Backstory: Back in February I applied for a sporting exemption for a .550 cal wildcat round to be used in a LR-308 rifle and a bolt action rifle (separate applications). Monday I got the notification that the LR-308 was denied, big surprise. What was interesting is the justification that was given for my rejection. No consideration was given to the overall configuration or intent of use, rather it seems to relay the overarching tone of the Biden administration's belief that all ar's are bad. Below I have included the two sections which argue why the ATF denied my request.

In contrast, the AR-10 rifle was developed by ArmaLite Rifle and Eugene Stoner in the late 1950’s. It was designed for use as a combat weapon by the U.S. Military, and as a proposed replacement for the M1 Garand rifle. The AR-10 was initially designed as a machinegun. Eventually, the AR-10, was offered as a semiautomatic assault rifle to the civilian market. The semiautomatic AR-10 is traditionally chambered in 7.62 x 51mm NATO or .308 Winchester, both of which are standard military cartridges. The mere fact that a firearm or ammunition may be used in a sporting event, such as hunting, does not make that item inherently sporting.

Their argument is that since these rifles were developed for military purposes they are summarily classified as 'assault rifles' and not meant for any other purposes. Nevermind that countless big bores have been built on M1917 or Mauser 98 military actions. It's interesting that they only reference the AR-10 and not the DPMS LR-308 verbiage that I used in my letter. I realize the differences in the two platforms are minor but it should be noted that the DPMS was never a military item .

In 1998, ATF published the Department of the Treasury Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles, which is an update to the 1989 ATF Report and Recommendation on the Importability of Certain Semiautomatic Rifles. This study was conducted to address a particular type of rifle - the “semiautomatic assault rifle”- and therefore the respective studies did not address rifles outside of this limited rifle “type”. The 1989 and 1998 studies paralleled Congress’ intent to convey that traditional manually operated rifles are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

A 25 year old congressional STUDY is what they are basing their claim on. Interestingly enough the AR-10, 15 or lr-308 are not listed anywhere in their refenced case study. If you don't care to read the entire thing, the gist of the study focus on what to do about the cheap, semi auto imports that were on the market. The study's main focus on how the determining factors that make a 'assault rifle: are highly subjective, vague, probably could apply to most semi-autos and probably would not survive a supreme court challenge in today's climate.

Well, you might be thinking that I could always register it as a Destructive device. Except that;

The 547 Ronin ammunition is classified as ammunition for a destructive device, and therefore would require a Type 10 FFL and payment of a SOT tax stamp.

This brings up so many questions. Let's say they approve it for a bolt action. The paradox that exist in that it could be legal to reload for one rife and not the other is, for lack of a better word...Fing stupid.

quote:

The mere fact that a firearm or ammunition may be used in a sporting event, such as hunting, does not make that item inherently sporting.

How dumb.

Any caliber can be used for good or bad. Some with any platform type.

I think that it would be more accurate to discern between 'could be' (a striker 12 could be used for duck hunting) and 'not particularly suitable'. This would have to be judged on a case by case basis but that hasn't stopped the ATF before.

if you had described a express rifle styled bolt gun, and it's ammo, it's not generally described as a weapon of war -

then putting in a semi might be "read" as a DD -

with humor, ranting that government employees follow government regs, and end up with a nonsense conclusion isn't really worth ranting over - as it happens every day

quote:

Originally posted by thecanadian:
I think that it would be more accurate to discern between 'could be' (a striker 12 could be used for duck hunting) and 'not particularly suitable'. This would have to be judged on a case by case basis but that hasn't stopped the ATF before.

it would be, in native form, illegal to use for duck hunting, as it CAN hold more than 3 rounds - and yeah, i know, you can use a long tube 870 with a plug --

the major reason a striker is an DD/AOW is the 12" barrel length