ANM2 on Sturm and C&R follies

[bigbore]

Been somewhat looking for a non C&R (cheaper) ANM2 to do another stinger build.

The one below was posted a year ago saying it was welded to repair a cracked receiver. I didn't pay any attention because that would still be a C&R. A year later the guy posts the same gun, but this time he says the weld area was to repair a torch cut from importing. In 99% of the cases torch cut means it's a welded together demill and no longer a C&R. Obviously the seller has no idea how it got into the registry. Without a FOIA, there is no way to know but I think I'm just coming across as a jerk at this point. But anyhow.

I've been in this business for 20yrs and I've seen some crazy stuff C&R wise. I've seen MGs that were obvious rewats that had no "maker" engraving. I've seen Maxims that were rewatted and the maker put their info and SN on the trunnion. I've seen a DWM MG08 that has the manufacturer listed as Spandau because that's what it says on fussee cover. I've seen MGs that were papered as "plate guns/rewelds" and properly engraved that I'm sure are 100% original guns. I've also seen original guns that have paper trails that stop in the 1970s manufacture dates passed off as C&R.

One of my more recent headaches was while transferring an STG44 for a customer. The last person at the NFA to handle the transfer to me entered "STG" as model and "44" as caliber. It took a year to straighten that out. They wanted to see pictures of the caliber marking on the barrel. I asked why they don't look up the original registration and update it themselves. They said that don't have access to that information. So how do they know if the form 4 they are approving is a C&R or not?


http://www.sturmgewehr.com/forums/index.php?/topic/21088-wts-general-motors-div-blc-anm2-30-cr/

[Maxim]

The ATF does not have access to the original registrations? WTF! Another clue to inaccuracies on the records. What oh what is to be done?

[BillyDixon]

i rember way eayback when j. curtis earl was in business,, he was raid by atf over unregistered mgs,, feds had no record,, in court mr earl produced original 1968 reg. !! mr earl walked out all smiles,,, this scenero has been reperted severial times,,, a lot has been written on the incomplete nfa records,,i think thier is a court transcript of a then acting chief of atf admitting incomplete records,,, can someone more knowlegable than me chime in, just sayn

[bigbore]

The ATF does not have access to the original registrations? WTF! Another clue to inaccuracies on the records. What oh what is to be done?

 

I'm sure they have access when they want to have access. One the bright side, in 15yrs there won't be any more concerns about whether or not an MG qualifies as a C&R.

[bigbore]

i think thier is a court transcript of a then acting chief of atf admitting incomplete records,,, can someone more knowlegable than me chime in, just sayn

 

I believe that is the exact opposite. I'm fairly sure the ATF has testified in court that the NFA Database is 100% correct. Now I'll have to look that up..

[johnsonlmg41]

They had testified it was correct, then they were "corrected" that it wasn't which is what is behind this somewhat recent effort to correct the registry, which to them means going back to the original descriptions on the original forms for those items being transferred on form 4's to non-SOT holders. The form has to match the form, which likely may not match the gun, but that part is not relevant to them since they only maintain a registry of serial numbers and cancelled tax stamps, with limited firearm descriptions and owner information, and that's all they are tasked to do. And it's not going well at all!

 

I'm very confident the gun is C+R as I posted. I also know the seller and would not buy from him. Him talking to an examiner is completely worthless information especially in this case. These days there are different levels at the branch, they seem to have some "screeners" looking for missing info at the start that are not at a level that they can retrieve much info. The big problem is you don't have any idea of who you're getting these days so any "phone" conversation is fairly worthless since there seems to no longer be any long term employees at the branch.

Good luck, but if I were you I'd look for another gun and seller.

[bigbore]

They had testified it was correct, then they were "corrected" that it wasn't which is what is behind this somewhat recent effort to correct the registry, which to them means going back to the original descriptions on the original forms for those items being transferred on form 4's to non-SOT holders. The form has to match the form, which likely may not match the gun, but that part is not relevant to them since they only maintain a registry of serial numbers and cancelled tax stamps, with limited firearm descriptions and owner information, and that's all they are tasked to do. And it's not going well at all!

 

I'm very confident the gun is C+R as I posted. I also know the seller and would not buy from him. Him talking to an examiner is completely worthless information especially in this case. These days there are different levels at the branch, they seem to have some "screeners" looking for missing info at the start that are not at a level that they can retrieve much info. The big problem is you don't have any idea of who you're getting these days so any "phone" conversation is fairly worthless since there seems to no longer be any long term employees at the branch.

Good luck, but if I were you I'd look for another gun and seller.

 

It may well be a C&R, and C&R may be it's only selling point. Not sure the terms, cracked, torch cut welded receiver instill confidence in buyers of a MG that has thin side plates to begin with.

 

In the last year half my Incoming transfers were kicked back with error letters. It used to be safe to copy whatever was listed on the last approved from. Not anymore. It needs to say "Maxim" not "MG08" It needs to say "0815" not 08/15". I had to remove the measurements because a 1919 was registered as just a sideplate and the current assembled gun now has dimensions..

[Got Uzi]

So I have a question then-would my 1944 Guide Lamp M3 Grease Gun be considered a C&R gun? When I bought it the gun was a papered DEWAT-barrel plugged and welded but 100% intact receiver. My dealer at the time filed the Form 2 after we deactivated it and then the gun transferred on a Form 4 to me.

 

So IF Im reading this correctly-my gun still maintains its C&R as it stayed a gun the entire time of its life, once an MG always an MG. Or does that change since it was reacivated on a Form 2 six years ago?

[bigbore]

So I have a question then-would my 1944 Guide Lamp M3 Grease Gun be considered a C&R gun? When I bought it the gun was a papered DEWAT-barrel plugged and welded but 100% intact receiver. My dealer at the time filed the Form 2 after we deactivated it and then the gun transferred on a Form 4 to me.

 

So IF Im reading this correctly-my gun still maintains its C&R as it stayed a gun the entire time of its life, once an MG always an MG. Or does that change since it was reacivated on a Form 2 six years ago?

 

A registered DWAT that was reactivated is a C&R gun.

 

Side question - - DId your dealer engrave his info on the receiver when he did the work?

Edited July 30, 2021 by bigbore

[Got Uzi]

No he did not. Thats been a huge debate on here. When I inquired to NFA when it was done, they stated it did NOT shave to be done as the gun wasnt being manufactured just reactivated.

 

This discussion has been up and down from both sides for years. I dont think anyone has a 100% for sure answer as its open to the interpretation

[bigbore]

No he did not. Thats been a huge debate on here. When I inquired to NFA when it was done, they stated it did NOT shave to be done as the gun wasnt being manufactured just reactivated.

 

This discussion has been up and down from both sides for years. I dont think anyone has a 100% for sure answer as its open to the interpretation

 

The engraving thing is one big contradiction:

 

7.3.3 Reactivation of a registered unserviceable NFA firearm. Although unserviceable NFA

firearms are “firearms” required to be registered under the NFA, the reactivation of such firearm is

considered to be the making or manufacture of an NFA firearm.

[StrangeRanger]

I'm getting really confused here.

If reactivating a dewatted C&R counts as a manufacture and reactivator has to engrave it accordingly does it cease to be a C&R?

[johnsonlmg41]

Registered dewats (1968 and before registration) always retain C+R status regardless of whether or not they are unservicable or live. Nothing to worry about.

 

Marking requirements often depend on who did the work and will remain debatable, but these days if a C2 did the reactivation in recent times most guys are marking them. Most of the debate stems from whether non-SOT's need to be marking something that is already functional by atf's other standards. And you're not manufacturing it because it already exists, though theoretically non functional, though too functional to be considered a legal parts set, yet functional enough to be registered as a MG? Once a MG always a MG? Then why would you have to add someone's name to it?

 

Generally marking it does affect the collector value some IMO depending on the gun.

If your SOT doing the work is named "supertecno elite fine firearms and accessories" and is in the village of "Village of Grosse Pointe Shores, A Michigan City, MI" I'm going to say you might want to find someone else in case he decides he's marking it and has no abbreviation variance from atf.

 

Probably a better question for a C2 like huggytree?

[StrangeRanger]

Please tell me that the last sentence was sarcasm.

[Got Uzi]

Id kicked around the idea of selling my M3 and wanted to be sure of it being a C&R so it didnt turn into a big debate lol

 

Ill get right on asking Huggy.....after I lay my manhood on an anvil and smack it with a hammer a couple dozen times first.

[StrangeRanger]

John,

You're just jealous of Huggy's vast knowledge and expertise