Hand-me-down revolver with serial number intentionally scratched off

[drift_g35]

A buddy asked me a question I wasn't able to answer.

He got a revolver from his dad that was found in an air vent at their home in the 90's. They called the police and they said they were "all good" and let him keep it. Now that my buddy has it, he noticed the serial number on the crane is intentionally scratched off. The serial number under the grip is 100% legible.

Is he at any legal risk with it being scratched off? I know you can't really offer legal advice but if you have any suggestions it would be greatly appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DFBrews]

Have a laser etcher copy the under the grip number?

[SAnd]

Those numbers the on some revolvers are not the serial number. Maybe someone scratched it off to stop any confusion of two different numbers.

[Big E3]

It is generally accepted that as long as the serial number is on the frame and legible it would be considered legal. It is not unusual that grips may need to be removed to read the serial number. Serial number locations would depend on the manufacture of the revolver. Colt put serial numbers on the frame behind the crane. S&W put the serial on the butt and the number under the crane was just an assembly number. Then about 1957 S&W began adding a model number under the crane. Early S&W revolvers have the serial number in 5 or 6 places on each gun. The legal number must be on the frame. Gun smiths have had to re-stamp numbers on gun frames do to wear or grip modifications.

I personally had a gun that had a lanyard ring added to the bottom of the grip frame. When adding the ring the frame butt was drilled through the serial number. If I removed the grips it was re-stamped on the side of the frame under the grips. I contacted ATF and asked if that was legal and was told no problem.

I would suggest if your gun has visual signs that the original number has been intentionally defaced you may have a different issue and you should contact ATF directly.

[ClangClang]

FYI - it's "hand-me-down"

[drift_g35]

FYI - it's "hand-me-down"

Auto correct? Ha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sroz]

Not knowing the specifics of the revolver, I would also question whether it was a SN as already stated by Big E3.

[drift_g35]

It's a 686. The crane number is halfway visible. He said it starts with "AU"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bailey Guns]

From 18 USC 922 (k):


(k) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport, ship, or receive, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm which has had the importer's or manufacturer's serial number removed, obliterated, or altered or to possess or receive any firearm which has had the importer's or manufacturer's serial number removed, obliterated, or altered and has, at any time, been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Doesn't look to me like there's any ambiguity at all. I wouldn't risk it...but that's just me.

[Big E3]

I was thinking it was an old revolver. If it is a 686, it would have the serial number in the crane area. It may also have one on the butt area of the grip. If either one of the original frame numbers is completely legible then it could still be legal and worth contacting ATF to get an official opinion.

[Gman]

Is the model number still viewable under the crane? Is it an early 'no dash' model, or is it a 686-(x number)? Can you see an "M" stamped under the crane? There was an issue with early models that is still being repaired for free by S&W if the M is absent. S&W has a lifetime warranty, maybe you might be able to ship it back to S&W to have them re-stamp the numbers since the SN is is on the frame?

[theGinsue]

FYI - it's "hand-me-down"


Auto correct? Ha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for clarifying that. I fixed the thread title. For the life of me I couldn't figure out what a "hammy down" revolver was.

I'm with Carl (Bailey Guns) on this - get written direction from the ATF. Regardless that Hillary got off by the FBI for not having an intent to break the law (what a joke), YOU won't be so lucky if that firearm comes into contact with an LEO or prosecutor. Protect yourself, get it in writing from the ATF.

[KevDen2005]

Thanks for clarifying that. I fixed the thread title. For the life of me I couldn't figure out what a "hammy down" revolver was. LOL, I thought it was intentional

[Gman]

LOL, I thought it was intentional
So did I...and I totally understood it. I guess that's what I get for being a bit of a redneck.

[SA Friday]

The only official serial number is the one on the frame. The rest aren't relevant. One can take a Glock slide, barrel, and frame from three different guns and now have three different serial numbers on it. The only one that counts is the one on the frame.

[milwaukeeshaker]

Doesn't appear to be Interstate or Foreign commerce, so probably would not apply to OPs circumstance.


From 18 USC 922 (k):



Doesn't look to me like there's any ambiguity at all. I wouldn't risk it...but that's just me.

[Gman]

According to this thread on the S&W Forum -For new members looking for date of manufacture info (how to find your serial number) (http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/222977-new-members-looking-date-manufacture-info-how-find-your-serial-number.html)
...the official serial is on the butt of the gun.

[Gman]

When I carried a 686-2 as a sidearm, I saw the SN under the crane being a convenience when logging the revolver as my sidearm since I didn't have to remove the target grips that covered the SN. It makes sense to me that the official registered SN is on the butt, a larger and much deeper stamping.

[ray1970]

For my own knowledge, if the only serial number was in the frame but obscured by the grips then that isn't an issue?

[Gman]

For my own knowledge, if the only serial number was in the frame but obscured by the grips then that isn't an issue?
Nope. Many of S&W's revolvers only have the serial on the butt, and many grips will cover it. Covering the number isn't changing the serialization of the gun.

[ray1970]

Thanks. It was a legitimate question.