Talk:Receiver (firearms)

Added References

I added some References and removed the tag for unsourced article Maelstromlusby (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. Unfortunately I notice that one of the references added, spiritus-temporis.com, seems very crude and is itself unsourced. There is enough similarity between that article and this article that I suspect its source is an older version of this very Wikipedia article! Frappyjohn (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed biased text from article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.143.72 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed "80 percent" section

It appears to be someones random interpretation. BATF determines when a forging or billet becomes a firearm. Manufacturers that want to sell components that have the maximum amount of machining completed without being considered a firearm make a sample and send it to ATF technology branch for a determination letter. For AR's, none of the fire control group machining can be done. That means a raw forging that has the trigger pin drilled and no other work is a firearm. It has nothing to do with being 80% complete. Firearms without a serial number cannot be sold or transferred. --DHeyward (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's have it out. 80 percent receivers are widely available for sale in the US for a large number of firearms (including AR receivers, AK receivers and the ubiquitous MAC-10 receiver). I know this because I have made firearms from them. BATF does indeed work with the vendor in determining the exact amount of machining results in a billet going from a paperweight to a receiver, but what is commonly referred to as an "80 percent receiver" can be sold with no paperwork. It is also true that if you build a firearm around a receiver with no serial number and then sell it (subject to the laws in your particular state) you are within the law.

The point here is to show this is the case, and common. I happen to think this is important. If you have any suggestions as to how to phrase the section so that it is satisfactory, and then to re-include it in the article, please do make them. What I put in was not random, and it was not vandalism. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A section on this has been added (and of course reverted). I'd like to see this re-added, with appropriate sourcing.

As a non-US resident, this is an interesting legal loophole. The root is that in the US the receiver is considered as being the crucial part of the firearm (that which has its possession restricted, that which needs to be serial numbered) whereas in the rest of the world there's more focus on barrels or chambers, as the functional part of the firearm and the most specialised to manufacture. This is presumably based on the oversupply of barrels in the US, yet still an attempt to control automatic and semi-automatic receivers. Thus there is a trade in "80% receivers" where their whole purpose is to be easily completed in manufacture, a "monkey simple" process requiring no drill press, let alone a milling machine, just simple tools or a $200 investment in a jig.[1]

We should cover this. It is relevant and encyclopedic. In particular it is illuminating on US gun legislation and its failings. Why "80%"? Why are (presumably legal) part-complete receivers available with only the "monkey simple" work needed? Who drafted this law so badly, such that such a simple task was all that was needed? What legal tests have been applied to this? How much effect have 80% complete receivers had on gun access or crime? Has 80% shifted things from 100% (where full paperwork is needed) or near-0%, where well equipped machinists are starting from billets?

In particular, what sourcing is available or necessary to cover this? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy, I think the both of us have stepped on a land mine here. On the evidence (to be discussed presently)this article is on a watchlist and the watcher does not want any reference to 80 percent receivers in the article. I base this comment on the following: (1) the almost instantaneous deletion of the addition, and (2) the history of the article, where someone, also anonymous, had added a section on 80 percent receivers previously, and his contribution as well was deleted almost instantaneously. I looked up the contribution - I edit anonymously (for my own reasons) and had to check the IP address for the first contribution - it comes back to Rancho Cucamonga, California (San Bernardino County, I know the area well) because the wording was so close to something I might write. But it wasn't me, because I moved away from SoCal many years ago and am now based in Northern Ontario (Canada)and haven't been back since. Leave these people (and the article) alone. On the evidence someone has an agenda, and we could push the issue but that would cause trouble. I don't need trouble, I have enough already thank you very much. This is Wikipedia, and like in Animal Farm, all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

I should get a gmail account for this stuff if I plan to help here. Something that can't be traced back to me. Amongst other things, I don't need any more midnight phone calls about my activities on Wikipedia. Nor do you. Leave this one alone. With best regards, 66.103.35.72 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want more anonymity, register an account (you also get convenience and respect). As it is, you're exposing your IP to everyone (rather than just Checkusers).

I already get midnight phonecalls from WP. Sometimes it's trolls, sometimes it's the clinically insane, once it was either one of the British aristocracy, or more likely their friends, phoning at work to get me into as much trouble as possible (mere conspiracy theories became obsolete once the internet connected all the genuinely weird into one easily accessible whole). I have a thick skin. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

{OD}} I'm not sure I understand the controversy over this material. There are plenty of sources out there. I'll add a fresh paragraph on the topic. Felsic2 (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Felsic2 and welcome aboard. Not sure I understand the controversy either, but gun politics can get pretty weird, and this may (or may not be) a manifestation thereof. Quien sabes?

Here is your contribution:

"Unfinished receivers", also called "80 percent lower receivers" or "blanks", are partically completed lower receivers with no serial numbers. Purchasers must perform their own finishing work in order to make the receivers usable. Once completed, the lower receivers may not be legally sold or transferred. Because an unfinished receiver is not a firearm, purchasers do not need to pass a background check.[3] The resulting weapons is sometimes called a "ghost gun".[4] In one notorious case, a AR-15 variant made from an unfinished receiver was used in the 2013 Santa Monica shooting.[3]

Here is what I propose, built on your contribution:

/* start */

80 Percent Receivers

"Unfinished receivers", also called "80 percent receivers" or "blanks", are partially completed receivers with no serial numbers. These partially finished receivers are available for a wide variety of firearms from many vendors. Purchasers must perform their own finishing work in order to make the receivers usable. Once completed, the receivers may not be legally sold or transferred. Because an unfinished receiver is not a firearm, purchasers do not need to pass a background check.[3] The resulting weapon is sometimes called a "ghost gun" as no records are kept by the receiver vendor and the resulting completed weapon is frequently not registered with any authority.[4]

Under US law only the receiver is considered to be the firearm and is the component which is registered and which is assigned a serial number. All other components of the firearm are simply considered to be parts, and may be bought and sold without restriction. Statutes in other nations may vary. /* end */

Discussion: I feel that it should be pointed out that this is a common practice (wide variety, many vendors). I also fail to see that the Santa Monica incident is germane to the discussion of receiver in itself (and as lamentable as the incident was). I also feel it is important to point out that it is (US law only) the receiver which is the firearm, and that this is not necessarily true in other jurisdictions. Finding references for this (I am supposed to be working at the moment) will have to wait.

Forgot to note: An AR-15 has both an upper receiver and a lower receiver. This was quite clever of Eugene Stoner in that it makes for a modular weapon system all based on a single lower receiver. It is however unique, most firearms simply have a receiver and that is that. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait a few days and if you are not reverted, and if nobody has any objection, additions, or clarifications, I'll take the proposed text and add it to the article.

Oh. And thank you for your help. Gotta get back to my paying job...best regards...66.103.35.72 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The material on the Santa Monica shooting is in one of the sources used, and that's why it's relevant. More revelant than "other components of the firearm ". I'm concerned about getting into too deep a discussion of laws, because they vary even between states withn the US. Let's make sure everything is well-sourced. Felsic2 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't delete "lower" - that's a key part of the term. No one is talking about making upper receivers at home. Felsic2 (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You got it (on the laws, and on well sourcing the material). But many firearms have only "the receiver" which is neither "upper" nor "lower". That is, to the best of my knowledge, unique to the AR-15 family. Do you know of another example of a two-part receiver? I really do have to get back to work, please do see what you can dig up, I'll show up tomorrow and we can kick this around some more. Been good talking to you. Best regards. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Are theere any sources that talk about making unfinished receivers for other types of firearms? Felsic2 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Only a zillion. Google up MAC-11 80 percent receivers, for example, or M1911 80 percent receiver, or AK-47/AK-74. Most people don't play with this stuff but in the appropriate circles it is very common. You can even get an 80 percent receiver for a Model 1928A1 Thompson submachinegun (the original Chicago Piano).

Look here, for example. These guys make all kind of fun stuff...http://www.philaord.com/ Bye for now...you take care...

66.103.35.72 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"80% receivers" are not firearms, just as a barrelis not a firearm. The upper and lower has no bearing on which part ATF designates as the firearm. A ruger rifle, for example, has the upper receiver designated as the firearm. There are many starting points for homemade firearms including billet blanks (a rectangular block of aluminum), raw forgings with no machining and partially completed receivers. There are also partially completed upper receivers. "upper" and "lower" receiver is also not a new concept. Virtually all semiautomatic pistols for over 100 years has an upper receiver assembly and a lower receiver assembly. Usually the part that was least likely to wear out and need replacement was designated the firearm. The lower in an AR has no significant stress, heat or motion. The upper has the bolt carrier wearing against it whence it's lifetime is shorter. Definitions from other countries would be good to add to the article on firearm receivers, as would ITAR definitions. Glock lowers/frames are made from polymer and designated the firearm by ATF. Glock slide, recoil spring, barrel fire control group, etc are all just parts (they wear out, the polymer lower does not). Glock puts serial numbers on the lower, the slide and the barrel but they are not required for U.S. law and can be replaced. But singling out a block of aluminum (or steel or plastic) that can be made into an AR lower is silly. AK's are even easier which is why they are built around the world and ARs are not. Modern firearms are 100+ year old technology in an age where computer controlled machines can be purchased for the same price as a rifle. Stick to the article topic which is firearm receivers, not what could be made into a firearm receiver. --DHeyward (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

SHeyward We now know what the problem is, we now know who is driving the problem and we now know that this article is your private bailiwick and we are not allowed to make changes to it. It is very true that on Wikipedia all editors are equal, and it is very true that some editors are more equal than others. Therefore I will step back in line and mind my place when eminences like yourself come forward. My most humble apologies for having transgressed. I know my place in the scheme of things and I shall in all ways defer to Your Wisdom in the future. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: It's not me or anyone here who's "singling out" 80% lower receivers. Those items have been "singled out", if that's really the right term, by the reliable sources cited. I went ahead and deleted the material which had no sources whatsoever, as that material violated actual Wikipedia policies. As for whether the unfinished blanks are firearms or not, that seems like an irrelevant issue. We include lots of material in article about things that aren't firearms, like scopes and bayonets. I really don't understand your objection to having this material in this article. If not here then where should it go? Felsic2 (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't include scopes and bayonets here, though, because they are not firearm receivers. This article is about firearm receivers. What receivers can be made of doesn't really fit. It's certainly not worth half the article. This is not a firearm. Nor is it a receiver. A spool of 3D printer filament is not a firearm receiver either. Nor is a block of steel. All can become receivers for about the price of a firearm. In fact, Improvised firearm is more relevant with a lot more material including international. Hobbyists that make firearms start from all sorts of materials including barrel blanks, forged unmachined uppers, etc, etc. Items that specifically not classified as firearm receivers don't belong here. Stop coatracking. --DHeyward (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic - your edit basically broke the article. Go find some sources if you wish, but in what way did your edit leave things better afterwards? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2, @Andy...many thanks for your efforts but give it up. This is DHeyward's article, he owns it and he will be damned if he will let anyone put any material on 80 percent receivers in the article. If this is how he feels we have a couple of options. We can kick it upstairs to the powers that be who arbitrate edit wars, or we can simply move on. I vote for the latter. I am a very busy person and don't have time for his particular flavour of crazy. As for the two of you, once again many thanks for all your help, perhaps we can collaborate, hopefully more fruitfully, in future. With best regards, 66.103.35.72 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's odd that sourced info is deleted while unsourced material is retained. Since editors object to including it here, and since there are sufficient sources to show it is a notable product, I guess the logical solution is to make a standalone article, which can be linked from here. I assume there won't be any objections to that. Felsic2 (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Felsic2 You can try and I'll be happy to help you write the article but three gets you five that two things will happen. (1) The link will be deleted, and (2) the new article will be deleted. Are you game to do the experiment? Enquiring minds want to know. 66.103.35.72 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the other editors what they intend to do. I'm drafting an article at User:Felsic2/sandbox2, though I may not be able to finish today or this week. Felsic2 (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

On furhte reflectoin, I'm inclined to restore the material. The materials that go into making a receiver are a legitimate topic for this article. The material is well-sourced, relevant, and neutral. While unifinished receivers may not be "receivers", they become receivers with only a little additional work. How receivers are made is part of the story of receivers. Excluding this material seems like excluding material on how a product was designed or manufactured. Also, if I'm not mistaken, three editors are interested in including the material and only one is deleting it. Felsic2 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

80% Receivers are neither receivers or firearms by ATF regulations. Neither are 0% receivers either receivers or firearms by ATF regulations. There have been attempts to classify 0% receivers as firearms by state law in some states, but, to date, these have not been classified as receivers or firearms, either. A block of aluminum is not a firearm or a receiver until, by the ruling letter from the ATF, it legally becomes a receiver or a firearm. Have removed the content. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

So what? Their whole point is that they are not receivers, per ATF regulation. Yet that's far from seeing them as irrelevant to an article on receivers in general. They exist because they are almost receivers in manufacturing terms, yet are not receivers in legal terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is about Receiver (firearms). An 80% or 0% receiver is neither a receiver or a firearm. They are clearly not "almost" receivers. They are just blocks of aluminum. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, re: "may not be legally sold or transferred", that is false, too. In most states, it is entirely legal to transfer a ghost gun from a father to a son or daughter, with no interaction required by any FFL. In about 9 states, approximately, it is illegal to transfer a ghost gun from a father to a son or daughter. It is also legal to buy a ghost gun, too. It is just illegal to buy a firearm without a serial number in the case where a serial number has been removed. But, a firearm in the private market is not required to even have a serial number. The current content is patently false. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, it is not always the lower receiver that is the firearm, either. This is true for an AR-15, but not for a FAL. Each firearm type has a different definition of what the receiver is considered to be, in accordance with the ATF letter written for the particular item. This whole paragraph is patently false on so many levels. Why insist on inserting false information into Wikipedia? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You're not providing any sources for your assertions. The material in the article is well-sourced. If there are other points of view we should include those too.

In other articles on firearms and accessories we include information on items which aren't firearms. As I said above, that includes things like scopes and bayonets. Are you suggestng we should delete that material from articles like M16 rifle because a scope isn't a rifle? That seems counterproductive. Felsic2 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced text

Finishing an unfinished receiver

"80 percent receivers" has become a "word of art", but this is not an ATF term, per se.

Each instance of an "80 percent receiver" product intended for sale to the public must be submitted to the ATF, and a letter of determination (from the ATF) must be held by the "80 percent receiver" manufacturer (who also holds an appropriate NFA manufacturer's permit). Sale without holding such a letter of determination (and permit) is strictly prohibited by the NFA. A copy of the letter of determination is usually provided to each purchaser of an "80 percent receiver", as proof of compliance with the NFA. Any revision of such a product must go through the same determination process.

The ATF has generally held that an "80 percent receiver" is compliant provided: 1) there is no place within the "80 percent receiver" to accept the barrel in its operational position without removal of receiver material, 2) there is no place within the "80 percent receiver" to accept the slide without removal of receiver material, 3) there is no place within the "80 percent receiver" to retain the hammer or striker without removal of receiver material, and 4) there is no place within the "80 percent receiver" to retain the trigger and sear without removal of receiver material, and, finally, the "80 percent receiver" may not be marked or indicated in any way where the material is required to be removed. Additionally the "80 percent receiver" may not be marked or indicated in any way where the hammer or striker group and the trigger group operating pins (which groups collectively form the weapon's "fire control group") are to required to be drilled.

The intent of these restrictions is to prevent installation of barrel, slide and "fire control group" unless and until the owner of the "80 percent receiver" completes all necessary steps to convert the "80 percent receiver" into a "firearm", for, otherwise, the "80 percent receiver" is just a block of metal (or, in some instances, polymer) into which it is physically impossible by the basic design of the "80 percent receiver" to install the named subsystems, and without which subsystems it is impossible to discharge the weapon.

In the past, a significant amount of relatively complex machining using special tools has been required to convert an "80 percent receiver" into a "firearm". But, innovative designers have eliminated some of those steps through use of patented fixtures and jigs, the manufacture of which is not restricted by the NFA.

Presently, "M16 type" frames, "M1911 type" frames, and "Glock 17 type" frames have special fixtures and jigs available, and it is reasonable to expect that others may soon be available.

The ATF has acknowledged that a completed "Glock 17 type" weapon may be converted into a "Glock 18 type" weapon (a selective-fire weapon not normally found in the U.S.), using knowledge which is easily available on the Internet, and the ATF emphasizes that such a "Glock 18 type" weapon is indeed a "'Post 1986' machinegun" (actually, it is a "machine pistol", but the same law applies as it is a fully-automatic weapon) and is strictly prohibited by the NFA. The ATF documents (referenced below) even include photos of the "Glock 17-to-18" conversion components.

Parking this here until we can get citations for it. Felsic2 (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping: @Peterh5322: Felsic2 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Replaced with newer but still uncited version. Everything else in this article is sourced so a great big chunk of unsourced material is out of place. Furthermore, it's undue weight considering the overall length of the article. Felsic2 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So what's happened to the sources we did have back in September? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is text that was added yesterday, and expanded upon today.[2][3] I've pinged the editor and left messages on his talk page. Felsic2 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Lower receiver

A redirect was made to this page in 2012 but there is no explanation. Anyone able to add one? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)