Legality of Mech Tech upper for Glock
- Thread starter chris in va
- Start date
Let me know if they tell you anything different than they told me in July.
LINK HERE.
For the record, it's not a "SBR" when you take the Mech Tech upper off the frame, it's a "pistol made from a rifle." That's a no no.
LINK HERE.
For the record, it's not a "SBR" when you take the Mech Tech upper off the frame, it's a "pistol made from a rifle." That's a no no.
Well, I just got off the phone with the ATF Office in Seattle. Here is the official word:
There is NO--I repeat, NO--Federal restriction to using the Mech-Tech CCU Unit with a handgun lower (1911, Glock), then removing the carbine upper and reinstalling the pistol slide assembly.
The one caution that I got was to "check your State's laws as well".
So, check your State's laws.
And, when cleared, use with confidence and much fun.
There is NO--I repeat, NO--Federal restriction to using the Mech-Tech CCU Unit with a handgun lower (1911, Glock), then removing the carbine upper and reinstalling the pistol slide assembly.
The one caution that I got was to "check your State's laws as well".
So, check your State's laws.
And, when cleared, use with confidence and much fun.
Incorrect. Modifications are perfectly permissible even for long periods of time as long as the firearm can be returned to the condition stated on the F1 or F4. The BATFE is very clear on that.
Powderman, you just got an opinion from one employee. The law is quite clear. A 1911 or Glock with a rifle upper is a rifle, it has a stock. The law is quite clear that if a firearm designed or redesigned (such as with a CCU) to be fired from the shoulder must have a 16" or longer barrel and at least a 26" OAL or it is an NFA item. Period. If it, at any point, had a stock - it's a rifle or short barreled rifle (depending on barrel length).
If you could just convert things back and forth, there would be a LOT of people with MN 91/30 "pistols". Hey, no stock, so it's a pistol, right? Doesn't matter what it started as, a pistol or a rifle, if it EVER had a stock designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder, EVER, it's a rifle. If that is true and the barrel is now less than 16" and/or the overall length is now less than 26", it's a "weapon made from a rifle" - an SBR. Period.
Sorry, but these guys have an official letter stating the same as I posted, just as official as those letters saying that you can't return a CCU to a pistol without paying the tax.
No, I don't have a copy I can scan in an post, but I have seen it.
Another case of .gov bureaucracy left hand not knowing what the right is doing, IMO.
dogtown tom
New member
It's not official, it's not even correct.
Who did you speak to at Seattle ATF? Enforcement? Industry Operations?
I hope you got their name because you'll need that once you go to trial.
Verbal opinions from ATF, IRS, or any other government agency are worth the paper they are printed on.
dogtown tom
New member
How true.
I'm a fan of the Browning Hi Power. One of my favorites is a WWII era Inglis Hi Power made in Canada. It has a tangent rear sight and a slot cut in the backstrap for a detachable stock/holster.
ATF has exempted these particular HP's from the NFA when the stock is attached due to their status as a collectible firearm. The stock/holster attached to another Hi Power would result in a SBR.
ATF Technical Branch has issued at least two letters regarding the type of stock/holsters that may be used with the Inglis MkI Hi Power.....the first letter issued in 1991 said reproduction stocks "which duplicate or closely approximate the configuration of the original stock" were perfectly fine and did not require a tax stamp: http://www.panchogun.com/FVWebPhotos/FV-FN-HP35-Belgium-ATF-Docs-5x100px.jpg
A few years later ATF TB issued another letter where it stated only "original" stock/holsters were NFA exempt. So much for anyone who owned a copy
.Bureaucracy
.Ridge_Runner_5
New member
Besides, if you put it on, then took it off, unless you took photos and posted them in a public place, the ATF could never prove you mounted it...
OK. Let me do a quick recap...
1. Did anyone miss the post that I made earlier, where I mentioned that I had seen one of the units in use, fired, and reconverted to a pistol in front of Special Agents from the DEA and ATFE?
2. Second, the guy I talked to is from ATF Enforcement. In other words, he's one of the guys you would talk to if you DID make an SBR illegally.
3. I must point out that some of you guys have been wearing the tinfoil hats WAY too long. MechTech has been selling these units for a LONG time. Not only on line, but through other venues as well. They HAVE contacted--and have been contacted--by ATF who gave the OK to sell the units, as they are termed as ACCESSORIES. Do you think that a company would risk financial ruin and criminal charges by selling something that would be illegal OPENLY?
By the way, if you want to call these guys a fly-by-night operation, one of the companies that carried their units for many years was BROWNELL'S. Is Brownell's a fly by night company?
In closing, a challenge...Go ahead, someone, and post an official letter from ATF stating that the conversion cannot be removed, and the pistol reassembled.
One other thing...since some of you are so paranoid that you seem to be wrapped in tinfoil. On Monday, I believe I will call the ATF Compliance Office in Atlanta, GA--the main office for compliance matters, and get the word ONE MORE TIME. I may or may not post it here.
To the OP--check your State laws, and then purchase with confidence.
1. Did anyone miss the post that I made earlier, where I mentioned that I had seen one of the units in use, fired, and reconverted to a pistol in front of Special Agents from the DEA and ATFE?
2. Second, the guy I talked to is from ATF Enforcement. In other words, he's one of the guys you would talk to if you DID make an SBR illegally.
3. I must point out that some of you guys have been wearing the tinfoil hats WAY too long. MechTech has been selling these units for a LONG time. Not only on line, but through other venues as well. They HAVE contacted--and have been contacted--by ATF who gave the OK to sell the units, as they are termed as ACCESSORIES. Do you think that a company would risk financial ruin and criminal charges by selling something that would be illegal OPENLY?
By the way, if you want to call these guys a fly-by-night operation, one of the companies that carried their units for many years was BROWNELL'S. Is Brownell's a fly by night company?
In closing, a challenge...Go ahead, someone, and post an official letter from ATF stating that the conversion cannot be removed, and the pistol reassembled.
One other thing...since some of you are so paranoid that you seem to be wrapped in tinfoil. On Monday, I believe I will call the ATF Compliance Office in Atlanta, GA--the main office for compliance matters, and get the word ONE MORE TIME. I may or may not post it here.
To the OP--check your State laws, and then purchase with confidence.
Powderman,
I highly suggest you talk to the "home office." Call the ATF-NFA branch, Technologies division. Let me know what they tell you. If you want to know about the NFA rules, call the NFA. You're local branch office isn't the correct "source."
If you will take a letter as "proof" perhaps a conversation with the folks who WRITE the letters will suffice?
ATF NFA branch: 304-616-4500
I highly suggest you talk to the "home office." Call the ATF-NFA branch, Technologies division. Let me know what they tell you. If you want to know about the NFA rules, call the NFA. You're local branch office isn't the correct "source."
If you will take a letter as "proof" perhaps a conversation with the folks who WRITE the letters will suffice?
ATF NFA branch: 304-616-4500
Last edited:
dogtown tom
New member
We didn't miss anything because that is not what you wrote in your earlier post. You failed to mention that the firearm was "reconverted" to a pistol.....only that a MechTech was fired in front of everyone but the Vatican Swiss Guard.
Wrong department.
One more time..........NO ONE has stated that the MechTech unit is illegal. You keep bringing this up but find one post where anyone said a MechTec is illegal. What IS illegal is converting a MechTech rifle back to a pistol without having an ATF tax stamp. Your undying love of MechTech is commendable..........but note that even MechTec does not address the legality of converting their rifle back to a pistol. And there is a reason for their failure to do so. Why don't you call MechTec and ask them why they dance around that question? Their answer (or failure to answer) may surprise you.
Stop. No one called anyone a "fly by night operation".
Well.........there's one letter.
One more time.......what ATF tells you on the phone doesn't mean squat. If you can't get it in writing it is worthless blather. It's not that I don't trust you would accurately report their answer.....it's that the folks that answer the phone.........they aren't the ones who are authorized to state official ATF interpretations. To get a determination you have to submit your question in writing.
chris in va
New member
Still no word from the BATFE on the matter.
Seems there's another 'conversion kit' on the market, except it doesn't have a barrel...just gives your handgun a stock.
http://www.ematactical.com/viewProduct.asp?ID=267&catID=376
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Seems there's another 'conversion kit' on the market, except it doesn't have a barrel...just gives your handgun a stock.
http://www.ematactical.com/viewProduct.asp?ID=267&catID=376
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
To PTK and others--problem solved. PTK, you might want to go back and read the letter in your own post--specifically the third image.
This is the part that says, "It is the position of ATF that if a multipurpose firearms kit is obtained as an assemblage of parts from a single source, the components of the kit can be assembled and re-assembled an unlimited number of times as a rifle or a pistol."
Moreover, I'm sure that you noted that the preponderance of the letter dealt with the Thompson/Center Contender.
No, I'm not a proponent of the Mech-Tech unit. I don't own one, and have no plans to buy one. Still, the answers are there--now posted in writing, and posted on this board.
And, I guess I'm done with this one. Bye, y'all.
This is the part that says, "It is the position of ATF that if a multipurpose firearms kit is obtained as an assemblage of parts from a single source, the components of the kit can be assembled and re-assembled an unlimited number of times as a rifle or a pistol."
Moreover, I'm sure that you noted that the preponderance of the letter dealt with the Thompson/Center Contender.
No, I'm not a proponent of the Mech-Tech unit. I don't own one, and have no plans to buy one. Still, the answers are there--now posted in writing, and posted on this board.
And, I guess I'm done with this one. Bye, y'all.