Posted on 09/29/2022 4:33:19 PM PDT by marktwain
It was decades before former P.M. Abe was assassinated...
The most common home made guns are AR-15 lowers from 80% lowers and 80% Glock copies. The AFT decided unilaterally that an 80% lower was a “firearm” when a firearm is defined by the law and cannot be changed by a rule.
There have been decisions for and against.
It was not uncommon to have NSN (no serial number) guns, usually .22 rifles right up to the 1968 GCA. In my opinion, most manufacturers used serial numbers to track guns through the manufacturing process where considerable hand fitting was done. S&W revolvers also used assembly numbers. Early A5 shotguns have every damn thing stamped with full or partial serial numbers (stocks, barrels, bolt, screw heads…) Atleast my 1914 does. Early serial numbers also provided records of where guns were shipped, given that they could go to any hardware store or direct to customer.
Sounds like fun. Smokeless powder or black powder?
Which means it will probably end up in the SC where the FAT is likely to lose.
Not hard in the slightest. If you can field strip and reassemble a 1911, there’s not much more after that.
Hardest part is the machining, which with jigs and correct tooling, is almost idiot proof.
“It was not uncommon to have NSN (no serial number) guns...right up to the 1968 GCA...Early A5 shotguns have every damn thing stamped with full or partial serial numbers (stocks, barrels, bolt, screw heads…) At least my 1914 does...”
The American military establishment did not bother to put serial numbers on government-arsenal-made issue long arms until after the American Civil War; the M1873 Trapdoor rifles were the first.
In contrast, makers of percussion revolvers affixed serial numbers to their arms well before 1861. Just why, I’ve never learned; perhaps it was a contract requirement, on arms sold to the government. Just what private companies did concerning internal control of materials and finished pieces probably varied greatly from firm to firm.
One assumes your Auto 5 was made by FN in Belgium. At the time, various European countries had laws requiring at least partial serial numbers to be stamped on every part possible. Rather a complex task; must have driven up labor costs considerably. Also, the stamping process probably ruined a fair percentage of small parts, where dimensional control and changes introduced by tempering are proportionately more critical.
Many low-end shotguns - single-shot and bolt-action models - were not required to have serial numbers, just as you have mentioned concerning many 22 rimfires, until GCA 68.
During the latter half of the 19th century, and through World War One in the 20th century, large numbers of small, low-powered, inexpensive revolvers were made and sold in the USA. Some of the larger manufacturers - Iver Johnson and Harrington & Richardson were two - put serial numbers on their products, but stamped the digits on parts of the frame covered by the grip panels. Remington did the same with its Model 95, the 41 Short Rimfire two-shot spur-trigger pocket pistol (sometimes mistermed “derringer”) it made from 1866 to 1935.
Just why anyone thought it important to hide serial numbers, I’ve never learned either.
Yup. I have a set of headspace gauges for each AR-15 caliber. I've found that it helps to purchase the barrel and bolt from the same source. I tried mixing Bear Creek Arsenal and Anderson parts and had a failure on the headspace check. I ordered a replacement bolt from the barrel supplier. Voila! A good fit. The other tweak is getting the buffer weight correct for the cartridge. Sometimes an adjustable gas block helps dial-in the cycling. My 6.5 Grendel build had barrel, BCG, adjustable gas block from the same supplier. A perfect fit, perfect cycling and accurate. Topped with a Burris scope with a factory table to match the scope setup to the Wolf 100gr ammo.
Well now that is going to put the ATF in a conundrum.
Well, true. The Belgians were particularly crazy about proof marks too, so why not serial numbers?
I suppose that tolerance stacking could account for an occasional combination of different manufacturers’ components not being compatible.
Beautiful. An honest man. We have a winner. Search no more!
It was an Anderson BCG with a poor match to a Bear Creek barrel. The Bear Creek BCG worked fine. I like Anderson's lowers and hadn't considered a possible mismatch with a Bear Creek barrel. Easily resolved. When I want a more finished product, I use Aero Precision upper/lower/handguard components. I also put a Yankee Hill Machine dust cover on the upper with the barrel caliber/cartridge laser engraved to avoid mistakes e.g. putting a 300BLK in a .223.
Black powder, on the principle that black powder is easier to make at home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.