 1911 colts I’ve bought I’ve ended up pretty much gutting and re-building with after market parts from places like Wilson and Cylinder & Slide.
 
Those p80 frames are often on sale for $90. Don’t pay $150 for one. I have a stealth jig. You can borrow if you want to try to build a stealth frame. the jig is one of the most expensive parts of building a 1911. It’s really not that difficult. Decent work out by hand, just take your time. The cutting bits are replaceable, so you might need to replace those in the jig. On my 1911, it took some time to work out the bugs, and it’s really easy to damage a part while fitting it. But each individual part isn’t expensive. My biggest issue at first was that I wanted the gun to run tight so I stopped short of the recommended machining and then finished the fitting process by manually racking it about 500 times and about 100 rounds. After that it slides perfectly now, and the only remaining issue I have is the slide doesn’t lock back every time. I don’t do competition shooting so that’s not a huge deal to me, and I haven’t tried sorting that issue out yet.

I don’t know if you have looked at the 2011 guns or not, but they, IMO, put an end to the only downside of a 1911 and that’s the single stack aspect. Cheely makes a good 2011 frame that can be purchased as an 80% or as a serialized frame. Even with a 100% frame on a 1911/2011 you will need to do a decent amount of fitting to get the gun to be smooth and reliable. I’m going to purchase one of these serialized as my next project.

There is another concern with the 80% guns and that is what happens if you need to use one in self defense. It doesn’t appear as if that has been settled in court yet, so I don’t carry one. They are solely because I enjoy the building process and for range use.
 
Last edited:
highslice said:
Chicago comes to mind...
Click to expand...

85149922-CFA3-478C-9DA1-20549AC5B6FD.jpeg
BF97E2BD-F7DD-4884-9C07-B1F0EF52157B.jpeg


:D:D
19B1ABE3-BAEA-47A1-96DA-D7D926558963.jpeg
 
I would like to see the stats broke down by race
White shoots white
white shoots black
and
black shoots black
black shoots white

Anyone have these stats?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,248
Messages
1,429,274
Members
61,128
Latest member
greenworld
Back
Top