Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Machineguns, assault rifles, subguns, SBRs, etc. Photos, questions, discussion. General talk.

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw

Post Reply
Dennisrl
Silent Operator
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:09 pm

Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by Dennisrl »

I am doing a form one to SBR an AK pistol.

I just noticed under caliber I simply put "7.62"

Is that gonna get kicked back? Its been a month and I have seen no movement. It hasn't gone pending or anything. Do the Eforms not go pending?
66427vette
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1873
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by 66427vette »

Should be fine. When did you file has been down for me for last 2days and screwing up for last 2 weeks.
Dennisrl
Silent Operator
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by Dennisrl »

Jan 10th
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by Bendersquint »

Should be fine.
Dennisrl
Silent Operator
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by Dennisrl »

Should I expect it to go pending like paper forms? I would think it would be by now if the whole process is only 90-120 days.
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by Bendersquint »

Dennisrl wrote:Should I expect it to go pending like paper forms? I would think it would be by now if the whole process is only 90-120 days.
I haven't seen anything go pending on the Efile.
danb35
Silent Operator
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:22 am

Re: Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by danb35 »

There is no "pending" status on eForms--SUBMITTED/IN PROCESS appears to be the equivalent, and it happens immediately (or within a day or two if your form needs research).
rockman96
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 4:49 am

Re: Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by rockman96 »

I actually had a form returned to me (6 mos ago) for me to remove the specific identifier... All they wanted on there was the caliber. I had to cross it out and send it back. Seemed way over the top to me, but then again they may kick yours back wanting the full info. You can't second guess them.
Dennisrl
Silent Operator
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by Dennisrl »

If anyone cares. I only put 7.62 on the caliber not 7.62X39 and it was still approved 28 Feb.
User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11357
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by Bendersquint »

Dennisrl wrote:If anyone cares. I only put 7.62 on the caliber not 7.62X39 and it was still approved 28 Feb.
Yup, because 7.62 is a caliber in the ATF eyes.
rimshaker
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:15 am
Location: FL

Re: Eform 1 - just noticed a potential mistake

Post by rimshaker »

Below is copied/pasted from the eForms bulletin, Sept 2013:

Calibers in NFA

NFA uses only the ‘base’ caliber for describing an NFA firearm and no ‘.’ to start. For example, we use ‘22’ rather than ‘.22,’ ’22LR,’ .22 WIN,’ etc. Similarly, we use ‘300’ rather than ‘300,’ ‘300 Blackout,’ ‘300 AAC Blackout,’ etc.

For metric descriptions, we do include the ‘.’ when it is internal to the ‘base’ caliber, such as ‘5.56’ or ‘7.62,’ but we do not use the further description to the caliber such as ‘5.56x45’ or ‘7.62x39’ for example.

We appreciate your coopera-tion.
Post Reply