BATFE Declares AirSoft M-16 is a FIREARM!

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
56,495
Likes
19,708
Location
NH-Near Nashua
Feedback: 75 / 1 / 0
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Office of the Director
Washington, DC 20226

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3): DEFINITIONS (FIREARM)
27 CFR 478.11: DEFINITIONS (FIREARM FRAME OR RECEIVER)

Air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile using compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas) replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms that provide housing for a hammer and firing mechanism with substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers, and mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel and bolt, are "firearm frames or receivers," and are, therefore, "firearms," as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.


ATF Rul. 2010-4


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received requests for evaluation and classification of air gun replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms. Specifically, ATF was asked whether these air guns are considered "firearms" under Federal law.

The M-16 is a military style combat machinegun. The AR style firearm is a semi-automatic version of the M-16, and both are produced using a variety of model designations. ATF evaluated two air gun replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms. These particular air guns are manufactured with non-ferrous metal and duplicate the appearance of various types of AR and M-16 rifles. They are designed to expel projectiles using compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas.

The first sample ATF examined was an air gun replica of an M-16 rifle that has the physical features of an M-16 firearm. It has all M-16 fire-control assembly pin holes formed or indexed for fire-control components (i.e., hammer, trigger, disconnector, selector lever, and machinegun sear). It utilizes fire-control components that differ only slightly in design from M-16 fire-control components. The receiver of this air gun is identical to an M-16 receiver, except for two features. The slot for the bolt-stop has been altered to make room for a proprietary bolt-stop by reducing the height of the wall separating the fire control cavity from the magazine well. Also, the ledge has been removed from the fire-control cavity upon which an M-16 machinegun sear would normally sit.

In conducting the evaluation of sample #1, the upper assembly was removed, the existing bolt-stop was removed to allow movement of the hammer, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed. A test fire was then performed with the original automatic fire sear, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing a conventional .223 caliber cartridge semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive. The original automatic fire sear was then replaced with an M-16 machinegun sear. A second test firing was performed, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive. Sample #1 did not expel more than one projectile by a single function of the trigger and is not a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).

The second sample ATF examined was an air gun replica of an M-16 rifle that has the physical features of an M-16 firearm. It has all M-16 fire-control assembly pin holes formed or indexed, and utilizes a proprietary drop-in fire-control mechanism that did not include an automatic-fire sear. The receiver of this air gun is identical to an M-16 receiver, except for two dimensions. The length between the takedown pins is approximately 1/8 longer than on an M-16 receiver, and the width of the fire-control cavity is approximately 0.31 greater than an M-16 receiver.

ATF conducted a test of this air gun. In conducting the evaluation of this sample, the upper assembly was removed, the proprietary drop-in fire-control mechanism was removed, the proprietary bolt-stop was removed, the indexed pin holes were drilled to allow installation of M-16 fire-control components, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed. A test fire was then performed, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11, define the term "firearm," in part, as "any weapon...including a starter gun...which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon..." Under 27 CFR 478.11, the term "firearm frame or receiver" is defined as "[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."

The air gun replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms examined have the appearance, dimensions, and substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers and completed weapons. The air gun replicas provide housing for a hammer and firing mechanism, and mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel and bolt. Because the air gun replicas provide housing with substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers, they incorporate firearm receivers. Moreover, though not necessary for classification, once the upper assemblies (and, in the second sample, fire-control components) were installed and test fired, they both expelled projectiles by the action of an explosive. Because the air gun replicas of the AR/M-16 variant firearms incorporate firearm receivers, they are "firearms," as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.

Held, air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile using compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas) replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms that provide housing for a hammer and firing mechanism with substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers, and mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel and bolt, are "firearm frames or receivers," and are, therefore, "firearms," as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.

To the extent this ruling is inconsistent with any prior classifications, they are hereby superseded.

Date approved: November 5, 2010

Kenneth E. Melson
Deputy Director
 
Watch out - I hear squirt guns are next. You know the pressure you can get out of one of those things - can knock a paper cup right over.
 
'expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive'

'a' projectile. I'm sure the thing self-destructed after that and I sure as hell wouldn't want that thing near my face when firing either. Also, you have to basically rebuild the receiver as well including drilling holes in it. Seems like a real reach to me.
 
I have seen one of these that was made in china and appeared to be made from a real receiver. I think this is the one they are revering to. I had real M16 fire control group and felt just like one of my AR's. All the parts needed to make it an "air" gun seemed to be riveted to the inside of the receiver etc. I had no doubt looking at this thing that the lower could be modified to work on an AR upper.
 
In conducting the evaluation of sample #1, the upper assembly was removed, the existing bolt-stop was removed to allow movement of the hammer, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed. A test fire was then performed with the original automatic fire sear, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing a conventional .223 caliber cartridge semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive.
This is kind of a no-duh under current federal firearms law -- given the receiver is drop-in parts compatible with the real deal, then it is what it is, no more or less than an AR receiver would magically stop being a firearm if you machined an upper that shoots ping-pong balls and put it on.
 
'expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive'

'a' projectile. I'm sure the thing self-destructed after that and I sure as hell wouldn't want that thing near my face when firing either. Also, you have to basically rebuild the receiver as well including drilling holes in it. Seems like a real reach to me.

The upper was swapped with a real AR upper. The ATF does not consider an upper or a complete firearm a firearm. They only consider the registered lower a firearm. This is all about the receiver being parts compatible with a real receiver. Nothing more.
 
ATF conducted a test of this air gun. In conducting the evaluation of this sample, the upper assembly was removed, the proprietary drop-in fire-control mechanism was removed, the proprietary bolt-stop was removed, the indexed pin holes were drilled to allow installation of M-16 fire-control components, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed. A test fire was then performed, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive.

I've got a block of wax somewhere, and if you drilled enough holes of the right size and shape it could probably mount an AR upper and fire a round. Is that going to be a firearm now too?
 
This is kind of a no-duh under current federal firearms law -- given the receiver is drop-in parts compatible with the real deal, then it is what it is, no more or less than an AR receiver would magically stop being a firearm if you machined an upper that shoots ping-pong balls and put it on.

If they had to drill holes in it, it's not parts compatible. By drilling those holes, the AmericanTerroristForces created a firearm, but it wasn't parts compatible before.
 
If they had to drill holes in it, it's not parts compatible. By drilling those holes, the AmericanTerroristForces created a firearm, but it wasn't parts compatible before.

No, you're wrong. The holes were indexed and recessed and ready for drilling. That's well beyond an "80% complete" receiver.

Like I said, "under current federal firearms law" that would be a firearm.
 
Hallelujah! I just found a way for the millions of Chinese population to arm themselves and rise against the commie state.
 
I would not want to be the importer-of-record on these airsofts. They have a world of hurt inbound. I bet these were out of spec lowers, and some factory in China got the genius idea to make them into airsofts.
 
I've reached out to GOAL to see if they can get some answers on "what next" in regards to this ruling.

- What if some people in MA own them? What should they do with them?
- Can we expect a demand for confiscation from BATFE (this is what I'd expect) under threat of prosecution?
- What about MA issues since no FA-10s were filed on them?
- What if person owning them doesn't have a LTC?
 
I realize the nature of the law. That doesn't make the law less stupid.
Sure, but that is a whole different discussion. This one boils down to: Company took legally complete lowers and built Airsoft guns out of 'em; someone imported and sold them as non-firearms. ATF showed they fit the designation of firearm, and someone is in deep doo-doo. Really, the stupidity here is on the manufacturer and importer even if the law does suck.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but that is a whole different discussion. This one's simple. Company took almost legally complete lowers and built Airsoft guns out of 'em; someone imported and sold them as non-firearms. ATF showed they fit the designation of firearm, and someone is in deep doo-doo. Really, the stupidity here is on the manufacturer and importer.

Pretty much how I see it.
 
Sure, but that is a whole different discussion. This one boils down to: Company took legally complete lowers and built Airsoft guns out of 'em; someone imported and sold them as non-firearms. ATF showed they fit the designation of firearm, and someone is in deep doo-doo. Really, the stupidity here is on the manufacturer and importer even if the law does suck.

PSG-WSP, I know, I know. The BATFE still needs to FOAD, and the law still needs to be unstupidified. Sigh.
Don't mind me, it's just been a long day. Wouldn't be so bad if it was at least half over[frown].
 
I would not want to be the importer-of-record on these airsofts. They have a world of hurt inbound. I bet these were out of spec lowers, and some factory in China got the genius idea to make them into airsofts.

They're not. They're made of crap metal. BATFE neglected to mention that they're not likely to stand up to actual use.

I've reached out to GOAL to see if they can get some answers on "what next" in regards to this ruling.

- What if some people in MA own them? What should they do with them?
- Can we expect a demand for confiscation from BATFE (this is what I'd expect) under threat of prosecution?
- What about MA issues since no FA-10s were filed on them?
- What if person owning them doesn't have a LTC?

No issue, since they are still not considered firearms under MA law.
 
I've reached out to GOAL to see if they can get some answers on "what next" in regards to this ruling.

- What if some people in MA own them? What should they do with them?
- Can we expect a demand for confiscation from BATFE (this is what I'd expect) under threat of prosecution?
- What about MA issues since no FA-10s were filed on them?
- What if person owning them doesn't have a LTC?

None of the above is a realistic concern, I doubt BATFE is even bothering to track down who the "guns" got sold to. (Although, they probably told the importer to issue a recall)

This is all just chest pounding crap by BATFE to show everyone how important they are. [thinking]

Further, you know as well as I do there won't be any FA-10 issues. The whole FA-10 thing is a farce anyways. Sure, we send them in all the time, but we have no idea whether someone at CHSB is taking them home and using them as birdcage liners or not. Also, let's not forget, MGL considers a firearm to be something else. In MGL a "functioning lower" is still not a firearm, which removes it from FA-10 purview anyways. MGL would probably still consider it an airgun, unless it was mated in concert with a real upper.

I hate to break it to you but no 13 year old pimply faced youth with this airsoft gun in MA is going to get arrested for "illegally possessing a firearm". There is no DA/USA/AUSA that is gonna touch that one with a 49.5 foot pole. [laugh] Gotta love it when BATFE thinks that cracking down on a toy importer is something of consequence.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
I hate to break it to you but no 13 year old pimply faced youth with this airsoft gun in MA is going to get arrested for "illegally possessing a firearm". There is no DA/USA/AUSA that is gonna touch that one with a 49.5 foot pole. [laugh]

-Mike

I KNOW of at least one case where this happened. Don't know if the DA pursued it or not, but the arrest did occur. There is a saying in LE "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride"! An arrest stays on your record for life (from MA) and will damage the person's reputation, ability to get jobs, etc.

Also, someone posted a response in this thread that showed that some company in the Far East actually used STAG lowers to build their airsoft AR15s!! Pretty dumb, but it certainly won't disassemble if mated with a real upper and shot! So there are some issues out there.

I also won't put it pass MA (at state level or local PD) to "create an issue" once they read about this story from BATFE. Stranger things have happened in MA.
 
Actually, the ATF has found something quite interesting:

In conducting the evaluation of sample #1, the upper assembly was removed, the existing bolt-stop was removed to allow movement of the hammer, and an M-16 upper assembly was installed. A test fire was then performed with the original automatic fire sear, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing a conventional .223 caliber cartridge semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive.

What the ATF is saying is that the AirSoft M16 is so similar to an AR15, that you can swap out the lower receiver parts with some parts you order online at MidwayUSA, slap on an upper receiver you bought from MidwayUSA and you have a fully functioning AR-15. Thats really not cool or good for our interests.

The company shouldn't be making the thing so similar that one can easily convert it to a real firearm.
 
The ATF Pressroom admitted to me by phone this morning that ATF Ruling 2010-4…has been rescinded!
Posted on November 13, 2010 10:02:25 AM EST

This seams to have turned into more of an internet hoax(for lack of a better term) that will continually be dredged up. As LoginName pointed out this was already covered here. I find it hard to believe that something that uses a CO2 cartridge or a spring setup could actually be the so closely related to a real AR. Its an interesting concept but where are you putting the CO2, and the BBs and all the parts if this works? In the upper i guess... Unfortunately i don't think this is the last we have heard of this.

Since they no longer find it a threat some one should try and build one and try and fire it from a safe distance like any unknowingly explosive/defective firearm. (of course this should be left to professionals) MYTH BUSTERS ANYONE???

My guess is you will find it wont work otherwise the liability of selling the Airsoft gun would be astronomical.
Not to mention this is now plastered all over the internet and any idiot or jackass could think "wow lets try this"

I motion to lock the thread.
 
Last edited:
Also, someone posted a response in this thread that showed that some company in the Far East actually used STAG lowers to build their airsoft AR15s!!

You didn't click on the link. The pictured airsoft guns are just airsoft guns, that happen to be licensed to use the STAG name and logo.
 
Back
Top Bottom