• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

EP Armory Raided by BATF - 80% Lowers

Elucase said:
I like the idea of the poly lower but I'm not comfortable with messing with it too much.

For a $60 lower would you do it?
Click to expand...

If you get one of these lowers, it looks like the majority of the posts I have seen, have been out of spec and have not been functional pieces.

My experience, was rather dismal, despite my best efforts.

I finally just bought an Anderson lower to complete that build. The poly lower is crap.
 
John A, I read the forum that aksavanaman posted. What you experienced seems typical of what the forums on EP's website described. After I read your experience, and the others on the site, I think I'll stick to aluminum as my first lower. I was hoping the ep forum housed a couple bad seeds and the vast majority were great. But the odds do not seem stacked in my favor.

What does seem like a good idea is looking at blemished receivers. I'd powder coat it anyways, so I could go that route.
 
I think that copes distributing has some blemished Anderson lowers for less than $50 if they haven't already sold them out.

If the anodizing is just a little funked up, you could either have it re-anodized, powder coated, or airbrushed with Norrells Moly, KG GunKote, or even Cerakote.

And at least you would have a functional lower.
 
My EP blem sits in a drawer after 2 attempts to get it well fitted, up and running. Attempt #2 included a drop in Timney trigger with a metal base plate to secure it in place and add back pressure to the pins to keep everything stable (a Timney standard feature).

I see now that EP is offering adhesive templates for $10 to (perhaps) raise the success rate of working with their 80% lowers.

True I bought a no warranty blem. I have reasonable skills with tools, fit and measurements and still came up short. The blem was not just cosmetically off it was not correct in many ways - out of spec in multiple areas. Even when I was close to having it fully function it was so compromised that I had lost confidence - with good cause - for using it for anything more than an experiment. Too bad as I was prepared to add it to my front line firearms and hoped to use it in competitive shooting events.

With the recent increased negative focus on gun parts invisible to x-ray, 'ghost guns' etc. AND the raid of the EP facility I have to wonder what scrutiny and negative attention simply owning a (defective) 80% poly lower - OR a poly hi cap mag (Magpul) that, when disassembled is also invisible to current airline detection ( or other) MIGHT bring to me and others working in a completely legal and innocent fashion with these items!!

ARG!
 
even the ATF admits that it is lawful to make a personal weapon.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#gca-manufacturing
Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?
With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts.

[18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]
Click to expand...

https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf
Gun Control Act 1968
§ 921 Definitions.

(10) The term "manufacturer"
means any person engaged in the
business of manufacturing firearms or
ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution;
and the term "licensed
manufacturer" means any such person
licensed under the provisions of
this chapter.
Click to expand...
 
Btw, I sent a letter to EP Armory about a possible co-op for their poly lowers and today I got this response:

"All sales are currently suspended on the 80% polymer receivers. Any updates will be posted on our Facebook. Sorry for any inconvenience."

Their Facebook says nothing about it.
 
I wonder where the NRA-ILA stands on this one. Seems like something they'd have an interest in, especially with future litigation pending.
 
The only reason I could see them asking for a customer list is that the unfinished receivers had more work done than is permitted to be sold without going through an FFL.

Are they required to even keep a customer list of 80% lowers sold? They shouldn't have to since it's not a "gun". What about cash customers?

I guess we'll find out in a week when the have a court date.
 
Actually, these do not have any more work done than any other current 80% lower that is on the market, so I really do not pretend to understand what the ATF is doing since they have not publically commented about this. The only physical difference is these are not made of various types of metal.

The only thing I can think of (pure speculation on my part), the designer/seller may not have submitted his design to tech branch for their determination or approval that it was a "nongun" prior to selling them, in which case, is not the consumers fault and was outside of their ability to know that. Especially since they were not marketed as firearms, nor did they meet the legal definition of a firearm at that time.

26 U.S. Code § 5845
(a) Firearm
The term “firearm” means
921 of title 18, United States Code); and (a) Firearm

(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(6) a machinegun;
921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
Click to expand...

But on the other hand, even with a tech determination letter, the atf can change its' mind at any time just because it can, but just for reference, the akins accelerator kits for 10/22 that bump fired had a letter and the atf later changed its' mind and consumers had to turn in the spring that was in the buttstock because they determined it turned the little rugers into machineguns so this may turn into something like that. This may or may not be the same with these. Again, pure speculation on my part and until a consumer is contacted directly is all guesses and hypotheticals so I don't want to get into a lot of that here because I much prefer clear fact based discussion.

Without going into too many details online and just to cover my ass, I did in fact call the ATF branch and spoke with an agent and had a pleasant discussion with him when I first started hearing they were trying to get a customer list.
 
Right now Ares Armor is showing a lot more backbone than EP. Of course EP was most likely (illegally) cold cocked and Ares had a heads-up that it was coming as an EP re-seller!!
 
Statement from EPArmory:

"Patriots.

We have as you all know had ATF interaction over the EP80 and the sales thereof. We have been in constant contact with our legal team and have made it extremely apparent that our customers and their privacy are our TOP priority as well as the legality of the sales and manufacturing of our product. Please understand that we are NOT handing any information of any of our customers on an at will basis nor will we. We have had our computers confiscated as I am sure you all have read in the many articles posted all over the internet. We did NOT at any time give them a customer list.

We were served with a search warrant that did not specifically request any of our customers information. We take multiple steps to safeguard your privacy. Therefore we did not give access to any such documents/records/information. Our distributor ARES, located in Oceanside, had a demand in their search warrant for a customer list and was able to apply a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) in defense. Ares was alerted, and at an advantage due to our circumstances, which was not given to us. Ares and E P Armory are firm believers in our rights as Americans and ensure to uphold them.

Going forward:

Currently all sales and manufacturing of the EP80 have been put on hold until the BATFE can revisit the most recent determination which was on an understanding that the EP80 was manufactured in a way that would not comply with federal GCA (GUN CONTROL ACT) law. We have already previously resent and replied explaining the manufacturing process with no feedback other than a large group of agents entering the premises and confiscating our product and our means to manufacture it, until given further notice.

We feel very confident that litigation from our attorneys will remove the misconception released by the BATFE and will in turn release E P Armory from any charges that could lay ourselves in a criminal court from this.

E P Armory, and all of our employees thank each and every one of our customers and future customers of the support we have received over this whole ordeal.

- Chris Cook
Owner CEO"
 
OhioArcher said:
At least they had a heads-up. And got a temporary stay against the raid.
Click to expand...
It looks like the stay against the raid didn't help. They were raided anyway.

A federal raid by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on a San Diego gun-parts store chain has prompted criticism that the primary purpose of the operation was to collect the names and addresses of customers.
Despite a temporary restraining order, ATF agents obtained a search warrant and raided four Ares Armor stores over the weekend.
The ATF, which went to a judge privately to obtain the warrant, said it was investigating alleged violations of federal firearms laws that stemmed from the sale of a new plastic version of the 80 percent lowers of AR-15 rifles.
Building a rifle with specific versions of the 80 percent receivers is legal, the TV report explained. But the ATF said the polymer lower receiver appears to be manufactured differently with two parts, making them a firearm and illegal to sell.
Ares Executive Officer Dimitrios Karras said he was trying to get the federal definition explained when the raid was executed.
“We did ask the court to clarify if these things were firearms or not,” Karras told KSWB. “We did ask for protection as this gets resolved within the court system.”
Karras said he had offered to turn over custody of the disputed parts to the ATF until the issue was resolved, but federal officials refused to settle the issue that way.
Instead, they demanded a list of his customers, he said.
When his stores were raided, federal agents insisted on the lists and took computers in which records might be held, he said.
“I offered to give them keys to the room [containing] the product,” he said. “They didn’t want that. They wanted the customer list.”
 
So this is all because of the white plastic inside? It's very possible they were molded as ONE PIECE that way. Couldn't they have settled this by obtaining one lower and inspecting it?
 
Elucase said:
So this is all because of the white plastic inside? It's very possible they were molded as ONE PIECE that way. Couldn't they have settled this by obtaining one lower and inspecting it?
Click to expand...
Sure it could have been handled better and simpler means. I think this was about making a statement to the people that make and sell 80% lowers. Since this seems to have become a pissing contest between the stores and ATF, I have no doubt that particular 80% lower will be declared not acceptable and the owners swill need to turn them in.
 
Last edited:
Not all of them.

Since mine was so badly out of spec, I demilled mine with the atf approved torch cut method, and with as much aggravation as I had trying to get it to work correctly, was more enjoyable than I originally thought.

When I spoke with the atf agent on the phone about the process, he told me that a photo or video of the destroyed lower is acceptable to show proof that it was actually demilled.
 
EP-80.jpg

Here's what it looks like. I guess they don't like the two colors which would make it much easier to remove the correct amount of material. I would think they also want to insure that it can't just be popped out, thus eliminating the machining. By their reaction and demands for the customer lists I'm sure they have already decided it won't fly being sold as an 80% lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top