It is possible that more 08/15 Maxim machine guns are registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) than any other type machine gun brought back to America from the battlefields of our nation’s history. Their mechanism is ingenious. For the quantity manufactured, their quality of workmanship is unsurpassed. They are a controllable and enjoyable machine gun to shoot. Yet most 08/15 Maxim machine guns are unappreciated, dirty and rusty, resting in some dark space and accumulating more dust from each year of their neglect. It is time to bring these Maxims back to life.

Even if the specific history is lost for most of the Maxim machine guns registered on the NFRTR, they will provide their owners with pride of ownership if given the attention they deserve to bring them back to life.

Restoring a machine gun calls upon the owner’s wisdom to know if it should be restored or left as-is. Restoration requires a commitment of time and patience. If the Maxim is to be reactivated, that process may have legal considerations that must be carefully addressed. Restoring that gun may compromise its value and desirability if the history of the firearm is well documented and significant. It may be better to leave that unique specimen just the way it is. Every war trophy has its own history. Sadly, few veterans documented their war trophy’s history, and even when it was put in writing, time and carelessness have often caused the gun and its history to go separate ways. So it is very likely the dusty, rusty war trophy you have will only be improved with a careful and patient restoration.

It is important to mention that the Maxim machine gun is a complicated piece of firearms technology. This article can only address basic descriptions of parts and assemblies. If you find the mechanism of the Maxim machine gun intriguing, you may thoroughly enjoy the Armorer’s/Operator’s class taught by Long Mountain Outfitters, devoted specifically to Maxim, Vickers and Lewis machine guns. Its instructors have developed their knowledge from decades spent working with these remarkable inventions. You will leave that class with a depth of knowledge articles like this can never provide.

If you are going to move forward with this restoration plan, make certain you have an adequate block of time to complete the project. We all have started a project, disassembled the mechanism, set the project aside before completion due to other priorities and ended up forgetting how to reassemble it, or, worse yet, losing some of its pieces. This author spent 22 hours on the restoration featured in this article. If his specimen had more rust, it would have required substantially more time.

The author’s specimen was a Deactivated War Trophy commonly called a “Dewat.” Since the goal of this project was to restore the gun to shooting condition, doing so will require a change in the status of its registration on the NFRTR. Study the registration papers of your machine gun. If it is described as a “live” machine gun, it is not a Dewat. If your registration form asks “Is the firearm unserviceable?” the “yes” or “no” answers this question. If the registration describes how a part of the gun was welded up, it is a Dewat. If you’re specimen is a Dewat and you intend to reactivate it to shoot, the first question you need to ask is “does the state, county and municipality I live in allow me to own a live machine gun?” Consult a class three dealer in your state and research the question on the web to confirm what the dealer told you. The answer to this question affords no room for error.

Although most readers of this article may not own a 08/15 Maxim machine gun or any other war trophy machine gun, these treasures are more plentiful than you may think. The author chose the 08/15 Maxim because of this model’s abundance. The United States government returned a huge quantity of Maxims to America during and after World War I, possibly intending to convert them to 30-06. Kent Lomont, well known machine gun expert and owner of Lomont Precision Bullets, has told the author he had documented evidence that during the war, examples of the 08/15 Maxim were given to donors making substantial contributions to the war effort. After the war they were distributed to VFW’s and American Legion posts. The Amnesty of 1968 legalized thousands of war trophies when they were registered on the NFRTR.

This article addresses the 08/15 Maxim. However, the procedure is applicable to any other machine gun or Title I firearm that can benefit from restoration. The word “restoration” has many degrees of definition. The firearms industry includes restoration experts able to restore a derelict firearm into an example that looks like it just left the factory. The degree of restoration addressed in this article can be achieved by individuals with reasonable mechanical skill, using readily available tools. The intent of this restoration is to clean up and highlight the firearm’s basic condition. No attempt will be made to address firearms rebluing. The author welcomes someone with more expertise to share his secrets for cold and hot rebluing.

Using the correct tools will make this project easier. Fortunately, only simple tools are required. To disassemble the machine gun, the author used a good set of screwdrivers, a pair of standard pliers and a pair of needle nose pliers, a brass punch and a small brass hammer. Brass tools are used to impact gun parts because brass is softer than steel and will allow the tool to deform before the gun part is damaged. To clean the gun, the author used large and small brass bristled brushes, toothbrushes, a sharp pointed tool to remove grease from tight spaces, number 400 steel wool and a one inch wide putty knife. A clean pair of safety goggles is necessary to keep chemicals and small particles of rust and dirt out of your eyes. Some people experience skin irritation from various cleaning chemicals, so a good pair of rubber gloves is important as well. Avoid breathing the fumes of these chemicals by working in a ventilated area. Bright lighting will be helpful when inspecting parts and evaluating the degree of success of your work on the metal surfaces.

Specific chemicals are necessary for removing grease and oil, lifting rust and lubricating the final product. You may already have your preferences. Carburetor and choke cleaner, available at automobile parts stores, is effective for removing grease and oil. To lift rust, the author used Kano Kroil. However Hoppe’s #9 Powder Solvent, Liquid Wrench, Marvel Mystery Oil and even kerosene will also work well. Never use gasoline, camp stove fuel or white gas. Although everyone has their favorite product, the author used Break Free to lubricate parts and give metal surfaces a protective coating after they were cleaned.

The last and possibly most useful “tool” is good reference material. In the case of the 08/15 Maxim machine gun, the best source of information known to the author is Dolf Goldsmith’s fine book: The Devil’s Paintbrush-Sir Hiram Maxim’s Gun, published by Collector Grade Publications. If you are restoring a different firearm, find the appropriate reference material. Disassembly and reassembly of the firearm creates the possibility of breaking old and sometimes irreplaceable parts of the gun, particularly if you are even slightly unfamiliar with the firearm at hand. The author has owned eight Maxim machine guns and still managed to break a part! Consider the cost to purchase reference material as an insurance policy, much more economical than the damage possible from inexperience. Although some Maxim parts have multiple names, this article will use nomenclature consistent with The Devil’s Paintbrush.

Once you have set aside adequate time, located an appropriate place to do the work, assembled the tools, chemicals and the lighting, studied the reference material and assured yourself you have adequate patience, the project is ready to start. The obvious first step is disassembly of the machine gun. Remembering how the small parts of machine guns go back together seems do-able while you are taking them apart. Don’t count on it! Today’s technological advancements make for improved “memory.” Digitally photograph every component and parts group before disassembly. Some parts fit back together in more than one configuration, but only work one way.

The machine guns registered on the NFRTR fall under one of two categories of operability: live or deactivated. If you’re machine gun is registered as a live or serviceable firearm, move on in this process. If it is registered as deactivated or unserviceable and you intend to leave it that way, move on. However, if it is unserviceable, registered as a deactivated war trophy – a Dewat – and you intend to make it into a live machine gun, BATF&E laws and regulations must be complied with before reactivation of the firearm.

The first step of the reactivation process is to conclusively establish if you can legally own a live machine gun in your state, county and municipality. If the answer is “yes,” you have two choices. You can employ a licensed machine gun manufacturer in your state to reactivate your machine gun or you can do it yourself.

If you chose to employ a licensed machine gun manufacturer, ATF Form 5 (Application for Tax Exempt Transfer and Registration of Firearm) must be filed and approved by ATF prior to delivering the machine gun to the manufacturer. This is a tax exempt transfer because at this point, the machine gun is unserviceable. Upon receipt of the approved Form 5, the machine gun can be delivered to the manufacturer. The licensed manufacturer will then complete the reactivation and file ATF Form 2 (Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported) to re-register the machine gun as a live machine gun. After approval of Form 2, the manufacturer will submit ATF Form 4 (Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm) plus the required $200 tax, re-conveying the live machine gun back to you, its owner. Delivery of the machine gun to you may take place only after receipt of approval of this final Form 4. The machine gun manufacturer you work with should be willing to prepare all forms and other paperwork you will need to complete this process.

The alternative to employing a licensed manufacturer to re-register your machine gun as a live machine gun is for you, as its registered owner, to do it yourself. You must file ATF Form 1, (Application to Make and Register a Firearm) and perform the physical reactivation of the gun yourself. Form 1 plus a $200 registration tax must be submitted to BATF&E, and its approval received, prior to performing the reactivation process.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive’s website www.atf.gov is a helpful source for required documents.

If you are reactivating your machine gun yourself, only after receiving ATF Form 1 approval may you start the physical reactivation process. If you have not yet received an approved ATF Form 1, do not tempt fate with your impatience. The consequences can mean jail time. Likewise, if you are filing ATF Form 1 to reactivate your machine gun, YOU MUST DO THE WORK ON YOUR MACHINE GUN YOURSELF, ON YOUR PREMISES. Do not contract out the work to someone else. Doing so has legal consequences far beyond the scope of this article. Just do it right!

When your machine gun was deactivated, the legal requirements called for a steel plug to be welded into the barrel chamber and for the barrel to be welded to the receiver so that it could not be readily removed and replaced with an operational barrel. Welding the chamber solid to prevent it from accepting a cartridge was a straightforward process. However, the means of securing the barrel to the receiver so that it could not be readily replaced, may have been completed in a variety of ways. Generally, the barrel was welded to the receiver. In the case of the 08/15 Maxim, this was achieved with more than one technique. Sometimes the barrel was welded to one of the barrel extension plates and that plate was welded to the receiver. An alternative was to braze the barrel’s threaded brass buffer ring to the receiver’s trunnion. (The trunnion is the complex part positioned between the receiver and the water jacket). An ingenious method the author witnessed was simply welding the feed block to the receiver. This prevented the barrel from being removed because the lower feed arm of the feed block prevented movement of the barrel extension. The point of describing multiple ways your machine gun could have originally been deactivated is to explain why this article can not specifically detail how to remove the welded impediment that prevents your barrel from being removed from the machine gun. You will have to study your example in order to ascertain what was originally done to deactivate it. Only then will you be able to decide what to do to reactivate it and what specific tools will be required. At this point you may want to reconsider employing a licensed manufacturer to reactivate your war trophy in order to have this sometimes-delicate step completed correctly.

One of the useful tools in this process is a Dremel tool, which can be purchased at many hardware stores. It may remind you of the tools dentists have used on us, although not quite as small. Selecting the appropriate carbide bit will make a big difference in ease of completion. Metal filings can be propelled into your eyes so always wear safety goggles when using a Dremel tool. Muster maximum patience and remove the slightest amount of metal weld with each stroke of the Dremel tool’s bit on the weld, until you have removed just enough of the weld to remove the barrel. Once the weld is removed, the Maxim crank handle assembly can be withdrawn from the receiver, removing the barrel with it. You can more neatly finish dressing down the remaining weld on the parts and the receiver after their disassembly when you have easier access to the critical areas.

If you do not feel comfortable performing this work yourself, worried that you may damage the gun more than the cost of the alternative, figure this out in advance of filing your ATF Form 1 and contract a licensed manufacturer capable of professionally completing the reactivation. The paperwork approval process may take more time, but you may be much more content with the finished product.

Now that the barrel is free, study how its chamber has been welded. You can measure the length of the internal chamber plug by inserting a cleaning rod into the muzzle of the barrel, marking its inserted length to reach the chamber plug. Then withdraw the cleaning rod from the barrel and compare that length to the overall length of the barrel. The difference is the length of the chamber plug. At this time, original Maxim barrels are available. The 08 Maxim and the 08/15 Maxim use the same basic barrel, with the exception that a muzzle sleeve is attached to the threads on the muzzle of the barrel when used in the 08/15 Maxim. Thus, an 08 Maxim barrel can be used by simply removing the muzzle sleeve from your welded-up 08/15 barrel and securely attaching it to the 08 barrel.

The quantity of available original Maxim barrels is diminishing, so you may choose to restore your welded-up barrel. Since only the receiver of a war-trophy machinegun is the registered part, restoring the barrel can be handled by a third party, a competent gunsmith/machinist. (Not all gunsmiths have machinist skills and equipment to perform lathe work). The best way for him to perform this is for you to provide him with the welded-up barrel and an original un-welded barrel to use as an example. The author chose to restore the welded-up barrel removed from his Dewat because it was the original barrel serial numbered to the gun. It was too important to discard and justified the gunsmith/machinist’s cost, which may exceed today’s cost of an original replacement barrel. With a serviceable example of a Maxim barrel in hand, the gunsmith/machinist will understand that the least amount of metal should be removed in order to remove the plug which was welded into the chamber. Depending upon the exuberance of the welder when the plug was welded into the chamber, the barrel’s chamber may be restored to shootable specifications without the need of a chamber reamer. In the case of the author’s barrel, significant metal had to be removed from the chamber and back surface of the barrel trunnion (the square block of steel forming the rear surface of the barrel) in order to remove the welded plug. After the plug was removed, the barrel was taken to an experienced welder and additional weld was applied to its rear surface. With the help of an 8x57mm Mauser finishing chamber reamer, the gunsmith/machinist was then able to restore the chamber to shootable condition and re-machine the rear surface of the barrel trunnion to match the un-welded example provided. Restoring a welded-up barrel may seem to be a lot of work and extra trouble. Eventually, original barrels will no longer be available and there will be no alternative.

When using the Dremel tool, you may have removed too much metal when grinding away the original weld, resulting in an unsightly gouge to the interior of the receiver. Please note that the receiver of this machine gun is the “registered part” and it is registered to you. It must always be in your possession or securely stored under lock and key to which only you have access. Speaking practically, it may be more prudent to overlook the damage you did to the receiver. Just dress it up the best you can and move on in the process. Do not ask others to work on your machine gun receiver. They are probably not knowledgeable of the legal aspects of machine gun ownership. Doing so is foolish and may have stiff legal consequences you are not ready to address.

In the likelihood that you are reading this article without having acquired and studied the additional reference material, in this case The Devils Paintbrush-Sir Hiram Maxim’s Gun, you may not be familiar with the nomenclature of Maxim machine gun parts. To learn the most from this article, understanding terminology is essential. The time and effort you put into building that understanding translates into the quality of workmanship your finished product will exhibit. The information and wisdom in Chapters 14 and 15 of The Devil’s Paintbrush are worth its purchase price.

Several of the 08/15 Maxim machine guns acquired by the author have suffered from the same flaw: a broken lower feed arm on the feed block. The lower feed arm is positioned on the bottom of the feed block. A protrusion on the end of the lower feed arm fits into a notch on the left barrel extension plate, causing the feed block to advance the cartridge belt one cartridge each time the barrel extension cycles. For some reason, the end of the lower feed arm and its protrusion had been cleanly broken off on each of these three machine guns. Again, Kent Lomont provided an explanation. When our government returned a large number of Maxim machine guns to the United States after World War I, gifting them to appropriate civilian recipients, this part of the lower feed arms was broken off in order to prevent the machine guns from functioning as machine guns. Although this damage did not fulfill ATF requirements to become a Dewat machine gun, the lower feed arm will have to be repaired or replaced in order to allow the gun to function. If you are fortunate, you might locate an original replacement part. The alternative is to find someone knowledgeable enough to repair the broken lower feed arm. Periodically an advertisement has appeared offering the service. We all should have retained a copy of that ad.

In order to thoroughly clean the Maxim machine gun, it needs to be disassembled. Chapter 14 of Dolf Goldsmith’s book The Devils Paintbrush describes the procedure to follow to field strip the MG 08 Maxim. The same procedure applies to the 08/15 Maxim.

In this restoration, for the reasons given, the author chose not to completely disassemble five component assemblies, the feed block, sights, crank handle assembly, steam tube assembly and the lock. The feed block was left intact because its main component is still a complex shape with many irregular surfaces, so little was to be gained by disassembling this unit. In addition, after some tapping, the upper feed arm did not want to release the lower feed arm shaft and the author was reluctant to use more force on these 90-year-old parts. The sights are easy to clean in place.

The crank handle assembly includes the barrel extension plates with cross head, the connecting rod and the crank handle plus the somewhat delicate linked arm that attaches to the fusee spring. Forcing its disassembly could damage parts that are hard to replace, so this assembly was cleaned as a single unit.

Inside the water jacket, running its full length and positioned above and parallel to the barrel, is the brass steam tube assembly. It is basically a sliding tube positioned around a smaller stationary tube. The steam tube assembly permits the steam buildup to escape from within the water jacket when the muzzle is elevated or depressed, without allowing the boiling water to also escape. Test your gun by pointing the muzzle upward and then pointing it downward. If you hear a “loose” part inside the water jacket, the sliding tube is functioning properly and the assembly does not have to be removed. However, if the sliding tube is not “loose”, the assembly will have to be removed to clean it. This can be done by unscrewing the small lock screw, and then unscrewing the steam tube disassembly plug, located on the back of the trunnion and visible when the top cover is removed from the receiver.

The final part the author did not intend to disassemble is the lock assembly. Its disassembly and reassembly are more complicated than disassembling and reassembling the entire gun. It can be cleaned and lubricated reasonably well without disassembly. Two main parts need to be checked, the firing pin and the firing pin spring. Doing so can be physically painful so exercise extreme care. To remove the lock from the receiver, retract the crank handle. This action moves the lock rearward and allows it to be tilted up and lifted out of the receiver. Rotating it 45° on its shaft allows it to be removed from the gun. Please note that at this point, the lock is cocked. Pressing the “trigger” on the lock will release its hammer, seriously squeezing any part of your hand which may be located at the point of the impact of the hammer. Hold the lock so that you can activate its trigger and keep clear of the hammer’s point of impact. While doing so, listen to the firing pin spring when the firing pin is released. If the spring sounds strong, the spring is probably in good condition. If it sounds weak, the lock was probably left in its cocked position for years and the spring needs to be replaced. After the hammer has been released, the tip of the firing pin should protrude through the firing pin hole. If it does not, as was the case with the author’s Maxim, it is broken and the firing pin needs to be replaced. If parts replacement is necessary, you have the option of searching for replacement parts and installing them following Mr. Goldsmith’s instructions, or purchasing a complete original lock, still available when you can find one.

To this point, you have been confirming details of the law in your place of residence, making choices, handling legal issues, photographically documenting the original placement of parts and disassembling your gun. It is finally time to start the slow but rewarding process of restoring your Maxim’s metal surfaces. The easiest part to start with is the receiver, the boxy part attached to the water jacket. It’s large, flat surfaces are ideal for you to use to develop your technique. Most Maxims have remained in dirty but reasonably dry storage for decades. Their original deep blue surfaces may have turned brown from age and humidity. But this light rust has not pitted the metal surface. Inspect your receiver carefully, under a bright light. One of the 08/15 Maxims the author owned appeared to have been an outdoor exhibit for many years. The bottom surface of the inside of the receiver had deep rust pitting from water standing within the receiver. The exterior of the receiver had thick rust but no pitting. In spite of the condition of the inside of the receiver, this gun cleaned up nicely and functioned well. The exterior surface of the Maxim the author is currently addressing was covered with light rust. Under dirt and grime, the inside of the receiver still retained much of its original blued finish.

Arrange your receiver on your work area so that one of its large flat surfaces is horizontal. You will be putting pressure on the receiver, so make certain its underside is well supported with small boards or similar material. Apply the Kroil, or other product you may be using, to the surface and rub it in with the fine 400 steel wool. All you are trying to do is remove a light coat of surface rust. After working an area, wipe it clean with a dry rag and inspect the area under a bright light. With the penetrating oil, the light rust on the surface will lift and the steel wool will clean it away, exposing the clean metal surface of the receiver. In many cases, the original bluing will be visible. Be careful to avoid working an area too much as your effort can actually wear through the original bluing, providing that finish still exists on your gun beneath the surface rust. Always have a thick coating of Kroil on the metal before working it with steel wool. Work one small area at a time. Metal edges and irregular surfaces will require additional attention. Brass bristled brushes are useful in working corners, cracks and irregular surfaces. But they, too, should only be used when a liberal coat of penetrating oil has been applied to the surface of the metal. As the rust disappears and the original surface of the metal is again exposed, this process starts to become exciting and rewarding. Take your time and finish all the details of the exterior of the receiver before working on its interior.

Although the Dremel tool, previously used to remove welding, frequently includes brass brushes, the author discourages their use. The speed of the Dremel tool will rapidly and unintentionally erode any original finish remaining under the rust. Time you may save using a Dremel tool will be offset by your disappointment in the finished product.

If your Maxim has a much thicker coat of rust, two options exist. You may choose to let the Kroil “soak into the rust” by letting the heavily rusted areas sit for 24 hours in a bath of penetrating oil. Then use the steel wool and see if the rust lifts. If fine steel wool has no effect, use a heavier grade steel wool. Some rust conditions justified the use of number one steel wool, with a substantial coating of oil.

The other option to remove heavy rust calls for the use of a putty knife. Choose a 1 inch wide putty knife. A well-worn putty knife is preferable, with its sharp corners worn into rounded edges. If you only have a new putty knife, use a sharpening stone or sander to dress off the square edges. You want the working edge to be pointed and the corners of the blade to be rounded off so they do not gouge the metal. Apply the penetrating oil and let it soak in overnight to soften the rust. Hold the putty knife at a low angle to the surface of the receiver. Work the blade of the putty knife back and forth to scrape away the rust. As you push it along gently, it will remove rust encrustations. Work a very small area at a time. As you see results, you may choose to apply more pressure to the putty knife, taking advantage of its spring blade. Initially practice on an area that is less visible, until you develop your technique. With patient working of an area, keeping it well oiled, heavy rust can be removed. Generally, with heavy rusting the original bluing is long gone. But the removal of the rust substantially improves the beauty of the gun.

The water jacket on Maxim machine guns, as well as on other water-cooled machine guns, can be the one item that presents philosophical issues. Two of the Maxims I’ve restored still had substantial original green paint on the water jacket. Many of the scratches in that painted surface took place while the guns were being used in action. Do I want to remove that storybook of history? In both cases I did, concluding that the many scratches on the paint would be more of a distraction than an asset. However one grime-covered 08/15 Maxim I spotted years ago in the corner of a machine shop had its water jacket hand painted in the original camouflage used by the Germans in World War I. No matter what condition that painted surface was in, it presented a remarkable opportunity to preserve the story of the gun.

If you choose to remove the painted surface, it generally comes off quite easily by applying carburetor cleaner and wiping the saturated paint off with a clean white rag. Then save this rag in case you choose to match the original German green paint at a later date. Frequently, the blue surface of the water jacket beneath the paint has been protected and remains quite beautiful. If your water jacket is rusty, treat it with the same care you applied to your receiver. Use the brass bristled brush and carburetor cleaner or Kroil as appropriate to clean the detailed corners and fitting attachments. In the process of inspecting and cleaning the entire surface, you will locate manufacturer’s markings and proof marks which can be cleaned with the brass brush for highlighting with white paint as described later in this article.

While you are working on the receiver, an area that is easily overlooked needs your attention. The barrel slides into the rear of the trunnion and forms a water-tight seal in this area when appropriate packing material is used. However the first 3 inches of the trunnion’s interior surface must be very smooth or the water seal will fail. The author has used a 12 gauge shotgun brass cleaning brush on a cleaning rod, rotated with an electric drill. Applying Kroil to the area and working the rotating cleaning brush back and forth will clean and smooth out the surface, allowing a tight water seal.

One part of the Maxim that seems to attract rust is the fusee spring cover. Even Maxims with a lot of original bluing remaining on the other parts, have browned fusee spring covers. In part this is because the covers are made of sheet metal. Plus, they protrude from the gun and probably received a lot more rough treatment. Frequently these covers have dents which can be easily removed. Remove the spring from the inside of the cover, leaving the indicator mechanism in place. Rest that dented surface on a hard flat surface like a piece of iron. Place a smaller piece of flat steel or iron over the dent on the inside, tapping it gently with a hammer. With patience, most of the dents can be removed. However you may find that some are not worth risking damage to the overall cover and are best left alone. Use your brass bristled brush to clean the serial number and spring tension indicator markings.

After the rapid progress you made cleaning the water jacket, the feed block will seem very tedious. Its many details create numerous surfaces to catch grime and accumulate rust. So don’t be surprised if you spend an entire evening on this part alone. As mentioned earlier, I chose not to disassemble the feed block out of concern for breaking a part. If your feed block has a broken lower feed arm, the feed block assembly will have to be disassembled to replace that part. So tap the retaining pin out of the lower feed arm shaft using a properly-size punch, and carefully work to separate the upper feed arm from the lower feed arm shaft. Kroil is excellent penetrating oil and may loosen the parts after they have been soaked in it overnight.

To clean the feed block assembly, you may have to soak it in a solvent like paint thinner if it is seriously encrusted with dried grease. Brass brushes of various sizes, toothbrushes and a pointed tool made of a soft material like a piece of brass welding rod (not an ice pick or screwdriver which will scratch the surface) will help in reaching into the many recesses of the feed block. As I cleaned this part, I realized how many hours it took highly-skilled German machinists to make this one assembly. I believe more man hours of competent machinists’ time went into making each Maxim feed block than are required of five M-16s. And certainly more skill.

I treated the lock assembly like the feed block, soaking it in a solvent and then cleaning it intact, rather than disassembling this complicated mechanism. As mentioned before, if you want to disassemble the lock assembly, carefully read that portion of Dolf Goldsmith’s book or enroll in the instructive class offered by Long Mountain Outfitters.

By now you have a good idea how to clean the remainder of your Maxim’s parts. Remove the wood parts from the steel assemblies to which they are attached. Try to remove cotter keys so they can be reused. But if they break, you can obtain new ones at the hardware store. New cotter keys will be longer than needed and will have a modern zinc finish. Choose the appropriate diameter cotter key and cut it to the proper length. You can remove the unsightly zinc finish in one of two ways. The zinc finish will disappear if soaked in a mild solution of muriatic acid for a couple minutes. Use gloves and eye protection. Afterwards, thoroughly wash off the part before oiling it to prevent rust from forming. The second approach is to simply burn it off using the flame of a small torch. Both of these processes create dangerous fumes so avoid breathing the fumes and perform the process outdoors.

Restoring a machine gun is an organized process. By now you have disassembled the complete firearm, degreased each part, removed rust as appropriate and cleaned all of the manufacturer’s markings. Before rushing to reassemble the gun, arrange all the parts in an organized fashion on the clean surface. Reinspect them under a bright light to make sure you did not miss details that will become disappointments after the gun is assembled.

Now is the time to address the missing and the broken parts. You may have been fortunate to have a 100% complete Maxim machine gun. Mine had several deficiencies. It did not have a bipod, so I purchased a reproduction from International Military Antiques, a frequent advertiser in Small Arms Review. My Maxim had lost its muzzle booster/flash hider. The pair of flat springs riveted to the inside of the top cover were broken off. The top cover hinge pin had been replaced with a long bolt and nut. The firing pin was broken. One of the screws holding the steam port cover seal in place had also been broken off. I chose to ignore the broken off screw and found my missing parts on the Internet. I also needed the steam hose and purchased a reproduction from IMA.

The identification marks on a firearm are frequently the only link we have to its personal history. So I chose to highlight these markings. Since I already cleaned each of the markings using the brass brush, I now applied carburetor cleaner and wiped each marking with a clean rag. White enamel paint from a hobby shop was then applied to each marking and the excess wiped off with a rag and a flexible plastic implement. It took several tries to start to get the touch needed to make the end product appear satisfactory. Carburetor cleaner worked well to remove my mistakes so I could try again. The serial number etched into the fusee spring cover was so shallow that it did not take the paint well. Likewise, I was not successful with the most important markings of the gun, those on the top cover. I trust you will develop a better technique than I employed.

Your next decision concerns the water jacket: do you want to paint it or leave it unpainted? I chose to paint my water jacket and use the same color to paint the bipod. I had saved the rag used to remove the original German green paint from the water jacket. The best match I found for that color was an aerosol spray paint manufactured by Aervoe-Pacific Company of Gardnerville, NV and designated “Camouflage Paint 987 Olive Drab 34087.” Before painting the water jacket, clean it once again with carburetor cleaner and a clean rag. Then use masking tape to mask off the trunnion and receiver as well as the front sight. Spray painting it was the easy part.

The most rewarding step of this entire process is the reassembly of the gun. First oil the surfaces of all of the pieces before you reassemble them. As the pieces come together, you will feel rewarded for all of your hours of patience. If you do not remember how parts were to be reassembled, consult the digital photographs you took as you disassembled your machine gun or study The Devil’s Paintbrush. If you have to force the reassembly of pieces, you are probably doing it incorrectly.

Your completely assembled 08/15 Maxim machine gun is now a piece of beauty.

In late 2006, we ran an article on the then recent investigation that the Office of the Inspector General performed on the NFRTR. In that article we asked everyone to pay close attention to the forms and the information that is contained on those forms that anyone submits to the ATF. That one article didn’t seem to hit home with a lot of people, so we are going to hit some key points on the forms and make some suggestions that will make a lot of sense to most of you.

One of the age-old issues that we all have faced is to make certain that all of the information that you complete on a new form is identical to the information on the old. While sounding like a good idea, the real problem with this strategy is not only do we pass up an opportunity to correct old problems but we increase the odds of adding new problems. Just because a form has inaccurate information doesn’t give anyone an excuse to exacerbate the problem. If something is wrong, and you know it’s wrong, then correct it. Continuing to pass along mistakes only insures that someone else will come along in a year or two and inadvertently make another mistake making a bad situation even worse. What we want to do is correct anything and everything we possibly can at every opportunity that we have. In section 4, “Description of the Firearm,” all of the information that can make a major difference in helping to correct errors in the NFRTR is contained in sections “4.a” though “4.g.” In this section we want to take every opportunity to review and correct if necessary, any and all issues pertinent to the firearm.

Section 4.a: Name and Address of Manufacturer and/ or Importer of Firearm:

In this section the requirement is relatively simple. Make certain that you review the information on the old form, or the new form, and insure that all of the information is accurate and as detailed as possible. At this stage, please make certain that you correct any errors or omissions as possible.

Section 4.b: Type of Firearm

In many of the commercial off the shelf programs, users will generally find pull down menus allowing you to select whether this firearm is one of the following categories:

• Any other Weapon (AOW)
• Destructive Device (DD)
• Machine Gun
• Short Barreled Rifle (SBR)
• Short Barreled Shotgun (SBS)
• Silencer

Section 4.c: Caliber, Gauge, or Size

Check to make certain that all of the information required for this section is complete.

Section 4.d: Model

Make certain that all alpha and numeric characters that represent the model are accurately recorded in this section. Insure that as much information as possible from the receiver of the NFA weapon is accurately depicted in this section.

Section 4.e: Length of Barrel

In this section, please insure that the barrel length on your Form 4 matches the exact barrel length on the firearm you are either shipping or receiving. We will address the ton of questions that you have concerning this issue in another article.

Section 4.f: Length Overall

In this section you want to make certain that you take exacting measurements on the total length on the firearm you are either shipping or receiving.

Section 4.g: Serial Number

Obviously this section is absolutely critical. Please make certain that you examine the NFA item in question and validate each alpha or numeric character and validate that the serial number matches exactly.

The most important issue here is to make certain that we pay attention to the details on any of the forms that we provide the NFA Branch. Today, nearly 40% of the forms that are being handled by the Branch still contain some sort of error or omission that requires the form to be returned for correction. We can all spend a little more time and attention to the detail and get it right the first time.

In addition to the time and attention issue, every dealer and collector in our community should pay attention to the details of the weapon itself. In this process we recommend that you look closely at exactly what is happening with this transfer. Use a little common sense and ask for help when you need it when something is in question. If it doesn’t seem to be right you are probably correct. Check it out with another dealer or consult with the NFA Branch for help.

In summary, we all want to work together to help clean up the NFRTR. The NFRTR follows the old technology adage of “garbage in, garbage out.” Fortunately, the problems with the NFRTR can be straightened out, but only with the help of the industry and ATF. Let’s all work together to make that happen.

Help us make a better community for the entire industry today and join successes that we are creating together. Log on today at www.nfatca.org and join the only organization that has and continues to protect your NFA rights.

For the last couple of years the NFATCA has had the fortune of working extremely close with the NFA Branch. Ken Houchens was graceful enough to begin the process of sharing information with us on how things actually worked within the Bureau. Thanks to Ken and the tireless efforts of Gary Schaible, we know a lot of information today that seemed a mystery five years ago. A number that I carry about and speak of is the actual number of transferable machine guns available to the NFA community. Keep in mind this was a snapshot taken at the end of last year based on the information that Ken and Gary were able to glean from the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). Yes, we all know that the registry has some problems, but Gary and Ken did a lot of work to come up with this number on that particular day last year. There were, at the time, 182,619 transferable machine guns in the NFRTR. And guess what? That number isn’t growing. I am still amazed when someone asks me, “Why are prices still going up?” It is a simple law of supply and demand. With that number declining every year the value of a transferable machine gun will continue to increase in value.

In addition to this research, the Bureau has provided us with a lot of good information on just how much activity takes place in the NFA community. In 2006, ATF processed a total of 370,905 Forms including everything from a 5320.20 to a Form 10. If you look at the processed total for 2007, that number is 650,024. If you think the economy is slowing this process down, think again. The NFA Branch has been busier in the last year than they have in the history of the Branch. Keep in mind that this number represents all Forms processing that must take place to keep track of any NFA weapon.

The NFA Branch has undergone a complete upheaval in everything from employees, to training, to management to the total process in its operations. Nothing short of a miracle could have prompted Ken Houchens to stand in front of the entire import community and show the rank and file that the average transfer time for a Form 3 was 5 days and the average time for a Form 4 was 22 days. Compared to results from 5 years ago this progress is simply staggering. However, please note that these times represent the time of actual processing at the Branch. It does not include time in the mail, check clearing, routing between agencies, FBI fingerprint processing, security/background checks, etc. These other activities outside the branch must be considered when looking at the total time frame of a transfer. Thus, a Form 4 transfer will take an average of 5-6 weeks to work its way through the system though the Branch time takes 3 weeks. This is still an extraordinary improvement from the 4-7 months it used to take.

In addition to the above numbers, in 2007, the NFA Branch processed a total of 21,949 Form 4s, or an average of 133 Form 4s per day. The Branch also processed some 50,082 Form 3s for an average of 304 Form 3s per day. Combine all the rest of the forms that the Branch processed in 2007 and you will find that the Branch processed an average of 3,940 forms per day, assuming a work available load of 165 days per year. Keep in mind that many of the examiners have worked weekends and a ton of extra hours to try and get the trade in a position where it didn’t take 10 months to get a transfer completed. I know we all recognize that the entire Branch has done a great job.

With the change in the Branch Chief, the NFATCA will be working extremely close with all personnel to make certain that we continue to hold up our end on submitting clean forms. In the past we have written several articles on the kinds of mistakes we have made that slowed down the processing time. For 2007, the winner of the bad habits for submission awards were poorly hand written forms and bad checks. Let’s all try and do our part and keep the input side of forms processing clean in ’08 and keep this magnificent process running like the clockwork it has been during the last year.

There is a lot of information on the numbers that we simply don’t have the time and space to share in this article but as future articles come around we’ll share as much of that current information as possible.

The NFATCA is making constant and consistent giant steps forward for the betterment of the NFA community. But our strength lies in our numbers and we need your support. Log on to www.NFATCA.org and see for yourself and join us in our efforts.

The OIG found, for example, that NFA Branch staff do not process applications or enter data into the NFRTR in a consistent manner, which leads to errors in records and inconsistent decisions on NFA weapons applications. In addition, the NFA Branch has a backlog of record discrepancies between the NFRTR and inventories of federal firearms licensees that were identified during ATF compliance inspections. Further, the NFRTR’s software programming is flawed (by ATF’s own admission) and causes technical problems for those working in the database.

“The lack of consistency in procedures and the backlog in reconciling discrepancies, combined with the technical issues, result in errors in the records, reports and queries produced from the NFRTR,” the OIG wrote. “These errors affect the NFRTR’s reliability as a regulatory tool when it is used during compliance inspections of federal firearms licensees.” However, the OIG said it did not find evidence that individual weapons owners or federal firearms licensees had been sanctioned or criminally prosecuted because of errors in the database.

The NFA Branch Chief (Ken Houchens) told the OIG that he has recently initiated several actions to reduce errors in the NFRTR, such as hiring additional staff, improving communications and training of staff members, and revising a procedures manual. Additionally, both the NFA Branch Chief and the Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement Programs and Services both stated that lack of funding precluded other significant actions such as correcting and upgrading the programming for the NFRTR and implementing online submissions of applications.

Timeliness Improvements

The OIG found that the NFA Branch has decreased the amount of time it takes to process NFA weapons applications and improved responsiveness to customer inquiries. Between 2004 and 2006, the average processing time for all eight types of NFA weapons applications decreased collectively from 30 days to 8 days. (The eight types of NFA weapons applications are: Form 5320.20, Application to Transport Interstate or to Temporarily Export Certain NFA Firearms; Form 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm; Form 2, Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported; Form 3, Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer of Firearm and Registration to Special Occupational Taxpayer; Form 4, Application for Tax-Paid Transfer and Registration of a Firearm; Form 5, Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer and Registration of a Firearm; Form 9, Application and Permit for Permanent Exportation of a Firearm; and Form 10, Application for Registration of Firearms Acquired by Certain Government entities.)

In the same time period, the average processing time for the four types of applications used by individual weapons owners (Forms 1 and 4) and NFA weapons dealers (Forms 3 and 5) for registering and transferring NFA weapons decreased collectively from 39 days to 10 days. Specifically, processing time for Form 1 decreased from 99 days to 28 days; for Form 4, from 81 days to 9 days; for Form 3, from 30 days to 4 days; and for Form 5, 30 days to 9 days. The NFA Branch Chief attributed the improved processing times to the hiring of more contractor Data Entry Clerks, who enter data from the paper forms into the NFRTR, thereby freeing other staff to focus on reviewing the content of the applications.

To further improve customer service, the NFA Branch established a working relationship with the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association (NFATCA), which represents NFA weapons dealers, manufacturers, importers, and owners. To build that relationship, the NFA Branch hosted a meeting with members of the NFATCA executive board in 2006 to demonstrate Branch operations and discuss NFA and NFRTR issues. The NFA Branch and the NFATCA also collaborated to write a handbook on the NFA and the weapons registration process, which ATF has made available on its website. However, the OIG found that the ATF website’s generally poor structure makes it difficult to navigate or locate relevant information and is a potential barrier to the electronic handbook’s use. The NFATCA has since announced it will offer printed copies of the handbook for sale at cost. Contact them at their website address: www.NFATCA.org for details.

Background

On June 26, 1934, the U.S. Congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA) to limit the availability of machine guns, short barreled shotguns and rifles, firearm sound suppressors and other similar arms often used by criminals during the Prohibition Era. The NFA imposed a tax on the manufacture, import, and distribution of NFA arms not under the control of the U.S. government. The Bureau of ATF collects the taxes and maintains NFA arm possession records in a central registry – an electronic database called the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR), which contains records on almost 2 million arms. ATF’s NFA Branch (under the Firearms and Explosives Services Division, Office of Enforcement Programs and Services) maintains the NFRTR and processes all applications to make, manufacture, import, register, and transfer NFA arms.

Congress expanded the scope of the NFA through the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 to include destructive devices (bombs, incendiary devices such as flash bang grenades, and arms with a bore of greater than one-half inch), frames and receivers that can convert a semiautomatic arm into an automatic arm, and other concealable arms. The GCA restricts registrations of NFA arms only to makers (unlicensed individuals who usually make one arm at a time for individual use), manufacturers and importers. Further, the GCA called for a 30-day amnesty period ending December 1, 1968, where anyone possessing an NFA arm could register it without consequence. Any NFA arm not registered during the amnesty is considered contraband and cannot be registered.

On May 19, 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act to prohibit possession of machine guns that were not legally possessed prior to its enactment. Thus, newly made machine guns were to be available only to the U.S. government and law enforcement entities.

NFA arms and their possessors must be registered with the NFRTR, and whenever possession is transferred (through sale, rental, gift, or bequest) the registration must be updated. A possessor is required to retain the approved NFA weapons application form as proof of a weapon’s registration and make it available to ATF upon request (26 U.S.C. § 5841 [e]). Manufacturers, importers, and makers of NFA weapons also are required to register each newly made, manufactured or imported arm.

The (OIG) examined ATF’s effectiveness in maintaining the records of registrations and transfers of NFA arms in the NFRTR. The OIG conducted the review in response to requests from members of Congress who had received letters from citizens expressing concern about the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR. These citizens asserted that errors in the NFRTR and errors in decisions by NFA Branch employees left NFA weapons possessors vulnerable to unjust convictions for violating the NFA.

Inconsistent Data Entry

Due to inadequate standard operating procedures, training and communications, NFA Branch staff members do not process applications or enter data uniformly into the NFRTR. The staff’s variations in completing these tasks results in errors in NFRTR records, reports and queries as well as inconsistent decisions on NFA weapons registration and transfer applications, the OIG found.

The NFA Branch does not provide staff with a comprehensive standard operating procedures manual. The NFA Branch Chief inherited an undated manual of standard operating procedures when he assumed his position in 2005. The manual was under revision at the time of the OIG’s review, but the NFA Branch Chief said he has not had enough staff to complete the revision.

Specifically, none of the staff members the OIG investigators interviewed had ever received a copy of this manual as a resource to help them perform their duties. Instead, the procedural memorandums and directives provided to NFA Branch staff as guidance were usually specific to one issue and did not cover the basic information needed to process applications and enter data into the NFRTR.

NFA Branch staff also stated that they did not have adequate written direction on how to enter data such as abbreviations in the NFRTR, how to maintain application files, how often to contact applicants with pending applications, the proper method for fixing or working around NFRTR technical flaws, and who has the responsibility for correcting errors in NFRTR records. Therefore, staff members relied on each other or on managers to verbally explain what they believed the procedures were for processing applications and navigating the NFRTR database.

Additionally, the OIG said training for new NFA Branch staff members is ad hoc and not uniform. Staff members said that due to inadequate training, it was difficult to become familiar with the NFRTR and navigate easily through the database, a vital skill needed to process applications and conduct record checks. Staff also said inadequate training hampered their ability to learn about the NFA and the process for registering and transferring NFA weapons. Supervisors’ inadequate training led to variations in their direction and inconsistent decisions about approving or disapproving NFA weapons registration and transfer applications.

The OIG also found that the NFA Branch did not hold regular staff meetings so that the staff would stay current on changes in NFA weapons regulations. However, in March 2007, after the fieldwork for the OIG review was completed, the NFA Branch Section Chiefs began conducting monthly staff meetings to improve the flow of information within the Branch.

Backlog of NFRTR Errors

The NFA Branch is not promptly correcting discrepancies between the NFRTR records and licensee inventories, the OIG says. The NFA Branch is responsible for addressing the errors and discrepancies, identified by Industry Operators Investigators (IOIs) during compliance inspections of licensees. However, there are no established guidelines for the Branch on reconciling the errors within a certain amount of time, and as of March 2007 the Branch had a backlog of 61 discrepancy reports to reconcile. This means that some corrections to records do not get made before a licensee receives their next inspection, which could be 3 years later. At the time of the OIG’s review, one staff member was working part-time on the backlog. About one of four discrepancies could not be resolved without research by NFA Branch staff.

In a survey taken of IOIs by the OIG, 46.5% (139 of 299) reported that they found a discrepancy between the NFRTR inventory report and a licensee’s inventory “always” or “most of the time.” Further, 44.4% (133 of 299) said that the discrepancy was due to an error in the NFRTR “always” or “most of the time.” In comparison, none said that the error was “always” on the part of the licensee, and only 2% (6 of 299) said that the error was on the part of the licensee “most of the time.”

While licensees worry that discrepancies could result in their investigation by ATF Special Agents for violations of the NFA and GCA, IOIs told the OIG they only refer cases involving discrepancies to Special Agents when the discrepancy cannot be resolved or when there is a suspicion ofa deliberate violation of law. Between the years 2000 and 2006, only 15 federal firearms licensees were charged criminally for violating the NFA. In 2006, ATF conducted 7,292 compliance inspections and issued 12,176 violations. Of that total, less than 1% (53) was for NFA violations. In 2006, ATF issued an average of 1.7 violations per inspection, but only 0.007 NFA violations per inspection.

The OIG review could not identify any instances in which an NFRTR error resulted in inappropriate seizure of an NFA weapon or in appropriate criminal consequences to an individual weapons owner or FFL-holder. The OIG further asked the NFATCA for examples of its members’ weapons being inappropriately seized due to inaccuracies in the NFRTR, and none were received in response.

While the OIG could not find instances of wrongful seizure or prosecution of individuals or licensees based on ATF errors, it did note two examples (one provided the NFATCA and the other by ATF):

• 1. The NFA Branch incorrectly approved the sale (transfer) of a machine gun from a law enforcement agency to a federal firearms licensee. The licensee subsequently tried to sell (transfer) the weapon to another licensee. However, the NFA Branch discovered its original error and subsequently disapproved both the first and second transactions. The licensee was not allowed to retain possession of the machine gun, and the law enforcement agency did not have the funds to return the $10,000 paid by the licensee for the arm.
• 2. An NFA Branch Examiner processed an application to transfer an NFA weapon from a licensee to another licensee. The seller had purchased the arm from a police department that had, in turn, purchased the weapon ten years before from an importer. The Examiner who handled the original transaction should have stamped the approved application form “restricted” as only holders of certain licenses could possess and transfer the arm. Because the first application form was never stamped, the licensee did not know that he could only resell the weapon to certain license holders. The NFA Branch had to disapprove the licensee’s application to sell the weapon.

ATF Enforcement Actions

In 2006, ATF seized 3,030 NFA weapons, including 1,280 machine guns, 550 sawed-off shotguns and rifles, 571 silencers, 415 destructive devices, and 214 devices categorized as any other weapons. These totals included unregistered NFA weapons seized during criminal investigations as well as registered and unregistered NFA weapons seized as a result of compliance inspections of licensees.

In the OIG-conducted survey, IOIs were asked how many times in the past year they had referred a licensee to an ATF Special Agent based on a discrepancy between the NFRTR inventory report and the licensee’s inventory. Of the 298 IOIs who responded, 91% said they had made no referrals, 7% had made one referral, 1.6% had made 2 and less than 1% had made 3. IOIs interviewed emphasized they only refer cases when an NFA weapons registration in the NFRTR cannot be established after discussion with the licensee, the NFA Branch, and extensive searches of the NFRTR, or when they suspect deliberate criminal activity involving NFA weapons.

In fact, the OIG found that few licensees were criminally charged with NFA violations. Between 2000 and 2006, only 15 licensees were charged with violating 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, the chapter of the Internal Revenue Code that includes the NFA. This represents only 6.5% of the total number of licensees (230) criminally charged with any violation.

NFRTR Database

As of November 2006, the NFRTR contained registrations for 1,906,786 weapons. The total number of weapons included 1,186,138 destructive devices (including 918,517 flash bang grenades), 391,532 machine guns, 150,364 silencers, 95,699 short barreled shotguns, 33,518 short barreled rifles, 48,443 weapons categorized as any other weapons, and 1,082 “unknown” devices or weapons not classified in the other categories (this includes older weapons or devices registered with ATF before the NFRTR was automated that are not clearly identified or do not fit in any other category of weapon).

On a percentage basis, the weapons in the NFRTR as of November 2006 break down into: 62.2% destructive devices, 20.5% machine guns, 7.9% silencers, 5% short barreled shotguns, 1.8% short barreled shotguns, 2.5% any other weapon and 0.1% unknown.

Each record in the NFRTR contains the make, model, and serial number of the weapon, the date of its registration, and the name and address of the person entitled to possess the weapon. For weapons registered prior to 1983, the NFRTR contains record entries of the three most recent transactions. After 1983, the records contain all transactions. Another database linked to the NFRTR database contains electronic images of the related applications forms for both pre- and post- 1983 registered weapons.

The reason for this is that when the NFRTR was automated in 1983, the NFA Branch chose to focus on entering all transaction information for newly registered weapons, so NFA Branch staff entered only the three most recent records for each NFA weapon registered prior to 1983. A full transaction history of the pre-1983 weapon is available in the imaging database, which contains scanned copies of original application forms. All transactions of an NFA weapon registered after 1983 are entered into the NFRTR.

ATF Database Flawed

The NFRTR’s programming has not been modified since 1997 when ATF converted the original 1983 electronic database to an Oracle platform. Several NFA Branch personnel described the NFRTR programming as obsolete and identified flaws: (1) older NFRTR records with empty data fields can improperly exclude the records from search results, (2) the NFRTR can erroneously generate two separate records for one weapon, (3) the system lacks controls to prevent inconsistent data entry, (4) the system lists incorrect owners of NFA weapons on queries and reports, and (5) when multiple weapons are registered on a single form, a change entered in the NFRTR for one weapon incorrectly applies thechange to all the weapons listed on that form.

One IOI, in making a comment about the need to update the NFRTR computer system, said, (ATF should) “…stop operating like a third world Department of Motor Vehicles office.” For the last five years, ATF would not make system enhancements to the NFRTR as ATF planned to integrate many of the databases of its National Tracing Center, Firearms and Explosives Imports Branch, and NFA Branch through the Firearms Integrated Technology (FIT) project. ATF received budget allocations for FIT in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. However it reallocated the funds to another mission which exhausted the funding by 2004. ATF’s subsequent funding requests for FIT have not been successful. During 2006, the NFA Branch processed and entered 402,151 NFA weapons applications forms into the NFRTR.

As of March 2007, the NFA Branch had a staff of 20 ATF personnel and 12 contractors. The NFA Branch is authorized to have a complement of sixteen Examiners, eight Specialists, one Special Occupational Tax (SOT) Specialist, and one Information Technology Specialist. As of March 2007, it had only ten Examiners, four Specialists, one SOT Specialist, and one Information Technology Specialist.

Not All NFA Staff on “Same Page”

One Examiner interviewed by the OIG stated that, due to poor training, not all staff members are “on the same page” on how they approach their work and applications may be processed incorrectly. He cited an instance in which an Examiner needed to know whether a state allowed a certain type of NFA weapon, and rather than researching the current state law or regulation, the Examiner simply queried the NFRTR to view a similar transaction in that state that had been approved in the past. State laws and regulations may change since a previous transaction the OIG pointed out in its report, but that Examiners are not kept current on these changes and are not trained to research the laws and regulations appropriately, instead of following old transactions.

Members of industry have long complained that the same question on the regulations posed to NFA staff will bring different responses, depending on who is asked. The OIG research bore this out as it noted that “inadequate training could affect the direction given to NFA Branch staff as well as information provided to the ATF field offices.”

For example, the lack of training on NFA-related state laws and regulations affected the guidance from Section Chiefs to Examiners. Further, an IOI survey respondent commented, “We can call (the) NFA (Branch) and speak to different people (on the same issue) and get different answers. This has happened more than a few times in the past.”

The Section Chiefs are usually selected from the Examiner pool and do not receive additional training, either supervisory or NFA-related. “They receive the same ad hoc training as other NFA Branch staff, and the quality of the information received during the training is not standard,” the OIG noted.

“Because new staff members receive different training from different people who also were not formally trained, the quality of the training in terms of topics covered and accuracy of information is insufficient,” the OIG reasoned. “Incomplete and inaccurate training leads to errors in the NFRTR and in decisions based on the NFRTR. Moreover, variations in direction based on inadequate training could produce inconsistent approvals or disapprovals of NFA weapons applications.”

One of the NFATCA representatives who maintains a federal license for NFA weapons estimated for the OIG that during his compliance inspections the NFRTR inventory reports were 25 to 30% inaccurate. He added that NFA licensees fear compliance inspections because the NFRTR is inaccurate, not because their inventory records are inaccurate. Another NFATCA representative said that NFA licensees “should not be afraid of compliance inspections because their records are probably better than ATF’s.”

Multiple Registrations Linked

NFA Branch staff noted that the NFRTR does not always indicate the correct owner of weapons on queries and reports. The NFA Branch Program Manager stated to the OIG that this problem was identified almost immediately after the new NFRTR system was deployed in 1997, but the information technology staff was unable to correct the problem and ATF did not pursue resolution.

When multiple NFA weapons are registered or transferred on the same form they are initially linked by their NFRTR-generated control number. This control number is based on the form and not the weapon and applies to the records of all weapons registered on that form. The link between weapons registered on the same NFA weapon application is broken only after weapons have been transferred to new owners two subsequent times. The weapons would then have their own NFRTR-generated control numbers. This programming flaw is most evident when a transfer of a weapon is canceled by the applicant and that weapon’s preceding transaction involved multiple weapons registered or transferred on the same form. If no action is taken to correct the record to show the true current owner, all NFRTR queries and reports will incorrectly list the transferee from the canceled transaction as the current owner. However, when an NFA Branch staff member manually fixes the record that show the correct owner of the weapon, the NFRTR will apply that change to all the weapons on the form, which are still linked by the same control number. Since it takes a significant amount of time and effort to ensure that only the relevant weapon on that record is changed, Examiners often do not fixvsuch records, the OIG said.

Non-Completion of Vital Projects

ATF has initiated, but not completed due to budget constraints, two projects that the OIG said would improve the accuracy of the NFRTR and increase the efficiency of the NFA Branch. The first involves scanning all NFA weapons transfer and registration applications since 1934 into digital files in a database and establishing an indexing system to search this new database. The second project, titled e-Forms, is creating an electronic filing system for individual weapons owners and federal firearms licensees to submit NFA weapons applications online.

The OIG found that ATF has a oneyear backlog worth of NFA weapons applications to image and index. In 2005, the NFA Branch had four contractors working on imaging and indexing, and the backlog was only 6months. In June 2006, budget cuts forced ATF to reduce the number of contractors to two, which has increased the backlog significantly.

ATF has not completed the e-Forms project it initiated in 2004. The capability for individuals and industry to submit applications online would reduce data entry errors by NFA Branch personnel, detect errors on applicant’s registration and transfer forms before entry into the NFRTR, and allow importers and manufacturers to check the status of forms they submit electronically for processing.

In fiscal year 2002, ATF received funding for the e-Forms project and developed the requirements document for an electronic filing system and a prototype of the system. By 2006, a prototype of the system was demonstrated to the industry. However, due to budget constraints, ATF suspended the project before the system was finalized and implemented. ATF estimated that it needed just under $14 million to complete the e-Forms system and to operate it for the first two years and that $200,000 would be needed to operate it each year thereafter.

Recommendations

To help improve the processing of NFA applications and reduce errors in the NFRTR, the OIG recommended that ATF:

• Improve the ATF website by making it easier to find NFA information, such as frequently asked questions, applications forms and instructions, NFA Branch contact information, and the NFA Handbook.
• Develop and disseminate to all NFA Branch staff a comprehensive standard operating procedures manual that includes all NFA weapons application processes, NFRTR processes and data entry codes and abbreviations.
• Develop uniform and structured training for staff members that includes standard operating procedures and hands-on experience with the NFRTR. Ensure that all NFA Branch staff members attend the training and that the staff trainers are themselves properly trained. Provide training for the Section Chiefs on supervisory techniques.
• Establish regular and recurring methods of communication to NFA Branch staff.
• Resolve discrepancies between the NFRTR and inventories of federal firearms licensees in a timely manner.
• Develop and implement an action plan to fix technical programming flaws and errors in the NFRTR.
• Develop and implement an action plan for eliminating the backlog of imaging and indexing forms for the imaging database.
• Develop and implement an action plan for completing the e-Forms project.

The OIG concluded that since 2004, the NFA Branch has reduced the overall average processing time by more than two-thirds for the most used forms and has improved its responsiveness to customer service inquiries and requests for information; however it has much more work to do to improve its operations.

The author publishes two of the small arms industry’s most widely read trade newsletters. The International Firearms Trade covers the world firearms scene, and The New Firearms Business covers the domestic market. He also offers FFL-mailing lists to firms interested in direct marketing efforts to the industry. He may be reached at: FirearmsB@aol.com.