Just seems like a big scam. Anyone dumb enough to drop 100k+ on this deserves to loose their money.

I think many are rushing to judgment here.

I would need more information to make a determination I could swear to under oath.

That being said, there is no reason in the statute (United States Code) or the regulations that are supposed to reflect the statute (Code of Federal Regulations) that these conversion devices to not be used as described.

The devil is in the details.

The current owners of the triggers contacted ATF and received guidance on how to utilize them....Unlike Us v. Clark or US v. Wrenn.   I don't smell a scam or swindle on this one with what is public so far.

Here is the #1 question:

If you remove the conversion device (trigger) from the host and reassemble,  Load it with ammunition, pull back the charging handle and release?

If the host firearm fires continuously until the ammunition is exhausted you have a real problem.

If the host firearm does nothing other than chamber a round and sit there, your most likely golden.

I think the issue is that the Seller wasn't 100% honest or upfront on exactly what the buyer would be purchasing.

The ad states

Have adapted a transferable conversion device to a SCAR (that is true)

Did it without modifying the host receiver (that is also probably true)

That the conversion device is not limited to a particular host or host family (ehhh...probably not so much based on the  research of MGTony and the previous denial Historic got for these same triggers in a Bren)

There is an approval letter for this (I have seen nothing stating that a registered MAC Trigger can go into a SCAR,  only that it can go into "any compatible semi-automatic firearm" and compatible probably means any Open Bolt MAC variant...not a SCAR or a MK48.)

The conversion device can be adapted to any semi-automatic host with "a little" gunsmithing (I bet there are a lot of new custom FCG parts in a SCAR to make a MAC trigger work)

Like it or not, it is fairly well known in the community that the ATF has taken a historical dim view of using conversion devices outside of their intended family.   I wish we could use sears in devices outside their family as I would happily buy a MGA/HK  M249.   I am sure that the XMG owners wished they could still use their uppers on full auto as well.

To me it feels like the folks selling the SCAR and MK48 conversions with these triggers got a semi-ambiguous letter back from the ATF on items they full well knew were designed as open bolt MAC conversion triggers and are trying to make a $100K capitalization on the word "compatible" and never asked for rock solid clarification by submitting a mechanical sample like Historic did before trying to find the fastest sucker they could.

Does this rise to the Ernie Wrenn RPD/249 upper debacle...probably not (and it certainly in no way compares to Clarke/Rodman/Greenburg fraud) but the folks who cooked up the SCAR ad MK48 certainly are not fully on the up and up in my estimation either.

What is a family?   Nowhere are any of the paper work for these triggers does it say MAC. Military Armanent Corporation All it says is a model M-11. Take a Mac fire control group put it in a trigger pack and put it under the unregulated upper of your choice.  It is still ok to use an XMG upper with a RDIAS or a lightening link. Or take your lower and mate it with a shrike. To think that is ok but only put a conversion trigger in only one type of firearm is not realistic either

Given that the ATF is the regulatory agency in these matters, family is basically whatever their opinion is until the day comes that somebody takes them to court over it and wins.

I have never seen a written approval by the BATFE tech branch blessing the usage of a transferable conversion sear in a host gun outside of what it was originally designed for.  The farthest specific clear written approval I have seen is a RDIAS in a LE901, which is basically an AR15 with a 308 sized mag well.

No shortage of folks have asked to shoehorn a FNC sear into a SCAR.  If you can use a MAC trigger in a SCAR with a bunch of other custom made FCG components than I would see no reason why a FNC sear couldn't be used with a bunch of custom made FCG components.  

The main technical issue with this MAC Trigger/SCAR conversion that I see is that all the other custom fire control bits and pieces they made to get it to function would most likely be ruled as post sample conversion parts unto themselves as they have no other use than to convert a semi-automatic firearm into a machinegun.  Just because one of the fcg parts was already registered it wouldn't matter as the new combination of parts would be a new machinegun.

If somebody did take one of these type of cases to court the best odds to chalk up a win would be a sear that truly dropped in and where no new custom parts are required to make it function.

Maybe we should start a gofundme site to take a case to court and get some case law on our side, like the folks challenging trusts can build machineguns are doing.

Perhaps you are overlooking the fact that a firearm can be designed around the DIAS, Sear, trigger, etc.



I recall a 249 variant that was made with an HK fire control?   Your telling me that it was not designed around a transferable sear? Will FN's version be FNC sear compatible?

To quote an attorney I know "your assuming facts not in evidence".  Since all "letter rulings" are NOT available on any database anywhere (let alone other forms of communication), I would never assume anything.

The ATF has had such massive turnover in FTB, NFA, and all of management there is a lack of institutional memory.  It can be as simple as fresh eyes on an old concept and who is doing the asking of ATF.

Take the situation with MAC type uppers...Well known fact the un-official word from ATF was "No rifle caliber uppers".   Ten years goes by and the .223 "SABRE" upper is approved by ATF for use with MAC MG's.

Have you ever seen or read an ATF "policy paper" or "white paper" on particular ATF policy subject?  They are generated and superseded all the time.  

What if I told you I have one the discussed the submitted  trigger/BREN combo and claimed it was a MAC upper? (dare me to post it, it will make your eyes bleed)

The good news?  All personnel @ ATF associated with it are long gone from the Bureau.  I'm sure it has been superseded because of the SABRE upper.

The m249 with the HK FCG seemed like a perfect sear/pack host candidate. I wonder if they could resubmit to get a favorable determination from ATF.  Okay, I dare you to post the Bren/Mac letter.

So was that ever formally 'blessed"?  They got the letter from the ATF for the semi with the HK trigger pack.

Not that I have ever seen.  MGAs website has always hinted that you could (i.e. it mechanically works) but that the legalities are up to you.

The current verbiage on their site says "a full-auto operating group (named G3.FA) will be available later in 2014 for those legally allowed to use full-auto registered sears and packs"

If they had submitted for a legal determination to the ATF and received a positive response,  I would presume that the verbiage would say something akin to  "currently legal to use your transferable HK Conversion Sear or Box*".    They would certainly sell a lot more units if they cleared this up with the ATF.  

I know I would buy one for $8500 to essentially have a transferable M249/MK46 if it was all on the up and up. (even taking the risk the ATF could change their mind 5 years from now)

Reading between the lines, I am guessing the verbiage "those legally allowed" may really mean FFL/SOTs who register a post sample HK style Sear or Box as a "MGA 249 Conversion Sear"

The MGA also uses a proprietary long hammer, and the full auto variant of this hammer may be considered a fire control conversion part unto itself. (although it looks like they are trying to redesign around a standard HK hammer)

From a theoretical/academic exercise, In terms of candidates for expanding sear usage it would be best to have a use case where there are no other custom fire control parts required for the conversion.  

I could think of some more incremental/potentially better options to start with that may have a better chance of initial success to build favorable case law like an HK sear into a LUSA or a SW SP10.   Not an original host gun (i.e. not a roller locked sheet metal gun) but that a HK box or sear should drop right on with no new fire control parts required.

Back one page look at the bottom

I think he is talking of the ATF "Policy Paper"....

It was written in 2006 right after Wrenn trial and appears to be directed ATF policy on my company Historic Arms LLC, revealed by accident by ATF not meant to be public by any means and like I said it's been superseded.

It was generated after ATF approval of the 7.62x39 MAC upper the "BM-3000" and obviously just before the ATF spontaneously reclassified it illegal.

So here goes

(it's on photobucket and will only allow so many views per month)

It's your eyes:

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

Wow, just wow.

Following that convoluted "reasoning", a drop-in auto sear or lightning link would not be allowed.

You were right, my brain hurts.

If you ever wondered what happens when you wiz in the ATF weaties, now you know.

Tell me you caught the first footnote

While I don't necessarily agree with the first half of the letter, I can at least understand and follow the logic that an upper which can fire automatically on its own and/or has characteristics of a machinegun receiver (like an open bolt/fixed firing pin operation with the ammunition feed mechanism as part of the upper) is really a machinegun receiver and not an unregulated upper/caliber conversion kit.

However, the part I find interesting is the ATF  taking the position that the additional of an unregulated "accessory"  (i.e. should somebody mechanically design something that passes mechanical/legal muster with the tech branch) when added to an existing transferable machinegun could be construed as a new "making" event under the NFA if the resultant combination is materially different from a characteristic standpoint vs. what the original hosts attributes were.

So legal machinegun + unregulated accessory = New Machinegun

It would certainly seem that the SABRE upper somewhat pushed the envelop on this and maybe that is why they are no longer made.    Makes you wonder if ATF approved and then quietly disapproved further manufacture but didn't bother to go after the handful that were made and sold.  I never understood why Alliance threw in the towel on what appears to be a successful product that people wanted after going through all the R&D and startup effort and/or somebody like Lage didn't pick up the concept and run with it.

With several types of "conversion devices" you need other parts.  

Such as the AR DIAS no?  Uzi bolt?  M-2 conversion kit or "seven deadly parts", etc, etc.

In the 9th Circuit they decided on the language of "Ostensible Utility"  or obvious lawful purpose...Like have a 14" barrel upper is a problem only if you don't own a registered SBR or pistol version that gives an "obvious lawful purpose" for such an item.

In the situation with these triggers, if the folks who put them together colored inside the lines with respect to guidance given in the letter, they should be fine.

If they didn't, we will find out soon enough.

As far as the white paper goes, whether we agree with it or not doesn't matter for at least a time it was the official policy of ATF.....Would have been nice if they would have shared it with the industry or even my company.  Like the first footnote says "This memorandum was prepared in anticipation of litigation".

This has been a great and intresting thread the best so far in a long time it went from a possible electric solenoid to figuring out it was a conversion trigger to the posting of the abmbugious David Lynch letter. It would seem that we have a good history on these universal triggers after Len chimed in with his great info.
I do not think we are at the end yet, until one is put in a cool semi auto.  It will happen, eventually logic always wins, in the end whether by the courts or by their own determination I think these will end up being much more desirable than an HK, FNC sear or RDIAS after it is all said and done or one gets married to an M 249 semi.
After all there are only a few of them.

Very good point. I don't think Mr. Lage has said he WONT pursue a project like that, but there are others who actively are. I think the story goes that AA really screwed the pooch with the SABRE and threw away a hell of an opportunity.