This topic seems to come up once a week, so a tack might be worthwhile.

It is my contention that the stock saigas do NOT need a US parts swap conversion to take high capacity mags, PROVIDED that no other conversion work is done.

If you add any other "evil" feature, like a pistol grip, IN ADDITION to the ability to take high capacity mags, you must do a US parts swap to make it a "US made" rifle rather than an import.

Please feel free to discuss the issue here, and keep in mind I am not, nor have I ever been, an ATF agent, nor do I pretend to play one on the internet.  I make no claims of legal authority, just logical observations on existing law.

If you are a team member, here is the original discussion that now rests in the archive

89 Ban and High Capacity Saigas

Here is the most relevant part of the thread above

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that I'm right about not needing US parts for Saigas that take high capacity mags. Follow me on this The 89 ban goes into effect. The ban says: --> a semi-auto copy of a military rifle that takes high capacity mags is forbidden to have: attached bipod Bayo-lug night sights grenade launcher flashhider or threaded muzzle folding or telescoping stock pistolgrip. But it is an import ban only, not an assembly ban. Once stateside, a person can add all those features back on (stupid law ) That was why they invented the tumbhole stock for the Maks and hungarian rifles and so forth. They fit the first part of the ban- they were semi-auto compies of military guns AND they took high capacity mags, BUT they didn't have any of the secondary features above, the thumbhole was their way around the pistol grip. So the ATF comes out in '90 with a modification that says you cannot assemble a rifle that is banned from importation unless you have the imported parts count reduced to 10 or less, and they provide a specific parts list. They then say several yars later (I don't remember when, but it was years) that the thumbhole is in fact a pistol grip, and so now no more thumholes. But a LOT of rifles came in with thumbholes, rifles that were semiauto and took highcap mags, and they were, and are, legal because at the time of importation, the gun did not have any of the secondary features. After the tumbhole ban, there seemed to be a hesitation on how to import a highcap AK. At this time the single stack guns came in. They do not fall under the ban because they don't qualify for the FIRST condition of the ban- they don't take high capacity mags. So they can have a pistolgrip and all that other stuff (although they ONLY have the pistol grip, like they were afraid to put the other stuff on) and NOT need US parts BUT NOBODY BUYS THEM So they then figure out that they can work the US parts angle. They import Romanian SARs and swap out enough parts to make them a US made gun (that now falls under the 94 ban. after september, a folding stock, bayo lug, and flashider will be legal on all SARs). I also think that the Egyptian Maddis fall in this category, but they require US parts in the magazine, so you have to be careful dwhat kind of mag you use (stupid stupid law ) This is where we are right now. My point is this: High cap STOCK Saigas (no pistol grip) fall in the same area of the ban that the original thumbhole AKs did. They take high caps and are semi-auto, BUT HAVE NONE OF THE SECONDARY FEATURES, and there's no way for the ATF to be "technical" about the meaning of one of those features like they did with the thumhole/pistolgrip. THE SAIGA HAS NONE. If the thumbholes could be legally imported under the original understanding that a thumbhole was not a pistolgrip, even though they were semi-auto and high cap, then certainly the current Siaga can be legally fitted with the ability to accept high cap mags if none of the other features are added. The tumbholes WERE legally imported, LOTS of them, and therefore it is legal to have a high-cap stock Saiga. The ATF has demonstrated that by originally approving the importation of the tumbholes. The ATF, as much as they may like to think, does not have the ability to simply make up the rules as they go along and change them willy nilly whenever they feel like it. They have to follow the rule of law and be consistent in their application of it. If they approved the thumbholes then, then most certainly the high cap stock Saiga is okay now

As far as I know, the 89 ban did not address shotguns, but maybe it did.

During the 94-04 Clinton Krime Bill, new semi-auto shotguns could not have a mag greater than 5 rounds, and a folding stock or pistol grip, but that's all done with.  I know of no current restrictions on shotgun modifications other than 18" minimum barrel.

But I don't know it all

all of them?  I'm not sure I understand the question.  It would seem that all of those parts are imported, and I'm not sure of the parts count issue with regards to shotguns, if they are any different from rifles.

Please don't use inflammatory language in a tech forum,  offer counter argument instead.





and yes, #1 and #2 trigger 922r , BOTH of them, not one individually.
 

I still disagree, and stop being so condescending.  





The WASR-10 Aks that DID have pistol grips were fine to import.  They got through because they only took a single stack 10 round magazine. Same thing with the newer pistol grip and folding stock retrofit parts for Saigas specifically.  So long as it remains a low-cap gun, all of those other evil features are allowed.
The Mak-90 was the example from the other perspective.  It did not have a pistol grip or bayonet lug or threaded muzzle.  But it DID take double stack regular AK mags.  It was imported for a while before the ATF said that they now considered thumbhole stocks to be pistol grips.  Hell, the Norinco Uzi model Bs with the thumbhole wood stocks illustrate the same point.
I sated all of this in my original post.
Saigas initially have none of the evil features.  I still contend that leaving it stock except for the mag conversion is fine.  It would be equivalent to a grip-less Mak-90
Your checklist page is not run by the BATF, so I don't see how you can cite it as authoritative.  Perhaps you would care to write a letter to the BATF and ask for a specific answer to this question.  Until then, we are just going around in circles.  I'm basing my opinion on what the BATF has previously allowed.
we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.