fyi: ATF posts a Silencer Repair/Alteration FAQ, 4/17/08

Allen-PSI · Post by **Allen-PSI** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:02 pm

It's only 3 pages long, so it's a quick read, of stuff that is quite surprising.
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/nfa/0 ... r-faqs.pdf

a friend found it here,
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/nfa/info.htm

and here on SubGuns:
http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=653863

I'm curious what the legal minds here have to say on this FAQ.

Allen

hemi · Post by **hemi** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:24 pm

So in a nutshell, we learned:

If you have to get a new tube, even w/the same serial by the manufacturer, you gotta pay another $200.

If you have the manufacturer bore out to a different caliber, you just bought another silencer and has to be registered as such.

Jmark · Post by **Jmark** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:35 pm

04hemi wrote:So in a nutshell, we learned:

If you have to get a new tube, even w/the same serial by the manufacturer, you gotta pay another $200.

If you have the manufacturer bore out to a different caliber, you just bought another silencer and has to be registered as such.

Well, it could have been defective.

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:18 pm

Well that sucks.

pneumagger · Post by **pneumagger** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:22 pm

They should refund the first $200 then since it no longer exists.

And to this I have to say: How will they know if a manufacturer rebuilds/replaces a silencer?
It will look the same and have the same serial number.

And how common is reboring a suppressor?

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:02 pm

Jmark wrote:
04hemi wrote:So in a nutshell, we learned:

If you have to get a new tube, even w/the same serial by the manufacturer, you gotta pay another $200.

If you have the manufacturer bore out to a different caliber, you just bought another silencer and has to be registered as such.
Well, it could have been defective.

Keep reading. The defect needs to be found before it leaves the MFG.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:03 pm

Interesting...............................

Thanks for posting the info.

At least it wasn't some dipshit's letter.

You can still gut the innner part of the can..............it seems IMHO that if you use the original outer tube, then everything is ok.

apochachuva · Post by **apochachuva** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:27 pm

I want to know how this plays out.

Post by **silencertalk** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:57 pm

04hemi wrote:
If you have the manufacturer bore out to a different caliber, you just bought another silencer and has to be registered as such.

I don't see how this makes sense. You can put a 9mm upper on an M16 and did not *make* a new rifle. A judge might have to decide that.

Post by **silencertalk** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:04 pm

Kel seems very pleased with getting the ATF to publish the Gemtech letter so that it applies to everyone. They knew about it the same day (April 17th 2008) that it was published so they were clearly involved.

Thank them here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=20&t=241896

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:06 pm

anyone know the 1999 Bardwell letter Dater makes reference too?

I'd liek to read that.

Jmark · Post by **Jmark** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:18 pm

renegade wrote:
Jmark wrote:
04hemi wrote:So in a nutshell, we learned:

If you have to get a new tube, even w/the same serial by the manufacturer, you gotta pay another $200.

If you have the manufacturer bore out to a different caliber, you just bought another silencer and has to be registered as such.
Well, it could have been defective.
Keep reading. The defect needs to be found before it leaves the MFG.

Yea, read it wrong.

If I thanked them over there, I probably would only be here from then on. bleh

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:55 pm

rsilvers wrote:Kel seems very pleased with getting the ATF to publish the Gemtech letter so that it applies to everyone. They knew about it the same day (April 17th 2008) that it was published so they were clearly involved.

Thank them here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=20&t=241896

Having seen the last Gemtech can AAC "rebuilt" I can't really blame them. You basically took an M4-2k and engraved it with the Gemtech mfr info from the previous unit, right? It would probably piss you off if they stamped "Advanced Armament Norcross Georgia" and a previous AAC serial number on a G5.

They went about it in a way that totally fucked the end users, but I understand their indignation anyway.

MaverickH1 · Post by **MaverickH1** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:57 pm

This really pisses me off. So now if my CCF carbon fiber can breaks, I have to pay another $200 and wait another 2 months to get the aluminum tube on it... ??

ETA: Well, at the end it makes it sound like if the tube breaks per a manufacturing error, then the tube can be replaced and use the same serial number as the previous one... so I guess that's good for me since these do break as a manufacturing error in my opinion...

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:02 pm

rsilvers wrote:Kel seems very pleased with getting the ATF to publish the Gemtech letter so that it applies to everyone. They knew about it the same day (April 17th 2008) that it was published so they were clearly involved.

Thank them here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=20&t=241896

Yeah really. Now an EDM bore costs $200, as does the AAC upgrade to the latest model for 1/2 cost.

apochachuva · Post by **apochachuva** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:19 pm

renegade wrote:
rsilvers wrote:Kel seems very pleased with getting the ATF to publish the Gemtech letter so that it applies to everyone. They knew about it the same day (April 17th 2008) that it was published so they were clearly involved.

Thank them here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=20&t=241896
Yeah really. Now an EDM bore costs $200, as does the AAC upgrade to the latest model for 1/2 cost.

Does an EDM out HAVE to be a change in caliber? Maybe you're really worried about baffle strikes....

apochachuva · Post by **apochachuva** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:20 pm

MaverickH1 wrote:This really pisses me off. So now if my CCF carbon fiber can breaks, I have to pay another $200 and wait another 2 months to get the aluminum tube on it... ??

ETA: Well, at the end it makes it sound like if the tube breaks per a manufacturing error, then the tube can be replaced and use the same serial number as the previous one... so I guess that's good for me since these do break as a manufacturing error in my opinion...

Read again, they state it has to be caught before the sale...

apochachuva · Post by **apochachuva** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:21 pm

The way I read it, it still seems possible to preserve the SN part of the tube and remake a new one with the same dimensions, or less?( Weld on the old SN part somewhere?)

Jmark · Post by **Jmark** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:21 pm

Is there any way to find out who requested the ruling?

apochachuva · Post by **apochachuva** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:24 pm

Jmark wrote:Is there any way to find out who requested the ruling?

If I find out it was due to gemtech, no one I know will do any business with them.(not that that's too many people, but hey they're losing customers as it is...)

boulderchild · Post by **boulderchild** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:54 pm

If Gemtech is in fact the one behind this than I hope they are boycotted by the entire silencer purchasing community. To me this is about like them donating to the brady bunch

CanNotHear · Post by **CanNotHear** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:59 pm

Deleted**************************

apochachuva · Post by **apochachuva** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:01 pm

CanNotHear wrote:
boulderchild wrote:If Gemtech is in fact the one behind this than I hope they are boycotted by the entire silencer purchasing community. To me this is about like them donating to the brady bunch
People actually buy their products?

From what I've heard, their outback II is pretty good, and they do Mac cans.

boulderchild · Post by **boulderchild** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:02 pm

CanNotHear wrote:
boulderchild wrote:If Gemtech is in fact the one behind this than I hope they are boycotted by the entire silencer purchasing community. To me this is about like them donating to the brady bunch
People actually buy their products?

Hell if I know, because I never have. I do know that most of the dealers around here stock them so either they have some OLD stock sitting on the shelves or they are pushing them on somebody.

Mongo · Post by **Mongo** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:08 pm

You have to love how Dater is trying to start the makings of a case for not having a welded suppressor over on Sugbuns.com. Hmmmm......who is the only major suppressor company that does not weld their cans (even if they say they do)?

Its always cheaper to get some rules made so that you do not have to upgrade your product line to keep up with the other companies.

You know this is the same s--t that happened when some dumb ass wrote ATF about Olympic replacing out of spec transferable M16 receivers with brand new ones. ATF asked Olympic to stop but they did not say it was illegal, and Olympic of course stopped to keep ATF off their backs. Ruger has also had the same issue now with AC556 replacement for blown up guns. So it appears that Gemtech has also given everyone an nice screwing in the suppressor community out of spite of AAC.