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.
Have had a .223 stamp back for a while & haven't cut a chip. I'd much rather have a 300 BLK can than a .223 first. I sent the F-1 off for 300 BLK & it's pending, but it sounds like ATF is running ~9 months now from pending to approval.
So is there any way to use the approved .223 form-1 to make a .308 can with? Can I amend it to change caliber (& if so is that a relatively fast process)? Just boring it that size & marking it with the .223 info I don't think is allowed. Length is the same - all I'd need to do is amend the caliber.
I want both anyway, would just rather have the 300BLK first & then wait for the .223. Or I could just finish the 3 projects I have in front of me & then do the 300 BLK whenever I get it back. At my slow pace of finishing what I start ~8 more months might be about right
--------------------------------------
"Sorry but you cannot use search at this time. Please try again in a few minutes"
"This board is currently disabled"
These things make me
It's just not feasible to do that.
Keep the calibers and paper the same or it just gets silly with the amount of paperwork an money flying all over the place!
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
Bendersquint wrote:Once its approved there is no changing it. This is why it pays to be certain about what you want before you submit.
You could destroy the can ie: tax tamp and declare a non intent to construct or demolition of a controlled item per some regulation and paperwork that you must do.
Then submit a whole new F1 w/ a check for 200.00 or you can wait and have two.
Being of Scottish blood I would wait and hope they breed.
I don't know if the stamp must be destroyed per some regulation but there must be one on the books.
The only reason after 243 years the government now wants to disarm you is they intend to do something you would shoot them for!
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
Bendersquint wrote:Once its approved there is no changing it. This is why it pays to be certain about what you want before you submit.
You could destroy the can ie: tax tamp and declare a non intent to construct or demolition of a controlled item per some regulation and paperwork that you must do.
Then submit a whole new F1 w/ a check for 200.00 or you can wait and have two.
Being of Scottish blood I would wait and hope they breed.
I don't know if the stamp must be destroyed per some regulation but there must be one on the books.
If you declare that the item was never built you can send back your stamp and request a refund. That refund takes anywhere from 6-24 months to receive. You can submit another one for the new item while you wait.
NO, they don't give credits or anything like that, you have to wait in line like everyone else for the next stamp.
CMV - If you don't want to make a 5.56 can then just file that form away for when you do and submit a new one for 300BLK.
I do want a .223 can. I'd just rather have a 300 BLK can right now & the .223 much later - if I had the option/choice. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to even mess with it for something as benign as a suppressor & in a near-perfect world the process would be measured in hours instead of months. As it is, I'm probably looking at 8 months until the 300 BLK stamp is in hand so I'd rather put off the .223 project & have the 300 BLK now.
When I submitted the .223 form-1 I didn't have a 300 BLK rifle or any intention of owning one. I sent off the 300 BLK packet before I started building the rifle & it's pending. If there was a way to change the one I already have in hand to a different cal & then change the one that's pending to replace it, that's the route I'd go. But since I can't, I'll just have to wait it out.
The little pile of approved forms I have sitting here were all pretty much 180 days mailbox-to-mailbox. That's why I was surprised when I called today & they said they're running about 9 months from pending.
Oh well. I still have an integral 10/22 to finish, a 9mm & .223 to start. Not like I'm making much progress on what I already have back.
--------------------------------------
"Sorry but you cannot use search at this time. Please try again in a few minutes"
"This board is currently disabled"
These things make me
For what it is worth, I had an approved Form 1 for a 9mm can, and I had not built it. I decided I wanted a .223 can.
I sent in a letter and received a letter back approving the change.
That was in 2009, so things may have changed since then - for me, I just keep the approval letter with my Form 1.
It took a long, long time (over 18 months) to get my letter back - so don't be in a hurry if you go that route!
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas
There is no rule as to what size hole you have to put in a can. There are many people that use 308 cans on 223's. Yours will just say .223 and have a hole large enough for either.
jmorris wrote:There is no rule as to what size hole you have to put in a can. There are many people that use 308 cans on 223's. Yours will just say .223 and have a hole large enough for either.
If you register it as a 22 caliber then an appropriately sized 22 caliber hole is what you put in it.
Don't you think if it weren't allowed that manufacturers would be selling .223 cans that are safely shot on a .308 and not the other way around?
The reason is is that the ATF considers that increasing the capability of a silencer, it registered in the largest caliber that it is capable of passing.
If manufacturers can't do it then form 1 home builders certainly can't get away with it.
WhisperFan wrote:For what it is worth, I had an approved Form 1 for a 9mm can, and I had not built it. I decided I wanted a .223 can.
I sent in a letter and received a letter back approving the change.
That was in 2009, so things may have changed since then - for me, I just keep the approval letter with my Form 1.
It took a long, long time (over 18 months) to get my letter back - so don't be in a hurry if you go that route!
Things HAVE changed a bit.
Things always change ....
I actually have an SBR Form 1 which has three barrel lengths, three OAL's and three calibers ..... that is before they made you pick one!
Didn't know if it still was a possibility to change, but I knew it has happened .... also the OP sounded like he may have been curious to see if it would be faster - and that would be a no-go. When I was allowed to do it, approvals for new cans were running 4 months, and it took 19 months for get the caliber change approval letter.
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas
WhisperFan wrote:
Things always change ....
I actually have an SBR Form 1 which has three barrel lengths, three OAL's and three calibers ..... that is before they made you pick one!
I actually got you beat on that one, I have 2 AR SBR's that were approved with 3 calibers, three barrel lengths, and 4 OAL's!
Whats the best is it was a handwritten form and all that information was crammed in the appropriate boxes!
If you register it as a 22 caliber then an appropriately sized 22 caliber hole is what you put in it.
And what size would that be?
If I ever built one that I wanted to use on a larger caliber and didn't fill out the form 1 for the largest, I would simply say that I made it .xxx" diameter so an unstable bullet that began to keyhole out of the muzzle would not damage the can.
FWIW my commercial cans have a larger clearance than the ones I build. I suspect it is because they had some sent back from being struck after some dipshit didn't indicate the bore of the barrel for threading.
In short there is no NFA/BATFE mandate on bore diameter or there wouldn't be so many posts where people ask the question. Not to mention if there was it would likely be illegal to use a 308 can on a .223 and that is not the case.
If you register it as a 22 caliber then an appropriately sized 22 caliber hole is what you put in it.
And what size would that be?
If I ever built one that I wanted to use on a larger caliber and didn't fill out the form 1 for the largest, I would simply say that I made it .xxx" diameter so an unstable bullet that began to keyhole out of the muzzle would not damage the can.
FWIW my commercial cans have a larger clearance than the ones I build. I suspect it is because they had some sent back from being struck after some dipshit didn't indicate the bore of the barrel for threading.
In short there is no NFA/BATFE mandate on bore diameter or there wouldn't be so many posts where people ask the question. Not to mention if there was it would likely be illegal to use a 308 can on a .223 and that is not the case.
The ATF bases that on industry standard.
There have been people that have registered .22's with a .50 bore for "safety" and the ATF shut it down REAL quick, there was a manufacturer that did it as well and was told by ATF thats a no-no and to fix it before any of them sold....they knew what he was doing....trying to have it registered as a .22 and ability to shoot up to .45ACP through it.
You can always shoot a smaller bullet than what is registered, its larger that the ATF considers it an increase in capability.
why is that? i can see from a general safety standpoint it would be a bad practice if commercial cans typically accepted significantly larger calibers. if people were accustomed to that and then ran across an exception that would be bad.
but why would they care about the .22/.50 example? it's not like you pay a higher tax based on caliber or there can only be x number of each caliber in circulation. I'm not questioning that they do in fact care, just don't know why.
If you wanted to put a .223 can on your .243 hunting rifle for example (and it had enough bore clearance to be safe) could you legally do that? or would you have to go up to a .308 or have something custom built and marked for .243 or larger?
Would you be breaking a law taking an AAC M4-2000 and putting it on a .243?
--------------------------------------
"Sorry but you cannot use search at this time. Please try again in a few minutes"
"This board is currently disabled"
These things make me
1) Since can is not made, a taxable event has not occurred and you can request a change. The biggest drawback here is how long it might take to get approval. But I have seen approvals occur in under 60 days.
2) You as maker decide what the bore size is to safely pass bullet. Obviously if you have approval for 22LR you cannot make a 50 BMG. Many 07/02 make 556 cans that can pass a 762. This was very common years ago before precision MFG and all out effort for quietness. But since as F1 maker you cannot make replacement baffles, nobody is going to suggest you cannot err on a safe side.
With that said, since you already have an approval for 556, and a 762 form in the pipeline. just make the 556. The few months of wait is nothing in the long run.
ETA:
I forgot option 3) cancel form and resubmit.
Last edited by renegade on Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
As an 07/02 nobody has every told me how to build my cans or what was "appropriate" for a caliber. I could build a 5.56 can with a .4" ID stating that I have a large safety factor for bore concentricity. There's no box on a Form 2 asking for ID.
It's probably more accurate to say the ATF would base it on an arbitrary industry average and they will decide what is or is not included in the average for whatever suits their purpose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtd2jNIwAU MUSAFAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI This is Water DavidW
Complete Form 1s http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=79895
