Transferable FN m249

[JMPinTN]

 Curious what registered sear could be used to create a transferable m249.

 

is it one of the registered MAC triggers that was used in the PKM on GB?  

https://www.urban-armory.com/portfolios/transferrable-fn-249/

[Uncle Zeek]

Interesting.   I may call just to find out "how much"

[MPFiveO]

It would have to be something along those lines. There were rules that had to be adhered to regarding the use and installation of these conversion devices.

While it seems desirable I wouldn't touch one. Sure, there's a tax stamp and paperwork but they also have a term called improper registration. That term basically applies to a registered receiver that wasn't modified and used an unregistered sear.

In a case like this you have a registered device that wasn't designed for any particular weapon. HK sears were designed to work in HK firearms. The AR-15 DIAS was designed to work in the AR-15. FNC sears were designed to work in the FNC. This is something that looks like a permission slip to convert anything and that is a bit disconcerting. 

If there's a letter from them that says it's kosher that's all fine and dandy. I just hope there's never a reckoning and all the questionable stuff isn't rounded up. Just like another recently unearthed item, a registered AK pistol grip, I wouldn't touch it. Someone was just seeing how far they could take it.

[Uncle Zeek]

3 minutes ago, MPFiveO said:

Just like another recently unearthed item, a registered AK pistol grip, I wouldn't touch it. Someone was just seeing how far they could take it.

I saw that one on GB!    I never dreamt that a firearm would have the serial number engraved anywhere but on the receiver.   So yeah, it would be interesting to see the ATF's perspective on that one.

[MPFiveO]

3 minutes ago, Uncle Zeek said:

I saw that one on GB!    I never dreamt that a firearm would have the serial number engraved anywhere but on the receiver.   So yeah, it would be interesting to see the ATF's perspective on that one.

Their perspective is what keeps me skeptical of things like this. Most registrations were straight forward. An original Thompson, Sten, MP40 or PPSh41 is pretty simple. It's a machine gun.

With a conversion device you would think that there would have been some requirement in place for the device to perform the actual function of converting a firearm to shoot full auto. A registered sear does that, and without modification to the receiver of the host firearm.

Here's something to consider from my perspective. In 1982 the ATF declared the AR-15 drop in auto sear to be a machine gun in and of itself because it was designed to allow the gun to shoot full auto without modification to the receiver. So, it is without a doubt a conversion device.

But then you have other items registered as conversion devices that don't actually perform that function. That would include the registered AK grip I mentioned, an M16 bolt carrier I saw on GB and of course the trigger that was used in the PKM. The AK grip isn't even part of the fire control group or part of the receiver. Using that to effect full auto fire is not possible. The registered M16 bolt carrier could be used in a combination of parts except for the one catch... Drilling a hole in an AR lower to install a sear would be making a new machine gun. Also making a new DIAS or any other device that the bolt carrier could act upon would also be making a new machine gun. So, what exactly does it do to effect full auto fire by itself? Then you have the trigger. So basically the trigger is the part that initiates the sequence of events that results in the firearm discharging more than one shot per function of the trigger. The only problem with that is with something like a PKM or M249 you're going to need a crapload of parts also modified to achieve this. This differs greatly from something like a registered DIAS that only requires swapping AR-15 components to M16 components to complete the conversion. The receiver isn't modified and the parts aren't modified. They look with great scrutiny at modified parts as conversion devices in and of themselves. Think about all the bolts that C2's have registered for a variety of firearms like the Uzi, 1919, and others because it was easier to modify that part to work with an existing semi auto platform rather than build one from scratch. Same with HK's and other firearms that use trigger packs. They just modify a trigger pack and use it in a semi auto host. Modified bolts and trigger packs that actually effect full auto fire are registered as conversion devices.

So here's the part that makes my hair stand on end. If things like a grip or bolt carrier can be registered and subsequently classified as a machine gun then... There are a LOT of unregistered grips and bolt carriers out there! This is where a logical person would say that common sense would prevail. Um, yeah, think about that for just a moment before you leave a response.

[Uncle Zeek]

Oh, yeah, I thought about it when I saw the AK grip listing.    I don't think that I would argue that the AK grip is a conversion device, but is merely the registered part of the firearm, legally making it "the firearm" . . . but then we have that pesky section 479.102 which says that the serial number must be conspicuously engraved, cast or stamped (impressed) on the firearm frame or receiver

I don't know - is there a world in which the grip of an AK is considered the "frame" of the gun?

*edit* I just went to look at the ended listing for that grip.   I call shenanigans.  Sure, you could install the grip onto a semi-auto AK, and it might legally be a machinegun.  But you would have to modify the receiver of the semi-auto gun in order to make it fire full auto, and this, without question, falls under the definition of making or manufacturing a machinegun.

 

 

Edited May 1 by Uncle Zeek

[har1690]

I have a transferable front site for sale...

[JMPinTN]

I have a gen 1 m249s. When squeezing the trigger it drops the sear, and then resets once the trigger has been completely squeezed.
I would think using a MAC trigger and fixed trigger link/bar to hold the sear down until the trigger was released would work until the slide hammer lost momentum. 

Not sure it would work with the updated fire control parts with all the extra springs and mechanisms.

All that said, why would the powers that be allow a MAC trigger to jump to another family of firearms but not allow the HK trigger pack to be run on the MGA 249’s?

 

 

 

[MPFiveO]

10 hours ago, JMPinTN said:

All that said, why would the powers that be allow a MAC trigger to jump to another family of firearms but not allow the HK trigger pack to be run on the MGA 249’s?

This is another problem. There's no consistency with the application of the made up rules about what one can and cannot do.

While the FN SCAR is not a legacy FNC, it has a fire control group with enough similarities that a FNC sear would work in it. And like the FNC the upper is the receiver and not the lower so drilling a hole for the sear would not modify the receiver. But the answer to that question was an absolute NO.

Then there's the BRP XMG. It's a Title 1 upper if you attach it to an AR-15 lower but somehow it becomes a machine gun if you attach it to an M16 lower creating two machine guns. I'm still scratching my head on that one.

The M249 upper for the M11/9 lower went nowhere because apparently they were able to get it to machine gun without a lower attached. I don't know what to think about that except that it would be incredibly stupid to remove the stop and go part from the gun that also provides a degree of control over the firearm, but I'm not the expert and I don't make up the rules.

Another interesting quirk is the Sig MPX. An AR-15 drop in auto sear will literally drop in. The fire control group dimensions are identical to that of the M16. Placing a trip in the slot of the upper enables the bolt carrier to trip the sear. So... Is the Sig MPX in the AR-15 family now?

I find it interesting that certain uppers for certain firearms, or machine gun lower receivers, are approved and others denied. They have their criteria but it doesn't appear to be applied with consistency. M16 uppers that were approved include the Freedom Ordnance FM 9 and the Ares Defense Shrike but the BRP XMG is not for M16 use. The Lage MAX 11/15 upper is approved but the M249 is not. Then there was the RPD upper for the M11/9. That one is still a sore spot in the community.

I digress, as I'm straying from the original discussion. I'm just one of the many individuals that find it frustrating to see innovative products not come to fruition because some agency said, nope, not gonna happen. Or worse, they tell you that you can't use your registered part in a platform in which it will fit and function.

I wouldn't mind having one of the Tactical Innovation AM-15 uppers but what I'd really like is the American 180 upper for the M11/9. What happened there???