1896 Schlegelmilch Mauser trials rifle

I took the liberty of moving some of the off-topic banter to a new thread. I think I screwed up the transfer of a few posts, seem they disappeared. Of course I rarely do this editing so that is the cause of missing post. I decided to leave the ATF commentary and legality issues with this rifle as it seemed to me relevant because this rifle could fall into those issues and are therefore on-topic as far as I am concerned.

Not only the Polish semi-auto was seized, but a antique French rifle was seized years ago. It was traced back to a French museum where it was looted by the Germans and subsequently looted by a GI (Texas). This is unlikely to draw the German government interest, they did get hot under the collar regarding a historical bible looted from a church some years ago, but I think they chose to buy it back rather than use international law to obtain possession. I doubt the German government would cause a publicity scene over a rare trails rifle. Funny thing is both the bible and the French relic were lifted by Texans.

Lastly, I am not doing this again, people that post here or in the Republican era do not own the threads, I allow them to progress freely with out censorship or editing. If anyone thinks my moving of their post anyway offensive let me know and I will move such posts back. I really don't like doing this (editing threads) and won't do it again.

bigwagon said:

Here's how the AFT defines a receiver:

Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “That 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.”

So that definition does make some sense for a FAL upper receiver, but it does not make sense that they treat an AR-15 differently, and in fact, there is a significant court case right now challenging this definition.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/t...-15-lower-as-a-firearm-is-in-serious-trouble/

Click to expand...

If Loewe feels this is the place for discussion then I will answer your question here.

The ATF is in a “nomenclature” conundrum with the AR lower, however the ATF is based on precedence and they will fight based on that. In regards the the court case, it will be interesting to see how it turns out, but the matter of the fact is, the current firearm is the lower, and the court will not reverse that.

When I had my 07 manufacturing license with the ATF I received a fair amount of documentation and in that documentation was discussed how a firearm was defined. I doubt I still have that paperwork but I will look and see what I can find.

In essence the list that you posted is a guideline to see based on the number of criteria that the object meets. The more criteria the easier to define. In the case of the FAL receiver the upper holds 3, breech, bolt, magazine. Problem with the AR is the upper holds 1, the bolt, the lower holds two, the trigger group and magazine. It can be argued the upper contains the breech or the threads to contain the breech. Then both hold two.

The ATF is clear that these are guidelines, ultimately the decision is up to their technical branch. From my experience, I would guess that the ATF would define the “lower” in this case as the receiver. In that the trigger group and magazine are part of the lower. Arguably looking at the drawings the lower also contains the barrel. I believe this is true for such rifles as the Mauser 66 and Blaser that have interchangeable barrels.

What I think would be very interesting would be to read the technical branch decision when the original Armalite rifle came in.

Fal Grunt said:

The ATF is in a “nomenclature” conundrum with the AR lower, however the ATF is based on precedence and they will fight based on that. In regards the the court case, it will be interesting to see how it turns out, but the matter of the fact is, the current firearm is the lower, and the court will not reverse that.

Click to expand...

Meh, bottom line, ATF just makes shite up...this is the same agency that classified a shoelace as a machine gun...the entire organization is a bunch of clowns...

Fal Grunt said:

If Loewe feels this is the place for discussion then I will answer your question here.

Click to expand...

I wasn't asking a question. I stated my opinion that the ATF's designation of the AR lower as a receiver is inconsistent with the law.

bigwagon said:

I wasn't asking a question. I stated my opinion that the ATF's designation of the AR lower as a receiver is inconsistent with the law.

Click to expand...

My apologies, I took “It doesn’t make sense” as a an expression of not understanding.

Looking for member

I am looking for a possible member, Brad Rauh. If you are a member could you send me a PM so we could talk.
Thank you, Flatside

I'll PM you his e-mail address.

Very interesting rifle! I do remember seeing the video on this rifle at Forgotten Weapons website when it came out last year.