Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/13/2006 12:11:27 AM EST
Hey, i have been considering purchasing an HK autosear, and would like to know if it will work in a G36, if anyone has experiance with this would you please let me know, thanks
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 12:28:53 AM EST
No it will not, both physically and, legally.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 1:56:53 AM EST
I understand the physically part, but, if it were physically possible, what would legally prevent one from using a legal, registered, transferrable auto-sear in a G36?
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 3:53:49 AM EST
All registered HK sears were designed for, and to be used in, the '90' series guns. PERIOD. ATF will not allow use (even if it were possible) to be used in any other firearm.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 4:49:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By osprey21:
All registered HK sears were designed for, and to be used in, the '90' series guns. PERIOD. ATF will not allow use (even if it were possible) to be used in any other firearm.



Hmmm. What if you take the "3" in the "36" and round out the top to read "96"? Problem solved.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 6:30:07 AM EST
Only way possible would be to have a manufacturing FFL with a class III LE letter. But at that point, its cheaper just to play with a real G36 and not turn an SL8 into one.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 6:46:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/13/2006 6:47:04 AM EST by HK_Shooter_03]

Originally Posted By osprey21:
All registered HK sears were designed for, and to be used in, the '90' series guns. PERIOD. ATF will not allow use (even if it were possible) to be used in any other firearm.



What about that bastard child of the grease-gun and HK submachine gun?
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 7:27:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By osprey21:
All registered HK sears were designed for, and to be used in, the '90' series guns. PERIOD. ATF will not allow use (even if it were possible) to be used in any other firearm.



Yeah, I don't think that's accurate. Can you cite anything to back that up?

I've seen Special Weapons SW-10/MP-10 deals run FA with a legally registered transferrable sear, and they're not a 90-series gun, nor was the sear designed for them.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 8:53:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/13/2006 9:04:01 AM EST by osprey21]
Ok.. Ok..

I should have said, guns "based" on the 90 series trigger packs, as are the SW, BW, etc...

Link Posted: 4/13/2006 5:44:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By osprey21:
Ok.. Ok..

I should have said, guns "based" on the 90 series trigger packs, as are the SW, BW, etc...



I still don't think that's accurate, and would love to see something cited that shows that.

I mean, not that I've got a registered sear, so I don't have any dog in this fight - I really don't care if I'm right or wrong - I just enjoy educating myself on the various gun laws and rulings, and I've never seen anything like that.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 6:20:05 PM EST
Short thread... so you would assume that I have read it all... nope, but here is my logic.

Yeah, I know... Logic is dangerous...

If you buy the cheapest sear on the market what is keeping you from duct taping it to the side of any
firearm you own and using it as full auto ?

See where this gets cloudy ?

I'm sure there is an ATF tech branch letter floating around somewhere... but I think you'd be pretty well fucked
if you slid an FNC sear into an AR and considered it legal

If the sear wasn't designed for a specific gun, then it cannot be modified to be used in another gun... this would probably
constitute making a machine gun which is now illegal, post 86, etc, etc...

So no, current 9X sears cannot be used in a G36 clone or a UMP clone, etc.

Does this make better sense class ?
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 6:48:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/13/2006 6:50:31 PM EST by HK_Shooter_03]

Originally Posted By bones21:
Short thread... so you would assume that I have read it all... nope, but here is my logic.

Yeah, I know... Logic is dangerous...

If you buy the cheapest sear on the market what is keeping you from duct taping it to the side of any
firearm you own and using it as full auto ?

See where this gets cloudy ?

I'm sure there is an ATF tech branch letter floating around somewhere... but I think you'd be pretty well fucked
if you slid an FNC sear into an AR and considered it legal

If the sear wasn't designed for a specific gun, then it cannot be modified to be used in another gun... this would probably
constitute making a machine gun which is now illegal, post 86, etc, etc...

So no, current 9X sears cannot be used in a G36 clone or a UMP clone, etc.

Does this make better sense class ?



Wow, I never thought about that...

Nevermind duct taping it, how about installing it in a non-functional location?

This is only a theoretical statement and I would never attempt something like this...


ETA: I've seen Mac-10 to M249 conversions before... How does this rule apply there?
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 7:39:57 PM EST
The affixing of a sear as described (duct-taped or other) is one thing.

What I'm asking is - if someone has a registered HK sear in 9mm, .223 and .308, and that sear is the same as the current G36 sear - i.e. HK didn't change the design, etc., what's to stop someone from using that in a G36?

Think "functional" parts here, not someone's attempt at skirting the law by taping a sear into a gun.

Another example - say I have a registered DIAS for my AR-15 rifle. If someone were to design a new firearm that could make use of my DIAS, I don't believe that there's anything stopping me, legally, from using that DIAS in a non-AR rifle.

If there is, where's the ruling/law that prevents this?
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 8:00:28 PM EST
I see your point, but the original question was regarding the SL8/G36 thingy.

I was just stretching it when I mentioned the tape method. It was just a "left field"
example.

I guess if a gun was designed to accept "said" sear fire control parts... well then I see
no reason why it wouldn't be legal, but I have read debates where no one can figure it out.

I guess it would be a gray area until somone got an ATF clarification on the matter.

Think of how cool it would be to have those cheap(er) FNC sears and FNC fire control parts
put into an AR15.... This would make for a much cheaper full-auto toy.

This is why I think that the ATF would not allow it... Just my thinking though.

Everyone here knows how the ATF has different looking glasses than we do.

Someone should write them a letter on this matter. But as far as the G36 clone and
a current HK sear.... no go, because I have heard the trigger packs are a completely different animal

Hell, can we get an FNC sear to work in the Hk 9X guns

Now that would be worth writing the ATF on


BTW: I do not own any full auto guns, so my opinions and views are based on interweb lurning. Use at your own risk

Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:10:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By kythri:

What I'm asking is - if someone has a registered HK sear in 9mm, .223 and .308, and that sear is the same as the current G36 sear -


That's my whole point, the G36 sear arrangement is a totally different design.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:32:47 AM EST
The sear is considered the machine gun, not the host. It would seem to me you could put the sear in any gun you wanted, you're not making any new machine gun. The ductape example is sear = 1 machinegun + host = 1 machinegun for a total 2. Yes, thats illegal.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:42:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 12:45:38 AM EST by Dave_A]
The rule is this: the registered conversion part must be involved in the actual workings of the gun that it is installed in (eg it must perform some function to make the gun fire automatically, it cannot just be 'put somewhere'). Nothing says a conversion part is restricted to one model of gun...

There have been cases where folks have enqired about taping or welding a LL or RIDAS to an AK & then converting the AK... ATF shot this down.

The 249 & RPD MAC kits were, IIRC, very limited production & very questionable because the ATF went after the guy making it for his semi-auto conversion of the old Maxim GPMG.

Depending on how he made it, the ATF could theoretically call the M249 upper a MG (due to their issues with open bolt weapons)...
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 4:05:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By osprey21:

Originally Posted By kythri:

What I'm asking is - if someone has a registered HK sear in 9mm, .223 and .308, and that sear is the same as the current G36 sear -


That's my whole point, the G36 sear arrangement is a totally different design.



Not so - you had two points.

You said you can't do it - physically and legally.

We addressed the physically. An HK 2x/5x/9x auto-sear won't work in a G36. Understood. I wasn't arguing that it could.

I wanted to know where you got the "legally" bit from. It was my understanding that if the sear is legally registered and works in a particular firearm, then you're good to go.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 6:39:15 AM EST
Have a great day.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 11:59:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 12:00:21 PM EST by kythri]

Originally Posted By osprey21:
Have a great day.



OK, fine.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you're going to spout off about something, have information to back it up.

I'm trying to figure this out for my own edification.

Did you actually have some information that led you to believe this was not legal, or were you just blowing smoke?
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:48:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By kythri:

Originally Posted By osprey21:
Have a great day.



OK, fine.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you're going to spout off about something, have information to back it up.

I'm trying to figure this out for my own edification.

Did you actually have some information that led you to believe this was not legal, or were you just blowing smoke?



Well,

If a HK sear would work in a G36 (which it won't) why spend 10K to 11.5K on a HK sear and not a FNC sear for 3,5K

The FNC sear will not work in the SCAR rifles and the HK sear will not work in the UMP or G36. Or should I say USC and SL8-1.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 1:43:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 1:45:35 PM EST by kythri]

Originally Posted By UZI4you:

Originally Posted By kythri:

Originally Posted By osprey21:
Have a great day.



OK, fine.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you're going to spout off about something, have information to back it up.

I'm trying to figure this out for my own edification.

Did you actually have some information that led you to believe this was not legal, or were you just blowing smoke?



Well,

If a HK sear would work in a G36 (which it won't) why spend 10K to 11.5K on a HK sear and not a FNC sear for 3,5K

The FNC sear will not work in the SCAR rifles and the HK sear will not work in the UMP or G36. Or should I say USC and SL8-1.



I really don't understand how this is hard to comprehend.

Let me put it in bold letters this time:

I KNOW THAT THE HK SEAR WILL NOT WORK IN A G36. THE SEARS ARE PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT, THEREFORE, IT WILL NOT FUNCTION.

With me, so far?

As such, if an HK 2x/3x/5x/9x sear won't work in an HK G36, why the hell would an FNC sear work in a G36?

The sears aren't the same. We established that pretty damned earlier in the thread. Since the sear in the the roller-lock guns are physically different than the sear in the G36, we establish that you can't put a roller-lock sear in a G36 to get it to function FA.

OK. Cool. Established. Drop the goddamned topic, and move on.

My question was the legality.

Osprey said you can't do it, both physically and legally.

He went on to say that the ATF won't allow it.

I want to know where there is any kind of ruling or legislation that says, if the sear will actually function, that you can't put it in a new production firearm.

i.e. IF HK kept the same sear design from many years ago down to today, IF the sear in the roller lock guns was the same as the G36 sear, and IF you had a legally registered sear, where is the law or opinion that prevents it's use in the newer gun??

We all do comprehend the English language here, right? I really don't think that my repeated question is really that unclear. If you don't understand my question, please, rather than repeating the same shit over and over again, tell me what you don't understand, OK?
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 10:43:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By kythri:

Originally Posted By UZI4you:

Originally Posted By kythri:

Originally Posted By osprey21:
Have a great day.



OK, fine.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you're going to spout off about something, have information to back it up.

I'm trying to figure this out for my own edification.

Did you actually have some information that led you to believe this was not legal, or were you just blowing smoke?



Well,

If a HK sear would work in a G36 (which it won't) why spend 10K to 11.5K on a HK sear and not a FNC sear for 3,5K

The FNC sear will not work in the SCAR rifles and the HK sear will not work in the UMP or G36. Or should I say USC and SL8-1.



I really don't understand how this is hard to comprehend.

Let me put it in bold letters this time:

I KNOW THAT THE HK SEAR WILL NOT WORK IN A G36. THE SEARS ARE PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT, THEREFORE, IT WILL NOT FUNCTION.

With me, so far?

As such, if an HK 2x/3x/5x/9x sear won't work in an HK G36, why the hell would an FNC sear work in a G36?

The sears aren't the same. We established that pretty damned earlier in the thread. Since the sear in the the roller-lock guns are physically different than the sear in the G36, we establish that you can't put a roller-lock sear in a G36 to get it to function FA.

OK. Cool. Established. Drop the goddamned topic, and move on.

My question was the legality.

Osprey said you can't do it, both physically and legally.

He went on to say that the ATF won't allow it.

I want to know where there is any kind of ruling or legislation that says, if the sear will actually function, that you can't put it in a new production firearm.

i.e. IF HK kept the same sear design from many years ago down to today, IF the sear in the roller lock guns was the same as the G36 sear, and IF you had a legally registered sear, where is the law or opinion that prevents it's use in the newer gun??
We all do comprehend the English language here, right? I really don't think that my repeated question is really that unclear. If you don't understand my question, please, rather than repeating the same shit over and over again, tell me what you don't understand, OK?



My comment about the FNC sears was a joke. But it was also from HKpro.com where another person asked if there was anyway a sear would work in a HK USC/UMP. What was expressed on HKpro was just like Osprey21 said the HK sears only will work in HK 90s style guns. If that was the case that HK sears could work in other firearms guys would find ways to rig them up to run a GE MINI Gun. To which I said, If it was legal to transferable sears in guns that were not made for them, then why not use the less expensive FNC sear vs. the high cost HK sear.



The problem your ouestion is there are too many IF's here. In a prefect world IF HK built the G36 around the G3 tigger pack, and rolling lock design, and IF G36s were imortable in semi auto then yes you could use a transferable sear in a G36. Of course it would no longer be a G36 it would be a HK 33 (93) with a bunch of plastic around it.


Example: the SW SP10 HK94/ UMP wanna be.

Also, in a perfect world we would have the 86 machine gun ban or the 68 importation ban.

The LUSA 9mm carbines look like they will be sear ready, but I have not heard anything from the ATF if they can or can not be used with a transferable sear.

IF the HK sears would have worked in the SL8-1 and USC, my guess is that HK would have sold alot more of them. Instead they were only imported for two years.

I was not trying to be a jerk, I was just trying to add a little humor with my first comment.


Chris
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 12:12:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By UZI4you:
My comment about the FNC sears was a joke. But it was also from HKpro.com where another person asked if there was anyway a sear would work in a HK USC/UMP. What was expressed on HKpro was just like Osprey21 said the HK sears only will work in HK 90s style guns. If that was the case that HK sears could work in other firearms guys would find ways to rig them up to run a GE MINI Gun. To which I said, If it was legal to transferable sears in guns that were not made for them, then why not use the less expensive FNC sear vs. the high cost HK sear.



OK, I could potentially understand that - no modification allowed to the host gun, no modification allowed to the sear.

Using you example of an FNC sear - if, coincidentally, FN designed the FNC auto sear to be identical to the AR auto sear, so that neither of the host guns (FNC, AR-15) had to be modified, and the sears didn't have to be modified, then, theoretically, the use of the FNC auto sear in the AR should be legal, right?


The problem your ouestion is there are too many IF's here. In a prefect world IF HK built the G36 around the G3 tigger pack, and rolling lock design, and IF G36s were imortable in semi auto then yes you could use a transferable sear in a G36. Of course it would no longer be a G36 it would be a HK 33 (93) with a bunch of plastic around it.


Right.


Example: the SW SP10 HK94/ UMP wanna be.


Exactly the example I was trying to use above.


The LUSA 9mm carbines look like they will be sear ready, but I have not heard anything from the ATF if they can or can not be used with a transferable sear.


Another great example. I'd imagine that if they accept HK trigger packs, then use of a registered sear in one of these would be OK.


IF the HK sears would have worked in the SL8-1 and USC, my guess is that HK would have sold alot more of them. Instead they were only imported for two years.


Exactly - don't be mistaken, I completely understand that as the SL8-1/G36 and the registered HK sears sit right this very minute, there's no way that one could go pick them up and put them together this very second to make a functionally FA firearm.


I was not trying to be a jerk, I was just trying to add a little humor with my first comment.

Chris



Understood - I wasn't trying to be an ass either, was just getting frustrated that the comments from multiple people seemed to be repeating the same thing over and over again - that the sear designs were different, and that functionally, it wouldn't work.

I had thought that I made my understanding of that point rather clear early on.

Many thanks for your help!
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 8:59:50 AM EST
Here is the legal explanation:

Because the ATF said so.



If you don't like that answer then you should take legal action against the ATF. It is a completely arbitrary but that is current precedent and standard. You can choose to hang the messenger if you want but it won't get you any closer to understanding the logic or any closer to legally putting a sear in a G36.

Link Posted: 4/16/2006 10:25:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/16/2006 10:27:25 AM EST by kythri]

Originally Posted By ian187:
Here is the legal explanation:

Because the ATF said so.



Cite it.

Early on, someone said the same thing, and I asked where they got that information.

"Because the ATF said so." means dick, unless you cite the ATF ruling on that.

If you honestly believe yourself to be correct on this matter, then you must have seen the ruling somewhere, so you should be able to cite it.


If you don't like that answer then you should take legal action against the ATF. It is a completely arbitrary but that is current precedent and standard. You can choose to hang the messenger if you want but it won't get you any closer to understanding the logic or any closer to legally putting a sear in a G36.


A> I didn't "hang the messenger" - when told that you can't legally do it, I asked for the proof that you can't legally do it.

B> I have no intent of putting a sear into a G36, but I want to see the ATF ruling on that.

By your logic, claiming that the ATF says you can't do it, if I were to design a firearm, the KYTHRI-556, both in semi-auto form for civilian sales, and select-fire form for LEO/Government sales, and I designed this firearm to be able to accept the FNC sears, someone with a legally registered FNC sear couldn't put it in a semi-auto KYTHRI-556 and play FA.

I don't believe that is accurate.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong - if you insist that I'm wrong, because the ATF has ruled what I described above as illegal, then cite the ruling or applicable law.

What I described above is the same thing as Todd Bailey designing his SP-10/MP-10 to use HK trigger packs, and by association, HK registered sears.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 1:46:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By kythri:

Originally Posted By ian187:
Here is the legal explanation:

Because the ATF said so.



Cite it.




There is no "citing" it, it is a precedent set by the ATF.

If you don't believe it then go ahead and convert a transferable sear to fit a G36 and see what happens. Maybe you will win and maybe you won't, but since you are doubting and want to argue you should figure it out for yourself.

Do you think you are the first to come up with this question?

Link Posted: 4/16/2006 1:51:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By kythri:

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong - if you insist that I'm wrong, because the ATF has ruled what I described above as illegal, then cite the ruling or applicable law.




I'm not insisting on anything and I would love to be wrong. However, I'm not going to look it up because I don't really care to prove your wrong or right.

I think you should ignore all of us idiots and just build your new firearm. You would certainly show everyone then, right?

Link Posted: 4/16/2006 3:09:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By kythri:

Originally Posted By ian187:
Here is the legal explanation:

Because the ATF said so.



Cite it.




There is no "citing" it, it is a precedent set by the ATF.

If you don't believe it then go ahead and convert a transferable sear to fit a G36 and see what happens. Maybe you will win and maybe you won't, but since you are doubting and want to argue you should figure it out for yourself.

Do you think you are the first to come up with this question?




No, I don't think I'm the first to come up with the question.

If it's a precedent set by the ATF, there's a ruling/opinion from them, or there's case-law to cite.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 3:11:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By kythri:

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong - if you insist that I'm wrong, because the ATF has ruled what I described above as illegal, then cite the ruling or applicable law.




I'm not insisting on anything and I would love to be wrong. However, I'm not going to look it up because I don't really care to prove your wrong or right.



Then why'd you join this debate?


I think you should ignore all of us idiots and just build your new firearm. You would certainly show everyone then, right?




Wow, such insightful comments. Thank you, sir, for your fabulous contribution to this debate.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 3:18:06 PM EST
Top Top