Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/12/2003 8:34:53 PM EDT
So, I want a side-folder, not an under-folder.

Would a .223 Norinco 84S pre-ban with full fixed stock be the rifle + donor receiver that I want?

On a side note - the left-over parts from the .223 rifle - could I put those onto one of the B-West receivers that I'm getting, or are there other issues?

Not that I'm really in the market for a .223 AK, but if I've got the parts laying around, and a Chinese style US-made receiver, it might be kinda cool to have (and probably easier to sell than the loose parts?).
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 2:22:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kythri:
So, I want a side-folder, not an under-folder.

Would a .223 Norinco 84S pre-ban with full fixed stock be the rifle + donor receiver that I want?

On a side note - the left-over parts from the .223 rifle - could I put those onto one of the B-West receivers that I'm getting, or are there other issues?

Not that I'm really in the market for a .223 AK, but if I've got the parts laying around, and a Chinese style US-made receiver, it might be kinda cool to have (and probably easier to sell than the loose parts?).



Correct. You definitely want the full fixed stock as the donor for a future sidefolder Krinkov.

The B-West receivers are 7.62 and you will have to deal with the potential magazine wobble problem when having the leftover parts assembled into another gun.

KF
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 3:17:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 3:05:32 PM EDT
Got a little lesson from Chris Butler at AK-USA today about some stuff.

Was talking to him about some things, when I called about my OOW heat-treating.

Told me about the .223 loose magazine issue, and the Chicom receiver issue.

Suggested a pre-ban Maadi, but I really want a 5.45 krink.

Any other suggestions?
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 3:57:03 PM EDT
Using a Styer Maadi as a doner for a Krink project would be criminal, so I'm kinda surprised he suggested it.

I've seen lots of Krinks built from 84s... so what gives? As was previously stated, the trunnion can be bored for the new barrel, so I'd go with the 84.
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 4:08:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2003 4:13:49 PM EDT by rocko]
I was going to do the same thing. However, at this point I'm going to wait a bit and see what the AWB is gonna do. Why chop up an ~$800 rifle that you won't see again, even if the AWB isn't replaced, when you may be able to use a $60 receiver instead in less than a year? I was on the preorder list for the original Progressive Arms kits, so I've already been putting it off awhile - I figure another 11 months won't hurt .

Regarding the trunion - I had thought the barrel on the bulgy 5.45 krink kits is a bit smaller than the .223 chinese, but can be sleeved to use the original chinese trunion.

Rocko
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 4:24:06 PM EDT
You can go ahead and do the pre-ban krink on the 84s receiver and stash the parts back.

To built a post ban out of the 84s parts you have 2 options. Number 1. would be to buy a Euro pattern trunnion from Global Trades that's specifically made for the Chinese bbl. dia. (approx. $60) and go with an OOW AK74 receiver. Number 2 would be to go with the B-West reciever and buy a MAK90 parts kit ($100) for the trunnion. (provided #2 is legal, seems it should be) Finding a Chinese trunnion is pretty much a "needle in a haystack" type thing, perhaps "the gooch" has one...

Of course with the MAK parts laying around, I see yet another post ban with the Global trunnion....
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 5:16:20 PM EDT
Maybe a naive questions, but why do you have to necessarily use the 84S front trunnion and why can't you just use the Krink's front trunnion instead? Granted, you'd need to relocate the rivets or the rivet holes and shave half a millimeter off each side of the trunnion to fit it into the thicker walled chinese receiver. You can also relocate the serial number on the new trunnion -- only the receiver (and not the trunnion) is the "gun".

I feel that I must be missing something too obvious to miss.

thanks.
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 9:15:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2003 12:00:12 AM EDT by Raptor22]

Originally Posted By kalibr:
Maybe a naive questions, but why do you have to necessarily use the 84S front trunnion and why can't you just use the Krink's front trunnion instead? Granted, you'd need to relocate the rivets or the rivet holes and shave half a millimeter off each side of the trunnion to fit it into the thicker walled chinese receiver. You can also relocate the serial number on the new trunnion -- only the receiver (and not the trunnion) is the "gun".

I feel that I must be missing something too obvious to miss.

thanks.



I am a little confused too but if I read what CAMPYBOB wrote correctly, the Norincos do not have a serial number on the receiver. It is on the trunion. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

WildWes, after two months of looking, I found that needle in a haystack, a Norinco front trunion.
Link Posted: 10/13/2003 11:29:08 PM EDT
As far as the serial number goes, isn’t it legal to MOVE the SN? You’re not changing it just moving it. Have the receiver engraved with the SN of the weapon before the trunion comes out.

Check with ATF.

Best regards, J

Link Posted: 10/14/2003 3:28:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 8:36:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2003 10:00:17 AM EDT by kalibr]
Thank you CAMPYBOB. Now I understand.

If it's not too much trouble, would you by any chance have cites to the relevant ATF regulations or interpretive letters?

I note that it is illegal to have the "importer's or manufacturer's serial number removed, obliterated, or altered" but I couldn't find any guidance on the BATF website as to whether that clause prohibits moving the serial number to a different part of a "receiver". Relocating or moving cannot reasonably be interpreted IMHO as "removing or obliterating" and "altering" should really mean changing the number itself (in the sense changing "123" into "456") and shouldn't prohibit moving the number to a different place as long as the number itself remains "unaltered".

I'm not trying to interpret anything, I'm just trying to elaborate on my question.
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 10:52:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 11:14:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2003 11:15:24 AM EDT by kalibr]
Thank!

The letter, however, is not really responsive to my question -- it talks about removal, not just relocating of the markings.

The Gun Control Act of '68, and the regulations available on the ATF website contain the language that I quoted above. Nowhere do they mention that you can't move or relocate the serial number (or other required manufacturer's importer's markings) from one place on the receiver to another. There is also no reference to the "original" markings, whatever it means. Again, in my humble opinion (for whatever it's worth), it may be too much of a stretch to read the words "remove, obliterate or alter" to mean that you can't relocate the markings to a different place as long as they continue complying with the size/depth requirements. It doesn't mean that the ATF hasn't issued such interpretation, I'd just like to see it.

BTW, for example, I understand that gunsmiths who refinish guns oftentimes "refresh" the serial numbers. By taking the unreasonably strict reading of the Gun Control Act that you seem to adopt, that would be illegal as well because it would certainly "remove, obliterate or alter" the ORIGINAL manufacturer's markings.

Again, please don't take it the wrong way, I'm just trying to figure out this thing. BTW, I'm neither an FFL dealer nor a gunsmith and I'm not trying to play one on this board or anywhere else.

thanks again.
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 2:16:55 PM EDT
So what's the reccomendation?

I want a 5.45 Krink, and I want to have all the "nasty" features.

What should I use as a donor rifle?

And, yeah, if the AWB sunsets, I should be able to have one built with all the nasty features, for a significant discount.

If it doesn't, I'm stuck in the same spot, and I expect to see pre-ban prices spike if the AWB gets renewed...
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 3:33:50 PM EDT
I'd do it. Embrace the present and chop the 84! I don't think 84s are particularly cool AKs anyway.

They're just a Chicom rifle meant to appeal to people who want to use ammo they know, so they aren't even representative of a real military type.

You're not destroying it, your "enhancing" it.

After all, if you were a Norinco 84s, wouldn't you want to be Krinked? Of course you would!

Link Posted: 10/14/2003 4:39:30 PM EDT
Well... it's not an ATF letter, but several years ago James Bardwell gave his opinion of this very issue on ak-47.net (pre-gunsnet). It was his opinion that removing the original trunion would consitute removing the serial number and, as such, a nono. I'll see if I can find it...

I don't think anyone has requested the ATF's official opinion on this specific issue, because of the potential can of worms that it could open. If AK trunions are, all of the sudden, officially considered part of the receiver and a controlled item, alot of folks that bought parts kits have some issues... However, it may be a nice idea for someone to write them asking a generic question about moving the serial number by restamping it elsewhere on the receiver and removing the original.

Rocko
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 11:30:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AJjer_Bullets:
I'd do it. Embrace the present and chop the 84! I don't think 84s are particularly cool AKs anyway.

They're just a Chicom rifle meant to appeal to people who want to use ammo they know, so they aren't even representative of a real military type.

You're not destroying it, your "enhancing" it.

After all, if you were a Norinco 84s, wouldn't you want to be Krinked? Of course you would!



Oh, hey, I totally agree. Like I said, a .223 AK isn't anything desirable to me. I'd only be interested in one because I had the parts laying around.

Someone said something about it being nasty to chop up a Maadi, too.

I'll probably hurt some feelings, but I don't really have any reservations about chopping up a rifle in order to Krink it...

If it's possible to Krink an 84S, and it's going to be a quality build, and a reliable gun several thousand rounds down the road, then I'm all for it.
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 11:52:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AJjer_Bullets:
You're not destroying it, your "enhancing" it.
After all, if you were a Norinco 84s, wouldn't you want to be Krinked? Of course you would!


It doesn’t get any better than that.

Wouldn’t they all want to be Krinks if they could.

Best regards, J
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 6:48:03 PM EDT
A while ago I had a new condition 84S and a new .223 bulgarian .223 krink kit and a bunch of money. The result was a really cool, really expensive SBR blaster in .223. I liked the .223, used Norinco mags (I even had a 40 rounder) Sold to recover cash and simplify the shooting logistics, I am standardizing on 7.62 NATO eventually. It sure was fun. It had the Norinco trunion around Bulgy barrel.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 9:45:47 PM EDT
I checked with Troy at InRange. With regards to the Norinco 84S, the front trunion has to stay on the receiver in a Krink build. Since the serial number is on the front trunion and not on the receiver explains why Norinco front trunions are so hard to find and why the Norinco MAC90 kits do not have them.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 10:19:19 PM EDT
Another position that I've heard with respect to the issue is as follows:

"you can have as many serial numbers as you want on a receiver as long as they are all THE SAME number, therefore if the serial number is also engraved on the receiver and the new replacement trunnion before the old trunnion is removed and later replaced with the new one, then the serial number has not been "removed, obliterated or altered", it is the same number"

I think people are just caught up playing "lawyers" and "ATF regulations experts" instead of reading what the statute/regulation actually says while keeping in mind the goals that were meant to be accomplished by the legislators. If you take a step back and think about the purpose behind the law, it is absolutely clear that the purpose was to keep people from "altering" the serial numbers to different ones, or "removing or obliterating" them altogether, all to allow "tracing" of the gun. Keeping that goal in mind, it makes absolutely no sense not to allow relocating or moving the serial number to a different place on the receiver as long as it continues to comply with the original requirements.

I'd think that relocating the serial number to the receiver should actually be encouraged as the receiver (with or without the trunnion) is what is considered to be the "gun".
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 12:22:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/17/2003 12:34:39 AM EDT by chamberlin]
Very good points Kalibr.... this topic comes up quite a bit in AK circles especially...because of that trunion issue...
Also, it would be interesting to know who the burden of proof falls on as far as determining if the gun's serial number is an original or a re-do of the same number? What if the gun had been cut up and remanufacured? For a time, it was no longer a firearm, and not subject to
Title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, Section 923(i) and
Title 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53, section 5842(a) and 27 CFR, section 179.102 shouldn't it now be able to be remanufactured by a SOT with whatever serial number the manufacture choses?
YEs, pointless and a lot of work, but it is an answer.... Of course all pre ban features would be lost and 922 (r) and (v) must be followed...OK, even more pointless. But basically, according to Mr. Owen's letter to Bardwell, as interpreted by some of the folks here, if your Chinese preban AK cracks a trunion (not unheard of BTW!) the gun is toast, and you mind as well throw it all away, because the trunion cannot be replaced without unlawfully removing the serial number in the process.... you surely couldn't send the gun back to the manufacture and ever expect to re-import it!!! I think Kalibr has it just right by saying to look at the intent of the regs...
If you are defacing serial numbers of complete functioning firearms for the intent of hiding traceablity, you are a felon. There is still plenty of ambiguity and interpretation left in those regs, whether or not you wish to challenge them is the real question. Personally I say do your best to be a good responsible person, and leave the can of worms
to rot. We already lost the ability to import very nice russian BB guns this year because of somebody publically broadcasting his homebuilt creation on the interenet.... The often uninformed and agenda orientated agencies will grab any opportunity to tighten the already taught noose around our hobby of firearms...usually for complete and utter unfounded reasons! I say, don't feed em any more rope! My 2.5 cents
-C

Top Top