80% suppressors?

Yes, it can be legal to make a silencer. For everything Form-1, from silencer designs that are easily made, to filing forms with the BATF, to 3D modeling. Remember, you must have an approved BATF Form-1 to make a silencer. All NFA laws apply.

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw

User avatar
MedicineMan
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 6:26 am
Location: Marion, Mississippi

Post by MedicineMan » Tue May 04, 2010 3:18 pm

YugoRPK wrote: The NFA has never been a tax collecting scheme. When it began it was a slam dunk prohibition. $200 was a big chunk of change to anyone but the rich in 1934. There were no transfers and it shut the market down cold. Now the government probably pays more to maintain the NFA than they probably get from tax stamps. Its a money losing proposition. Changing the NFA cant result in good I'm afraid.
Sounds like a wasteful and outdated government program that should be eliminated in the name of REDUCING THE BUDGET.

NFA was not a moneymaking scheme.
It was enacted to implement NEGRO CONTROL.

White people could go to their local WHITE law enforcement and get a "permit" to carry weapons, and they could afford to pay the "stamps".
Poor blacks could not.

And to answer the OP's question........

Golf Ball Launcher Tubes
With longer tubes and no "innards" or end cap.

There's already a guy selling them made of the same thickness stainless steel as was reccomended for silencers in another thread.
They'd just be "fatter" than some people prefer.

User avatar
YugoRPK
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6289
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:56 am
Location: South Carolina

Post by YugoRPK » Tue May 04, 2010 3:33 pm

MedicineMan wrote:
YugoRPK wrote: The NFA has never been a tax collecting scheme. When it began it was a slam dunk prohibition. $200 was a big chunk of change to anyone but the rich in 1934. There were no transfers and it shut the market down cold. Now the government probably pays more to maintain the NFA than they probably get from tax stamps. Its a money losing proposition. Changing the NFA cant result in good I'm afraid.
Sounds like a wasteful and outdated government program that should be eliminated in the name of REDUCING THE BUDGET.

NFA was not a moneymaking scheme.
It was enacted to implement NEGRO CONTROL.

White people could go to their local WHITE law enforcement and get a "permit" to carry weapons, and they could afford to pay the "stamps".
Poor blacks could not.

And to answer the OP's question........

Golf Ball Launcher Tubes
With longer tubes and no "innards" or end cap.

There's already a guy selling them made of the same thickness stainless steel as was reccomended for silencers in another thread.
They'd just be "fatter" than some people prefer.

I don't know that I'd agree with that or all of it anyway. $200 in 1934 would buy a pretty nice late model car. $2000 would buy a respectable newer house where I live in 1934. The same house now would be closer to $160,000 . By different measures you come up with different results but if you go by cars or housing that $200 in 1934 would equal approximately $15,000 in 2010 money. Poor whites still outnumbered rich whites a few thousand to one and the NFA slammed the door shut for all but the very rich. I don't know that there ever was a machine gun toting Negro threat to worry about during the depression. There WAS a machinegun toting white guy problem but the majority of the problem was a fabrication by the media just like Miami Vice got us the machine gun ban in the 80's..
Putting the laughter in manslaughter

R3dundantC
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 12:56 am
Location: Rsbg, Oregon

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by R3dundantC » Mon May 17, 2010 1:03 am

What about these threaded "potato launcher" tubes that could be used for a 80% suppressor body sold from Sweden?
http://www.rh-custom.net/product_info.p ... ucts_id=65

I'd like to form 1, but I have limited access to milling machines and lathes. This seems like a good route to go if everything is kosher.

Tourist
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 5:58 pm

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by Tourist » Thu May 20, 2010 5:36 pm

Hi there, I have not written here before so this is a first post - but I do take part in a couple of military forums and one gun forum. Anyway..........

I read how the BATF, or whatever they are called nowadays, would frown upon the sale of suppresor components - legally treating each component part as a registerable/transferable item.

Now to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons. I first got my hands on a copy of Shotgun News through official military channels back in the early 1980's - does'nt matter why. Shotgun News regularly used to carry adverts from companie's selling "replacement parts for silencers". Now, these replacement parts kits contained everything except for the tube. And I mean everything - the little metal bootlace eyelets, baffles, threaded ends, end caps and wipes............they even contained detailed instructions for the thickness, length and thread of the tube that the spares would need to be fitted into.

I know of one individual in the UK who ordered a 9mm replacement parts kit for the sionics type silencer to fit the Mac10. The tube was bought from a TV antenae supply shop, this was cut and threaded according to the included instructions. The replacement parts were dropped in, the thing was fitted to a Mac 10 and .................. it worked beautifully.

I must add, for those quiet readers of this forum that work for various agencies, the individual that assembled the silencer in the UK was a suitably registered and licensed firearms dealer.

So gent's, if incomplete parts kits could be sold back in the early 80's what has changed now???

User avatar
YugoRPK
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6289
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:56 am
Location: South Carolina

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by YugoRPK » Thu May 20, 2010 5:58 pm

The sale of unregistered silencer parts was made illegal in 1982 . Thats what happened.
Tourist wrote:Hi there, I have not written here before so this is a first post - but I do take part in a couple of military forums and one gun forum. Anyway..........

I read how the BATF, or whatever they are called nowadays, would frown upon the sale of suppresor components - legally treating each component part as a registerable/transferable item.

Now to throw the cat amongst the pidgeons. I first got my hands on a copy of Shotgun News through official military channels back in the early 1980's - does'nt matter why. Shotgun News regularly used to carry adverts from companie's selling "replacement parts for silencers". Now, these replacement parts kits contained everything except for the tube. And I mean everything - the little metal bootlace eyelets, baffles, threaded ends, end caps and wipes............they even contained detailed instructions for the thickness, length and thread of the tube that the spares would need to be fitted into.

I know of one individual in the UK who ordered a 9mm replacement parts kit for the sionics type silencer to fit the Mac10. The tube was bought from a TV antenae supply shop, this was cut and threaded according to the included instructions. The replacement parts were dropped in, the thing was fitted to a Mac 10 and .................. it worked beautifully.

I must add, for those quiet readers of this forum that work for various agencies, the individual that assembled the silencer in the UK was a suitably registered and licensed firearms dealer.

So gent's, if incomplete parts kits could be sold back in the early 80's what has changed now???
Putting the laughter in manslaughter

Tourist
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 5:58 pm

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by Tourist » Thu May 20, 2010 6:11 pm

Ok, thanks. I vaguely recall it being around 1981/82.

I read above that it is easy to get silencers in Europe. In the UK it depends if you have a reason or not ............. "want" does not come into it.

Strangely though, was the time you could walk into a gun shoppe and ask for a silencer and so long as you said it was for a .22 air rifle they would sell a nice parker hale .22 silencer to you with no licence needed. However, if you told the chap you wanted a silencer for a small pistol to hunt "rats" he would want to see a licence before selling you exactly the same silencer.

As for France, show them a passport stating that you are over 18 and most things are possible.

Germany, requires licences for everything. So does Holland.

Some of the old WP countries still have interesting "items" for sale in flea markets and sunday markets.

User avatar
Diomed
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7543
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:59 am
Location: VA

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by Diomed » Fri May 21, 2010 3:38 am

YugoRPK wrote:The sale of unregistered silencer parts was made illegal in 1982 . Thats what happened.
It was '86 - the other part of FOPA that fucked the NFA world.

User avatar
YugoRPK
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6289
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:56 am
Location: South Carolina

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by YugoRPK » Fri May 21, 2010 9:08 am

Diomed wrote:
YugoRPK wrote:The sale of unregistered silencer parts was made illegal in 1982 . Thats what happened.
It was '86 - the other part of FOPA that fucked the NFA world.
I thought it was '82 at the same time the ATF banned the open bolt semi gun production.
Putting the laughter in manslaughter

User avatar
Diomed
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7543
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:59 am
Location: VA

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by Diomed » Sun May 23, 2010 3:02 am

YugoRPK wrote:I thought it was '82 at the same time the ATF banned the open bolt semi gun production.
No, the open bolt change was accomplished with an administrative ruling. The silencer part rule was written into the NFA (or, I suppose, the GCA since the NFA cites to the GCA for the definition of silencer) with the FOPA. Much harder to challenge black-letter law than an administrative ruling.

Tanasoo
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:00 am

Re:

Post by Tanasoo » Sun May 23, 2010 3:40 am

silverbulletexpress wrote:If you spend much time at a public shooting range.....well you may well see that not everyone in the gun culture has all four tires touching the ground.
I hear that! For something like a machine gun, there should be a licencing process similar to a CCW permit. The potential licencee should have to take a few classes and undergo training to get their card. It would also be revoked after a felony, firearms related crime, violent crime, etc. A

As far as silencers go, or SBRs, there isn't anything really more dangerous about them than a regular rifle. One could argue that a machine gun is harder to control so training would be necessary. Or that it would give a would be criminal too much firepower so more scrutiny would be required for purchasing. But cans and SBRs aren't much different than their non-NFA counterparts. Maybe if they weren't completely non-regulated you could have some sort of card that you would pay a fee every year or so. Hell, I'd be fine with the $200 stamp if it didn't take so freaking long! This "NFA card" would also act like a CCW licence does when purchasing a gun, showing that you are an upstanding citizen, etc.

I agree that you shouldn't be able to go down to your local sporting goods store and get an M16 out of a vending machine. But the current system is broken and ridiculous. It definitely needs to be fixed.

User avatar
MedicineMan
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 6:26 am
Location: Marion, Mississippi

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by MedicineMan » Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:44 am

The problem I see, is that the folks who have already spent $200 don't think anyone else should be able to avoid doing so.
Kind of like the "brand snobs" you run up against with motorcycles and firearms.

Another thing is that people will say "the atf spends more than they take in" out of one side of their mouths, and then say "but we need the program" out of the other.
I say if it's not making money they need to END IT and make them 100% legal.

To put a $200 tax on a supressor is like taxing EAR PLUGS and SAFETY GLASSES at that same rate.
It just doesn't make sense.

I wonder how many people would pay another $200 to have seatbelts in their cars if it weren't mandatory??
Just like in the 40's and 50's, it would be a "declined option" for sure.

User avatar
Blaubart
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4962
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Bozeman, MT

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by Blaubart » Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:41 pm

MedicineMan wrote:The problem I see, is that the folks who have already spent $200 don't think anyone else should be able to avoid doing so.
It's a sunk cost. It would be in all of our best interests if the $200 tax was repealed. Not only would we avoid the $200 tax up front, I bet the cost of silencers would come down also, even if only marginally. Also, I think it's great that we have such advanced silencers. In fact, I despise disposable grade products of all sorts. But that's one thing you don't see in the US market because who wants to spend $200 and wait for four months to buy a $50 silencer that won't last as long as a brick of .22 ammo? But that's something I guarantee you'd see come on the market if it weren't for the $200 tax.

The people who bought MG's strictly as an investment are the ones that would really be standing in the way of getting rid of the whole NFA/FOPA. Those that bought them because they like them would love to see it go away so they could get MG's for what they cost to produce, not for what the market is willing to bear in a artificially limited market.
"And by the way, if you're gonna take up a hobby of letter writing, you might want to learn how to spell "writing" you stupid F--k." - Nighthawk re kwikrnu

User avatar
chingon
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by chingon » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:55 pm

"Investors" have ruined the NFA (machine gun) market just as they have ruined the "collector/muscle car" market for enthusiasts
I always tell the truth, even when I lie

User avatar
Diomed
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7543
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:59 am
Location: VA

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by Diomed » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:37 am

Blaubart wrote:The people who bought MG's strictly as an investment are the ones that would really be standing in the way of getting rid of the whole NFA/FOPA. Those that bought them because they like them would love to see it go away so they could get MG's for what they cost to produce, not for what the market is willing to bear in a artificially limited market.
Try telling that to the tinfoil hat crowd. Always with the, "current owners will never let 922(o) go away, they'd lose too much money!" Gits.

David Hineline
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4289
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 12:37 am
Location: South Sioux City, NE
Contact:

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by David Hineline » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:35 am

Don't fall into that whole 80% receiver crap, there is no such thing based in regulations, it's just some gun show rumor that it's ok.

Check the regulations just owning a gun parts kit, an un-machined tube and a manuf. template constitues intent.
NFA shooters blow their load with only one pull of the trigger.

User avatar
Baffled
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 962
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 4:20 pm

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by Baffled » Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:55 pm

David Hineline wrote:Don't fall into that whole 80% receiver crap, there is no such thing based in regulations, it's just some gun show rumor that it's ok.

Check the regulations just owning a gun parts kit, an un-machined tube and a manuf. template constitues intent.
The so-called 80% rule really doesn't mean 80%. It could be 50%, or 20%, anything. What the seller does is submit the AR lower (for example) to the BATFE and gets a ruling, "gun" or "not a gun" from them. Not a gun, sells a shitload of them and makes some money. The better partially finished AR lowers have everything done except the FCG pocket and a little cleanup, including a nice EDM'd mag well. As sold, they are paperweights, until more cutting is done.

Problem is, there have been sellers that got in trouble as the BATFE flip-flopped, decided that something today is a gun that yesterday was not.

But true on the suppressor parts. A guy could make a fortune selling individual K baffles, for example, but it's illegal. They fall under NFA, whereas the partially finished lower is just a hunk of metal.

User avatar
wyoguy
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:59 pm
Location: Wyoming

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by wyoguy » Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:46 pm

chingon wrote:"Investors" have ruined the NFA (machine gun) market just as they have ruined the "collector/muscle car" market for enthusiasts
I Believe That is Absolutely Correct!

And Many of Those 'Investors' Are Rich, Powerful and Politically-Connected Folks(some very Big in Very Big Gun Groups!)...Who Do NOT Want The Current Laws Changed!

The Other, Parallel Fear Is---If The Whole "Class III" System is Seriously Attempted to Be Modified By Congressional Action...Meaning Simply Congress Should Be Urged To Repeal/Amend All The Existing NFA Federal Code Sections...
There Would Be A Serious Risk that the 'ANTI'S Would Wage a Huge Public Relations/Political Battle to OUTLAW All Class III Items, Including Suppressors!
(Logic, Reason, How it is in 'Europe', Constitutional Rights, etc...Notwithstanding!)
AND...the Middle-of-the Road, Reasonable Compromises We Might End Up With Could Be---
*Annual, Not One-Time Registration Fees!
*$200 Tax Stamp...'Adjusted for Inflation'...say, $1,000!
*Limit to say, 5 per Adult?
*No 'TRUST' Ownership! Individuals ONLY!

Bottom Line...No Organized, National Gun Group...Ever Seems Eager to Open Up the Existing Gun Regulatory Laws...to the 'Sausage Maker' That is Congress !?!?

Wyoguy
85% of all statistics are made up...and the other 30% are wrong!

User avatar
wyoguy
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:59 pm
Location: Wyoming

Re:

Post by wyoguy » Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:53 pm

NFA was not a moneymaking scheme.
It was enacted to implement NEGRO CONTROL.
White people could go to their local WHITE law enforcement and get a "permit" to carry weapons, and they could afford to pay the "stamps".
Poor blacks could not.
My Dad was born a White Guy, in Minnesota, in 1903.
In 1934, He had to TURN IN His Sawed-Off Shotgun.
He Used It To HUNT With.
He had had Polio as a Child, and Walked with Two Canes.
With A Sawed-Off Shotgun He Could Hunt Pheasants!
I Asked: Dad, Why Didn't You Just Pay the $200 Tax Stamp and Keep the Gun?
He Replied, Increduously...Back Then, $200 Was A Month's Pay!
He would have been about 31 Years Old at the Time, Was Working, Had a Car...But $200 Was Big Bucks! (Remember, the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression!)
And it Was the 'Al Capone'-type Gangsters, and John Dillinger-type Bank Robbers...all over the Midwest that was the Impetus to 'Crack Down' on NFA-type weapons...and Remember the Feds Only 'Got To' Al Capone on Income Tax Evasion!, Not 'Violent' Crime!
:)
Just Saying...

Wyoguy
85% of all statistics are made up...and the other 30% are wrong!

User avatar
YugoRPK
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6289
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:56 am
Location: South Carolina

Re: 80% suppressors?

Post by YugoRPK » Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:21 pm

wyoguy wrote:
*$200 Tax Stamp...'Adjusted for Inflation'...say, $1,000!
$200 in 1934 dollars is more like $16,000 today if you go by adjustments in the real estate market. $2000 would buy you a fine house in 1934.
Putting the laughter in manslaughter

User avatar
Diomed
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7543
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:59 am
Location: VA

Re: Re:

Post by Diomed » Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:57 am

wyoguy wrote: I Asked: Dad, Why Didn't You Just Pay the $200 Tax Stamp and Keep the Gun?
He Replied, Increduously...Back Then, $200 Was A Month's Pay!
What this proves ( :wink: ) is that both amnesties were poorly advertised.

Post Reply