Has there ever been any discussion about how the ATF (or whoever) made the decision that the AR-15 lower, not the upper, would be the accountable, serialized part? It seems to me the lower is just a stock and trigger housing, while the upper mounts the barrel and BCG, etc. - the parts that seem to me to be the analog of the receiver, barrel, and bolt of a bolt action rifle - and that's where the SN has traditionally been.
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
AR-15 Receiver/Serial Number
- Thread starter erikpolcrack
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Not sure why, but it's a good thing.
You can have one lower and multi uppers that will fit, even in different calibers.
You can have one lower and multi uppers that will fit, even in different calibers.
Ivan the Butcher
Member
The "Rock & Roll" parts are in the lower!
Ivan
Ivan
Engine49guy
Member
The receiver is the serialized part, same thing on all my handguns
OP
The receiver on an AR-15 is the upper, not the lower.
OP
I agree completely - that's one of the rifle's best qualities, but it's also another reason why it would make more sense to serialize the upper.
DUSTYDOGDAN
Member
It's just like everyone of my 3 Generation S&W Pistols I own.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,660
- Reaction score
- 21,273
Three words - fire control system. On the AR pattern lower the trigger and related parts are attached to the serialized part of the gun. On a bolt action the trigger just happens to be permanently attached to the barrel and receiver.
This is how the serialized part of the Sig modular handgun is the trigger module, or whatever its official name is. The authorities couldn’t care less about the grip module, barrel or slide to which it attaches (for now).
This is how the serialized part of the Sig modular handgun is the trigger module, or whatever its official name is. The authorities couldn’t care less about the grip module, barrel or slide to which it attaches (for now).
kwill1911
SWCA Member
I think it is comparable to the "fire control group" being the legal gun on newer pistol designs. The lower contains the parts (trigger, sear, etc.) that enable the gun to fire.
Alan beat me to it!
Alan beat me to it!
AR15 lower is not the receiver according to this case.
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
On the FAL rifle, it's the opposite.
The UPPER receiver is registered part.
The LOWER is just a gun part.
Go figure.
So…the fire control parts are in the lower so the lower is the receiver and thus the firearm.
Yet the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M1A, Mini 14, 10/22, MP5, and many other all have the fire control parts in a detachable trigger assembly. Many other firearms like the Model 9422, Model 1890, Model 1906 have the fire control parts attached to the lower tang assembly attached to the butt stock.
The M6 Scout has the fire control parts in the stock, not the break open barrel or receiver that holds the barrels.
All of those firearms are serial numbered on the “upper” receiver, while the component that holds the fire control parts is not serialized.
Ivan the Butcher
Member
I had an imported Argentine M-1927 45 ACP semi-automatic handgun made by Colt. It is an completely interchangeable copy of a US M-1911. The only two serial numbers are on the slide and the magazine. The importers mark was on the frame!
As an aside: That gun operated on 230 grain ball ammo right out of the box! But when I detail cleaned it, I removed about 5 CC's of black dust (maybe graphite) from every open space inside the mechanisms, The gun would no longer function. Failed to Feed, Fire, Eject, also stove piped. I replaced every spring in it with a Wolff 1911 Spring Kit. Worked fine then.
Ivan
As an aside: That gun operated on 230 grain ball ammo right out of the box! But when I detail cleaned it, I removed about 5 CC's of black dust (maybe graphite) from every open space inside the mechanisms, The gun would no longer function. Failed to Feed, Fire, Eject, also stove piped. I replaced every spring in it with a Wolff 1911 Spring Kit. Worked fine then.
Ivan
kwill1911
SWCA Member
If you remove the MSH you'll find Colt's SN inside.
Ivan the Butcher
Member
OP
Ruger .22 pistols have the serial number on the upper receiver, where the barrel is attached by threads. The lower, which holds the trigger parts (like a 1911) is not serial numbered (opposite of a 1911).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what the hell difference does it make? You can't really do anything without both an upper and a lower (whether an AR15 or a Ruger .22 Auto) so as long as one of them is serialized, the BATF is satisfied. "Making sense" doesn't enter into it.
I couldn't find any information on when the law/regulation was changed. Could you please provide a link?
Also, if the law/regs changed why is the lower still considered the firearm?
To be fair it’s a 2019 article and the ATF finally seems to have figured out it has a problem and has tried to plug the holes.
The fact that the ATF has been inconsistent and has essentially been enforcing “policy” rather law for the last 50 years isn’t a real shocker. The “law” generally consists of statute, regulations and sub regulatory guidance in the form of opinion letters issued by the ATF. However, they can’t just make it up. It has to be consistent with what is in the statute (as well as any committee notes if they exist). Under Chevron deference (high has been around as long as the ATF) they can make an interpretation of the law provided it is not specifically referenced in statute, and it is a reasonable construction based on the statutory language.
In this case, the definition was specified in statute, contained in GCA 1968, although it was a bit muddled by the inclusion of the hammer as while the receiver is the item that holds the bolt and connects to the barrel, it often doesn’t contain the hammer and that is nothing new.
But, when you let attorneys with limited subject matter knowledge start writing regs or giving guidance without proper adult supervision (subject matter experts) things that are often terms of art and or have subtle but important nuances are not understood and you end up with poorly written regulations and guidance that is not consistent.
——
Now…to be fair back in 1964 when the treasury Department approved the AR-15 for civilian sales I doubt anyone in the ATF looked at the AR-15 and decided the larger lower should be the receiver. That’s because:
- there was no serial number requirement; and
- no formal definition of “receiver” until the gun control act of 1968; and
- the ATF didn’t even exist until 1972.
With GCA of 1968, the definition of receiver became much more important and the GCA of 1968 would have been a good time to address the issue of split receiver firearms like the AR-15.
Even then it was clear that the definition adopted in GCA 1968 didn’t address firearms like the Winchester 1890, where the hammer wasn’t located in the receiver, meeting only 2 of the 3 criteria in the definition.
In short, the Treasury Department did a really poor job of educating congress on the issue and or did a really poor job of drafting the implementing regulations.
ATF isn’t innocent however as it took them from 1972 to 2022 to make the required definitional changes.
They did that here:
Federal Register
::
Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I thought that the price of using a credit/debit card was the interest payed.- Latest: John in Yuma
-
-
M1 Carbine marked Springfield Armory- Latest: 3rdgenfriend
