So I'm building a preban Bushy AR...

A

abcimixab

New member
I have located a pair of pre-ban Bushmaster AR15 lowers for $800 a piece. They have metal, 3 position collaspable stocks, but I can't seem to find out who makes them. He will take $100 of the price if I take them w/o the stocks. That is probably what I'll do.

Who makes the best collaspable stocks? How good are the bushmaster stocks?

If you are in the mood to answer more questions, how does the price sound?

Anything else I should consider?

Thanks for the help.
 
ABCIMIXAB: First take a visit to www.ar15.com. You'll find a wealth of info on Bushmaster. I just received their catalog and they have loads of good stuff. Their rep is pretty good according to the guys that frequent ar15.com.
 
Unless you can determine that those metal telestocks are made by Colt, they're not worth the extra $100. If I recall correctly, the old Colt stocks have markings indicating that they are Colt.

If it was me, I'd take the lowers without the stocks and put on the new-style Fiberlite 4-position stocks. With the stock fully extended, length of pull is the same as with an A2 stock, and the butt-plate area is the same size as that of an A2 stock. In addition, these stocks do away with the rattle that's often associated with telestocks, as the sliding stock assembly is pretty snug with the buffer tube.

Here's an example of the stock: http://www.rockriverarms.com/images/rrbstock.jpg

You can get 'em at:
Bushmaster
Gunsmoke Enterprises (Highly recommended)
Rock River Arms

I have these stocks on two of my preban ARs, and they're great.

The price on the lowers in question is good, assuming you can verify that they are preban. Call, write, or email Bushmaster with your serial numbers, and they should be able to send you written confirmation that they are preban.

I paid $1100 for my verified preban Bushmaster lower (complete with Fiberlite stock) earlier this year. There just aren't that many of them on the market like there are Colts, so from what I've observed, Bushmasters seem to bring a little more in some circles. I've seen complete Bushmaster shorties going for as high as $1750-$2000.

------------------
¡Viva la RKBA!
Bulldawg: NRA, GOA, TSRA, Shiner Bock Connoisseur.
Bulldawg's Firearms Page

[This message has been edited by Bulldog (edited August 04, 2000).]
 
At least your handle is not eptifibatide. As a purveyor of tirofiban, I have lost respect for a product (eptifibatide)unwilling to compare itself head to head to abciximab, the "gold standard".
 
what proof is the seller offering that the lowers were assembled as SAWs pre 1994?

dZ
 
Would it be completely TASTELESS at this point to mention that my Bushmaster Upper is for sale? :)

Anyway... I've heard $800 used several times as the BOTTOM end of the price spectrum for bushmaster pre-ban lowers.

Bushmaster (www.bushmaster.com) has been PAINFULLY helpful answering all my e-mail questions very quickly. They would be able to tell you if the lower was assembled as an assault rifle before the #@$%@$ $%#$%@ $#&^#!@%$ #!@@@!!! ban, unless it shipped out of their factory as parts.
 
Thanks for the help, everyone. The seller provided me w/ the serial numbers, and bushmaster confirmed that they were both produced prior to the ban.
 
I think the operative question is whether or not the lowers were assembled into "assault weapons" prior to the ban. My understanding is that if the lower was not part of a fully assembled AW prior to the ban, it may not now be assembled into one.

Please correct me if I am incorrect in my understanding.
 
Legion, if the factory which produced the lower is willing to state in writing that the part in question was produced prior to the ban, please explain to me how to prove that it was not assembled prior to the ban.

As far as I understand it, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution...
 
To clarify the above post, bushmaster stated that "the weapon in question was manufactured in 1992". I hope that is proof enough.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
it is possible for a stripped lower to be assembled into a non semi automatic assault weapon configuration

in order to be a pre 1994 SAW the assembled configuration needed to have either a threaded barrel, a collapsable stock or a bayonet lug

Once a SAW always a SAW so if the gun had at least one of the banned features then it is legal to add additional SAW parts to the configuration

dZ

[This message has been edited by dZ (edited August 05, 2000).]
 
Okay. Let's assume that in 1992:

• I buy a stripped lower directly from Bushmaster,

• I purchase all of the internal parts required to complete the lower,

• I purchase a standard A2 buttstock assembly,

• I purchase a Bull-barreled upper which has no bayonet lug or threaded barrel,

• I assemble all of the above into a rifle.

----------

September 13, 1994 has since come and gone...

----------

In October of 1994:

• I purchase a telestock, and

• I purchase a complete barreled upper with bayonet lug threaded barrel, and

• I replace my bull-barreled upper and A2 stock with the new upper and telestock.

----------

I have no receipts for any of the above.

I paid cash for all items, and there is no record of sale except for the lower that was manufactured and sold in 1992.

----------

Tell me this: How will anyone prove that my rifle was not in a pre-ban configuration prior to September 13, 1994?

If the gubmint decides they want to indict and prosecute me for manufacturing a Semiautomatic Assault Weapon:

• They will need reason to believe that I manufactured said SAW, and

• They will have to somehow prove that I did, in fact, manufacture said SAW, as they have the "Burden of Proof."

'Least, that how I look at it.

Yes, it's true that a stripped lower that was manufactured prior to 9/13/94 may not be assembled into a SAW if that lower left the factory after the ban.

The way I understand it, however, is that once the stripped lower leaves the factory, FFL records will simply note the model number and serial number that's on that lower, but they won't indicate that it's a stripped lower. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

So what's to say that a pre-ban lower wasn't assembled as a SAW prior to the ban? It's not like it was common practice to list all of the "evil" features you included on a rifle you built-up prior to 9/13/94 on a sworn, notorized affidavit...

------------------
¡Viva la RKBA!
Bulldawg: NRA, GOA, TSRA, Shiner Bock Connoisseur.
Bulldawg's Firearms Page

[This message has been edited by Bulldog (edited August 05, 2000).]
 
Hmmmm. I raised the question because a dealer told me that pre-ban lowers could not be assembled into pre-ban SAWs - i.e., with more than the allowed post-ban "evil" features. As you say, dz, "once a SAW, always a SAW." But what constitutes a SAW? The lower, or the fully assembled weapon? I'd like to believe you are okay, abcimixab; only asked because of what I was told, and now I'm confused. :confused:

I see your logic, Bulldog, and it sounds reasonable to me. But I'd bet the ATF would insist on "proof" of some sort if the question came up. Anyone know where to get a read on this? Curious minds want to know!

[This message has been edited by Legionnaire (edited August 05, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But I'd bet the ATF would insist on "proof" of some sort if the question came up. [/quote]

What sort of proof? Say John Doe bought a PWA Commando in a private sale in 1990... No receipt - Just handed over the cash and took the rifle home. PWA is now out of business and cannot be contacted for verification. In addition, it is rumored that PWA never made complete weapons, just parts.

Now in 1990, John Doe would not be worried about retaining proof of SAW status because there was no such thing as a SAW in 1990 - The ban and the term "SAW" was just a twinkle in Klinton's eye.

How, exactly, is John Doe supposed to prove he purchased this rifle in 1990 when it was a private sale with no paperwork? Then again, how can anyone possibly prove that he didn't buy it in 1990?

How can anyone prove that it wasn't assembled as a SAW prior to 9/13/94? Remember, PWA only dealt in parts and is no longer in business.

There is no proof on either side. What are they going to do? Take John Doe's perfectly legal rifle? Even though they have no proof that it's illegal?

I can understand folks carrying around paperwork on their Class-III guns, as it's a requirement. It is not, however, a requirement for us to carry papers on a perfectly legal semiautomatic rifle that was purchased ten years ago.

As long as there's proof that the lower receiver was manufactured and sold prior to the ban, that's good enough for me.

I made an exception to this rule a few months ago when I bought my PWA, though. It has a 6xxx serial number whereas the unofficial pre-post cut-off for PWA is serial number 35222 (Source: http://www.ar15.com/legal/serialNumberList.asp ). I'm pretty sure I have an early example of a PWA.

[This message has been edited by Bulldog (edited August 06, 2000).]
 
If you had possession of the lower prior to the ban, there would be no way you could be successfully prosecuted.

Even still, if the dealer didn't write something silly like, "bare receiver only" on the receipt, they'd have a hard time. Does the 4473 have a "barrel length" field that must be filled?
 
Destructo,

If I recall correctly, all that goes on the 4473 is the make, model, and serial number and whether it's a longgun or handgun. If it's a rifle receiver, it goes in as a rifle. If it's a handgun receiver, it goes in as a handgun.
 
the thing to remember when dealing with LEO's is never to speak with them. You never have to answer their queries and if they have no information they generally can't do much. I know we all have respect for LEO's but you can get into trouble providing seemingly innocent info.

------------------
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top