ATF DEMANDS LIST OF 80% AR LOWER BUYERS

[Brian]

Instead of an all poly lower, how about; I take a billet, cut the trigger control out, then fill it with a poly substance (easy removal later); I will then finish the lower. At no point has it ever been a "Complete" lower. Should work! Anyone want some 80% poly filled lowers??

Just my 2 cents, but if you want to remain legal, you should probably market only 79% lowers at this point. LOL.

[funkymonkey1111]

[ChunkyMonkey]

+1000!!!

[Joe_K]

Whats it going to take before the BATF-E is disbanded. Dimitrious said it best - and I'm paraphrasing here, "The 80% process is not a loophole to gun laws, the word loophole implies that something illegal may be done through a legal means. The only loophole here is all the exsisting gun laws that provide a loophole around the Second Amendment."

[<MADDOG>]

It might be me, but this seems to be overkill...Even the cop looks disgusted.

[us1911]

No, I didn't write it in a sarcastic tone. I wanted to see what the reply's would be; now that it was taken sarcastic, that gives me some indication that it might not be OK to do 80% this way. lol

Merl hit it spot on. The argument used against you would be that any method that allows the shape of the pocket to be precisely recovered without re-machining it with the same level of precision required to do the initial machining step would not be acceptable -- The pocket cannot be precisely recoverable by use of heat, cold, solvents, popping it out with a fork, hitting it with a hammer, voodoo, alien ray gun, whatever.

I would avoid anything that looks like a "sacrificial mold" or a filler.

[Irving]

Merl hit it spot on. The argument used against you would be that any method that allows the shape of the pocket to be precisely recovered without re-machining it with the same level of precision required to do the initial machining step would not be acceptable -- The pocket cannot be precisely recoverable by use of heat, cold, solvents, popping it out with a fork, hitting it with a hammer, voodoo, alien ray gun, whatever.

I would avoid anything that looks like a "sacrificial mold" or a filler.

That doesn't make sense, as drilling it out with a drill press sure isn't anywhere near as precise as machining.

Also, I watched the video and am confused on what is going on here. I didn't see a single mother or child around in the video, so what was the ATF even doing there?

[us1911]

That doesn't make sense, as drilling it out with a drill press sure isn't anywhere near as precise as machining.

Fair enough, I wasn't very clear. I meant removing the filler from the pocket must be just as hard to do as machining the pocket in the first place. Otherwise you have helped the user achieve a level of precision he could not achieve had you not "pre-machined" the pocket for him..

You can: fill the aluminum pocket from 10 mm-man's example with aluminum and anneal it so the filler material in the pocket diffuses into the wall of the lower. The effect is that the pocket shape is now gone forever, and it is as if the pocket was never there. Removing the filler from the pocket will be just as hard to do as machining the pocket in the first place.

You cannot: Fill the pocket from 10 mm-man's example with parrafin. 3 minutes in the oven would melt the parrafin and recover the precise shape of the machined pocket. Merl made this same point with with polymer -- melt it in the oven.

You cannot: fill the pocket from 10 mm-man's example with xyz super-hard alloy that dissolves in a chemical that does not affect the aluminum. A few minutes in a chemical bath, and you recover the originally machined pocket. (Merl again)

You cannot: create a sacrificial mold of the pocket out of sand and mold molten metal around it to get the complete lower (like they make aluminum intake manifolds). Vibrate the sand out and you recover the original shape of the pocket.

You cannot: Machine a complete lower, and then fill the pocket with anything. ATF has already ruled on this which is why EP is saying their process molds the lower around a mold of the pocket.

Hope that helps clarify things....

[Irving]

I understand the concept, but I feel like you are missing the mark. The thing that all of your examples have in common is that the lower must be completed first, then refilled. Once the lower is complete, it is complete, regardless of if you fill all the holes back up again. The argument is whether they create the inner mold first, then mold the rest around the first piece or not. The company argues that they do the inside first, then mold the outside around the first piece. This means that at no point is there ever a completed lower present. If you just filled the second mold, it would just spit out a uniform 80% lower all of one material, so the company couldn't even hand out completed lowers out the back door for example.

I don't think this has to do with the requirements of the end user to complete the lower at all. Only if the manufacturer ever has a complete lower in their possession at any point in time.

[us1911]

Irving,

Agree with you assessment that you cannot fill-in a completed lower. ATF has already ruled on this.

10-mm-man had a clever idea to machine a pocket in an unfinished billet, fill the pocket with polymer, then finish the billet. This is a nogo in the examples listed.

You are correct. EP knows they cannot complete a lower and then fill the pocket, so they argued that they created a sacrificial mold of the pocket in white polymer, and molded the lower around it in black. You dremel out the sacrificial mold (white polymer) until you are left with only black lower. I really don't want to comment more on the likely success or failure of this approach. Great idea, but IMHO they are up against a hard sell.