Does arsenal rebuilding negate C&R status?

[m1guy]

This is something that I never thought about.

I was reading on AmmoGarand . com and they say this is true. If you have a WW2 vintage M1 that was rebuilt and has "SA 5-65" or something similar (less than 50 years ago) electro penciled on it, then does that remove its C&R status? They are saying that the rebuild date becomes the start date for the 50 year time frame.

I am not saying I doubt their knowledge. They are an FFL dealer and I'm not. But it is hard to tell by their wording whether this is their interpretation or the ATF's.

Then, if you can tell it has been re-parked at some time, but have no way of knowing when, do they go by the receiver production date?

Does anyone have knowledge of this?

[WeldonHunter]

I really don't think that's correct. Look through these. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/curios-relics.html Specifically this. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/curios- ... ifications

"What modifications can be made on C&R firearms without changing their C&R classification?
The definition for curio or relic (“C & R”) firearms found in 27 CFR § 478.11 does not specifically state that a firearm must be in its original condition to be classified as a C&R firearm. However, ATF Ruling 85-10, which discusses the importation of military C&R firearms, notes that they must be in original configuration and adds that a receiver is not a C&R item. Combining this ruling and the definition of C&R firearms, the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has concluded that a firearm must be in its original condition to be considered a C&R weapon.
It is also the opinion of FTB, however, that a minor change such as the addition of scope mounts, non-original sights, or sling swivels would not remove a firearm from its original condition. Moreover, we have determined that replacing particular firearms parts with new parts that are made to the original design would also be acceptable-for example, replacing a cracked M1 Grand stock with a new wooden stock of the same design, but replacing the original firearm stock with a plastic stock would change its classification as a C&R item."

I think as long as it's in it's original configuration after rearsenal it should still be C&R.

[WeldonHunter]

I just read what they're saying. http://www.ammogarand.com/crvsfflinfo.html

"As a result of ATF guidance we have determined that barreled receivers or "most" of a M1 does NOT qualify it as a C&R weapon. The firearm must be complete and in original condition except for minor repairs or additions that are consistent with the original design. For example, modified M1's are NOT TREATED AS C&R if they have been modified from their ORIGINAL state, (e.g. re-parkerizing a rifle is a production process and NEGATES the C&R qualification as the park process is a manufacturing process and constitutes NEW manufacture!!) A good example of this is a 1944 M1 put thru the 60's era rebuild program at Army Depot. The weapon is electro-penciled “SA 5-66" on receiver leg to indicate rebuild. This 1944 rifle is NO LONGER C&R eligible as it was rebuilt through a subsequent manufacturing process in 1966 (at least until the 50yr rule takes it to 2016 now before it become C&R again)."

They say with "guidance" from the ATF. What does that mean? Did they talk to them or is their "guidance" coming from their own interpretation of the rules? Claiming that "re-parkerizing" disqualifies a rifle as C&R because it's considered "New" manufacture would seem to me that this same logic could be applied to a whole lot of other rifles that are currently being imported with ATF approval. This makes it sound like even "rebluing" would be the same thing. They start out referring to barreled receivers, which are not C&R, then add "most" of an M1 doesn't qualify as a C&R weapon. Barreled receivers as well as receivers on their own are not a complete rifle and not C&R for sure because it's not in it's original configuration. The one thing that sticks out is the fact they're stating a receiver that's electro-penciled with a rebuild date shows when it was done. Mosin Nagants were refurbed up to the 70s I believe but who knows because they don't have date when it was done.

[jones0430]

Either they talked with someone who was making up interpretations on the fly, or were interpreting on their own. The part about re-parkerization indicates that whomever made this determinatin doesn't understand manufacturing process as that step is not a determining factor of manufacturing that affects anything in the configuration. Were that true, then any change in the stock would be included as a disqualifying modification.

[racerguy00]

70s dated Finn m39s are still C&R based on their receiver dates.

[bunkysdad]

The BATF has a list of firearms and if the Garand is on the list then it is C&R

[Gsragtop]

So if I read that right if someone puts a mosin in an archangel stock or a similar montie carol stock, it's not linger c&r eligible. Ohh bubba yet another thing I can hold over your head.

What about refinishing the rifle from its original finish??

[Rongo]

So if I read that right if someone puts a mosin in an archangel stock or a similar montie carol stock, it's not linger c&r eligible. Ohh bubba yet another thing I can hold over your head.

What about refinishing the rifle from its original finish??

If... As in never; I had a severely re-configured C&R firearm & wanted to sell it; I would only sell to an 01 FFL just to be on the safe side.

[Marcus]

Based on the above gibbering, shrieking, squealing, moron jabber nonsense these fools are handing out, if "ammogarand.com" told me one thing, and the 3 Stooges were sniffing glue and told me another, I'd go with the Stooges as being the most intelligent and believable.

[JER]

Based on the above gibbering, shrieking, squealing, moron jabber nonsense these fools are handing out, if "ammogarand.com" told me one thing, and the 3 Stooges were sniffing glue and told me another, I'd go with the Stooges as being the most intelligent and believable.

I agree, lots of misinformation out there. "ammogarand.com" may be somewhat paranoid, which, as a business, is their wont, but they are basically in the wrong, while trying to err in the "right". Good topic for discussion, though.

[C4inEOD]

A slight hijack but still somewhat on topic. I have a 1895 Chilean in 7mm that had been sported. Stock had been cut down, sights removed, scope mount staked, and barrel cut and recrowned. All of this was done way before I bought it. Anyway, this thread got me to thinking about antique status. I listed what I started above and sent sent pictures to the ATF and asked. Attached is the email I received this morning.

[attachment=-1]uploadfromtaptalk1398777183995.jpg[/attachment]

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

[bunkysdad]

Now that is interesting and opposite of what gun guys often claim. Thanks c4 for sharing.

[jones0430]

Contrary to popular belief, unreasonable idiocy is not rampant in the government agencies. Yes it does exist, but there are thinking individuals who staff those agencies. Sometimes they actually make a difference.