User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/1/2022 10:09:38 AM EDT
[#1]
Something to do with hammer group reset failure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 9:57:12 AM EDT
[#2]
Well, I have no first-hand knowledge; my M249S is just fine and I've had zero issues - but I've seen others suggest that the recall is a coercive effort to get purchasers to send in their M249S to FN so they can be modified to be much more difficult to convert to the FA version.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2022 2:24:01 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, I have no first-hand knowledge; my M249S is just fine and I've had zero issues - but I've seen others suggest that the recall is a coercive effort to get purchasers to send in their M249S to FN so they can be modified to be much more difficult to convert to the FA version. This is my belief as well. 18Z50 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 11:37:56 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is my belief as well. 18Z50 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Well, I have no first-hand knowledge; my M249S is just fine and I've had zero issues - but I've seen others suggest that the recall is a coercive effort to get purchasers to send in their M249S to FN so they can be modified to be much more difficult to convert to the FA version. This is my belief as well. 18Z50 I'm not sure they would spend money on a recall for that. The methods I know to convert them is either modify the full auto parts to fit the semi auto receiver, or modify the receiver to accept the full auto parts. Both methods are already regulated. If somebody's property is modified by FN, there should be some documentation of what work was performed. The recall says it is a safety recall for replacement of parts. It looks like the only part being replaced is the slide hammer. This part. https://www.midwestgunworks.com/page/mgwi/prod/56414 Does that require modifying the receiver? There have been reports of the disconnector sticking and failing to function properly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2022 12:08:28 PM EDT
[#5]
Battlefield Vegas bought several M249S's because of the "ease" of being able to convert them to FA to use as rentals. There is a MrGunsngear video where they explain that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2022 7:03:08 AM EDT
[#6]
Ease of conversion and a safety recall are two different things.
Last Summer there were reports of the hammer failing to reset, but FN dismissed them at the time. It seems as if they have caught up with FN now. The conversions I've seen required quite a bit of fabrication. One way is to modify the full auto op rod to fit the semi-auto receiver rails and to make a new trigger housing for the full auto parts. The recall involves replacing the slide hammer and maybe some components associated with it. Are the receiver rails being cut larger and a larger slide hammer used? Would this prevent the modified full auto parts from easily fitting? FN says the rifle must be returned for the recall, so they aren't just sending out slide hammers. What about those that have been converted with just conversion parts and no mods to the receiver? Will they still function after the recall fix? If I get a chance to see the latest version, I'll see if I can spot any differences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2022 7:10:16 AM EDT
[#7]
Well it looks like some of the slide hammers are breaking, cracking apart.
Nothing to do with full auto conversion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2022 4:30:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well it looks like some of the slide hammers are breaking, cracking apart. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2022 4:34:20 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where are you seeing that? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Well it looks like some of the slide hammers are breaking, cracking apart. I have a pic somebody sent me, of a broken one. I don't know if they would be happy about me posting it, but it looks like it broke at the bottom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2022 4:41:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Not sure that a single instance of that is representative of the ownership of M249S's, much less justification for a recall of every single M249S FN has produced...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2022 5:28:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure that a single instance of that is representative of the ownership of M249S's, much less justification for a recall of every single M249S FN has produced... If they were all built with the same slide hammer that’s a perfectly good reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2022 5:56:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If they were all built with the same slide hammer that's a perfectly good reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2022 6:36:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure that a single instance of that is representative of the ownership of M249S's, much less justification for a recall of every single M249S FN has produced... That is the exact part FN says they are replacing for the safety recall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2022 8:32:25 PM EDT
[#14]
I'm not too concerned about the recall, but there is no way I am shipping a $10,000 piece of property that is hard to find.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2022 8:48:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is the exact part FN says they are replacing for the safety recall. I'd love to see the M249S insides from someone who has done the recall already, and compare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2022 9:30:50 AM EDT
[#16]
The slide hammer breaks then you send it in.I doult a lot are getting sent for recall anyways
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2022 11:04:30 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The slide hammer breaks then you send it in.  Thread on the recall here: https://www.fnforum.net/threads/m249s-recall-info-question.229320/ There's one guy who said he just got his back from FN's recall work. He said, "The bolt and carrier appear new and the slide hammer has been completely redesigned it has a locking bar with two springs. Everything seems to work fine but the trigger pull is noticeably harder. I will try to get to the range this week." Here's a pic he posted of the new assembly.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2022 11:36:30 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By that reasoning, if anything breaks (not even talking about gun parts), that's a reason to recall all of them? For liability purposes they may not want people repairing their own guns. Not everyone has that ability anyways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2022 12:25:27 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol. Thread on the recall here: https://www.fnforum.net/threads/m249s-recall-info-question.229320/ There's one guy who said he just got his back from FN's recall work. He said, "The bolt and carrier appear new and the slide hammer has been completely redesigned it has a locking bar with two springs. Everything seems to work fine but the trigger pull is noticeably harder. I will try to get to the range this week." Here's a pic he posted of the new assembly. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/42132/b3dr3zT_jpeg-2307140.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The slide hammer breaks then you send it in. Thread on the recall here: https://www.fnforum.net/threads/m249s-recall-info-question.229320/ There's one guy who said he just got his back from FN's recall work. He said, "The bolt and carrier appear new and the slide hammer has been completely redesigned it has a locking bar with two springs. Everything seems to work fine but the trigger pull is noticeably harder. I will try to get to the range this week." Here's a pic he posted of the new assembly. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/42132/b3dr3zT_jpeg-2307140.JPG I'd rather say I lost the parts and just purchase the updated replacement parts. Is there a receiver modification that goes with that? If sending back the firearm, now I know which parts to keep out of it, even if I have to pay for the new parts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2022 1:26:48 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd rather say I lost the parts and just purchase the updated replacement parts. Is there a receiver modification that goes with that? If sending back the firearm, now I know which parts to keep out of it, even if I have to pay for the new parts. Like I said it breaks send it in then.Are one 249 has over 10k thru it.Not a broken part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2022 4:10:10 PM EDT
[#21]
If the recall doesn't modify the receiver, it certainly has nothing to do with ease of conversion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2022 7:59:40 PM EDT
[#22]
Reports from those who got theirs back are not positive. Not going to send mine in...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2022 11:33:27 AM EDT
[#23]
From that thread, posted by a well-known person in the NFA community in AZ who just got his FN M249s back from the recall work said:
"A good friend who is a big time dealer (Class III and SOT) was over yesterday to examine the M249s believes part of the recall maybe all of it was that it was very easy to modify the M249s into full auto. Not likely now that the mods have been done. But never say never. He fells that it's possible that after running a few 200 round belts it MIGHT loosen up some." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2022 1:12:17 PM EDT
[#24]
So did they modify the receiver or what?
Because this is correct: Quoted: If the recall doesn't modify the receiver, it certainly has nothing to do with ease of conversion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 4:59:25 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So did they modify the receiver or what? Because this is correct: Most people swap altered (open bolt) SAW parts into the 249S to affect the conversion, so the semi-auto bolt carrier assembly normally just gets removed and stored away in a box. Quote HistoryQuoted: So did they modify the receiver or what? Because this is correct: Quoted: If the recall doesn't modify the receiver, it certainly has nothing to do with ease of conversion. I've seen one of that method in person. Besides modifying the parts to fit the semi-auto receiver rails, a whole new trigger housing / grip frame ( US military calls it, "trigger assembly") was formed to accept the M249 trigger parts and fit the M249S receiver. Another method I've seen on the Internet involved somehow using an H&K sear with closed bolt parts. That one sounds pretty complicated, but might retain the factory closed bolt parts. Neither conversion is, "easy" and just changing internal parts wouldn't change the state of the receiver and other available parts, including original parts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 11:48:34 AM EDT
[#26]
I have both an FN M249S (not 'fixed' by recall) and an MGA Mk46, which is a lightened version of the M249 and is modified to use an HK lower. It uses a custom longer HK hammer in it, but otherwise takes any HK lower that drops in. So if I were a Type 7/SOT, I could drop in a registered full auto HK sear pack and the gun - which is closed bolt - would fire full auto (or semi, since it has an HK selector switch).
Here's my Mk46 MOD2:  Here's my FN M249S:  Either way, I think it's clear that FN is trying to avoid having the ATF do something like they did with Tommybuilt T36's and retroactively declare them all MG's. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 12:00:08 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have both an FN M249S (not 'fixed' by recall) and an MGA Mk46, which is a lightened version of the M249 and is modified to use an HK lower. It uses a custom longer HK hammer in it, but otherwise takes any HK lower that drops in. Has your MGA been reliable? I've heard mixed reviews. I've read MGA later changed their design so a longer HK hammer is not required anymore. I just don't think I'd want a closed-bolt 249/MK46. Thoughts? Thanks for sharing your pics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 12:28:04 PM EDT
[#28]
Mine is one of the very early MGA's - as in one of the first few they built. I've had no issues with reliability of it, though it's not very nice to brass if you reload. Yes - I've heard MGA has changed the design so the hammer is not needed. No real opinion on it, as I haven't seen the new design or been able to get my hands on a new version.
As far as the HK lower dimensional differences dropping the grip about 3/4 of an inch... not really something I've noticed when actually using it. Pictures seem to emphasize the difference more than when you actually hold it. My biggest gripe on the Mk46 is that the push pins are a real pain to remove and require a mallet to get them to budge. I'm hesitant to open them up a bit because I don't want to introduce any stock wobble. The FN's are tight, but still able to be removed with just my fingers. Also, the pins on the Mk46 aren't captured. Minor gripe though - and probably not one most care about, but I like to change my configurations to different stocks, handguards and barrel lengths - so it's an annoyance to me. Could just be particular to my specific build though. I do wish they had a bolt hold-open though. FN's solution was "meh" - but they could have easily put one on it for not much work. I mean, they took the time to engineer around the issue for closing the feed cover if the bolt was closed, which I very much appareciate (MGA didn't do that, BTW). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 1:11:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have both an FN M249S (not 'fixed' by recall) and an MGA Mk46, which is a lightened version of the M249 and is modified to use an HK lower. It uses a custom longer HK hammer in it, but otherwise takes any HK lower that drops in. So if I were a Type 7/SOT, I could drop in a registered full auto HK sear pack and the gun - which is closed bolt - would fire full auto (or semi, since it has an HK selector switch). Here's my Mk46 MOD2: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51839384308_de277a4c77_k.jpg Here's my FN M249S: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51944874887_6fdc8394f5_k.jpg Either way, I think it's clear that FN is trying to avoid having the ATF do something like they did with Tommybuilt T36's and retroactively declare them all MG's. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51796075947_287919dc02_k.jpg If the sear is registered, why would an SOT have to be involved? Some legal issue with modifying an H&K hammer? It looks more like FN is trying to avoid safety issues with out of battery firings. If it was a conversion issue, the receiver would be addressed, because the original parts are obviously available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 1:23:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the sear is registered, why would an SOT have to be involved? Some legal issue with modifying an H&K hammer? It looks more like FN is trying to avoid safety issues with out of battery firings. If it was a conversion issue, the receiver would be addressed, because the original parts are obviously available. I disagree with your assessment of FN's recall work on the M249S. I've yet to see any evidence of an issue that would merit a recall of every single one made. Still waiting on confirmation from someone who has had the recall done to confirm that the receiver itself has been modified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 1:47:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the sear is registered, why would an SOT have to be involved? Quote HistoryQuoted: If the sear is registered, why would an SOT have to be involved? MGA's position on the matter is rather nebulous, and they have an old ATF opinion letter, but that letter simply states their semi-auto MK46 isn't a MG (although they have implied this letter to mean more favorable things in phone conversations). They ceased hosting the letter image on their website years ago. Obviously they want to advertise their gun as being readily converted using a registered HK pack, and that's definitely true. Some legal issue with modifying an H&K hammer? ...and I see jtb33 beat me, and with a more concise repsonse. Nicely done. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 3:21:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because ATF has taken the position that a registered sear can only be used in the gun for which it was designed. For example, an FNC sear from the 70's is the same as the sear for a modern SCAR, but ATF has said you cannot use the FNC sear in a SCAR. While there is no specific letter or determination for this case (HK sear pack in an M249), the same principle likely applies, and I'm not willing to be the test case - but you go right ahead. I disagree with your assessment of FN's recall work on the M249S. I've yet to see any evidence of an issue that would merit a recall of every single one made. Still waiting on confirmation from someone who has had the recall done to confirm that the receiver itself has been modified. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If the sear is registered, why would an SOT have to be involved? Some legal issue with modifying an H&K hammer? It looks more like FN is trying to avoid safety issues with out of battery firings. If it was a conversion issue, the receiver would be addressed, because the original parts are obviously available. I disagree with your assessment of FN's recall work on the M249S. I've yet to see any evidence of an issue that would merit a recall of every single one made. Still waiting on confirmation from someone who has had the recall done to confirm that the receiver itself has been modified. Yes I know about he FNC sear in a SCAR. I thought it might be an issue, but why does the H&K sear have to be registered for a post sample? Does having it installed by an SOT somehow make the converted M249S transferable? That doesn't sound right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 4:05:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought it might be an issue, but why does the H&K sear have to be registered for a post sample? Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought it might be an issue, but why does the H&K sear have to be registered for a post sample? Any Class II SOT could just as easily register the MGA receiver as the post sample MG, and utilize an unmodified HK sear pack to complete the gun and render it select-fire, but if you're going to register a receiver instead of a conversion device, then why not go ahead and build a conventional open-bolt MK46/SAW with a standard FN trigger assembly instead? Does having it installed by an SOT somehow make the converted M249S transferable? The only difference is that ATF doesn't care if an SOT gets a SAW upper (or whatever) to function with their registered (and possibly transferable) conversion device or M11/Nine receiver, but they don't want transferable M11 owners nationwide (normal people) to start doing it, so they take the position that it's "creating a new MG" while simultaneously not caring if an 07/02 doesn't Form 2 that particular "host". So then you get into the question of why a Lage MAX-11/15 would be acceptable, while a convertible host SAW for your HK drop-in sear pack is not, and I don't know the answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 5:16:42 PM EDT
[#34]
I am following this and so far everything is speculation. I doubt that anyone who sent their 249 in even remembers what the reciever looked like prior to the recall.
If it is a concern the only way to tell is a comparison between the two. The other thing that bothers me is all the talk about SOTs conversions it doesn't matter if it is hard or easy it is something most of us cant and wont do. They also seem to have looked at a recalled receiver but did not say if anything was changed. I would prefer if my tigger and OP rod was the same as I sent it in but I would like to believe it was a safety issue. I here of people saying if it went full auto you have two choices ride the thunder or break the belt I do not want to have any rifle go full auto unexpectedly much less a 200 rd belt that will be gone in less than 20 seconds good luck breaking the belt. Sorry about the long winded post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 5:30:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ...a 200 rd belt that will be gone in less than 20 seconds good luck breaking the belt. 20 seconds is a long time. Gunners should be able to break a belt in 4 seconds or less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 6:01:45 PM EDT
[#36]
What constitutes a gunner
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 6:16:31 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What constitutes a gunner Like highly trained automatic riflemen Has anyone here actually heard of a FN 249S malfunctioning in the manner described above (runaway gun)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2022 6:20:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Most people who own these are not well trained automatic rifleman.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2022 3:37:19 PM EDT
[#39]
From the pics of the parts it looks like some out of battery firing prevention, rather than an accidental firing preventive measure.
Are people trying to bump fire these? I haven't shot mine as I haven't been able to get to a range since I bought it, being the lone caretaker of my disabled mother. I went to so much trouble to get it, I'd rather leave it as is, than risk having it damaged or lost in shipping. I was able to buy some spare parts for it. What would FN do if it was sent in without the (original) parts? Charge for the new parts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2022 3:52:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What would FN do if it was sent in without the (original) parts? Charge for the new parts? Probably send it back without doing anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2022 4:53:56 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably send it back without doing anything. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What would FN do if it was sent in without the (original) parts? Charge for the new parts? Probably send it back without doing anything. Well I hope they would at least replace missing parts, even if they charge for them. Imagine losing a part and having a $10,000 wall hanger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2022 5:22:28 PM EDT
[#42]
Well I made it out to the range today. I fired a 100 rd belt to check function and here is my report. I had one fail to go battery which I will address later in this report.
Let's start with the complaints I and other people have. First the trigger it is definitely a harder pull but I actually like it better than the old one. On the old trigger I have outrun the trigger on numerous occasions and I think this will slow me up a bit so that doesn't happen.Even after 100 rds it seemed to lighten up some. Moving on to the charging handle I did not have any problems charging the rifle you just need to be a little more firm with it. After I got home and stripped it down here is my report. First I want everyone to know I did not lube or clean the rifle and it was very dry which I account for the failure to go into battery. I took some time and examined the receiver and I do not see anything that was added but once again I have no picture of before. I did look at the operation of the slide hammer and have come to the conclusion that it is a safety mechanism. I have no regrets sending my 249 in for the recall. I look forward to hearing other range reports but not the he said she said BS |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2022 5:19:31 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well I made it out to the range today. I fired a 100 rd belt to check function and here is my report. I had one fail to go battery which I will address later in this report. Let's start with the complaints I and other people have. First the trigger it is definitely a harder pull but I actually like it better than the old one. On the old trigger I have outrun the trigger on numerous occasions and I think this will slow me up a bit so that doesn't happen.Even after 100 rds it seemed to lighten up some. Moving on to the charging handle I did not have any problems charging the rifle you just need to be a little more firm with it. After I got home and stripped it down here is my report. First I want everyone to know I did not lube or clean the rifle and it was very dry which I account for the failure to go into battery. I took some time and examined the receiver and I do not see anything that was added but once again I have no picture of before. I did look at the operation of the slide hammer and have come to the conclusion that it is a safety mechanism. I have no regrets sending my 249 in for the recall. I look forward to hearing other range reports but not the he said she said BS Sounds good. It looks like the modification would address possible out of battery firing, rather than runaway firing. I'm not that much against getting the recall, but I would be concerned about shipping the rifle and have something happen to it. First of all it isn't new if it if it pre-owned, even if I haven't fired it. There's a good chance I wouldn't even get all the money I spent for it. I know proving some sort of, "market valve" might be possible, but usually payments end up less than retail. They aren't discontinued, so can't really be considered rare, even if they are hard to find. The bigger issue for me is just plain losing it, even if I got paid. I'd feel the same way if it broke or I lost a part. I'd rather keep it as a wall hanger than lose it or have it damaged in shipping. When I have more free time, I'll wear it out shooting it. These days I just can't away to a range for any time. Maybe one day I'll move out to the country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2022 10:10:29 AM EDT
[#44]
Your gun was shipped multiple times before it got to you. It’ll survive another trip.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2022 10:21:34 AM EDT
[#45]
They make it easy to ship new box new bolt hold open block and a shipping label. Even instructions on how to pack. Mine went back for both recalls with no problems. It looks like a new batch is out there are some on GB for 10k.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2022 11:29:12 AM EDT
[#46]
Yep - I noticed that there were a lot more "New in box" M249S that were listed this week. Smells like FN has started shipping the new ones now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2022 12:23:59 PM EDT
[#47]
So now most people that are looking for one will pay 10k and not the 14k or 15k people think the non-recall are worth.
Recall or not they both fire and work as they should so the average person will not care. To the new owners i hope you enjoy yours as much as I enjoy mine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2022 12:36:12 PM EDT
[#48]
I think the dealers who are listing them are hoping to be first, as they are all open auctions, not "Buy Now" that start at $10K MSRP. My bet is that until typical retailers get the M249S's, the new ones at auction will still go for $12-$15K.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2022 2:13:05 PM EDT
[#49]
I think you might be right I was not paying attention to the buy now and starting bid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2022 9:48:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the dealers who are listing them are hoping to be first, as they are all open auctions, not "Buy Now" that start at $10K MSRP. My bet is that until typical retailers get the M249S's, the new ones at auction will still go for $12-$15K. Hopefully mine will ship soon. Preordered 17 months ago |
|
|
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.
