Jump to content

WTS Belt-Fed MK46 M249 $7850


K Nielson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Last week I posted an ad (see below) which generated a fair amount of discussion and it seems several of you are self proclaimed experts. So I called the:

 

Industry Operations Investigator, Denver Group III

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

 

And got this response: (I added the bold)

 

     Hello,

     We discussed the Auto Sear this morning.  The ATF ruling is 81-4, which defines the auto sear as a machine gun.  All applicable laws would apply to the auto sear as they would a machine gun.         I hope this helps.  Please call if you have any further questions. 

 

I read section 81-4 and there are many guns listed specifically but the MGA semi-auto is not among them. That being the case for further discussion I re-post the ad here:  with a change in number of guns left to sell.

 

  • WTS MK46 Semi-Auto Belt-Fed

I currently have three newly manufactured belt-fed rifles, model MGA MK46, ready for sale and more in production now.  So delivery times will range from immediate to a few weeks at most.

Unlike the FN semi-auto, our Patent-Protects SAWs are more modern, have been in production for many years, and are built as HK Host guns.  Hence, registered sears and registered packs will work with these guns (where allowed by law, of course, and utilizing our non-NFA full auto operating groups).

All models of MGA belt-fed semi-auto rifles are actually based on our military line and, thus, use ALL standard M249-style parts such as top covers, quick change barrels, etc.

These Semi-Auto belt-fed rifles combine the military-style M249/Mk46 receiver with an H&K trigger pack. The internals are redesigned from open-bolt, full-auto, to operate as a closed-bolt, semi-auto using a H&K hammer and H&K pack. ATF approval was received May 2009 and we have been producing these PATENT PROTECTED rifles since January 2010.  

All of our rifles are multi-caliber capable; we currently offer caliber conversion kits for: 300 Blackout, 260 Remington, 7.62x51mm, and 6.8mm SPC. 

Since our rifles use H&K trigger packs, they can be used as an H&K Host Gun with a Registered Sear or Registered Trigger pack (where allowed by law.) Operating groups and trigger housings for full-auto use are non-NFA items and are available on our website.

www.machinegunarmory.com

This gun is shipped with our newest PATENT-PENDING semi-auto operating group (called: G3.SA Mk4) which uses standard Heckler & Koch® G3-style trigger packs. The new operating group also uses standard Heckler & Koch® hammers, not the old fashioned (and less reliable) custom-made long hammers.

These gun are available NOW.  Base Price is $7850

call (801) 839-4683

Edited by K Nielson
spelling error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JnC Manufacturing said:

A BATFE Tech branch determination letter would end all discourse, If such a letter existed ?

 

I am going to have to agree, that would end all doubt. Then again, if you did post up such a letter, your sales would go thru the roof!

Hell, I would buy one, but as it stands, without the BATFE and their explicit Blessing, just not willing to go down that road, from what I have read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you even think that means? No one disputes that the auto sear isn't still an auto sear. Just by installing it in one of the MGA weapons you've created a new post sample machine gun. Nothing has changed. That supposed phone call hasn't helped your case. O.o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to play devils' advocate....Must ALL host guns have explicit written letters of approval from the ATF. Also, it's well known that such letters are applicable only to the recipient and not to the world at large (I know, it's stupid, but I didnt make the "rules").

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhouston8 said:

Just to play devils' advocate....Must ALL host guns have explicit written letters of approval from the ATF. Also, it's well known that such letters are applicable only to the recipient and not to the world at large (I know, it's stupid, but I didnt make the "rules").

 

 

"  applicable only to the recipient "

If that were true every A-hole and there brother wouldn't be using my letters to build semi Bren's / PPSH's / KP-44's.

 ( If they have a letter all they have to do is post the last page, Not the entire thing with all the proprietary info.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AGG said:

Do you possess a document, specifically allowing such a conversion??? 

Tony

No. But neither did the BATFE have a letter saying it was illegal. Did you read § 81-4? I find the section open to interpretation but I am sure there will be some ruling about this at some point. My question is: since the pre-86 machine guns were grand-fathered in is it possible that these guns might have the same consideration? There is a risk that they will be more strict in their ruling and you might just end up with a seventeen pound wall hanger. I can tell you that I shelled out the $10,000 that mine cost and I am glad I did. 

MGA_MK46_GEN3_1024.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JnC Manufacturing said:

I'll give you 2 examples.

BRP's XMG mg34 upper.

Lens' Mac 10 RPD upper.

It would be awesome if it didn't go down the same way as these.

99% chance if they send one in it will get the same treatment.

 

Yup! I remember that infamous Mac RPD upper... it looked real cool though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JnC Manufacturing said:

I'll give you 2 examples.

BRP's XMG mg34 upper.

Lens' Mac 10 RPD upper.

It would be awesome if it didn't go down the same way as these.

99% chance if they send one in it will get the same treatment.

 

Didn't Length also manufacture an M249 upper for a MAC lower?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JnC Manufacturing said:

I'll give you 2 examples.

BRP's XMG mg34 upper.

Lens' Mac 10 RPD upper.

It would be awesome if it didn't go down the same way as these.

99% chance if they send one in it will get the same treatment.

 

If I recall, Len's Mac RPD or PKM... or whatever it was... was ruled to be a MG in and of itself. Never had ATF approval The relationship to the Mac was not the only killing point. If I remember correctly. 

BRPs was not a MG but they had not made it clear it would only be added to a semi lower. 

Back to the original question....

Look, if this is legal to drop a transferable HK sear/Pak on... this opens up a whole new world of MG design. These will sell like crazy as who with a HK sear would not want to have a SAW for $8k more. I mean thats cheaper than the HK clones and not much more than some of the HK host guns. I could see that driving HK sears up another $10K. However we know this gun has been around for a while. Its pretty clear to me that the manufacturer knows what answer they will get from the ATF and so it not going to ask it. They know they will sell a certain about to those who either don't know or wish think that its legal. So its getting an official letter can not be a loss for them. They are probably running out of people willing to drop $10K on semi and now dropped the price 20%. While I am considering eventually starting a FFL/SOT and making a post sample out of one... I have only the slightest hope that this might be legal to drop a transferable sear on...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shattered said:

Why can't they just avoid all the hoopla and get the letter already?

They had a letter. When the site first went live they had one, and I remember saving it because I thought it was weird how they had worded the Q&A on the site. The problem is this was a couple of laptops ago, and I can't find it. 

(Im 99% sure it was MGA. It was a conversion gun that had a lot of interest. I can't think of any other HK pack gun that used the sear pack to make a semi into a conversion to full auto)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was Ernie Wrenn, not any Len.  Len however did testify.  The 249 design required destruction of your MG receiver.  He was convicted of mail fraud only IIRC, though there were other items of interest found at his shop I don't recall charges for that.   No charges for any of the actual RPD hardware.    I appraised some of his chop shop damage and the design was not viable as he designed it.   

The other guy who was doing 249/ HK trigger pack was Great Machine out of OH.  Now defunct.  Had an interest in that but he also could not produce product or engineering specs much like this MK46.  No details, no performance standards or life cycle testing, No 7.62 conversion kits ever in stock or reasonably priced.   One of those GM guns sold on the semi board a few weeks back.  Few were actually made.   

Where is it written that a letter is required to sell a legal semi auto firearm?  I'd prefer to see a copy of their product liability insurance policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

That was Ernie Wrenn, not any Len.  Len however did testify.  The 249 design required destruction of your MG receiver.  He was convicted of mail fraud only IIRC, though there were other items of interest found at his shop I don't recall charges for that.   No charges for any of the actual RPD hardware.    I appraised some of his chop shop damage and the design was not viable as he designed it.   

The other guy who was doing 249/ HK trigger pack was Great Machine out of OH.  Now defunct.  Had an interest in that but he also could not produce product or engineering specs much like this MK46.  No details, no performance standards or life cycle testing, No 7.62 conversion kits ever in stock or reasonably priced.   One of those GM guns sold on the semi board a few weeks back.  Few were actually made.   

Where is it written that a letter is required to sell a legal semi auto firearm?  I'd prefer to see a copy of their product liability insurance policy.

It's not the point of selling a semi auto firearm that is in question. It's the point that they have shady wording making it sound like you can use your transferable HK sear or trigger box to convert their semi 249 into a legal full auto, which is simply just not the case. It creates a new post sample, which if you have an FFL/sot and register it would be legal. But not how they make it sound. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On March 8, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Dscheid NFA Investments said:

I am going to have to agree, that would end all doubt. Then again, if you did post up such a letter, your sales would go thru the roof!

Hell, I would buy one, but as it stands, without the BATFE and their explicit Blessing, just not willing to go down that road, from what I have read.

I agree. If there was a tech branch letter, I would own one of these in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2016 at 9:54 AM, K Nielson said:

No. But neither did the BATFE have a letter saying it was illegal. Did you read § 81-4? I find the section open to interpretation but I am sure there will be some ruling about this at some point. My question is: since the pre-86 machine guns were grand-fathered in is it possible that these guns might have the same consideration? There is a risk that they will be more strict in their ruling and you might just end up with a seventeen pound wall hanger. I can tell you that I shelled out the $10,000 that mine cost and I am glad I did. 

MGA_MK46_GEN3_1024.jpg

You cannot presume legality, based upon that negative--- I would not want to be the test case!!! :D

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Docs said:

WOW 

do u guys think you can hijack this 

post a little more.  It's called PM

( private message) 

JEEZ!!!!!!!!!

No - that is Not the Case! Even the Original Poster recognizes the Gray Area of his proposed use and he specifically asked for further discussion. Here is a Quote from the OP: "That being the case for further discussion I re-post the ad here:  with a change in number of guns left to sell."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Docs said:

Your joking right.  

U all left him no options. 

It's a for sale post. 

U have issues, use his PM 

 

No, not joking at all. And the fact that you refuse to recognize the serious nature of the issues being discussed is just Sad. Someone will get their Ass Fried over a misunderstanding involving the fact that they would be creating a Post-Sample when they believe that they are OK with a Transferable Sear. IM/PM communication does NO good in this instance. This demands Open Discussion which has been proceeding here just fine. You getting all upset about this is, simply, Crazy Retarded. The OP recognizes the issues and continues to discuss the possibilities. You are suggesting that we let any, hapless, individual fall victim to their ignorance of what BATFE would prosecute as an NFA violation. As always, Ignorance is No Defense when one has violated the law. Would be the same as if a Blind individual were crossing a busy road and we all would pull them back if they were about to be hit by a Bus… Apparently, you'd opt to just let them step-off the curb. 99% of people on this thread, including the OP, agree with me - guess you're the "Lone Voice of Reason…"

Edited by Precision Technology
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...