Pre-86 Transferable Sendra Receiver with A2 Reinforcements?

[hkg3k]

I happened to run across this listing when I was perusing GB

RARE Sendra Machine Gun Full Auto

I had a transferable Sendra (BFI) back in the day and it was an A1 spec receiver.  My understanding is that all pre-86 receivers were A1 spec.  This one looks just wrong.  The markings appear to have been applied with a stamp by someone who couldn't maintain proper alignment / spacing.  They didn't use a backer for the magwell markings and produced a nice dent in applying those markings.  They also left off "IL" after Barrington?

Did this receiver magically "transform" into an A2 spec receiver?

Attached "righteous" transferable Sendra M16 for comparison

 

[Chef]

Like the Keosayian Colts, one doesn't talk about these things.
The first rule of Fight Club...

[Cal1992]

Wow, $50,000 for a Sendra.  You can buy a Colt M16A2 for less.  This guy has drunk the Kool aid.

[Got Uzi]

I have a Sendra conversion inbound done by Neal Smith in Biden to me. Should have it next month and I’ll be the third owner since it was converted. I’ll have to look at it to compare. 
 

I see the crappy lettering done, but what is the difference between A1 and A2 on the lower? I’m missing something. 
 

That Magpul stock and surefire suppressor must add the extra $20k to the gun huh?

Edited December 20, 2023 by Got Uzi

[Dean]

That looks like crap maybe a Form 1 gun done by a "special" individual.  The curvature of the front pivot reinforcement looks different than my factory Colt A2.  Maybe someone welded that up after the fact?

[hkg3k]

13 hours ago, Chef said:

Like the Keosayian Colts, one doesn't talk about these things.
The first rule of Fight Club...

That's fine and dandy for an informed buyer who knows what they're getting into, IMO.  I wouldn't buy this Sendra even for a "non-inflated" purchase price -or- a Keosayian Colt either for that matter.

1 hour ago, Got Uzi said:

I see the crappy lettering done, but what is the difference between A1 and A2 on the lower? I’m missing something. 

This receiver has the standard A2 reinforcements at the front hinge pin -and- the rear buffer tube attachment.  Those reinforcements didn't exist on pre-86 Sendra receivers.

[johnsonlmg41]

Totally not a problem to weld up those parts of the receiver to A2 specs.  Fairly obvious from the pics that's what was done.  Whether or not it was done well is the big question?  Personally, I'd pay less than a normal sendra from what I see in the pics, since it does not appear that great?

The Colt A2's have been hashed over for years on every board under the sun.  No problem there either.  Rules have been re-evaluated since those days, but what's done is done.

[hkg3k]

58 minutes ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Totally not a problem to weld up those parts of the receiver to A2 specs.  Fairly obvious from the pics that's what was done.

Ha Ha...couple suggestions for you.

Compare the markings to a real Sendra transferable receiver (including where they dented the magwell) -and- then make an appointment with your eye doctor forthwith! 

Have you ever had a transferable Sendra receiver in hand?

My take is that receiver existed as an 80% forging in the not too distant past...that was finished and its markings hand stamped.  Compare the markings to a real Sendra receiver...they left the "IL" off of "Barrington, IL" for christ's sake.  It'd be waaaay easier to finish an 80% receiver and the much more viable explanation than someone attempting to weld A2 reinforcements onto a transferable aluminum receiver.

One other thing, a real Sendra receiver will have the remnant of the 3rd selector stop that some receivers of the day had...no such "ghost" of that 3rd selector on the GB receiver.

 

Dented Magwell

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by hkg3k

[johnsonlmg41]

So my eye doctor notes this is a very early serial number and Sendra receivers changed based on what was available at the time.  I'm also certain the one i have in MY HAND NOW does look different, but I've seen a number of them over the years with many types of receiver markings and conversions from other mfrs., so from that we know there are many variances.  Things started out pretty crudely at Sendra back in the day.  A lot of guns have had work done over the years for various reasons, etc.   The reality is you had one sendra and it looked different.  It also might be a later replacement receiver which was allowed past 86'?   Again, all in the history books.

I'm sure you have a point in your speculation, but it doesn't make any difference since you are not buying the gun (nor is anyone at that price).  That seller has been pretty much of a joke for quite a while, but that's another subject.  You should read their google reviews.  LOL

[Chef]

10 hours ago, hkg3k said:

That's fine and dandy for an informed buyer who knows what they're getting into, IMO.  I wouldn't buy this Sendra even for a "non-inflated" purchase price -or- a Keosayian Colt either for that matter.

This receiver has the standard A2 reinforcements at the front hinge pin -and- the rear buffer tube attachment.  Those reinforcements didn't exist on pre-86 Sendra receivers.

I wouldn't touch this "Sendra" or a Keosayian Colt either.
And you are right about that being a recent forging. It's not even an A2 forging, it's an M4 forging. Something that didn't exist back in '86.

 

8 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Totally not a problem to weld up those parts of the receiver to A2 specs.  Fairly obvious from the pics that's what was done.  Whether or not it was done well is the big question?  Personally, I'd pay less than a normal sendra from what I see in the pics, since it does not appear that great?

The Colt A2's have been hashed over for years on every board under the sun.  No problem there either.  Rules have been re-evaluated since those days, but what's done is done.

 I'm not one to usually say that something is 100% impossible, so instead, I'll say that I'm very, VERY skeptical that someone could have welded on that rear reinforcement on an A1 forging and have it come out looking that good. And it's totally not obvious that that is what was done at all.

[Got Uzi]

Thank you for explaining the differences in the A1 vs A2 reenforcing areas.  I'll have to look at the one thats inbound when it transfers (should be next month)

 

As for markings missing-I have had a couple interesting discussions with friends in the Thompson community to similar issues/quesitons-the serial number maybe legit, but the receiver sure doesn't look like its from WWII....makes me wonder how many more issues/questions will come up over the coming years as these guns get older and older.

[JoshNC]

That pattern of A2 receiver forging didn’t exist in 1986. Short of a Time Machine, there is no way this was made pre-86. All of the markings are incorrect looking. Someone with shit attention to detail took an 80% lower, added the serial number and info from a transferable Sendra m16 lower, milled it out, and is trying to pass it off as a genuine article.

Edited December 21, 2023 by JoshNC

[pstidan]

[hkg3k]

14 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

So my eye doctor notes...

Ha Ha, so did your eye doctor note those reinforcements have been welded on...as you assert as "fairly obvious?" 

14 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

The reality is you had one sendra and it looked different. 

The reality is that EVERY transferable Sendra receiver I've ever seen (including the one I owned & pic I posted) looked exactly the same...save for those markings added by a 3rd party manufacturer, such as "BFI" (Bushmaster) -or- maybe a refinished receiver.  And no, I'm not saying I've seen every transferable Sendra receiver...but I have been in the game going on 40 years and paid attention to the M16 market.  Maybe post a pic of your receiver?...I'd be genuinely interested to see how it's similar or different.

14 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

It also might be a later replacement receiver which was allowed past 86'?   Again, all in the history books.

Replacement took place in a very narrow window of time before it was disallowed in writing and was only allowed by the original manufacturer.  Colt and Olympic Arms were the only two M16 manufacturers known to perform the service.  Does the GB receiver even remotely look like the original manufacturer remarked it?  Again, they left off the state abbreviation in the address for christ's sake.

14 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

I'm sure you have a point in your speculation, but it doesn't make any difference since you are not buying the gun (nor is anyone at that price).

 Sure...to shed light on an obvious problem gun, such that an uninformed buyer not spend tens of thousands of dollars on a train wreck.

 

[jbntex]

Looking at that gun with the M4 style receiver reinforcements and markings that don't even remotely look like any other Sendra I have seen in 20+ years, my personal take is the odds are 99%+  that its a 80% lower with a transferable serial number transfer scheme and a >1% chance that its a legit transferable Sendra M16 receiver.

What I don't understand is why if you were going to illegally move a Sendra serial number to a new 80% lower (which most likely happened here) at least do a better job of it. (at least find an A1 style 80% to start with.)

 

[johnsonlmg41]

2 hours ago, hkg3k said:

Ha Ha, so did your eye doctor note those reinforcements have been welded on...as you assert as "fairly obvious?" 

The reality is that EVERY transferable Sendra receiver I've ever seen (including the one I owned & pic I posted) looked exactly the same...save for those markings added by a 3rd party manufacturer, such as "BFI" (Bushmaster) -or- maybe a refinished receiver.  And no, I'm not saying I've seen every transferable Sendra receiver...but I have been in the game going on 40 years and paid attention to the M16 market.  Maybe post a pic of your receiver?...I'd be genuinely interested to see how it's similar or different.

Replacement took place in a very narrow window of time before it was disallowed in writing and was only allowed by the original manufacturer.  Colt and Olympic Arms were the only two M16 manufacturers known to perform the service.  Does the GB receiver even remotely look like the original manufacturer remarked it?  Again, they left off the state abbreviation in the address for christ's sake.

 Sure...to shed light on an obvious problem gun, such that an uninformed buyer not spend tens of thousands of dollars on a train wreck.

 

I've seen a lot of them and owned a couple Sendra's and there are several different variations.   Replacement/ modifications took place whenever it could be gotten away with and happens as we speak.  Colt and olympic were not the only ones.   If I were to start shedding light on problem guns, it would be easily into the 1000's that have "issues", some worse than others.  I've seen the MAC 1919's as well as many others in circulation. 

A guy like M60Joe made modifications like this, as did others.  CLEARLY not his work on this one though. 

How many public service announcements do you feel the need to post?

"In the game for 40 years"  If age is your only qualifier for experience,  is that supposed to impress me?  I think Joe Biden uses the same line?

All the PSA you need  is it's a Sendra for 50K...end of story.  I will not be shocked or sad if someone on GB buys it.  GB is like the thunderdome of stupid these days. I have actually seen large auction houses post up worse guns than this and no one raised an eyebrow.

[hkg3k]

40 minutes ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

I've seen a lot of them and owned a couple Sendra's and there are several different variations.   Replacement/ modifications took place whenever it could be gotten away with and happens as we speak.  Colt and olympic were not the only ones.   If I were to start shedding light on problem guns, it would be easily into the 1000's that have "issues", some worse than others.  I've seen the MAC 1919's as well as many others in circulation. 

A guy like M60Joe made modifications like this, as did others.  CLEARLY not his work on this one though. 

How many public service announcements do you feel the need to post?

"In the game for 40 years"  If age is your only qualifier for experience,  is that supposed to impress me?  I think Joe Biden uses the same line?

All the PSA you need  is it's a Sendra for 50K...end of story.  I will not be shocked or sad if someone on GB buys it.  GB is like the thunderdome of stupid these days. I have actually seen large auction houses post up worse guns than this and no one raised an eyebrow.

I challenge you to point out any work M60Joe ever performed that was illegal...which is what you're talking about with remaking / transferring going on now -or- performed by other than the original manufacturer in that narrow window when it wasn't disallowed.  How dare you inject M60Joe's good name into a discussion with any of the type of activity you're referring to.

You don't like that I bring to the attention of the board an obvious problem piece?  Too bad...if you hadn't noticed, there's a bunch of inexperienced buyers who come through this website -and- purchase through GB.  I for one, would not want to see someone wind up with that train wreck.

Another piece of advice...when you find yourself in a hole of your own making, stop digging!

[Frank Iannamico]

Not intending to hijack this thread but...

I have seen several negative comments regarding Keosayian Colts, I am aware of who John Keosayian was, but curious of the problems with the guns of which there are many Colts and H&R.  

Edited December 21, 2023 by Frank Iannamico

[Buddy H]

23 minutes ago, Frank Iannamico said:

Not intending to hijack this thread but...

I have seen several negative comments regarding Keosayian Colts, I am aware of who John Keosayian was, but curious of the problems with the guns of which there are many Colts and H&R.  

Search feature is your friend …….   

 

[johnsonlmg41]

1 hour ago, hkg3k said:

I challenge you to point out any work M60Joe ever performed that was illegal...which is what you're talking about with remaking / transferring going on now -or- performed by other than the original manufacturer in that narrow window when it wasn't disallowed.  How dare you inject M60Joe's good name into a discussion with any of the type of activity you're referring to.

You don't like that I bring to the attention of the board an obvious problem piece?  Too bad...if you hadn't noticed, there's a bunch of inexperienced buyers who come through this website -and- purchase through GB.  I for one, would not want to see someone wind up with that train wreck.

Another piece of advice...when you find yourself in a hole of your own making, stop digging!

Reading is fundamental.   Thanks for all the sage advice from such a seasoned industry veteran!  I don't know how I made it this far without your intense knowledge base?  Now if you could educate the rest of us on the Colt A2's I'm here, ready to learn?

Hopefully you sent the GB seller a message or called their shop to enlighten them?  If not it would seem you're lax in your duties?

[hkg3k]

1 hour ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Thanks for all the sage advice from such a seasoned industry veteran!  I don't know how I made it this far without your intense knowledge base?

Wow.  Pot meet kettle much?  Gotta hand it to ya though...no one will ever accuse you of being self aware!  But hey...keep on digging!

1 hour ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Now if you could educate the rest of us on the Colt A2's I'm here, ready to learn?

Not at all...however, you are now the recognized board expert on identifying weld-on A2 reinforcements. 

[Frank Iannamico]

On 12/21/2023 at 5:57 PM, Buddy H said:

Search feature is your friend …….   

 

Thanks Buddy, yes THOSE, I knew about them.

Mr Keyosyaian also registered a LOT of guns he got from the H&R asset reduction sale (it was not an auction) I had a form 3  with an attached 5-page list of those guns, Included on the list were 60 H&R US Gov't Property marked M16A1s and 29 M14s. RJ Perry was selling some of them in the 1980s.  

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Frank Iannamico

[Buddy H]

14 minutes ago, Frank Iannamico said:

Thanks Buddy, yes THOSE, I knew about them.

RJ Perry was selling some of them in the 1980s.  

RJ Perry converted my Colt AR15 back in 1975 …. Cost $75 

[johnsonlmg41]

hkg3k,

here's not a picture of our Sendra XM16 A7..... LOL

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by johnsonlmg41

[Mark2]

There were lots of Sendra Receivers converted Pre May 1986, not sure why anyone is surprised to see one for sale???

[hkg3k]

1 hour ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

hkg3k,

here's a picture of our Sendra XM16 A7.....yes A7

Are you saying this one is Transferable?  Cause the whole thread is about a transferable Sendra receiver with A2 (A4) reinforcements...which were not available to Sendra prior to 1986.  Maybe if you were to pull the belt bag off and get closer, we could actually see the markings...

 

I didn't realize we were posting Shrike pics...ok, here's one of mine 

 

[johnsonlmg41]

Yes, mine not in the picture is transferabe

Edited December 31, 2023 by johnsonlmg41

[hkg3k]

6 minutes ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Yes, mine in the picture is transferable with updated reinforcements far surpassing other reinforcement styles. 

You want to post of pic of the receiver markings?  Can't see jack in the pic you put up.  Box 4D reads XM16A7? -or- XM15E2?  Will it magically morph into something else when the next reinforcement style comes out?

 

This statement from you makes more sense now...good luck on the future sale / transfer of your Sendra 

19 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Replacement/ modifications took place whenever it could be gotten away with and happens as we speak.  Colt and olympic were not the only ones.   If I were to start shedding light on problem guns, it would be easily into the 1000's that have "issues", some worse than others.  I've seen the MAC 1919's as well as many others in circulation.

 

[SGT Fish]

1 hour ago, hkg3k said:

I didn't realize we were posting Shrike pics...ok, here's one of mine 

 

Does the mag release do anything on this lower? Does it still take mags?

[hkg3k]

1 hour ago, SGT Fish said:

Does the mag release do anything on this lower? Does it still take mags?

No magwell, no mag...nutsack only.  The mag release button is a dummy.

I had this lower configured well over 10 years ago to use one of my RDIAS with a Gen 1 Shrike.  It is an early DPMS single-shot lower, where DPMS still milled the mag release pocket.  So...rather than have a hole there, I put in a dummy mag release.  I did a couple of these DPMS lowers and the other one didn't have the mag release pocket...so I assumed it was a later made SS lower when DPMS determined they didn't need a mag release on a SS lower. 

This dedicated lower is set up with a Billistics RDIAS, Colt 4-position fire control and recent gen upper.

[johnsonlmg41]

7 hours ago, hkg3k said:

You want to post of pic of the receiver markings?  Can't see jack in the pic you put up.  Box 4D reads XM16A7? -or- XM15E2?  Will it magically morph into something else when the next reinforcement style comes out?

 

This statement from you makes more sense now...good luck on the future sale / transfer of your Sendra 

 

Pretty sure the reinforcement style has nothing to do with any model numbers on the paperwork, but I'm no expert?  I have other transferable paperwork that doesn't even have a model listed?

I posted a statement of fact and personal observation, that you seem unaware of?  It has nothing to do with me personally.

I'm not sure I will sell it, since these are on the cheap side, I'll probably just cut it up and part it out when I'm done with it, which would escalate the value of my other guns such that it would more than cover the loss.  And save me the amusement of internet critics who don't buy this stuff anyhow?  I guess I should lay off these posts as the mockery from my NFA peer group is getting tough to take.    I am starting to understand why they don't engage and laugh at me for doing so.  Maybe a new years resolution?

[JoshNC]

21 hours ago, Mark2 said:

There were lots of Sendra Receivers converted Pre May 1986, not sure why anyone is surprised to see one for sale???

You’re missing the fact that it’s on a 3rd generation A2 lower forging (which didn’t exist in 86) and the markings are wrong.

[hkg3k]

9 minutes ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Pretty sure the reinforcement style has nothing to do with any model numbers on the paperwork, but I'm no expert?  I have other transferable paperwork that doesn't even have a model listed?

I posted a statement of fact and personal observation, that you seem unaware of?  It has nothing to do with me personally.

You posted pics of your pre-86 transferable "Sendra XM16 A7"...the model designation you used for your gun.  Since no markings (no personal observation) of your Sendra were visible in either of your pics, I simply asked you post a pic with the markings clearly visible -and- asked if its current Form lists "XM16 A7" as the model in 4D -or- it lists "XM15E2" because "XM16 A7" didn't exist prior to the making ban.  So, did you simply use  "XM16 A7" as a descriptive and your Sendra is actually marked "XM15E2" -or- is it marked "XM16 A7?"  A good pic would have averted such questions.  In sum, how is that gun marked and what is the model designation on its current Form?  How did your pre-86 receiver come to have "A7" reinforcements that didn't exist prior to the making ban?

 

1 hour ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

I'm not sure I will sell it, since these are on the cheap side, I'll probably just cut it up and part it out when I'm done with it, which would escalate the value of my other guns such that it would more than cover the loss.  And save me the amusement of internet critics who don't buy this stuff anyhow?  I guess I should lay off these posts as the mockery from my NFA peer group is getting tough to take.    I am starting to understand why they don't engage and laugh at me for doing so.  Maybe a new years resolution?

Uh...OK?

[johnsonlmg41]

hkg3, So to review......

It is your position that you cannot add ANY material to the exterior of a registered receiver as in my A7 upgrade?  Because this affects a register machine gun how exactly?  The making ban applies to "making" not modifying what has been made, though there are practical limits. Over the years it's been common practice to modify and upgrade registered NFA receivers.  Top and bottom plates on Brownings, sleeving pin holes on M16's,  building tube guns, making 1917's into 1919's, etc..

 

It is also your position that you can remove material from any post 86 receiver to fit in a "drop in" auto sear as you did on your DPMS receiver?   Lets review some history (since you've been in it 40 years, you may have forgotten?).   The term "drop in" means drop in.  Back in the day you pushed out the rear pin  on an early Colt (lifted the upper and dropped these in to a receiver that already had a F/A carrier and fire control parts which were all installed by hand with maybe the assistance of a screwdriver.  This  DIAS was done for the benefit of guys that had no machine tools or skills.  Guys that had the equipment just milled the pocket and drilled the hole and put the sear in, in later versions up to 86'.

Eventually the practice for all AR mfrs was to leave material in place to block the simple installation of a DIAS and block the installation of a regular sear simply by just drilling an 1/8 hole.   A 7 year old kid with a hand drill and 1/8 drill bit can readily convert your receiver in a couple minutes.  Drilling fixtures and auto sears are delivered to your door these days to 7 year olds who have alexa. The problem was so egregious at one point colt drilled an oversize hole, left the extra material and pinned in a hardened block to prevent such simple "readily convertible" receivers in the marketplace.  How is milling the pocket different from having a an AK with a slotted rail?  Is your "not a drop in auto sear now married to your receiver?   Or is this one of those that you ordered in the 90's out of shotgun news?  Best of luck on the future sale of your readily convertible modified receiver. Maybe throw in a 1/8 drill bit to sweeten the deal?

 

 

[Got Uzi]

Ok I’ll ask a stupid question then based on that line of thinking-if it’s common practice to “modify or upgrade receivers” then why can’t someone upgrade a registered receiver Uzi by removing the blocking and not having to use a slotted bolt? It’s the same concept but we all know it’s extremely frowned upon. Modifying the receiver is modifying the receiver (or so I thought) when it came to that. A repair is a repair but changing it from its original configuration was not allowed? Not trying to muddy the waters here, just trying to wrap my head around a concept that works for one thing but not the other?

[hkg3k]

6 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

It is your position that you cannot add ANY material to the exterior of a registered receiver as in my A7 upgrade?  

Nope, didn't write anything of the sort.  The quote feature on this board is pretty good and easy enough for even you to use...please quote where I wrote (or anyone else in this thread) that adding material to an original receiver was verboten.  The GB receiver in question was clearly a replaced / hacked creation to everyone's eye except yours.  You then offer up that you have a transferable "Sendra XM16 A7" and post a "15ft" pic as proof in which no one can see "Sendra," "XM16 A7" or "Lake Barrington."  I simply asked what was the model designation on the receiver / in 4D and if you could post a pic which actually shows the markings / reinforcements on your receiver.  I also asked HOW your pre-86 receiver came to have those "A7" reinforcements, since obviously they didn't exist prior to 1986.

 

6 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

It is also your position that you can remove material from any post 86 receiver to fit in a "drop in" auto sear as you did on your DPMS receiver?

More wrong  here.  Nope didn't write that either.  The simple fact is, there is no "pre-86" or "post-86" category for Title 1 firearms...doesn't exist.  You're also dead wrong with your assumption that the DPMS single shot lower doesn't have a SP1-spec fire control pocket...because it certainly does.  No milling or work went into making my single shot lower RDIAS-ready, because it simply came that way from DPMS.

 

6 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Eventually the practice for all AR mfrs was to leave material in place to block the simple installation of a DIAS and block the installation of a regular sear simply by just drilling an 1/8 hole.   A 7 year old kid with a hand drill and 1/8 drill bit can readily convert your receiver in a couple minutes.  Drilling fixtures and auto sears are delivered to your door these days to 7 year olds who have alexa.

AR15 receiver denial features came out with the Colt SP1 and those same SP1-spec features are still used in a bunch of AR15 receivers today...these receivers are not wide enough in the pocket to accept a factory autosear.  The pocket in a SP1 spec lower is not wide enough to accept a factory auto sear without milling out the "island" and widening the pocket where the factory autosear installs...not something most 7 yr olds with Alexa and a drill are capable of doing.  Colt placed those "pocket blocks" beginning with their (Blue Label) AR15 lowers after 1989 for a number of years...those blocks were eventually removed and haven't been installed in their lowers for a long time.  Regardless, RDIAS' are dimensioned for a SP1-spec pocket and are quite a bit more narrow than a factory autosear...even if one were to mill an AR15 lower for RDIAS fit, it's still too narrow in the pocket where a factory autosear installs, so what you're attempting to imply is simply wrong.

Keep digging!

Edited December 24, 2023 by hkg3k

[hkg3k]

1 hour ago, Got Uzi said:

Ok I’ll ask a stupid question then based on that line of thinking-if it’s common practice to “modify or upgrade receivers” then why can’t someone upgrade a registered receiver Uzi by removing the blocking and not having to use a slotted bolt? 

Because ATF has determined doing so will leave an orphaned unregistered F/A conversion device...the slotted bolt.

[Mark2]

That’s why you destroy the bolt before removing the rail.

[hkg3k]

12 minutes ago, Mark2 said:

That’s why you destroy the bolt before removing the rail.

If you wanna discuss "what should be"...that'll be a different thread.  What "is," is that ATF disallows the removal of the blocking bar for the reason stated...regardless of "if" or "when" the slotted bolt is destroyed.

Philosophically, I'm definitely in the "what should be" camp.  When it comes to my personal pocket book -or- possibly helping someone else not fall into a huge financial "booby-trap," I come down on the side of "what is."

[Whiskerz]

On 12/21/2023 at 2:47 PM, johnsonlmg41 said:

I've seen a lot of them and owned a couple Sendra's and there are several different variations.   Replacement/ modifications took place whenever it could be gotten away with and happens as we speak.  Colt and olympic were not the only ones.   If I were to start shedding light on problem guns, it would be easily into the 1000's that have "issues", some worse than others.  I've seen the MAC 1919's as well as many others in circulation. 

A guy like M60Joe made modifications like this, as did others.  CLEARLY not his work on this one though. 

How many public service announcements do you feel the need to post?

"In the game for 40 years"  If age is your only qualifier for experience,  is that supposed to impress me?  I think Joe Biden uses the same line?

All the PSA you need  is it's a Sendra for 50K...end of story.  I will not be shocked or sad if someone on GB buys it.  GB is like the thunderdome of stupid these days. I have actually seen large auction houses post up worse guns than this and no one raised an eyebrow.

 

 

 

 

Supposedly the gang at the ATF collected all of the Mac serial numbered guns that were Mac serials moved to other platforms and destroyed them. I would love to see this Mac serial-1919 You can 

[MPFiveO]

I've seen several "remade" M16's hit the market in the last few years. I don't know if they'll ever be a problem but knowing that they could be a problem is enough to keep me from even thinking about buying one like that. I've been collecting NFA since 1991 and started building AR's in 1988. I own an early AR built on a Sendra receiver. Every Sendra I've ever seen was made on an A1 forging. At the time Olympic Arms was offering to replace receivers, the forging that Sendra was made on did not exist.  Also, at the time Olympic Arms was offering replacements, Sendra had been out of business for some time. The fact that this Sendra has one of the most recent forgings is a clear indicator that the receiver was replaced recently and is, yes, I'll say it, contraband. Someone thought they could get more money out of their transferable machine gun if it was freshened up and modernized. There are so many things wrong with this receiver that have already been pointed out, but to summarize, the forging didn't exist in 1986, Sendra did not replace it, the markings and stampings do not match the font of any other Sendra in existence, the IL is missing from the stamping, and lastly, Sendra always, yes always stamped SEMI and not FIRE for selector markings. This receiver is bait of the worst kind. I wouldn't want to own it under any circumstances.

 There's another one out there that's just as bad. Someone took a Colt 9mm Sporter and "converted" it to a transferable H&R M16A1. And they did an absolutely horrible job of it too. These people really need to up their game if they're going to try to pass off obvious fakes. I'm not going to call myself an expert but I've been around the NFA world for a long time, long enough to reach RKI status. I just feel sorry for the sucker that ends up owning one of these. I also feel sorry for the item that may eventually be confiscated and destroyed. There are only so many left in the registry. We can't afford for this to continue to happen.

[MPFiveO]

I just remembered another one that I saw. Someone took a Colt SP1 and grafted or stamped an M16A1 serial number on it. How do I know? Because ALL SP1's have serial numbers that have a SP prefix. And the vast majority of commercially marked M16A1's are in the 9 million serial number range. Apparently this was a one off SP1 with a 9 million serial number. Again, the selector markings on this example were fubar because Colt M16A1's are stamped SEMI, not FIRE as was this example. And, no, this wasn't a Colt LMG because those don't have AUTO stamped on them. This biggest travesty of that mess is that it didn't have a fence on the right side. ALL of the commercial M16A1's have a full fence. Even in the mid 1960's the XM16E1's had partial fence lowers with captive front pins. Only the Armalite 601 had a slabside SP1 style receiver. If you research these things enough you'll be able to spot something when it's not right. But it's more of a curse than a blessing. Regardless, I feel it's best to steer people away from things like this. What's the worst that could happen? I'll say this, it will be a very expensive lesson. Buyer beware.

[Uncle Zeek]

8 hours ago, MPFiveO said:

I've seen several "remade" M16's hit the market in the last few years. I don't know if they'll ever be a problem but knowing that they could be a problem is enough to keep me from even thinking about buying one like that.

I just feel sorry for the sucker that ends up owning one of these. I also feel sorry for the item that may eventually be confiscated and destroyed. There are only so many left in the registry. We can't afford for this to continue to happen.

 

Huh.  Puts me in mind of the "ship of Theseus" paradox, but now I understand why ATF has me send in photos of each SBR that I make.

Had not ever before given thought to this sort of thing happening.

[MPFiveO]

It's not just AR type M16 receivers. There was a DIAS advertised not long ago that looked a bit odd. Closer examination revealed that someone had taken a registered SWD Lightning Link, aka Auto Connector, cut it up and welded the pieces with the serial number and manufacturer to an unregistered drop in auto sear. Some would claim that it was merely a repair. It was clearly not what it was advertised to be. Many pointed out the obvious, the serial number was a dead giveaway. ALL of the SWD Lightning Links had a prefix of AC for Auto Connector. It was not used on anything else they registered, particularly DIAS's. The ad disappeared and pictures seem to have been scrubbed from the internet. This is just another example of someone trying to make one item into another because it's worth more money. In reality it's worthless once it's been destroyed and modified into something it wasn't originally manufactured as. It will be expensive for whoever is involved and may result in imprisonment for one or more participants. This was exactly the case where a group of individuals tried turning cheap MAC 10's into much more valuable belt fed guns. In the end they were caught, prosecuted, fined, imprisoned and the fruits of their labor confiscated and destroyed. That means everyone lost because those guns they used for the scam were lost forever from the registry. By default, actual MAC 10's went up in value because there were now a few less available.

The bottom line is, ATF won't look at these remanufactured M16's any differently than the remanufactured MAC 10's. Just because they're the same type of firearm won't get them a pass. The original receiver was probably destroyed and the replacement will be considered a post 1986 machine gun and no longer transferable, actually contraband because "it" wasn't registered. Only the original was registered.

I know somewhere out there is someone that will say just leave well enough alone and don't say anything. Think about this. What if you unknowingly bought one of these only to have it confiscated at a later date because it was discovered to be a fake. You probably wouldn't go to prison but you'd lose multiple thousands of dollars in your investment. What if it's discovered during disposition of your estate? Your family that thought your item was valuable is cheated out of a substantial amount of money because someone in the past was greedy and dishonest.

The reason these fakes exist is greed. At some point the number of people that have the knowledge about this small segment of the market will dwindle and fakes will be harder to spot because no one will be the wiser.  At that point, much like today, you're just buying the paper title that allows you to legally have whatever is listed on the form. If the information matches up it's good to go. The question is, how many more are going to be purged from the registry before we get there...

[StrangeRanger]

What about this one?  It's a Keosayan, allegedly a pre-86 Colt A2.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1016014489

[JoshNC]

38 minutes ago, StrangeRanger said:

What about this one?  It's a Keosayan, allegedly a pre-86 Colt A2.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1016014489

I share MPFiveO’s sentiment on all of the Keyosian guns. Not worth the risk for me. Also that price is silly. 

Edited January 22 by JoshNC

[StrangeRanger]

I know the price is beyond silly but I'm curious as to the legitimacy of it.  He's gone out of his way to provide documentation that validates it as a transferable yet.....

[Aaron in Mohnton Pa]

@StrangeRanger Below is link with an in depth thread / debate on that subject from years ago.... Also below is a quote from @Dscheid NFA Investments regarding those guns... Still no clear answer on "legitimacy", but guns like this continue to transfer without issue. For now.......

"This is an M16A2 serial number legally reprinted on a newly-manufactured machine gun with the original having been destroyed, which was legal for Colt to do as the original manufacturer. "

That is, until someone at BATFE gets a thorn in their ass and wants to make a point, that they will let you know if you can own it. Not a road I want anybody to go thru. All they have to say is "it is a post sample machinegun" and the reinforced receiver proves it, let alone the letter stating it was re-MFG in 2008. Even if it was Colt doing the work. Now that it is not in Colts possession, it would be a lot easier for someone at BATFE to say it is a Post Sample, plain and simple....

Kinda no different than we cannot take a suppressor and re-serialize it on a new one, because that would be Awesome!

 

 

Edited January 22 by Aaron in Mohnton Pa

[MPFiveO]

I wouldn't want to own one of the Keyosian guns for the above reasons, although they are more legitimate since they never left the Colt factory before being remanufactured. But still, anyone that is knowledgeable knows that those receivers weren't made before 86. The receivers replaced by SGW after 86 were given a pass before ATF told them to stop. I don't recall the exact date this occurred but I wouldn't want one replaced after that date, or even before it for that matter. Yeah, a new receiver is great but I wouldn't want that dark cloud of doubt hanging over my head.

[MPFiveO]

If anyone is interested in critiquing the H&R 9mm here's a link to it. The posting is closed so it's no longer for sale.

Here's a closed auction on a real H&R for comparison. Note the differences on the 9mm vs the 5.56.

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/79/1542/us-property-marked-harrington-richardson-m16a1-auto-rifle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MPFiveO]

Let's see...

Obviously an A2 forging, no selector stops, boss for bolt catch is completely different, pocket for auto sear has an odd step in it not present on any factory M16... Those are just the receiver differences. The markings are absolutely wrong in every way for any H&R M16A1 ever manufactured. They got the contract in 1968 after the M16A1 was type classified so they never made one marked M16, they were all marked M16A1. All H&R's were also marked US Property, they never made any for the commercial market like Colt did. Although not visible in the photos I'd bet that the semi marking reads FIRE and not SEMI.

It's obviously a poorly converted 90's model Colt Sporter. I really feel bad for whoever is left holding the bag on that one.

 

[hkg3k]

10 minutes ago, MPFiveO said:

Let's see...

Obviously an A2 forging, no selector stops, boss for bolt catch is completely different, pocket for auto sear has an odd step in it not present on any factory M16... Those are just the receiver differences. The markings are absolutely wrong in every way for any H&R M16A1 ever manufactured. They got the contract in 1968 after the M16A1 was type classified so they never made one marked M16, they were all marked M16A1. All H&R's were also marked US Property, they never made any for the commercial market like Colt did. Although not visible in the photos I'd bet that the semi marking reads FIRE and not SEMI.

It's obviously a poorly converted 90's model Colt Sporter. I really feel bad for whoever is left holding the bag on that one.

 

Maybe it's completely legit and those A2 reinforcements were welded on / the large front pin drilled on purpose?  We have an expert on here somewhere who can surely confirm.  

Seriously, I agree completely with you.  My "guess" would be this abomination started out as a poorly done H&R reweld that was registered with "H&R Worchester Mass" in box 4a -and- "someone" decided to "turn it into something better"...using a Colt lower, possibly a native 9mm lower.

And, you are correct...it is marked "Fire."  Says so in the description.

It must've generated a lot of discussion at the time, as it appears the ad was closed to further posts at some point.