Is 308 Garand built on 50+ year old USGI receiver a C&R rifle?

[tallen702]

It's not C&R unless the conversion took place at least 50 years ago. It's the exact reason why the Spanish 1916 Mausers that were converted to .308 for the Gaurdia Civil didn't become C&R until fairly recently despite their much earlier original date of manufacture. C&R only covers the date for the entire weapon, not the receiver, that's why you can't C&R actions or barreled actions. It has to be a "complete" weapon per BATFE regulations. It doesn't have to work, but all the parts must be there. The only weapons that are exempt from the modification rules are weapons built on "Antique" actions/receivers that are dated in or before 1898. A good example of this are pre-1899 Mosin-Nagant actions that have been re-arsenaled as recently as the 1970's by Finland. They qualify because they are considered Antiques and theoretically don't even require a FFL for transfer. The reason you can get a .308 Garand from the CMP is that the CMP has different rules that allow them to sell via interstate commerce to non-FFLs.

So the short answer is: If the conversion to .308 is more recent than 50 years, and you aren't purchasing it directly from the CMP, it's not eligible for C&R transfers.

The workaround is if the seller has all the original parts, they can re-assemble the rifle to .30-06 and make it re-eligible for C&R and then just ship you the .308 parts along with it. Stupid law, but what can you do.

P.S. The workaround was specifically suggested by the BATFE's FTB to me about two years ago when I ran into a similar situation.

 

[j_h_smith]

I got a reply from the CMP COO, Mark Johnson. My 2 questions to him were, are the original Navy 308 Garand C&R firearms and are arsenal and private company built 308 Garands C&R firearms. His answer, "Neither are C&Rs in my opinion."

Take that for what it's worth.

 

[nmyers]

The folks at ATF put a lot of thought into their "opinions" & "FAQ's". Sometimes you can tell more from what they don't say, than from what they do.

Their published response on this question is that a "minor change" does not remove a firearm from original configuration. Personally, I interpret that as meaning that they don't want to list every possible change & its acceptability, they just want us to use common sense; there's enough wiggle room in their definition that they won't bust anyone for a minor infraction. I wouldn't hesitate to transfer a 7.62 NATO rifle to a C&R licensee, but I would not consider any "tanker" to be a C&R as they were never issued.

 

[Abulg1972]

From the BATF page:



Firearms automatically attain C&R status when they are 50 years old. Any firearm that is at least 50 years old, and in its original configuration, would qualify as a C&R firearm.



Since the Garand was originally built as a 30.06, I can't see how a 308 qualifies.

A rifle that was converted 50+ years ago is C&R. How do you think Simpson was selling CG-63s that were 50+ years old and wouldn't sell ones that weren't? The key is proving when the conversion was done.
A converted rifle is, for all intents and purposes, a new rifle.

 

[j_h_smith]

A rifle that was converted 50+ years ago is C&R. How do you think Simpson was selling CG-63s that were 50+ years old and wouldn't sell ones that weren't? The key is proving when the conversion was done.
A converted rifle is, for all intents and purposes, a new rifle.

You do what you want. I've bought a few 308 garands in my life and each time they went through an FFL. The COO of the CMP has an opinion that they are not C&R. But no one can give a concrete (by the books) answer, so act as you conscience allows.

 

[Abulg1972]

You do what you want. I've bought a few 308 garands in my life and each time they went through an FFL. The COO of the CMP has an opinion that they are not C&R. But no one can give a concrete (by the books) answer, so act as you conscience allows.

The CMP doesn't have to follow any C&R rules so, with all due respect, the fact that the COO of the CMP has an opinion on what is and is not C&R doesn't hold much water to me.

I guess Simpson broke the law when it shipped me a CG-63 that was assembled in 1964 from Swedish M/96 receiver.

 

[j_h_smith]

The CMP doesn't have to follow any C&R rules so, with all due respect, the fact that the COO of the CMP has an opinion on what is and is not C&R doesn't hold much water to me.

I guess Simpson broke the law when it shipped me a CG-63 that was assembled in 1964 from Swedish M/96 receiver.

Like my post says, since there is a lack of concrete information on this matter, let your conscience be your guide.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

The CMP doesn't have to follow any C&R rules so, with all due respect, the fact that the COO of the CMP has an opinion on what is and is not C&R doesn't hold much water to me.

I guess Simpson broke the law when it shipped me a CG-63 that was assembled in 1964 from Swedish M/96 receiver.

Didn't know what a CG-63 Swede was until this thread.

Like a beautifully refined Bubba.

I want one.

 

[Abulg1972]

Like my post says, since there is a lack of concrete information on this matter, let your conscience be your guide.

Oh, but there is concrete information. The BATFE's definition of C or R firearm in its regulation at 27 CFR Section 478.11.

 

[Abulg1972]

Didn't know what a CG-63 Swede was until this thread.



Like a beautifully refined Bubba.



I want one.

They are really cool.

100 yards off the bench.