I still maintain that you didn't say the registered sear is different than the factory sear. This is very important, because if you drill the hole and only registered sears make it work, it is not making a new machine gun. But, factory sears aren't registered, so if you drill a hole and any off-the-shelf factory replacement sear makes it work, that is the problem. This distinction is unclear in your letter.
FNC sear use.
- Thread starter xm15e2s
- Start date
The problem with pursuing this argument is that it will not result in BATF allowing installation of an FNC sear in an AR15 -- instead, it will result in BATF deciding that FNC sears should not have been allowed to be installed in FNCs, the same way they retroactively banned installation of registered AK sears in AKs.Fallschirmjäger said:
My understanding is that when Curtiss Higgins installs one of his sears in an FNC host, he files an amended Form 4 listing the serial number of the semi host receiver in which he has installed the sear. I do not know if he still does this. But if he does/did, I can only assume that it was at the request of BATF -- why go through the paperwork if BATF has not required that it be done?
Unlike AR15 RDIAS or RLLs, or HK sears in trigger packs, the registered FNC sear does require modifications to the host receiver. Again AFAIK, it is the only semi receiver which BATF allows to be modified to host an FA sear. We may never know the logic under which BATF made this decision -- but blindly basing a different use, such as installation of an FNC sear in an AR host, upon such unknown logic is foolhardy.
I really, really, really would like BATF to allow xm15e2s' conversion.
But BATF is not an agency which promotes NFA -- instead, its mission is to restrict NFA. In any and every case in which we see an expansion of the MG population, BATF instead sees an opportunity to shrink it. That, my friends, is reality.
Unlike AR15 RDIAS or RLLs, or HK sears in trigger packs, the registered FNC sear does require modifications to the host receiver. Again AFAIK, it is the only semi receiver which BATF allows to be modified to host an FA sear. We may never know the logic under which BATF made this decision -- but blindly basing a different use, such as installation of an FNC sear in an AR host, upon such unknown logic is foolhardy.
I really, really, really would like BATF to allow xm15e2s' conversion.
But BATF is not an agency which promotes NFA -- instead, its mission is to restrict NFA. In any and every case in which we see an expansion of the MG population, BATF instead sees an opportunity to shrink it. That, my friends, is reality.
Long shot but.........
What about constructing a housing for the FNC sear..... kinda like a RDIAS housing. This way it would essentialy drop right in..... or would the newly created housing be considered a mg in and of itself?
What about constructing a housing for the FNC sear..... kinda like a RDIAS housing. This way it would essentialy drop right in..... or would the newly created housing be considered a mg in and of itself?
M5NSX said:
Fuck yes. As TonyK mentioned this is exactly the sort of shit that screws things up for everyone.
I for one will be exceedingly pissed off if my registered FNC + sear get declared 'illegal' because someone got a real clever idea and wanted to 'think outside the box'.
There is absolutely nothing positive that can come from continuing this line of thinking.
Fallschirmjäger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 66
Oh waaaah people.
"Don't think outside the box, you'll ruin it for everyone."
"Don't ask the ATF or I won't be able to get my gun. Hmmmf!"
Jesus, you guys been giving your testosterone to that bicycle racer?
"Thinking outside the box" is the reason we have FNC sears right now, let alone ANY converted NFA rifle. What about the Stemple tube guns they keep on reapplying to the ATF for and getting authorization to build into different configurations? I guess the original owners should be worried the ATF will get tired of the tubes being built into subguns and retroactively ban them all, right? How many of these have been built into NFA FNC's and been approved by the ATF? A Bunch. I could just see the ATF trying that round-up. Think the NRA-ILA might have something to say?
Am I worried that someone trying to get the ATF to recognize that what is being suggested regarding installation of an FNC sear will ultimately result in the confiscation of my NFA FNC? No. I'd personally take up the fight myself if I had the know-how. I'd love it if a whole bunch of us pushed the issue, even at the risk (eghads!) of losing my FNC (so unlikely it's laughable).
If you're that damn afraid, go spend your money on something safer. Maybe the demand will go down enough for me to afford buying another FNC.
"Don't think outside the box, you'll ruin it for everyone."
"Don't ask the ATF or I won't be able to get my gun. Hmmmf!"
Jesus, you guys been giving your testosterone to that bicycle racer?
"Thinking outside the box" is the reason we have FNC sears right now, let alone ANY converted NFA rifle. What about the Stemple tube guns they keep on reapplying to the ATF for and getting authorization to build into different configurations? I guess the original owners should be worried the ATF will get tired of the tubes being built into subguns and retroactively ban them all, right? How many of these have been built into NFA FNC's and been approved by the ATF? A Bunch. I could just see the ATF trying that round-up. Think the NRA-ILA might have something to say?
Am I worried that someone trying to get the ATF to recognize that what is being suggested regarding installation of an FNC sear will ultimately result in the confiscation of my NFA FNC? No. I'd personally take up the fight myself if I had the know-how. I'd love it if a whole bunch of us pushed the issue, even at the risk (eghads!) of losing my FNC (so unlikely it's laughable).
If you're that damn afraid, go spend your money on something safer. Maybe the demand will go down enough for me to afford buying another FNC.
...that's it...lets keep bashing the batfe...comming up with really bright ideas...and pushing it ...let me tell you something...they are here to stay...
...and you know something else...i personally have never had them be unreasonable or unresponsive...they have always treated me with respect, they have answered my questions in a timely and intelligent manner, and have gone out of their way to be helpful...
...as far as logic in the same sentence...i am still searching for it in this tread...
...and you know something else...i personally have never had them be unreasonable or unresponsive...they have always treated me with respect, they have answered my questions in a timely and intelligent manner, and have gone out of their way to be helpful...
...as far as logic in the same sentence...i am still searching for it in this tread...
I personally know that my nfa dealer and manufacture allready has sent in the basic question of the registered sear(this is considered the mg) in the ar with no modification to the sear little to the receiver and the hole in the receiver in a different location than the m16.this is what i was told that happened and started over a year ago.
1. sent step by step procedure with drawings to atf
2. they called to say this will never work but would be legal
3. he stated yes it will work i allready have a working one built
4. they said send it in
5. they pulled it apart and said this is not a registered sear it needed to be a rs for them to check if still would work
6. he stated ok but im a manufacturer so for me thats fine i didnt want to send in a expensive rs since they are the same for this purpose.
7. when he got it back he installed registered sear
8. atf then said no and basic same thing of excuses
he read me the responses from their letters basically the same as what is on here.he has a great lawyer and is fighting hard on this since he has 100 registered sears of his own from way back and this would be a goldmine if it was oked by atf
1. sent step by step procedure with drawings to atf
2. they called to say this will never work but would be legal
3. he stated yes it will work i allready have a working one built
4. they said send it in
5. they pulled it apart and said this is not a registered sear it needed to be a rs for them to check if still would work
6. he stated ok but im a manufacturer so for me thats fine i didnt want to send in a expensive rs since they are the same for this purpose.
7. when he got it back he installed registered sear
8. atf then said no and basic same thing of excuses
he read me the responses from their letters basically the same as what is on here.he has a great lawyer and is fighting hard on this since he has 100 registered sears of his own from way back and this would be a goldmine if it was oked by atf
JoshNC
Well-known member
RICHARDB said:
RICHARDB please email me at jsurowitz@REMOVETHISaol.com (taking out the REMOVETHIS).
Thanks.
- Status
Please Visit our Sister Sites Below
Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter