User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 2:28:13 PM EDT
I have been trying to find a good RDIAS for the last year or so without much luck. I am currently looking at a Broadhead Armory RDIAS per my other topic in this section.
Another gentleman emailed me and stated that he has an all aluminum RDIAS made by "Limanen". Have you guys ever hear of this manufacturer? Does anyone have any information regarding it? Maybe it is a one off? Below are all of the pictures he sent. It looks to be legit. I would prefer the BA Armory Steel sear, but if that falls through I may consider this one. The trip looks beat up, but that can be changed easily. Any help or info would be great. Thanks      |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 4:42:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Looks like a standard form one of a drop in auto sear someone likely got from shot gun news.
That being said I'd edit out the guys form 4. No reason to post their personal info for all to see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 4:44:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Well, clearly the form isn't a form one, but I'd bet back in the day Mr. Limanen bought an unregistered "safety sear" out of shotgun news, and then registered it himself via a form one. Still would edit out the F4.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 5:06:55 PM EDT
[#3]
It also has the serial number of a SP1 for what it is worth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 5:30:41 PM EDT
[#4]
Edited the Form 4 pic. Thanks for reminding me. I forgot to do it before I posted it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 5:44:47 PM EDT
[#5]
SP indicates it is associated with a colt sp1 at one time.
Form 4 indicates it doesn't have a married host problem as is. It would be nice to have the form 1. If you ever do another form 4 on it. Put in the additional description "registered drop in auto Sear. Sear not married to a host". For your added protection. And if you ever sell it in the future the extra description will prevent any buyer uncertainty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 6:07:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SP indicates it is associated with a colt sp1 at one time. Form 4 indicates it doesn't have a married host problem as is. It would be nice to have the form 1. If you ever do another form 4 on it. Put in the additional description "registered drop in auto Sear. Sear not married to a host". For your added protection. And if you ever sell it in the future the extra description will prevent any buyer uncertainty. I just can't win.  Everyone I look at seems to have one or two things that are "off" on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 6:22:08 PM EDT
[#7]
No. It looks very legit.
Often there were mistakes on how the original form 1 was done. Its not uncommon to have later form 4s corrected to best reflect what it is. Atf will most likely want a pic to indicate that its properly engraved to match the makers info. Id go for it if the price was reasonable. And just add the extra info on the form 4. Add a pic for atf and if it transfers without problems you will have a great sear with solid paperwork. Don't be afraid. Just make sure the seller has solid references. And will stand by the transaction if questions arise. Sp sn is not a deal breaker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 6:49:43 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks I just can't win.
Everyone I look at seems to have one or two things that are "off" on them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
SP indicates it is associated with a colt sp1 at one time. Form 4 indicates it doesn't have a married host problem as is. It would be nice to have the form 1. If you ever do another form 4 on it. Put in the additional description "registered drop in auto Sear. Sear not married to a host". For your added protection. And if you ever sell it in the future the extra description will prevent any buyer uncertainty. I just can't win.
Everyone I look at seems to have one or two things that are "off" on them. I'd bet it was the same SP1 sn that the owner had originally installed the sear in. Not that the sear was registered wrong, he could have registered the sear rather then registering the host SP1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 7:53:37 PM EDT
[#9]
Looks good to me. Many RDIASs have SP1 serial numbers. It doesn't matter since it was registered as a sear, so it isn't married. One of my steel RDIASs was made in Dallas too by a Mr. Gallan. It's been 100% perfect.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 3:19:01 AM EDT
[#10]
I just noticed that the model is left blank.
That is a error and would have to be corrected. Type of sear must be identified. AR-15, FNC, HK etc. Still nothing that cant be corrected or cleared. Id point out everything to the seller and negotiate a lower price. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 4:44:53 AM EDT
[#11]
What would be a fair price for the sear with the few issues on the paperwork? He is asking $25k which I know is high but he said that the price is negotiable. I checked gunbroker and it looks like a aluminum sear sold for $19k earlier this year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 4:54:12 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What would be a fair price for the sear with the few issues on the paperwork? He is asking $25k which I know is high but he said that the price is negotiable. I checked gunbroker and it looks like a aluminum sear sold for $19k earlier this year. Not sure about RDIAS with "paperwork issues" but Aluminum go for around $20k and Steel Around $25k. Plus or minus a few thousand based on the current market, condition of the sear, what state the item is located in, dealer vs private sale, etc... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 6:11:35 AM EDT
[#13]
I would put out $19K MAX. Thats top dollar for what it is.
Any more and I would seek out a steel unit. Also its on a form 4 which is a added pain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 12:12:25 PM EDT
[#14]
If the original Form 1 or 2 says the model is "SP1" and the manufacturer is "Colt" with a 16" or 20" barrel than there would be a problem. Looking at the dates on the Form 4 the owner just received this last month.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 2:47:19 PM EDT
[#15]
For that kind of jack, I'd find one that doesn't have any "issues". Yeah, it could take a while.
Also, that sear looks similar to the suppress-on sears. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 2:51:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For that kind of jack, I'd find one that doesn't have any "issues". Yeah, it could take a while. Also, that sear looks similar to the suppress-on sears. I'm sure it was. Lots of guys ordered them, which wasn't a problem, and then form one'ed them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 4:05:46 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure it was. Lots of guys ordered them, which wasn't a problem, and then form one'ed them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For that kind of jack, I'd find one that doesn't have any "issues". Yeah, it could take a while. Also, that sear looks similar to the suppress-on sears. I'm sure it was. Lots of guys ordered them, which wasn't a problem, and then form one'ed them. I'm not saying this is a post '86 sear but, I've seen a few examples of post '86 suppress-on sears and they all had poor hand stamps or jeweler's engraving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 4:36:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying this is a post '86 sear but, I've seen a few examples of post '86 suppress-on sears and they all had poor hand stamps or jeweler's engraving. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For that kind of jack, I'd find one that doesn't have any "issues". Yeah, it could take a while. Also, that sear looks similar to the suppress-on sears. I'm sure it was. Lots of guys ordered them, which wasn't a problem, and then form one'ed them. I'm not saying this is a post '86 sear but, I've seen a few examples of post '86 suppress-on sears and they all had poor hand stamps or jeweler's engraving. The guy was selling them before the 86 cut off. So if you were meaning maybe this was a replacement or illegal then I wouldn't comment on that as I have no history on it. It would have been more then possible to have bought one and then registered it, what was the cut off for that? 82? 84? Something like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 5:04:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not saying this is a post '86 sear but, I've seen a few examples of post '86 suppress-on sears and they all had poor hand stamps or jeweler's engraving. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For that kind of jack, I'd find one that doesn't have any "issues". Yeah, it could take a while. Also, that sear looks similar to the suppress-on sears. I'm sure it was. Lots of guys ordered them, which wasn't a problem, and then form one'ed them. I'm not saying this is a post '86 sear but, I've seen a few examples of post '86 suppress-on sears and they all had poor hand stamps or jeweler's engraving. I'm getting all my lines crossed here, but I thought the Su-Press-On / George Dodson sears were stamped "SPO" under the back of the trip stop. That shelf would be a good area to check. There are also a couple other distinguishing features of the SPO sears, but I don't see them here. This isn't to say Mr. Limanen didn't buy an unregistered "safety sear", but this looks much more crudely made, or homemade, to me. Frankly, I'm not sure this wasn't hand filed from aluminum bar stock until it was in spec. I don't think it was all milled as there is variation in the straight edges - the trip shelf looks straight, but look at the outside edges and the back corners. Conversely, it may have been hand fitted to the original receiver, so that could be the marks. While I can tell all this, I'm not good enough to tell if it was homemade before or after 1986. Also, IIRC, I have read there were some outfits that sold replacement bodies post-Nov. 81 with other places selling replacement trips, pins, and springs. Seeing as these outfits were of various quality, this could well have been something as simple as a cheap $30 sear body that was F1'd into a rDIAS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2014 7:38:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The guy was selling them before the 86 cut off. So if you were meaning maybe this was a replacement or illegal then I wouldn't comment on that as I have no history on it. It would have been more then possible to have bought one and then registered it, what was the cut off for that? 82? 84? Something like that. There was never a registration/grace period offered on the DIAS, because of ATF's "grandfathering" scheme for pre-October, 1981 DIAS. They chose their method of classification specifically to prevent them from having to register (for free) all the existing, newly classified RDIAS., as is normally required to prevent a "taking" by the government of something reclassified from an untaxed category to a taxed category. If it was made before 10/81, it wasn't an MG (unless used illegally in a conversion), so not eligible for registration; all DIAS made after 10/81 were defined as machinegun conversions and had to be registered by the mfg or on Form 1. And it doesn't help that later court decisions effectively overturned the 10/81 decision, stating that ATF had the power to determine something was or was not a machinegun conversion, but did not have the power to selectively grandfather machineguns from classification. That's another ball of wax, though, given ATF has done just that before many times, as in the Belgian G-Series FALs which came sear-cut and with FA ejector blocks installed, or HK G41 double pushpin "semi auto" rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 4:39:59 AM EDT
[#21]
The few suppress-on sears I've seen were made in the 90's and had no markings. Some were post 86 samples and others, not so much...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 11:42:26 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For that kind of jack, I'd find one that doesn't have any "issues". Yeah, it could take a while. There are no issues. The paperwork is correct, the sear looks good. Sure it could all be forged, but it is not uncommon for folks to use the SN from the host. The only question I would have is where is the host, but the answer is probably "sold separately". There is no requirement for a model either, so that is OK also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:15:07 PM EDT
[#23]
The Form 4 was just approved last month.
I wonder why he wants to sell it now that he just got it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:41:45 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Form 4 was just approved last month. I wonder why he wants to sell it now that he just got it. Could be owned by a dealer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 12:42:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Guess it's a trust so couldn't hold a FFL.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 4:03:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quick flip probably. If it took 7-8 months to approve, he probably bought it for a decent price back then and is looking to make a few thousand on it now that it's come in.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
