Please pick out which one is the M1 carbine from the following photos
While you have a point from a legal standpoint DG, also consider this- if I sell to you an M1 carbine receiver, does my bill of sale read "M1 carbine" or does it read "M1 carbine receiver"? If you were to read an advertisement selling "M1 carbines", and then you went to the store to buy one and you discovered that they were actually selling just receivers, is the store being deceitful? Why is it that legally, a seller lists receivers instead of the rifle?
If my gun store (if I had one) sells to you an "M1 carbine" for 700 dollars, and then we ship you an m1 carbine receiver, have we done anything legally wrong?
Singer subcontracted. I think that's the perceptual problem with this whole issue. Subcontractors do not produce the finished product,
by definition of their role. If somebody can show me that M1 carbines left the Singer plant in a completed state, and all Underwood did was then re-sell them, I will carefully and thoroughly re-think that statement!
If Underwood did anything to what Singer made, then how did Singer produce the final product? With the prime contractor, all Singer did in that case was make a sub-component at best
Legal contortions of what makes a firearm is an interesting point. I think that the scenario here is that using the M1 carbine as an example, the M1 carbine receiver is
a firearm legally, not that the M1 carbine receiver
is the M1 carbine. I think that's why the generic term 'firearm' is used. I would actually appreciate any member's clarification of that point; it seems to be one of those clear as mud situations that benefits people other than firearm owners, although that topic may be best suited for the 'general discussion' forum
edit-
and now after posting, I'd love to go to the rifle range today but I'm too busy!