Registered sear use in other applications?

J

jman123

Inactive
I've posted this on another forum but can't seem to get a non-speculative answer.

Would it be possible use a registered auto sear in another application, and what would be the legal aspect of doing so?:confused:

Say someone figured out how to make an HK or AR auto sear work in an AK or an M60. Would this be legal?:eek:
I would think so since a registered sear has no caliber or barrel length or overall length requirements.

And according to BATF the sear itself IS the machine gun.;)

An example might be the HK sear which has been legally used in HK and non HK weapons, Rifles, Sub-Guns, Belt-Feds, G3, MP5, HK21, HK93, HK91, CETME, etc. etc.
There is also an RPD belt fed upper receiver available for the MAC11/9 which has been approved by the ATF.:rolleyes:

Does anyone know the answer to this? Not just a speculation!:cool:

Thanks for any input!
jman :D
 
The rule is basically the registered sear/bolt/part must be used in the same family of weapons and it must not be altered so it cannot be used in the original weapon type. So you can use an HK sear in an HK94/93/91 series or a clone, but you could not install an HK sear into an AK or an M16 or use it to convert an AK or M16 to full auto (even IF you found some way to put it in without altering the sear or receiver). The registered sear/bolt/part must also be used in essentially the same manner as in the original weapon type - so you cannot duct tape an HK sear to the side of an M60 and remain legal.
 
Then why is it legal to make an RPD from an M11/9 lower?
And where is the documentation which outlines this information?
 
Because the RPD upper uses the M11 frame and FCG as it was originally designed ...only with a 7.62x39 upper. That upper is basically a caliber conversion, not a whole new weapon type. It should also be noted that the RPD and M249 uppers weren't without a lot of legal hassles. As I understand it Ernie Wrenn never submitted a sample of either to BATFE for approval under the mistaken belief that the uppers were, in fact, nothing more than caliber conversions. Unfortunately for Ernie, BATFE didn't see it the same way and declared the uppers to be machineguns in and of themselves well after Ernie had sold some to his customers (which were later confiscated by BATFE). I think Len Savage eventually got another type of M11/RPD upper approved but it was only after several go-rounds with the Tech Branch at BATFE and substantial re-design.

If you're looking for a hard fast rule, I stand by what I said above - the registered part has to be used the same family of weapons, basically unmodified, and used in the same manner in which it was in the weapon for which it was originally designed. Once you go outside of these parameters (as in the case of the RPD uppers), you're in very questionable territory and should seek an advisory opinion from the Tech Branch before doing anything. There is no document to describe where the line is, or what the criteria is for using a registered part in another 'weapon' and what constitutes another 'weapon type'. The Tech Branch has discretion to decide and will make a decision based upon an examination of the facts. If you disagree with their decision you can alter your design or plans and request reconsideration, or you can challenge it in court, but unless their decision is completely arbitrary, capricious, and without any basis you will lose.
 
Now I see that guys are building MG42's on homebuilt receivers with an AR trigger group and registered drop in auto sear.
What is the difference except that the receiver is homebuilt?
 
I think you mean the XMG-99 conversion by BRP Corp. which is based upon the MG34. I don't know of any MG42 type conversion for the AR15/M16. Regardless, it has nothing to do with being homebuilt. The XMG-99 conversion upper is just that - an 8mm upper for the AR15/M16 platform which feeds from belts. The XMG is substantially different than an unmodified MG34 and was approved by BATFE for use on either a semi or full auto AR15/M16 lower. It works in semi auto only on an AR15 lower, in semi or full auto on a M16 lower, and in semi or full auto on a semi auto lower with a registered sear. The registered sear would be used in the same type of receiver for which it was originally intended (an AR15), performing the same function (keeping the hammer locked back until the bolt is in battery). I would think BATFE's logic would be that the XMG upper is still in the same family as the AR15/M16 as the sear still functions in the same receiver.

There were several differences between that and the RPD upper. First is the issue of how the uppers feed and function. As I understand it, the MG34 upper cannot (AFAIK) be fired without being on a lower, and fired from a closed bolt. The RPD upper could be fired (at least for a couple rounds) without being on a lower and was either capable of firing in full auto when on a semi auto M11 lower, capable of firing full auto without any lower, or too close to being "readily convertable" to full auto. How the two upper units actually function, whether they can be made to fire or fire full auto without a lower, and how easily the design lends itself to being illegally converted to full auto without a registered part are all factors BATFE considers. While the XMG-99 was significantly modified from a MG34, the RPD upper was probably a little too close to the original RPD design. Also is the issue that BRP took their design to BATFE for prior approval while Ernie at SOCOM didn't. Thus BRP had the benefit of working with BATFE to make sure their final design would be approved by BATFE so there was no question concerning its legality. And without going into the full backstory, suffice it to say it certainly looks as if some people at BATFE had an axe to grind with Ernie over other matters. Bottom line is that if you are going to use a registered part in a different weapon type, or if you're going to make a conversion part to significantly change the character of the host firearm, you should probably seek at least an advisory opinion from BATFE to CYA.
 
ArizonaJim...After reading that page, I have to say one thing first.

Wow.

That is....Well, can't really come up with words to describe what that is. Wow pretty much sums it up.
 
That letter is scary. The fact they can say "yes" then a year later say "no"; and declare the uppers that were sold in that year illegal is unbelievable.

That is the road to full confiscation. "That revolver you bought legally 15 years ago is now illegal and must be forfeited".

Unbelievable.
 
The fact they can say "yes" then a year later say "no"; and declare the uppers that were sold in that year illegal is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Look at the Street Sweeper and the Striker-12. They went from common, over the counter shotguns to Destructive Devices with the stroke of a pen based ONLY on cosmetic features.
 
The fact they can say "yes" then a year later say "no"; and declare the uppers that were sold in that year illegal is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Yes, and neither is the ultimate authority, until such time a court says one way or the other. This just tells you whether you'll be charged/prosecuted for doing X.

I'll start paying attention to NFA rules when my 2A rights aren't infringed by the 86 ban on registering the guns/sears, which makes to 2A applicable only to rich men and women. I don't think that's what the founders envisioned - a right based on class. Renders the entire scheme unconstitutional, and therefore I am duty-bound as a patriot to ignore it. Until registering re-opens, I'll do as I please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top