Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/22/2006 6:41:32 AM EDT
Is it legal to remanufacter a cut USGI M14 to a semi-auto, by cutting off the auto connecter and rewelding?
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 6:52:11 AM EDT
No
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:18:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 7:19:26 AM EDT by Different]
No muss, no fuss, legal, semi-automatic forged American M14 receiver manufactured to USGI drawing 7790189 at www.lrbarms.com
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:59:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NFAman:
Is it legal to remanufacter a cut USGI M14 to a semi-auto, by cutting off the auto connecter and rewelding?



Once a MG always a MG.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:49:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DVCAPI:

Originally Posted By NFAman:
Is it legal to remanufacter a cut USGI M14 to a semi-auto, by cutting off the auto connecter and rewelding?



Once a MG always a MG.



Completely not true.

If you have an M-14 receiver that has been destroyed according to ATF specs (3 torch cuts removing a specific amount of material), then it is perfectly legal to rebuild that receiver in a semi-auto only configuration. You would want to send a letter to ATF's Tech Branch describing in detail how you plan to go about making it semi-auto only, but as long as the design is okay, they will tell you it's perfectly legal. A destroyed firearm receiver is not a firearm any longer and can be re-welded into a new firearm as if you machined a new one from solid billet yourself. No difference. The only touchy thing is the destroyed parts in the case of the M-14 still have full-auto capability if rebuild exactly as they were. This is why you need to come up with a plan to rebuild it while deleting the full-auto capability. Just duplicate a Springfield Armory M1A receiver and you'll be fine.

The "Once a machinegun always a machinegun" ATF policy has to do with taking an existing MG receiver and machining it directly to a semi-auto only configuration. This is not legal acording to ATF, though it has been struck down in court numerous times. Adding the step of properly destroying a machinegun receiver first, then it's it is no longer a machinegun nor even a firearm. You are starting from stratch. Perfectly legal.

Companies have gotten into trouble before in doing this because they either didn't start with a properly destoyed receiver or did not rebuild the receiver in an ATF-approved manner, ATF felt that the rebuilt gun had the provision to accept full-auto fire-control parts and declared them illegal. But do this is the proper manner and it's perfectly legal.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 10:56:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Homeinvader:

Originally Posted By DVCAPI:

Originally Posted By NFAman:
Is it legal to remanufacter a cut USGI M14 to a semi-auto, by cutting off the auto connecter and rewelding?



Once a MG always a MG.



Completely not true.

If you have an M-14 receiver that has been destroyed according to ATF specs (3 torch cuts removing a specific amount of material), then it is perfectly legal to rebuild that receiver in a semi-auto only configuration. You would want to send a letter to ATF's Tech Branch describing in detail how you plan to go about making it semi-auto only, but as long as the design is okay, they will tell you it's perfectly legal. A destroyed firearm receiver is not a firearm any longer and can be re-welded into a new firearm as if you machined a new one from solid billet yourself. No difference. The only touchy thing is the destroyed parts in the case of the M-14 still have full-auto capability if rebuild exactly as they were. This is why you need to come up with a plan to rebuild it while deleting the full-auto capability. Just duplicate a Springfield Armory M1A receiver and you'll be fine.

The "Once a machinegun always a machinegun" ATF policy has to do with taking an existing MG receiver and machining it directly to a semi-auto only configuration. This is not legal acording to ATF, though it has been struck down in court numerous times. Adding the step of properly destroying a machinegun receiver first, then it's it is no longer a machinegun nor even a firearm. You are starting from stratch. Perfectly legal.

Companies have gotten into trouble before in doing this because they either didn't start with a properly destoyed receiver or did not rebuild the receiver in an ATF-approved manner, ATF felt that the rebuilt gun had the provision to accept full-auto fire-control parts and declared them illegal. But do this is the proper manner and it's perfectly legal.



Well be my guest, I dont have the resources to fight the Govt. and the "Gray" policies they have. They will call it intent, and at the end of the day you will be screwed.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 1:08:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dpmmn:

Well be my guest, I dont have the resources to fight the Govt. and the "Gray" policies they have. They will call it intent, and at the end of the day you will be screwed.



Ha Ha! Intent to do what? Find a properly destroyed receiver (one that is not destroyed or improperly destroyed is an MG, beware), write a letter to ATF Tech Branch seeking a ruling on your propsed design, receive the approval, build the rifle. Your intent is pretty clear at this point: You want to make a semi-auto rifle and you can now do so.

Your inexperience shines through. This is done all the time my friend, nothing grea about it.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 4:38:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Homeinvader:

Originally Posted By dpmmn:

Well be my guest, I dont have the resources to fight the Govt. and the "Gray" policies they have. They will call it intent, and at the end of the day you will be screwed.



Ha Ha! Intent to do what? Find a properly destroyed receiver (one that is not destroyed or improperly destroyed is an MG, beware), write a letter to ATF Tech Branch seeking a ruling on your propsed design, receive the approval, build the rifle. Your intent is pretty clear at this point: You want to make a semi-auto rifle and you can now do so.

Your inexperience shines through. This is done all the time my friend, nothing grea about it.



Properly destroyed is a gray area that the ATF has used to prosecute. It is COMPLETELY up to their discretion as to what "properly destroyed" is, and varies depending on what they want to accomplish. I don't guess you have heard of the MKS saga? The only reweld I would trust would be a Hahn marked on - they are the ones that got the original approval letter to begin with. An a reweld is still a turd no matter who made it. Buy a LRB and be done with it!
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 6:21:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 6:23:33 PM EDT by lithgow303]

Originally Posted By Homeinvader:

Originally Posted By dpmmn:

Well be my guest, I dont have the resources to fight the Govt. and the "Gray" policies they have. They will call it intent, and at the end of the day you will be screwed.



Ha Ha! Intent to do what? Find a properly destroyed receiver (one that is not destroyed or improperly destroyed is an MG, beware), write a letter to ATF Tech Branch seeking a ruling on your propsed design, receive the approval, build the rifle. Your intent is pretty clear at this point: You want to make a semi-auto rifle and you can now do so.

Your inexperience shines through. This is done all the time my friend, nothing grea about it.



Have at it man. Let us know how your build turns out, and your name so I can check Westlaw for the decision in United States v. "homeinvader"



Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:50:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lancew:

Originally Posted By Homeinvader:

Originally Posted By dpmmn:

Well be my guest, I dont have the resources to fight the Govt. and the "Gray" policies they have. They will call it intent, and at the end of the day you will be screwed.



Ha Ha! Intent to do what? Find a properly destroyed receiver (one that is not destroyed or improperly destroyed is an MG, beware), write a letter to ATF Tech Branch seeking a ruling on your propsed design, receive the approval, build the rifle. Your intent is pretty clear at this point: You want to make a semi-auto rifle and you can now do so.

Your inexperience shines through. This is done all the time my friend, nothing grea about it.



Properly destroyed is a gray area that the ATF has used to prosecute. It is COMPLETELY up to their discretion as to what "properly destroyed" is, and varies depending on what they want to accomplish. I don't guess you have heard of the MKS saga? The only reweld I would trust would be a Hahn marked on - they are the ones that got the original approval letter to begin with. An a reweld is still a turd no matter who made it. Buy a LRB and be done with it!



Not quite true. Yes, Lloyd Hahn received a 1994 approval letter from the BATF to weld cut up M14 receivers but so did Martin Pearl in 1980. I have copies of both letters.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 7:56:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2006 7:57:09 PM EDT by Different]
Excuse the double tap.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 4:59:24 PM EDT
Thanks for the info. I would like to see those ATF letters. for now I'm going to wait
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 5:01:05 PM EDT
Thanks for the info. I would like to see those ATF letters. for now I'm going to wait
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:05:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Homeinvader:

Originally Posted By dpmmn:

Well be my guest, I dont have the resources to fight the Govt. and the "Gray" policies they have. They will call it intent, and at the end of the day you will be screwed.



Ha Ha! Intent to do what? Find a properly destroyed receiver (one that is not destroyed or improperly destroyed is an MG, beware), write a letter to ATF Tech Branch seeking a ruling on your propsed design, receive the approval, build the rifle. Your intent is pretty clear at this point: You want to make a semi-auto rifle and you can now do so.

Your inexperience shines through. This is done all the time my friend, nothing grea about it.



I trust the ATF about as far as I can throw them.

Link Posted: 1/24/2006 8:15:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2006 8:19:01 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 8:18:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Different:

Not quite true. Yes, Lloyd Hahn received a 1994 approval letter from the BATF to weld cut up M14 receivers but so did Martin Pearl in 1980. I have copies of both letters.



Did these individuals possess valid manufactuers licenses?
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 10:21:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raf:
As per Kuhnhausen, mil-spec receiver steel is quite difficult to weld.



I would suggest getting Kuhnhausen's book and reading that section. To do this project to make a quality receiver sounds labor intensive and expensive. Kinda like trying to rebuild a performance car from a compacted scrap block...

The legal issues would be a ridiculous hurdle to overcome AFTER spending all the time & money on a rebuild. Definitely want to get that OK'd before hand.

Good Luck either way, I personally think that with the military using the M14 again, that parts (including receivers) will come down in price in the future years.

~Will
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 4:11:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By William_lxix:
Good Luck either way, I personally think that with the military using the M14 again, that parts (including receivers) will come down in price in the future years.

~Will



Right now its kinda the opposite - there are no spare parts BECAUSE the military is using the M14 again. Klinton crunched a bunch, and gave a bunch of them away. BRAND NEW M14's were demilled in the "Captain Crunch" shear. My hope is that the interest in M14's will spawn LRB to produce more forged products, like bolts, operating rods, etc to take the the place of the mil-spec stuff that is fast drying up. It would be interesting if the military got interested enough in keeping the M14 around to help LRB make some parts for them- then we could enjoy some "overruns".
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 4:59:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lithgow303:

Originally Posted By Different:

Not quite true. Yes, Lloyd Hahn received a 1994 approval letter from the BATF to weld cut up M14 receivers but so did Martin Pearl in 1980. I have copies of both letters.



Did these individuals possess valid manufactuers licenses?



Yes, Hahn Machine Co. and Pearl Manufacturing. In fact, Martin Pearl is the gentleman that did the full auto conversions on the firearms for the movie classic Red Dawn.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 7:26:26 PM EDT
Check LRB's history. The ATF took Lou's receivers for being tooooo perfect in their eyes when he started. He then had to make changes and they still kept many he started with. (serial #'s in the 01XX-? range) Then he went to 01XXX, where mine is and I drool on it everyday!!!
Top Top