Civilian M14....almost was. - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


Civilian M14....almost was.

This is a discussion on Civilian M14....almost was. within the The M14 forums, part of the M14 M1A Forum category; I saw this and thought it was very interesting. A history lesson that I did not know about... Sorry if it is a repost. Title: ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > The M14

83Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old May 20th, 2013, 09:47 PM   #1
Master Gunner
 
Roadkingtrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Snowbird Land
Posts: 967
Civilian M14....almost was.

I saw this and thought it was very interesting. A history lesson that I did not know about...

Sorry if it is a repost.





Title: RIFLE, MILITARY - U.S. RIFLE M14M 7.62MM SN# 552554
Maker/Manufacturer: SPRINGFIELD ARMORY
Date of Manufacture: 1962-1963
Eminent Figure:
Catalog Number: SPAR 3336
Measurements: OL:112.3CM 44 1/4" BL: 55.8CM 22" 9 lbs.

Object Description:

U.S. RIFLE M14M 7.62MM SN# 552554
Manufactured by Springfield Armory, Springfield, Ma. in 1963 - The M14M rifle was intended for issue to NRA affiliated rifle clubs, and for sale through the Director of Civilian Marksmanship. No select switch; selector shaft welded in place. Hinged buttplate. Weapon weighs approximately 9 lbs. Weapon complete with 20-round detachable box magazine. One thousand of these arms were ordered in 1962 to familiarize students with basic rudiments of the M14 service rifle.


Markings:
Receiver: U.S. RIFLE/7.62-MM M14M/SPRINGFIELD/ARMORY/552554.
Bolt: 7790186/SA CC1.
Stock: P in circle. Defense Acceptance Stamp.

Weapon transferred to Museum on 22 August 1966. At that time weapon was appraised at $128.00.

HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES:
1JUL62 - 30JUN63 - "The Armory also received an order for 1,000 Special Match 'M' M14 Rifles, which were regular production rifles, with the regular barrel, no glass bedding, the Lock Selector Switch welded in place, and the letter 'M' engraved on the receiver. New route sheets were required for the Receiver and Rifle Assembly. No problems were met with this order."

Notes: "OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL/WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310
MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNDERSECRETARY OF THE ARMY.
Subject: Treasury Department Opinion Concerning M14M Rifle Sale (20Mar1978)
ISSUE AND CONCLUSIONS
You have requested my views with respect to the proposed sale of M14M rifles and opinion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), Department of the Treasury, that the M14M rifle constitutes a 'machinegun' within meaning of section 5845 (b) of the National Firearms Act, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 5845 (b). I believe that BATF's conclusion that the M14M is a 'machinegun' for the purposes of the statue is legally correct. Nonetheless, sale of M14M through the Civilian Marksmanship Program will not necessitate payment of the transfer tax although it will require a registration (without charge).
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Army Regulation 920-25 provides that the M14M rifle, which is the same as an M14 service rifle except that certain welding operations render the M14M rifle incapable of full automatic fire capability, is not a 'firearm' within the meaning of the National Firearms Act. However, that regulation was promulgated well before enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213-1236, which substantially amended the National Firearms Act as it then existed. We have reviewed both the amended version of the definition of a 'machinegun', 26 U.S.C. 5845 (b), and the accompanying legislative history, and although lacking adequate technical expertise, believe that BATF's opinion that the M14M constitutes a 'machinegun' for purposes of the National Firearms Act is in accord with current law. The original definition of a machinegun was a 'weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot...more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.' 28 U.S.C. 5848 (2) (repealed 1968). Apparently, in 1965 BATF concluded that the M14M rifles, as modified with the designated welds, was no longer a weapon 'which shoots, or is designed to shoot automatically. This conclusion is rendered invalid, however, by the amended definition of a 'machinegun' which includes those weapons that can be readily restored to shoot automatically.
The Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship has advised my staff that the M14M rifle can be restored to shoot automatically by a skilled gunsmith in several hours. Similarly, BATF, has stated that officials at Rock Island Arsenal, which is responsible for modification of the M14 rifle, have indicated that the modification can be reversed 'without much difficulty.' Letter dated June 27, 1977 (copy attached). Given these facts, I believe there can be little dispute that the M14M 'can be readily restored to shoot automatically,' thus constituting a 'machinegun' within the meaning of the National Firearms Act, as amended. 1.
In opposition to this conclusion, the assertion has been made that, through a similaSecond, I understand that as a practical matter the M14 rifle is a much more effective automatic weapon. Having been designed as such, it can better withstand the stress and heat accompanying automatic fire. The basic capability, 20 rounds, is better suited to automatic fire that is that of the M1 rifle which is only eight or nine rounds. Finally, I understand that expanding the capacity of the M14 rifle only involves extending the magazine whereas expanding the capacity of the M1 rifle would involve restructuring its basic components.
The conclusion that a rifle is a 'machinegun' for the purposes of the National Firearms Act, as amended, has two major consequences with regard to sale of that weapons. First, the transfer must pay a $200 tax upon transfer of the rifle. 26 U.S.C. 5811. Although the tax is paid by the transfer, the cost is usually passed to the transferee, thereby substantially increasing the cost of the weapon. Based upon paragraph five of your memorandum of February 27, 1978, I understand your immediate concern to be that transfer of the M14M rifle through the Civil Marksmanship Program should not be subject to the $200 transfer tax. I do not believe that Civilian Marksmanship Program transfers would be so taxed since the tax is imposed by the United States upon the transfer, 26 U.S.C. 5811 (b), and in this instance the transfer would be the United States. It would be illogical for the United States to tax the United States. The Office of Chief Counsel, BATF, has confirmed that BATF concurs with this position with respect to sales by the United States and therefore no transfer tax would be paid on the Civilian Marksmanship Program sales.
Second, prior to any transfer, the transferor must obtain authorization from BATF, thereby effecting registration of the weapon. 26 U.S.C. 5841(c). The registry is known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. It is illegal for a person to receive of possess a firearm not registered to that person with the National Firearms Transfer Record. 26 U.S.C. 5861 (d.) While the registration requirement does not apply to weapons in the possession or control of the United States, 26 U.S.C. 5841 (a), it would apply if the weapon was placed in the hands of the purchaser. Accordingly, registration by the Director of Civilian Marksmanship would be necessary. In that this requirement is statutory in nature, an exception could only be granted by Congress, not by BATF. 2.
The procedures for registration of weapons exempt from the transfer tax is set forth in the BATF regulations, 32 C.F.R. 179.90 (1977) (copy attached). In essence, the Director of Civilian Marksmanship will have to submit a Form 5 (Firearms), Application for Tax-Exempt Transfers and Registration of Firearms, to the BATF and receive BATF approval prior to transferring the weapon.
POLICY DISCUSSION
As a matter of policy, I must express my serious reservations concerning the proposed sale of M14M rifles. Although I understand that the M14M rifle is more desirable for marksmanship purposes than the M1 rifle, I believe that factor to be offset by the potential for restoration of the M14 rifle to automatic fire capability of the M1 rifle. At least until the supply of service grade M1 rifles is exhausted, I believe that the increased risk to the general public caused by sale of the M14M rifle is unwarranted. Although relatively few M14M rifles might fall into the wrong hands, those rifles, if restored to automatic fire capability, would present a serious threat to society, one that the Army should not create.
In addition, my staff has been advised by a representative of the OfficePrentiss Feagles of my office will attend the meeting on March 22, 1978 of the Executive Committee of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice. - s/Jill Wine Volner/General Counsel

1. Although unclear, BATF also seems to conclude that the M14M rifle is a 'machinegun' since it possesses the frame or receiver of a 'machinegun.' This is so-called 'once a machinegun, always a machinegun theory.' I question the validity of that approach since I believe the more reasonable reading of the statue would be that a frame or receiver is a 'machinegun' only if designed to shoot automatically or readily restorable to such capability. However, this difference is insignificant, given the separate conclusion that the M14M rifle is a 'machinegun' because it 'can be readily restored to shoot automatically.'
2. You note the exception granted certain aspects of the Civilian Marksmanship Program from Title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968 by 18 U.S.C. 925 (2) and request that I pursue such an 'exception to policy' with the Department of the Treasury with respect to sale of the M14M rifle. That exception is not an 'exception to policy' granted by the Department of the Treasury but is a statutory exception granted by the Congress. Similar legislation would be necessary in this instance...."

References:
Smith, Joseph E. (Ed.) SMALL ARMS OF THE WORLD. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, Pa. 1966.
Stevens, Blake. U.S. RIFLE M14: FROM JOHN GARAND TO THE M21. Collector Grade Publications Inc. Toronto, Canada. 1991.

Roadkingtrax is online now  
Remove Ads
Old May 20th, 2013, 09:57 PM   #2
Lifer
 
Jersey Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 3,322
Wow, now that is super cool!!!

Maybe the BATF needs a history lesson. No 'good' reason we shouldn't be allowed to own M14s that have been altered in this manner.

Thanks for posting this info.

Thanks from Roadkingtrax
Jersey Devil is offline  
Old May 20th, 2013, 10:00 PM   #3
Master Gunner
 
Roadkingtrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Snowbird Land
Posts: 967
Interesting that the letter was dated from 1978.

The nail in the coffin:

"I believe that the increased risk to the general public caused by sale of the M14M rifle is unwarranted. Although relatively few M14M rifles might fall into the wrong hands, those rifles, if restored to automatic fire capability, would present a serious threat to society, one that the Army should not create."

Roadkingtrax is online now  
 
Old May 20th, 2013, 11:16 PM   #4
Master Gunner
 
Roadkingtrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Snowbird Land
Posts: 967
Found another tidbit....Army Reg 920-25

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/pdf/920_25.pdf

Roadkingtrax is online now  
Old May 21st, 2013, 05:05 AM   #5
Old Salt
 
Nordlander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sweden Valley Pa./Missoula Mt. USA
Posts: 1,331
There is something about an as issued M14 that is a joy to my heart . Our longest running hand held infantry rifle in US service since the '50's ( the M2 .50 Browning I guess is still the longest military weapon still in service ) the M14 is just as sought out and effective now as it was when first introduced . I am grateful that I live in a country that allows myself now as a civilian to own one . Almost impossible anywhere else .My M14 is the last weapon I would ever part with . I was fortunate enough to carry "Thorhammer's" brother M14's through my years of service in the Marine Corps. Yes as Vikings name their weapons after gods and deeds ( not women!) and I am a descendent of those warriors my rifles name is thus named!

Nordlander is offline  
Old May 21st, 2013, 05:07 AM   #6
Lifer
 
tokiwartooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northport, NY
Posts: 2,547
Don't understand why they just didn't grind of the tab that holds the selector switch. Wouldn't this basically make it a semi auto rifle?

tokiwartooth is offline  
Old May 21st, 2013, 05:31 AM   #7
Old Salt
 
4Quangs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Minneapolis,MN
Posts: 1,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadkingtrax View Post
...
Weapon transferred to Museum on 22 August 1966. At that time weapon was appraised at $128.00.
...
Imagine buying an M14 for little more than the price of 500 once fired LC cases. At the time though, that would have cost me a months pay as a L/CPL.

4Quangs is offline  
Old May 21st, 2013, 06:33 AM   #8
Lifer
 
Tommo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 4,767
They should have just cut-off the selctor switch part of the receiver instead of welding it. Possibly this would have satisfied the bureaucats of the ATF? Probably not but worth a try.

Tommo is offline  
Old May 21st, 2013, 07:23 AM   #9
Lifer
 
Jersey Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommo View Post
They should have just cut-off the selctor switch part of the receiver instead of welding it. Possibly this would have satisfied the bureaucats of the ATF? Probably not but worth a try.
No, I believe their stupid policy of "once a machine gun, always a machine gun" comes in to play here.

Jersey Devil is offline  
Old May 21st, 2013, 08:06 AM   #10
Scout Sniper
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokiwartooth View Post
Don't understand why they just didn't grind of the tab that holds the selector switch. Wouldn't this basically make it a semi auto rifle?
I always wondered the same.
But I thought the M1A was so named because at the time you could not even use the name m14. If I am wrong let me know?

angelonm is offline  
Old May 21st, 2013, 09:15 AM   #11
Old Salt
 
Snypr18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadkingtrax View Post
As a matter of policy, I must express my serious reservations concerning the proposed sale of M14M rifles. Although I understand that the M14M rifle is more desirable for marksmanship purposes than the M1 rifle, I believe that factor to be offset by the potential for restoration of the M14 rifle to automatic fire capability of the M1 rifle.
Because, obviously, we "little people" are children who cant handle the real thing.

Snypr18 is offline  
Old May 21st, 2013, 09:17 AM   #12
Designated Marksman
 
66Fastback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SnoCo Wa.
Posts: 687
All I can say is "drool"

Great history lesson on this. I never knew these existed before.

66Fastback is offline  
Old May 21st, 2013, 09:17 AM   #13
Designated Marksman
 
66Fastback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SnoCo Wa.
Posts: 687
All I can say is "drool"

Great history lesson on this. I never knew these existed before.

66Fastback is offline  
Old May 21st, 2013, 11:27 AM   #14
Old Salt
 
Hamstrosity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 1,566
I don't understand how it's "once a machinegun, always a machine gun" if it was manufactured as a semi-auto rifle.. That's how one guy got out of hot water with a NM TRW rifle.. From what I understand though, it only applies to that one rifle..

Still stupid. They should at least allow new entries to the registry. I heard somewhere that they were supposed to have periodic amnesty registration periods, does anybody have any information on that?

Not that I agree with the registry, but that's another topic for another time..

Thanks from Snypr18
Hamstrosity is offline  
Old May 21st, 2013, 12:44 PM   #15
Rifleman
 
semperparatus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 66
I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the group here. Unless the rifle was rendered permanently incapable of being altered back to full auto without an exchange of parts then it should not be made available to the general public absent compliance with the existing law necessary to own such a weapon (a dealer with a Class III FFL, tax stamp, LEO and Federal approval, etc). If one wishes to fire such a weapon it is not difficult to find a range where you can rent and fire a full auto weapon onsite. There is however, in my opinion, no legitimate reason for a civilian to possess a full auto. I am a firm supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights. However, the 2nd Amendment, like all rights conferred by the US Constitution, is a limited right - for example the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right to own an artillery piece or a fully functioning tank any more than the 1st Amendment confers the right to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Another example of a limit on free speech is that one cannot through speech advocate for the murder of another person. These limitations are necessary so that we may live in a society where the rule of law prevails. The danger to each of us of permitting a private individual to own a fully automatic weapon absent reasonable regulation outweighs the right of the individual to bear arms in the same way that the danger of permitting a person to advocate the murder of, say, a public official outweighs our right to free speech. I am former military and also formerly a criminal prosecutor. I have very graphically witnessed firsthand both the dangerous utility of a fully auto weapon and the societal cost such a weapon can do in the wrong hands. I understand the argument that a criminal won't bother jumping through the hoops necessary to purchase a full auto, he will simply go out and buy one illegally. However, by severely restricting the flow of these weapons into society we also make it much harder for the criminal to illegal take possession of one. I know I'll probably catch some flak here for this opinion, but in my mind a full auto weapon is a weapon of war and nothing else. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of a skilled enemy armed with a full auto weapon understands how devastating they can be. We need to keep weapons of war in the hands of warriors only.

semperparatus is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > The M14


Search tags for this page
can civilian carry an m-14 rifle in public?
,
civilian m-14
,

civilian m14

,

civilian m14 rifle

,
civilian marksmanship program m14
,
has a criminal ever used an m1a
,
m14 civilian
,
m14 ebr civilian
,
m14m
,
m14m for sale
,
m14m rifle
,
nikernr
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
M14/M1A History lesson request rbh350 The M14 5 March 16th, 2013 11:46 AM
Basic Tools for the M14 builder brycom1 Gunsmithing 22 June 24th, 2011 11:59 AM
fact or fiction? stichy The M14 16 February 27th, 2008 07:45 AM
Newbie Welcome Gift Contest - M14 Library CD Different The M14 19 March 5th, 2006 07:28 PM
The M14 in the Arts and Entertainment Different Hollywood 4 October 2nd, 2005 08:28 AM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List