Legality of casting molds for full auto receivers

[A43tg37]

A person has been known to make molds for investment casting (in aluminum and aluminum alloys) things like model car parts, gears, and parts for old projectors (fairly high precision, actually). This individual wonders if it would be legal to produce investment casting molds for full auto receivers, as long as he doesn't produce the receivers themselves with said molds. He has checked the ATF's website and a few other legal references and found nothing yet on this being illegal by the letter of the law; but wants to be sure; he slso wonders if it would be legal to sell the molds. He figures that if selling full auto receiver blueprints, discussing online how to build the jigs to make torch-cut receivers "live" again, making videos of how to make the jigs, and selling someone who has an 80% receiver in hand a milling machine, are all perfectly legal actions, then what he plans to do should be perfectly legal too, he just wants to be sure...is this the case?

[Mmanwitgun88]

You can have a million castings, a milling machine, full auto blue prints and how to video's in your house and its perfectly legal. Of course if a judge is truly crooked he could bust you on criminal intent, but don't be a fucking jackass you'll be fine. Of course making fully auto recievers is illegal and will get you 8 yrs minimum ass rape, if your lucky that is. Manufactur of an illegal firearm is extremly illegal. You don't need FA anyways, stick with semi auto and learn how to shoot. Most of the times in FA you just waste ammo. If you make a casting FA I will come to kick your ass, this is a legit hobby and I don't want it being ruined because someone wants to take it to the next level. You can make a gun FA in a matter of minutes, why have it like that "just in case".
~Dave

[nbk2000]

Rather than selling the molds themselves, sell the wax casting that is made from the mold.

Not only would it be cheaper for someone to buy the wax casting (for lost-wax) than a machined metal mold, but would also mean they'd have to buy a new one for every receiver they wished to make. It'd also prevent someone from making hundreds of receivers themselves and doing something with them that may backfire on you.

The wax castings could be for a completely full-auto receiver and still be legal, since the wax casting can't be used (or even imagined) as a receiver for an actual weapon as-is.

To make it a working weapons receiver would require a forge for melting metal, refractory ceramics for coating the casting, and the skill to use them. :)

'Course, once that requirement was met, someone could turn out a fully operational full-auto receiver with only minimal touch up required. :D

[zaibatsu]

First, I just want to confirm that you know making your own firearm in the US is legal as long as it is legal for you to own it. However you can't sell these firearms you make. Apologies if you already know this.

Also, the difference between FA and SA recievers is very little - why bother producing FA recievers that will always be FA and not produce SA recievers which can either be SA or modified to FA??

[A43tg37]

zaibatsu:

Yeah, I already knew that, thanks to a discussion at a few 80% receiver sites. Oh, and obviously the individual wishing to produce these molds or wax castings would certainly include semi-auto capability in any FA "paraffin receiver" (or like you suggested, semi-autos that can be easily modified).

NBK:

Good idea on the wax casting of the receiver instead of the molds themselves. Howver, that begets an important question: Why and how are the wax receivers themselves legal? Granted, to someone like you, I, or probably anyone on the Forum, it makes perfect sense for simple pieces of wax to be legal. I wonder what ATF would think, though...would they treat it as legal (like teh way 1/4 replicas of FA's are legal...by virtue of a physical characteristic-size-they are legal...ideally, ATF would classify these wax receivers as legal too, by virtue of a physical characteristic-being far too soft to be used like a normal receiver. However, I don't necessarily think they would look at them as "non-fireams" like 80% receivers and solid ornamental receivers/paperweights are considered, because they could (theoretically) have actual FA parts affixed to them as a machine gun, and therefore meet the definition of a receiver (I can't find anything in ATF's rules saying that to be classified as a receiver, it has to be metal). I hope they wouldn't classify them as "unserviceable firearms" even though they meet the definition, i.e. "incapable of discharging a shot by means of an explosive and which is incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition"...that would suck, because "unserviceable firerms" don't require any tax payment, background check, or even the ability to legally own a real firearm, but they DO require registration with the ATF. I think further investigation is warranted, and perhaps the individual who originally wanted to make the receivers or the molds will query ATF (not using his real e-mail or real physical address, of course) on the exact legal status of a receiver that's a real FA receiver in all but one respect, that being the fact that it's made of wax instead of metal....hmmm...mabye this individual wants to do a waxworks museum type of display that's as realistic as possible, but doesn't want any to use any evil, horrible, scary, actual firearms...:p Yup, that's why. ;)

[blacktalon]

1. My good man, the only legal difference in a FA receiver and a SA receiver is that one extra 3/32" hole for the auto sear pin to go in just above the selector. Now, most companies (DPMS, Bushmaster, Colt, Olympic) leave an excess of metal in the area where the auto sear would go to prevent easy instillation, but I don't believe they aren't required to do that. Now I could be underestimating your casting capabilities, but isn't that hole a little small to be worrying about? (80% receivers start out as castings and then they are drilled with the aid of a jig. I have never seen a receiver with all the holes cast in it.) So why wouldn't you just make your wax casting in SA?

2. A better idea would be to produce the 80% receivers and also the drilling jigs to finish them. (when you have an 80% all that is left is drilling the holes for the fire control group and taping the ring at the rear of the receiver for the recoil spring tube and stock.) If you insist on making FA parts, all you would have to do is put one extra hole in your jig, which is legal to sell without a permit. :D


You should watch the idea of a wax 100%. With the way everything is going to polymer these days, you could end up pissing the BATF off with that one even though you and I know it couldn't be used realistically.

[nbk2000]

...most companies (DPMS, Bushmaster, Colt, Olympic) leave an excess of metal in the area where the auto sear would go to prevent easy installation.


Which is why I said:


...someone could turn out a fully operational full-auto receiver with only minimal touch up required.


Since the wax version wouldn't have that "extra" metal, you'd only need to drill a single hole, rather than machine/file out the "extra" metal. Drilling one hole is minimal touchup. :)

To cast the internal voids (like magazine well) would require that there be ceramic cores in place when the wax model is originally made. Attempting to remove them from the wax model would cause it to break. Only after the wax was replaced with metal would it be possible to break them out without also breaking the receiver.

As for legality, the wax version wouldn't be able to hold any parts, since it'd have studs where they'd be holes, and vice-versa, so mounting parts is impossible. Even if it was possible to statically mount the parts, the moment the action was operated, the wax would be deformed and all parts would go out of alingment, making actual firing impossible.

EVEN in the REMOTE possibility of somehow assembling it in ready-to-fire condition, it would instantly Ka-Boom upon firing, killing/maiming anyone stupid enough to hold it, as well as destroying it beyond any repair.

But the whole notion of slug throwing firearms is rather antiquated now. Technology rocks on, eh? Within a few decades, directed energy and EM will become feasible infantry weapons, making the idea of a slug-thrower rather archaic.

I saw a patent for a hypervelocity rocket design that seems so fucking simple, you wonder why no one ever thought of it before. 5,000-12,000FPS using common smokeless powder, no moving parts, and made from common steels using simple machining processes.

(I've described this before, so I feel rather tiresome of repeating myself, but the idea is stuck in my brain so bear with me.)

Skip the bullshit of existing firearm designs and use "Leap Ahead" technology. The gyrojet was decades ahead of its time, but modern technology makes it even more lethal, and practical today then ever before.

Simplify the HVR (HyperVelocity Rocket) design to something you could turn out with a drill press and steel bar stock, create a wax model of a simple (multi-shot) launcher for the HVR, and sell a kit that includes plans/wax model/and some bar stock.

There's NO restrictions on selling either plans, nor inert steel stock, or even a wax model of a "hypothetical" design for a "flare launcher" no one has ever seen before (or remembers). :D

Great thing about laws are that they can't ban things that no one yet knows exists. It's only AFTER something bad happens with it that someone creates a law banning it.

If someone should happen to follow the plans, and make a casting from the wax model, then they'd have a large caliber/hand-held/recoilless HVR "flare" launcher that'd throw (after burnout) 220 grain (1/2oz) shells with a KE of 31,200 foot-pounds (assuming 8,000FPS).

I mean, Christ, a .50BMG has less than 10,000 foot-pounds, so how many .50s worth of impact would your completely legal and unregulated "flare" launcher have, when directed against cars/body armor/concrete walls/LAV's? All in something light enough, and small enough, to carry in your pocket. :eek:

Eventually, someone would bring it to Feinsteins attention, though hopefully not until tens of thousands of the "flare" launcher castings have been sold, as well as the plans and CAD files distributed over the 'net, and piggy torsos are getting exploded (literally) by nearly silent HVR's fired at them by 13 year old ghetto dwelling 'hoodies, the rockets zipping through cop body armor like a hypersonic knife through hot pig lard.

By the time they get around to banning it, you've already established a reputation for yourself as an innovator (or menace to society), created a new industry (legal or underground), given the politicians a case of the shits, and made the pigs realize their vests are useless as protection...and so are their cars...and reinforced concrete walls...and buildings...:p

Ahh...a sweet dream.

[A-BOMB]

NBK I like how you think! It gives me somelike of feeling of some sort like one where your laughing you head off in a movie theater as you see the burning pig stagger out of his burning car onfire :D And on the subjuect of gyrojets I just saw something at the hardware store that would make a outer casing for a gryojet round it a zinc or brass end fixture for some thing or another I'll pick some up next time I'm there, If these casing are strong anothe to hold the gasses from the cartridge they would make the prefect gyrojet round. The only part that would be a problem is the base you wouuld have to make a jig to hold the base at the right angle while you drilled the vent hole but that too would be semi-easy.

[nbk2000]

Brass or zinc would be too soft to be useable as a gyrojet shell. Internal pressures can be over 30,000PSI, which is why strong steels are needed.

Also, the problem with the old gyro's, was the canted ports. Unless they're EXACTLY symetrical, the variance of one port causes an oscillation in the rocket, which is the reason the originals weren't very (or even semi) accurate.

The MLRS method of studs 'n rails would be more suitable. No ports to drill, no loss in velocity from the diversion of propellant gases to induce rotation, and simplified launcher design.

Also, one of the reason for bothering with spin stabilization in the first place, was because the original g-rockets didn't burn all their propellant till they were well downrange. This allowed for wind cocking, which was magnified by the continued acceleration.

The HVR, on the other hand, burns it's entire propellant load in under 10 milliseconds. And this was with rockets using pounds of propellant! I'd imagine less than an ounce would only take 1 or 2 milliseconds to burn. As long as the propellant is completely burned by the time the HVR exits the barrel, then spin stabilization isn't needed. Which is good, because the design isn't intended as a precision sniping weapon, but as a simple weapon of major power.

And, because the things are so fast, leading of moving targets is very simple...you don't.

If a pocket HVR was assumed to have an 8,000 FPS velocity, and an effective range of 100 meters, than a car moving across your LOS at 100 meters at 100MPH would only move 5 feet in the time it'd take the HVR to cross the gap. Aim at the passenger compartment and you're going to hit it. :D

[Anthony]

VERY interesting!

To achieve such an incredibly short burn time, is the propellent a loosely packed powder ratehr than a solid grain?

I'm thinking of something (easily improvisable to start with) using empty CO2 capsules. Formed steel nozzle, with the nose filled with lead. It wouldn't hold 30kpsi, but even a fraction of 8kfps would be a mean toy to start out with :)

[nbk2000]

The patent is 5,440,993

It uses loose SP. The flakes "float" on the gases created by its combustion, allowing for extremely rapid burning, but the rocket only works if it's moving. Reason is that the propellant grains inertia keeps it inside of the rocket, against the outflowing combustion gases, otherwise they're blown out unburned. So no static firing is possible.

Also, the large rockets mentioned in the patent (155mm anti-tank) burned their propellant charges in less than 2 feet of travel. :eek: This created:


a large rearward flame was observed thus requiring that the rear of the launch tube be kept clear of personnel. In the case of firing from a gun tube, blast shields may be required for personnel protection.


A couple dozen pounds of SP burning in a few milliseconds? I bet THAT was a huge ass fucking fireball! :) Though the smaller HVR's would only have a fraction of an ounce, it'd still likely create a nasty fireball like that from a .50BMG, only larger. :eek: I'd think some way of venting the blast to the side would be a good idea, unless you build it as a bazooka type weapon that sits over the shoulder.

I don't think a CO2 powerlet would work, because the HVR design creates over 30,000 PSI of internal pressure, while CO2 tanks are burst rated to only 3,000PSI, below which they'll deform. I don't think a powerlet is even close to that.

Also, the design requires a nozzle that protrudes almost to the very front of the rockets internal chamber, to seperate the gas while retaining the propellant grains.

[nbk2000]

While perusing my vast archive of reference materials, I ran across this case citation that upholds the premise that a device (in our case a wax receiver) isn't a firearm, even if technically capable of firing one shot, if any sane person wouldn't dare try it.


U.S. v. Brady, 710 F.Supp. 290 (D.Colo. 1989)
In this case Brady is charged with possessing an unregistered AOW weapon, a coyote getter. The coyote getter is sort of like the "Game Getter" guns of the pre-1934 era, except that it is very lightly constructed, as it only uses a primed .38 special case to fire a cyanide capsule into the mouth of the animal tugging at the bait. The old game getter type guns fired a real bullet, to kill the animal.

As even the ATF expert was too cautious to fire the gun with a real round of ammo, the court decides the thing is not an AOW, as while it is strictly speaking capable of discharging a shot (a primed .38 case with a bullet, the bullet went a few feet), it is not capable of using regular ammo. The court points out that in a number of old Revenue Rulings ATF ruled based on whether the device in question could use conventional ammo. Without requiring that the thing be able to do so, without suffering structural failure, would bring a whole host of items under the definition, says the court, like a hammer and nail. Things no sane person would use to fire a shot should not be considered capable of doing so, even if they theoretically can, says the court.