AK Sponsor
Posted: 2/8/2009 12:03:22 PM EDT
|
From what I understand, with a SBR, you do not need to be compliant with 922r. My question is, can I use a FCG with the hammer retarder, or will that be horribly frowned upon by the ATF? It's not like the retarder actually makes the gun full auto, or is even needed to make it full auto (from my vast peanut sized knowledge base). I can add pis of the FCG I wish to install if needed. THX for the help. |
|
That's a sticky one. I know that with an AR-15, you cannot have any M-16 parts in it at all.
If a hammer retarder is a required component of a full auto AK, then I would say its illegal. If the hammer retarder is merely an add on part to a full AK to reduce the rate of fire, then I would say you're "probably" OK. Really, it best that you call NFA branch and ask. But something to consider is that an standard semi-auto AK FCG is not that expensive, so why even bother with what you are asking about? |
|
true, it is not that expensive. I took the G2 out of my SBR krink to put in my converted Saiga, and have this one hanging around. I asked my class 3 guy, but he didn't know. So rather than have a firearm around that is useless, I wanted to know if anyone would know if it was legal or not to use in the interim. |
|
AHHHHH!!! you see that was one issue I had. I got the damn thing, and was trying my hardest to figure out how my old Chinese was. I know it didn't have one, but was not US stuff either, and when I didn't use it, there was this huge gap there. So just a washer or 2 to fill it in huh? Hardware store bound tomorrow. Thank you. |
|
From what I understand, with a SBR, you do not need to be compliant with 922r.
That's the conventional wisdom, but I went ahead and made my M92 922(r) compliant, just in case the conventional wisdom turns out to be wrong. My question is, can I use a FCG with the hammer retarder, or will that be horribly frowned upon by the ATF?
Considering what happened in US v. Olofson, I don't want any full-auto parts in any of my semi-autos. |
|
Quoted:
From what I understand, with a SBR, you do not need to be compliant with 922r. My question is, can I use a FCG with the hammer retarder, or will that be horribly frowned upon by the ATF? It's not like the retarder actually makes the gun full auto, or is even needed to make it full auto (from my vast peanut sized knowledge base). I can add pis of the FCG I wish to install if needed. THX for the help. With an approved Form 1 to make an SBR, it falls under the jurisditction of a NFA weapon and 922r does not apply (that is something the $200.00 you paid for the tax stamp buys you). As far as the trigger set goes you can use the original (two axis pins, hammer spring, hammer, trigger, spacer pin, sear, sear spring, and the hammer retarter) parts, you also can use the hammer retarder as a spacer (the rest of the trigger parts are not to be used). These parts work perfectly fine, after all they are OEM from the factory. On these type of builds I do for my customers, they are split 50/50 on using a U.S. manufactured trigger sets (usually TAPCO) or the factory original. Why? Some want the complete authenticity of the original build and others want the triggers to have the same "Feel" as the trigger sets as in their other AK's for consistancy. Which one is correct? Which ever one the customer wants. By the want I am not leaving out Red Star or Arsenal, some prefer these also depending on how they configured their collections. |
|
I have seen conflicting letters from the BATF floating around the internet stating in one case 922r applies and in another case it does not apply. So who really knows. I personally would try to keep my SBR 922r compliant unless I had a letter addressed to me from the BATF stating 922r would not apply to my rifle. |
|
Quoted:
You don't need to worry about 922r in a SBR, you'll have a NFA Tax Stamp I am not so sure. Take the case of the Beretta Storm. I have heard you can convert it to an SBR but probably not legal even as an SBR NFA weapon to thread the muzzle and add a flash supressor. Using this logic you can convert an Arsenal 107UR krink to an SBR but you cannot add or change features to make it unimportable under 922(r). |
|
Quoted:
With SBR you don't need to use US parts. I have a couple new in wrapper Bulgy DH sets. Ok I just got a letter back from the BATFE signed by John Spencer, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch dated 3.2.09. In regard to an Arsenal SLR107UR converted to an SBR he states, "The SBR status of your weapon does not preclude it from the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(r) or 27 CFR Section 478.39" So in the case of an imported Arsenal 107UR converted to an SBR you cannot have more than 10 imported parts. I plan on keeping my Arsenal SBR 922(r) compliant. A kit build would be different as it was not originally imported as a "sporting rifle" but who knows. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
With SBR you don't need to use US parts. I have a couple new in wrapper Bulgy DH sets. Ok I just got a letter back from the BATFE signed by John Spencer, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch dated 3.2.09. In regard to an Arsenal SLR107UR converted to an SBR he states, "The SBR status of your weapon does not preclude it from the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(r) or 27 CFR Section 478.39" So in the case of an imported Arsenal 107UR converted to an SBR you cannot have more than 10 imported parts. I plan on keeping my Arsenal SBR 922(r) compliant. A kit build would be different as it was not originally imported as a "sporting rifle" but who knows. I guess the ATF once again issues the opinion of the day. An ever changing trap. I don't have a problem with US parts anyway as long as it means I can still own the firearm. When they build all those kits into pistols they use all original parts, but the firearm in its self is not imported. |
|
well, it seems to me to just not be worth the trouble. The ATF will decide whatever it wants to regardless, until someone puts a leash on them. That won't happen, at least not in the next 4 years. I'm dumping all my non U.S. FCG's. I have 2 kids and don't need the trouble either way. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With SBR you don't need to use US parts. I have a couple new in wrapper Bulgy DH sets. Ok I just got a letter back from the BATFE signed by John Spencer, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch dated 3.2.09. In regard to an Arsenal SLR107UR converted to an SBR he states, "The SBR status of your weapon does not preclude it from the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(r) or 27 CFR Section 478.39" So in the case of an imported Arsenal 107UR converted to an SBR you cannot have more than 10 imported parts. I plan on keeping my Arsenal SBR 922(r) compliant. A kit build would be different as it was not originally imported as a "sporting rifle" but who knows. I guess the ATF once again issues the opinion of the day. An ever changing trap. I don't have a problem with US parts anyway as long as it means I can still own the firearm. When they build all those kits into pistols they use all original parts, but the firearm in its self is not imported. I think this opinion is consistent with what the BATFE has been saying recently over the past 2 yrs. whenever they respond in writing. I think they have given different answers verbally over the phone. It is not hard to stay 922(r) compliant and it is best to play by the rules of the BATFE. |
|
Please explain Olofson. I can't find the case.......any more info?
Olofson apparently had an AR-15 with a full-auto trigger, hammer, disconnector and selector, which caused it to go full-auto when the selector was moved into the auto position. A full-auto fire control group is the last thing I'd want in a semi-auto AK. |
|
People, relax. This has been debated to death and somehow the tin-foil hats keep scaring people.
<begin rant> I build all my SBRs with the full auto FCG. Here's why: 1) ATF is not coming to my house. Ever. Say what you will, but ATF only gets involved if something is seriously wrong going on. We're talking about an organization with MUCH bigger fish to fry than whether or not you have a gun that complies with 922(r). Seriously: think about this and how meaningless this law is in the grand scheme of everything that ATF does. If you really think somebody in DC or at WVa NFA branch is sitting in a dark smoky room hatching a plan to send you to prison for failing to put the proper compliance parts in your home-built semi-auto firearm, then I suggest you seriously reevaluate your life. 2) What are the odds of there being a range offer/LEO at the range when you're shooting, AND he actually a) notices that your AK went full auto b) realizes it was full auto v. bump firing c) gives a shit d) comes over to inspect it e) me actually giving it to him to inspect f) him actually understanding what would be legal/illegal AND him noticing it and g) him actually caring enough to arrest you ALSO, to drive the point home a little more, imagine a range office/LEO (OR EVEN ATF) inspecting your rifle to ensure that you have the proper compliance parts. "I don't see made in USA on this pistol grip, so you're violating 922(r) given that I don't see enough other parts that say 'Made in USA.'" This scenario is even more absurd. Imagine them proving in court that your AK is illegal b/c it doesn't have the proper number of parts with made in america on it. Tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. 3) Ever notice on the real full-auto guns how they have a hole in which a third retaining pin sits? That, friends, is the auto sear axis pin holes. This is to say that for your AK to be truly full auto, you'll need to drill an additional hole in your receiver than what they'll generally come with. If you've done that, you're a moron. If you haven't done that, and you're just installing the pieces that came with the gun, you can chill the *&*^% out, you're fine. If your gun came with a complete FA FCG, you can't even install it all without a third retaining pin hole (hence the reason why the FA FCG come with a third retaining pin). 4) Semis that go FA generally are due to two reasons a) somebody ground down certain parts in order to achieve this, in which case you're an idiot and probably should go to prison for making the rest of us gun owners look like morons/criminals b) you FCG is seriously worn. This has happened even on SA FCG. If it happens, put your stuff away, go home, and replace your FCG. NFA requires knowing possession or construction of a machine gun. You'll be fine. 5) Also note that some kits that have been imported do not even have a FA bolt carrier. If you're really curious, just google how to convert an AK to FA and then chill out when you see that installing the FCG parts that came with your gun is 100% ok. <end rant> |
|
it's not the range that concerns me, it's shooting that intruder in the night, having my gun confiscated, and then they have all the time in the world to look it over. This is one of the main reason I have not bought a Saiga 12. If I did, I would have to convert, get 10rnd mags, get a drum, etc, then if I ever did have to use it, guess what the DA will say? This rifle was purposely converted to become a more deadly weapon. In this climate though, I don't think it really matters either, because I truly believe whether you are right or wrong, they will hang you if given the chance. Are they sitting around with a "list" plotting, doubt it, but if your name comes across their desk, I bet a million bucks they come at you with everything they have. |
|
Then you need to move out of whatever county you're in if you're that concerned about local LEO, which sucks for you since you live in the very-much-still-a-free-state-of-Texas.
Compliance with the law is good; paranoia is not. I'm not bashing you, but lots of people are waaay to bent out of shape worrying about what "they will do" if I shoot a BG in the middle of the night. Tinfoil hats can be removed, at least as to the concerns you presented. Your scenario is off, too. State/local police will come and take your gun into evidence if you off an intruder in your house. They'd have to look at it and then turn it over to the feds who would have to decide that, instead of going after the drug dealers and gangbangers that keep the DOJ and US Attorneys overworked, they want to come after some guy who lawfully shot a home intruder with a gun that may/may not be 922(r) compliant. Honestly, I can't believe I'm spending time responding to this scenario given its absurdity. We've all seen prosecutions for unregistered machine guns. Has anyone ever seen an INDIVIDUAL (who wasn't producing hundreds or thousands of noncompliant guns, I'm talking about Joe Blow who's built an AK or three for himself) who was arrested, charged, and convicted SOLELY for violation of 922(r). ATF has bigger fish to fry. Also, if you convert a Saiga 12, you're going to be in compliance due to the conversion parts alone. So, get that Saiga NOW while you can. The "evilness" of a gun is not relevant in a trial over whether you lawfully used lethal force in defense of self or others. In most states the key factor is "serious danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm." There's no requirement that I use a .22 pistol or a BB gun, just that I use reasonable force given the threat presented. EIther way that is off topic. If you're worried about it, don't use the FCG. That simple. It's $50. Whatever. However, if you're like hundreds or thousands of others who've done (tens of) thousands of builds with FA FCG, and have not yet gone to jail, then use the FA FCG. Your choice. |
AK Sponsor