Tactical Machining 1911 frames in 100% ($169) and 80% ($159) flavours.

[CathyInBlue]

NEW! 1911 TM Recon Frame by Tactical Machining - 80% 1911 Frame

Anybody seen these before? They appear to be brand spanking new.

The FAQ hints at double stack model to come as well as finishing jigs and 5-pack comboes… but not yet.

 

[churchmouse]

Interesting.

 

[1911ly]

TM stuff is really popular on the weaponsguild.com forum. Seems like they get good reviews.

Tagged for interest.

 

[88E30M50]

A build based on one of these would make an interesting gun to add to the collection.

 

[ghitch75]

they look to be out of stock........shame i didn't see a non railed frame....

 

[JimfromTrafalgar]

This is a bit worrisome to me. A gunsmith building a gun on the 80% frame would then need a manufacturer's license and create a serial # and system for the serialization. Not much of an issue, because he would probably get the 100% frame anyway. Unless I'm missing something, however, this would allow someone not exactly kosher to have a gun in his or her hands without the usual background checks. Most of us here probably don't like the idea of ANY government involvement in our right to bear arms, and I'm one. So at face value this looks like a good way to "stick it to the man", so to speak. What I see though, is a bunch of very illegal actions taking place here. Whether an FFL or not, the very act of turning these into functioning firearms, without going through the above mentioned licensing etc., becomes e federal offense. I'll need to check my book, but at the very least, should the weapon ever exchange hands. My point here is that our fearless leader and his anti-gun voting block will soon have a field day with this type of thing. I know, and you know, that there are far less expensive ways for a criminal to obtain a firearm, but the anti's are going to jump all over this...........
Jim

 

[CathyInBlue]

WTF?

Okay, you only have 25 posts, so you may not be as neck deep in 80% culture or home gunsmithing as many on INGO.

It's entirely legal to manufacture any firearm (*), provided it's for your own personal use (not built for resale), and you are not a prohibitted person.

ATF sez so.

(*) Can't be Class III, or violate state law.(**)

(**) Indiana does not ban home gun manufacture, but does ban short barrel shotguns outright.

(***) There is no law anywhere requiring firearms be gifted a serial number at time of manufacture. Serialization is an ATF condition of licensure for commercial gun makers. Again, not talking about gun making for commerce, just for personal use.

(****) These home built guns can be sold or given away (such as in wills). They just can't be built for that purpose.

(*****) The antis are already crusading against home gunsmithing in their own little enclaves, like California. Best of my knowledge, nowhere else bans private firearm manufacture for personal use, and certainly not nationally.

 

[1911ly]

What CathyInBlue said!! Nothing illegal about a 80%. FWIW a 80% receiver is quite the undertaking. It's probably safe to say that it's cheaper and faster to buy a gun illegally. If a criminal wants a gun he will find one. Banning 80% isn't going to solve a thing.

I have build a few 80% guns. It's a great hobby. Nothing illegal about it. Unless you build a illegal weapon. I don't and won't do that.

I don't build them to sell. I don't build them for some one else. I play the game by the rules and I bet I have more fun then you!

 

[JimfromTrafalgar]

Whoa there. I said I would need to check on the personal use issue. However, that was not what I would consider the main concern I was trying to put forth. Legal or not when for personal use, it gets one around the intent of those laws. As I said, I don't like the government getting involved in my personal right to bear arms to ANY degree. As far as I'm concerned, any citizen should be allowed to own hand grenades, ground to air launchers, tanks, fully auto weapons, etc., ad infinitum, unless proven to be mentally unstable. My point is that we're going to hear about this kind of thing in a VERY negative fashion from those who do not understand the need to protect our constitution. It's simply going to become fuel for their fire in the long run. I'm entitled to that opinion by that same constitution. Whether I have 25 posts or 25,000 doesn't alter that, nor make my thoughts any less valid than your own. Your starting a fight here over a person's point of view, and one that made no personal affront to anyone here. So I only have "25 posts"? That makes me uneducated on firearms and the continuing threat to our rights as U.S. citizen's ? I've been here for 52 years. I'm an FFL toting gunsmith who could run circles around you on certain subjects and admittedly have the same done to me on others.Jumping on me like that for an opinion concerning potential political fallout seems a bit extreme. I'll stop here before I say something equally irresponsible.
Jim

 

[JimfromTrafalgar]

Hey! This makes it 28. I'm three posts more intelligent. If I keep going like this, I'll match Einstein by this afternoon.

 

[midget]

You guys need to chill out. Post count doesn't dictate intelligence. Otherwise this forum would be full of brilliant people...
I am interested in information about how they heat treated these. If the castings are too rigid, it would be bad news... However, if I do find one in stock, I am going to buy one to play with.

 

[ghitch75]

i would pay the extra 10 buc's anyway.....more than 10 buc's worth of work...

 

[churchmouse]

This is a bit worrisome to me. A gunsmith building a gun on the 80% frame would then need a manufacturer's license and create a serial # and system for the serialization. Not much of an issue, because he would probably get the 100% frame anyway. Unless I'm missing something, however, this would allow someone not exactly kosher to have a gun in his or her hands without the usual background checks. Most of us here probably don't like the idea of ANY government involvement in our right to bear arms, and I'm one. So at face value this looks like a good way to "stick it to the man", so to speak. What I see though, is a bunch of very illegal actions taking place here. Whether an FFL or not, the very act of turning these into functioning firearms, without going through the above mentioned licensing etc., becomes e federal offense. I'll need to check my book, but at the very least, should the weapon ever exchange hands. My point here is that our fearless leader and his anti-gun voting block will soon have a field day with this type of thing. I know, and you know, that there are far less expensive ways for a criminal to obtain a firearm, but the anti's are going to jump all over this...........
Jim

Not a knock on post count....no worries there. I am concerned that many think this is an easy path to illegal ownership. Nothing is easy about finishing up an 80% piece. Just the tooling required is beyond most criminals plus the skills needed.

 

[JimfromTrafalgar]

I said as much. But the Obama clan doesn't care about that, just that you could own one without a 4473. To me, it's a potential argument for registration. I also think the whole ordeal is not worth the extra $10, but I certainly understand the drive to go that route anyway. You know, as an FFL, I gave up certain privileges that many of you probably don't even think about. I can't purchase or trade ANY firearm, even with other citizens of the state in which I reside, without the paperwork. EVERY gun I purchase from the day I first received my license has to be booked. I am currently having a holster made for an unusual old Webley revolver. I can't leave that old pistol with the man making the custom holster so that he can fit it properly, without paperwork and the NICS check. Those things seem a bit intrusive to me, at the least. I follow the rules, not because I think they are right, but because that's what I agreed to do so that I might be able to work on the things that I enjoy owning ,shooting, and giving new life in some cases. I don't condemn anyone for "staying within the law", yet having something that's under the radar, so to speak. I simply think the we will one day have more problems as a result. Simply an opinion, that's all.
Jim

 

[CathyInBlue]

I said I would need to check on the personal use issue. However, that was not what I would consider the main concern I was trying to put forth.

No. No, you didn't. I just went back and reread your uneditted post and one phrase that absolutely failed to appear was "personal use". The very idea of 80% frames/lowers is inextricably linked to private manufacture for personal use. The failure to mention personal use in any discussion of the legality of 80%ers is definitely indicative of a large degree of ignorance surrounding the laws of 80%ers, which is something you owned up to. I therefore took it upon myself to make a number of factual statements to fill in those points of ignorance that seemed to be evinced. It was not an attack on you (unless you're one of those people who deem claims of ignorance as something akin to questioning your parentage or claims of your intimate relations with close family members) or your degree of technical expertise in commercial gunsmithing.

My point is that we're going to hear about this kind of thing in a VERY negative fashion from those who do not understand the need to protect our constitution. It's simply going to become fuel for their fire in the long run. I'm entitled to that opinion by that same constitution.

Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. The very last thing I'm gonna do in this world is worry about the optics, of my enjoyment of my Constitutional rights, to the political faction categoricly opposed to those rights. I do not react well at all to a heckler's veto.

Your starting a fight here over a person's point of view, and one that made no personal affront to anyone here.

No, I didn't. You made categorical statements that were untrue. I disputed your claims with statements of fact. There was no attack. You're more than welcome to your point of view, but I will point out the existence of "Legislation of the 2nd Amendment" and "Political Discussion" forums for spitballing about politics and legal threats to our rights. This is the Gunsmithing forum, which should be used for technical issues. This is also indicative of the issue of having only 25 posts. Firearms expert you may be, but expertise in the online culture of INGO, which routinely delves into the obscure corner cases of firearms laws at all levels of governance, is yet to be evinced.

I'm an FFL toting gunsmith who could run circles around you on certain subjects and admittedly have the same done to me on others.

While undoubtedly true, this may be the core of the friction encountered in this thread. You're approaching this issue of 80%ers from the perspective of an FFL licensed gunsmith, manufacturing firearms for sale to others, with an eye toward obeying all of the regs for same. 80%ers are targetted at non-FFL licensed home gunsmiths who have no such rules or regulations as serialization, in building firearms for "personal use".

Jumping on me like that for an opinion concerning potential political fallout seems a bit extreme. I'll stop here before I say something equally irresponsible.

Here, I'll just reiterate that no jumping took place, you were making erroneous statements of fact about which you were corrected, and to mention again the existence of the forums for political fallout.

 

[JimfromTrafalgar]

Did you miss the " I'll need to check my book, but at the very least, should the weapon ever exchange hands" I guess I could have extrapolated on that, but didn't think I was discussing this with anyone who would not understand the implications. Maybe I overestimated, but based on the total posts, I would expect the natural conclusion and implied idea that my thoughts were not based upon the letter of the law, as much as the potential here. BTW, like it or not, you opened up a discussion based upon things that can and do draw the potential for political ramifications. The entire concept is exactly that, because you are treading a line which draws that sort of attention. I'm not calling you names, nor am I accusing you of doing anything illegal. You are, however, participating in acts which to my mind may draw unwanted attention. I strongly support your right to do so, but I do wonder about the long term result. That's all. Stop the attack. It's unbecoming someone of your stature on this site.
Jim

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Man... One of these frames (100% 'cause I lack knowledge and tooling to get an 80%-er done) would make a fantastic base for a commander bobtail in 9mm... *sigh*....

 

[xM3RC1L3SS1x]

WTF?

Okay, you only have 25 posts, so you may not be as neck deep in 80% culture or home gunsmithing as many on INGO.

It's entirely legal to manufacture any firearm (*), provided it's for your own personal use (not built for resale), and you are not a prohibitted person.

ATF sez so.

(*) Can't be Class III, or violate state law.(**)

(**) Indiana does not ban home gun manufacture, but does ban short barrel shotguns outright.

(***) There is no law anywhere requiring firearms be gifted a serial number at time of manufacture. Serialization is an ATF condition of licensure for commercial gun makers. Again, not talking about gun making for commerce, just for personal use.

(****) These home built guns can be sold or given away (such as in wills). They just can't be built for that purpose.

(*****) The antis are already crusading against home gunsmithing in their own little enclaves, like California. Best of my knowledge, nowhere else bans private firearm manufacture for personal use, and certainly not nationally.

Blam! +1

 

[Echelon]

JimFromTrafalgar, you know companies have been selling other types of 80% receivers for years, right? This isn't a new product or process by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[1911ly]

JimFromTrafalgar, you know companies have been selling other types of 80% receivers for years, right? This isn't a new product or process by any stretch of the imagination.

Let's stop poking. He knows. He has learn a lot in the last few days. He is all for 80% build. Just didn't know the ropes yet. Lets not try to run him off. I have had some great PM's with him. He's a stand up guy from what I can tell.