I haven't seen them mentioned anywhere around here. I was wondering if anyone had any personal experience with them. How reliable/ accurate/ well built are they? I would like to put together a basic 1911 frame and put one of these on it.

This is what I am talking about.

I have a Mech-Tech carbine in 10mm and it works great.
I also have a Colt Delta Elite and I bought a new Rock Island Armory G.I. 45 just for the lower frame to use in the Mech-Tech so that I could carry both at the same time.
The Rock Island Armory .45 was so good that I use it a lot.

10mm, when you care enough to send the very best.

The dark side of these uppers is that they permanently convert the legal status of your pistol frame into a rifle frame. If you attach the Mech Tech to your 1911 pistol frame, then you cannot legally revert that frame back to pistol form unless you first register it as a Short Barrel Rifle via ATF Form 1.

Best to get a 1911 frame strictly and permanetly for use in the Mech Tech.

Where have you read that?

Wha, wha, what?!?

He is correct. Once you use the Lower(pistol frame) on a barreled rifle upper, It is forever considered a "rifle". Revert it to its sub 16inch pistol form, you have illegally made an SBR. The first letter from the ATF in the link covers it, even though it pertains to an AR pistol.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=122&t=525036

Unfortunately, most Mech Tech owners are not aware of this and Mech Tech is not exactly clear about what their product does to customers' host firearms, legally speaking.

Yep.

I've long wanted a MechTech for one of my G21s (and don't even mind forever leaving it as a rifle), but one of my biggest qualms is with the company itself –– I personally think they are being both disingenuous and irresponsible in not addressing this issue openly.


Back to the OP's question, the ones I have shot over the years (several different models) have all been reliable and reasonably accurate, albeit a bit on the heavy side. But I really like both the concept and the product.



ETA, PLEASE NOTE: Be sure to see KoImprobable's post below!

That's pretty much my plan.

If this is true exactly how does the ATF know it was once attached to the upper?

There are no "If" about it unfortunately, as much as I wish there were. Most of us who collect SBRs among other Title II weapons have been dealing with this very issues when we assemble our rifles. Truthfully, the ATF may never know of someone doing what you described in you post. However, we do have many discussions in the Class 3 section regarding Constructive Possession, which is just having the part available to build an SBR, which without paperwork is illegal. For instance, taking both your stock pistol slide and barrel with to the range while firing the lower attached to the Mech Tec could be considered constructive possession. In the eyes of the ATF, it seems just having the parts to assemble an illegal weapon is the same thing as having one.

Just went to the website again, and saw the Glock lower with the AR configured upper......may have to start looking for a beater glock pistol.

I wonder what ATF's stance would be if MechTech were to get these uppers classified as firearms (serialized and all). If the upper/kit was the firearm, would the 1911 frame still become a rifle once assembled?

It would still be the same. Once it has a butt stock attached and has a rifled barrel 16 inches or more, it's a rifle forever. It's sad that such rules even exist, and that an otherwise lawful person could make an honest mistake that could land them in prison.

Thompson Contender won a court case involving this very same issue. While that case only applies to the TC pistol/carbine kits, it does provide precedent for any court cases against a Mech Tech owner.

And as mentioned already. The ATF has no way of knowing if you are swapping back and forth. Don't take both the upper and the slide to public ranges at the same time and if you are really worried about the ATF having remote viewing capablities, don't store them together either.

I don't advocate breaking the law but I do advocate using common sense and not having irrational fear of the ATF. The only case I'm aware of someone getting convicted of possession under the "constructive possession" argument involved full auto parts, who's only function was to make a full auto gun, and it was one of many secondary charges to the primary charge in the case.

There are a number of companies selling 1911 and Glock (aliuminum) lowers. Just get a frame assembly kit from Brownells or elsewhere and have a dedicated carbine frame.

Glockmeister also sells both stripped and complete factory Glock lowers –– they even put them on sale occasionally.


I strongly advocate using a dedicated lower with these Mech-Techs –– not so much because "the Feds would know" or prosecution is at all likely, but just because the potential penalties are severe and IMHO it simply isn't worth the risk. When dealing with firearm laws and regs, I ALWAYS err on the side of caution, personally. YMMV.




ETA, PLEASE NOTE: Be sure to see KoImprobable's post below!

Holy crap! My buddy has had one of these for years. I talked him into buying it because I was really interested but didn't have a 1911 at the time.

We've shot the hell out of this thing. He uses a Kimber Pro Carry, which is his only handgun. With this set up, he has a handgun and a carbine, just switches the frame out for whatever he wants to do at the time. He'll shoot the carbine, pop the frame off, and head over to the pistol range.

I never even considered this. I advised him quite some time ago to just pick up a cheap frame for the carbine and leave it set up. He isn't a "gun guy", so he just never got around to it.

OP, to answer your question, he has had this thing for several years and we both shoot it regularly. No idea what the round count would be. Never had any problem whatsoever. He's got a cheap red dot mounted and we shoot it out to 100 yards. Accuracy and reliability have never been a problem.

Holy crap! Thanks guys, I need to make a phone call...

I sent a letter to the ATF asking about this very issue (going back and forth from Mech Tech Carbine to pistol), before I bought one. I waited a month and a half, thinking that they'd just lost or thrown away my letter. Apparently, they were just taking their time.

Today, I got their response:
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j85/koimprobable/guns/atfmechtech001.jpg <–– Page1
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j85/koimprobable/guns/atfmechtech002.jpg <–– Page2
(pictures edited to remove my personal info, only)

If the lower has never been assembled as a pistol, you put a Mech Tech upper on it, and then turn it into a pistol, then, and only then, are you making an NFA item.

That said, I'm still going to keep this letter in a safe place so that if some ATF agent has a different interpretation, I have something to defend myself with in court.

That goes against every related opinion I have seen them issue but (1) I am very glad to see it and (2) I am especially glad to see it related specifically to a Mech-Tech conversion.

Thanks for sharing it here.

If you haven't, I would suggest that you contact Mech-Tech directly... I feel sure they would be VERY interested to know this.

In fact, this is so unexpected/such a potential game-changer for those considering M-T conversions, I'm going to tack this thread for a while...

It seems that the logic of the ruling is thus:

Putting the MT Upper on your Glock or 1911 makes it into a rifle.
Reassembled as a pistol, the frame becomes a firearm again because it is under 26" OAL and 16" barrel, and was made from a rifle.

I think there's a logical step not explicit in the letter where the item in question doesn't fall into any NFA categories (despite our belief that it is an SBR). If anything, I guess it isn't an SBR because it's not shot form the shoulder.

So can we take the butt stocks off of our AR receivers, and install barrels shorter than 16" now?

PLEASE recall (everyone) that ATF letters are valid only for the addressee.

True dat, but ATF would have a hard time in court saying persons in identical situations should be charged differently. Equal protection and all that.

Anyone know of any cases where they did prosecute differently?

Yes, I specifically mentioned this elsewhere in reference to this but did not do so here. Thanks!

This thread is relevant to my interests.

Can anyone post some good photos of these? The ones on their website suck.

TR85.

Thanks for posting this.

This letter along with the T/C letter (and others I'm sure) both just confirm what the regulations say :

Pistol - A weapon originally designed, made, and intended...when held in one hand...

Configuring a pistol as a rifle does not magically change it's original legal status of being a pistol just as configuring a rifle (>16" and >26") as a pistol (<16" and no stock) does not magically change it's original legal status of being a rifle.

Types of firearms are what they were ORIGINNALY configured as. Just as most Title 1 firearms that have been used to make Title 2 firearms are no longer considered Title 2 firearms when returned to Title 1 configuration.

I am going to go out on a limb and predict that this type of determination, based on the definition of 'pistol', could also be used to prove that adding a forward grip to a handgun does NOT turn it into an AOW. Contrary to current opinion. Only time will tell.