From Polymer80 . . .
Last week ATF final rule 2021R-05F, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, went into effect. Polymer80, Inc., the company that designs and develops innovative firearms and after-market accessories that provide ways for customers to participate in the build process while expressing their right to bear arms, is a direct target of this new rule. Polymer80 wholeheartedly disagrees with the ATF final rule, however, in an effort to maintain a legal business, will comply with the unconstitutional regulations.
In accordance with the new ATF final rule, Polymer80 will no longer offer their popular 80% kits in the same configuration in which customers have grown accustom. Instead, Polymer80 has released three new options for consumers interested in building their own legal firearm:
- OPTION 1 is an unserialized 80% frame with rear rail, locking block rail system and pins. No jig or tools are included with this product.
- OPTION 2 is a serialized frame that does include a jig, tooling, rear rail and locking block rail system. This option is the same as the prior 80% kit offered by Polyer80, but with a serialized frame.
- OPTION 3 is the “Build Back Better” kit, which includes everything listed in option 2 plus a slide assembly. This kit contains everything you need to build a complete, serialized firearm.
Option 1, the unserialized 80% blank, is currently available for purchase at www.polymer80.com. Please note that shipment is not available to all states.
For those interested in assembling without drilling, Polymer80 will continue to offer their AFT “Assemble for Thyself” kit, which includes all the necessary components to build a complete firearm, no drilling required.
Polymer80 will also continue to offer their line of complete pistols, including the popular PFC9 compact pistol and PFS9 full-size pistol, as well as parts and accessories.
Considering WV vs epa this unconstitutional mess should get shot down fairly quickly. Quickly by federal law standards means like 20 years
More silly circus hoops for the law abiding while criminals break into vehicles looking for firearms left behind by owners abiding by disgusting concealed carry laws.
Rest assured those doing background checks and running concealed carry classes are giddy about you and your firearm being serialized.
Uh huh. And which options require transfer via an FFL?
“And which options require transfer via an FFL”
those that require a serial number.
Too expensive it’s more than a completed pistol
You’re paying for the satisfaction of building your own gunn, and knowing it’s private.
always stock up before a storm. Plenty of fuel, food, water etc.
Well Fook Em! If they Comply, then Bye, Not Buy!
I wouldn’t go with a company that has Earned over a million dollars and wilts under unconstitutional Pressures.
Easy to say when it’s not your business being threatened with total closure and prison for yourself.
What did you not understand about them still selling the 80% lowers?
His name is Ralph, and he probably subsists on waffle house, kyrstal-meth burgers, and mountain dew.
Hey–that sounds pretty good right there! Where do I sign up???
How long until P80 compatible 80% jigs start showing up for download at a 3D model repository near you?
Well, if you’ve got the printer when why would you need to print off a jig? Just print off the frame itself.
Yeah you could do that. For longevity and reliability I would trust the material P80 puts into their lowers and the environment they mold them in more than I do most 3D printers, though. PLA+ and an affordable printer would be just fine for a jig though
As much as I hope the courts give The Child Sniffer the spanking he deserves I wonder what what the next target of their ire will be. People are already printing out polymer frames with cheap chinese 3D printers. Are they going to try and require EVERY gun part go through a background check, or are they going to just try to make everyone with a printer get an manufactures FFL?
CA has already made it illegal to 3D print your own frame without first arranging permission from CADOJ, or to use any equipment that’s designed specifically for working on unfinished frames (such as the Ghost Gunner). It’s a crime to merely possess one here now.
I wonder if that stops anyone, tho…
Screw that. I’ll just go buy an illegal gun off the street.
Cool Breeze got him a good sale goin down by the projects. Glock fawty an a box o boolits fo toofiddy. Best check dem boolits dey don always match da gat.
Washington’s new unserialized sales and import prohibition hit the streets on July 1. The 2nd part that completely prohibits possession of an unserialized firearm after March 10, 2023.
Even antiques and black powder?
How does that supposed to work? Do they want them registered somehow, or just has to have some identifying number on it?
CA required all PMFs to be marked by July 1, 2018. You could have it privately marked with your own SN and info, and grandfathered. After that, you had to send request a SN from CADOJ (who, laughingly, stated it’s not “registration”…uh…yeah, sure). All PMFs had to be marked by January 1, 2019. Now, in 2022, you can’t even possess a Ghost Gunner mill or 3D print your own without an FFL and permission from CADOJ.
Those who have PMFs marked before July 2018 are in the clear, though there’s no way CA can prove any dates.
I forgot to mention “this is how CA handled it, so I imagine WA will do something similar”.
Glad I kept the jigs and drill bits. Need to shop and see what the prices are now.
That’s what I’m talking about. It’s PLASTIC, how much wear does anyone expect?
Anyone buying an 80% instead of printing their own lowers right now is basically living in the stone age.
busybeef,
Very serious question:
How does a typical 3-D printed lower receiver compare to a commercially cast and machined polymer lower receiver that Polymer80, Glock, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, etc. would manufacture?
I know the finished lower receiver looks the same and has the same dimensions for all intents and purposes. What about strength, longevity, and wear resistance? Will 3-D printed lower receivers be flat-out weaker? Will 3-D printed lower receivers be far more prone to stress fractures and resulting catastrophic failure? Will 3-D printed lower receivers wear faster when something like your belt or holster rubs against one of their surfaces?
My intuition tells me that 3-D printed lower receivers could be significantly inferior to commercially cast and machined polymer lower receivers. Having said that, I have no actual data nor experience to support that suspicion and recognize that I could be totally wrong. Please share your knowledge and experience.
At Glock factory in Smyrna, GA they use injection-molding process to make frames from Nylon6 pellets supplied by Dupont.
So yes, OEM Glock frames are much stronger than those printed from filament on $150 printer.
If one has access to injection-molding machine (cost >$5,000) one may make frame from Kevlar pellets. Kevlar beats Nylon6 at every test hands down.
One guy already made custom Kevlar Glock frame and posted video on YT running over it with his pickup truck.Not even a tiniest crack.
That video is on YT no more 😁
TOO OLD MY HANDS DON’T WORK WELL SO THAT LEAVES ME OUT ANYWAY .
OLD AGE A BUMMER , CAN’T EVEN LOAD AMMO VERY WELL NOW . AAA DARN IT ALL …
I have a question is any of these gun companies suing The government for this unconstitutional act these things should go through the house and the Senate to become law not any president who wants to just says I’m going to do this. This should go to Federal Court and it should be overturned. What part of the second amendment don’t the Democrats understand?
Libtards think that the 2nd A only applies to the right of states to establish their own state national guard organizations, but not as an individual right. The US Supreme Court decided otherwise:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf