PDA

View Full Version : Transferrable, new manufacture miniguns


novus collectus
July 13th, 2009, 11:08 AM
Ok, got an idea I would be shocked if no one else has already thought of before, but not sure about the legalities.

Ok, we all know that a minigun or any other machine gun not registered before 1986 is not transferrable, but how about this, make a differently designed minigun with a reciever that cannot function without an M16 full auto seer or an M16 lower (or MAC 10/11 or other such item). That way the gun would not be a machine gun (not able to fire more than one shot with one pull of the trigger) untill the registered part is attached.

What do you guys think? I mean it is legal to put a completely different upper like an open bolt firing belt feed on a registered full auto M16 lower, so why not an electric powered mini gun "on top" of the registered lower?

One could have a collection of cool full auto guns but only need one pre-1986 full auto registered part to make them all work (one at a time of course). THink about it, mini gun, chain gun, anti aircraft guns......

Kharn
July 13th, 2009, 11:20 AM
The ATF would consider it to be a new MG. They specifically stated that FNC sears can only be used to convert FNCs to full auto (as the SCAR's fire control group is almost identical), so the rule is that the MG conversion piece must have been originally designed for that particular firearm.

A new non-reciever part is ok (Lage uppers, all the various AR uppers, etc), but putting a conversion piece into a new reciever design is not ok.

novus collectus
July 13th, 2009, 11:27 AM
The ATF would consider it to be a new MG. They specifically stated that FNC sears can only be used to convert FNCs to full auto (as the SCAR's fire control group is almost identical), so the rule is that the MG conversion piece must have been originally designed for that particular firearm.

A new non-reciever part is ok (Lage uppers, all the various AR uppers, etc), but putting a conversion piece into a new reciever design is not ok.

How about the entire registered reciever and not just the seer? I mean for instance the fire control for the minigun will only work if an M2 reciever with the proper full auto side plate was attached?

novus collectus
July 13th, 2009, 11:32 AM
I mean wasn't it possible to attach the full auto, belt fed upper called the Shrike on a registered full auto reciever even though the Shrike (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2446630311605899740) itself was not technically a machine gun?
I am thinking along the same lines, a minigun that cannot fire without a fuull auto reciever and is just an attachement and not a firearm itself nor a machine gun.

Jaybeez
July 13th, 2009, 11:46 AM
I mean wasn't it possible to attach the full auto, belt fed upper called the Shrike on a registered full auto reciever even though the Shrike (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2446630311605899740) itself was not technically a machine gun?
I am thinking along the same lines, a minigun that cannot fire without a fuull auto reciever and is just an attachement and not a firearm itself nor a machine gun.


I seem to recall recently that the ATF decided to reclassify a 8mm beltfed ar upper as a machine gun.
I might be wrong.

Edit this:
http://www.brpguns.com/xmg.htm this is the manufacturers announcement, if installed on an auto lower the atf deems it needs seperate stamps for the upper and lower.

novus collectus
July 13th, 2009, 12:01 PM
I seem to recall recently that the ATF decided to reclassify a 8mm beltfed ar upper as a machine gun.
I might be wrong.

Edit this:
http://www.brpguns.com/xmg.htm this is the manufacturers announcement, if installed on an auto lower the atf deems it needs seperate stamps for the upper and lower.

Interesting, but it might be because of their design and might be a minor change required. I would like to see that letter.

mudskipper
July 13th, 2009, 01:03 PM
I think the R&D cost ro create a non-firearm that would only see very, VERY limited civillian market use (cops and the .Mil can have REAL miniguns, made next week) is going to make it a non-starter.


When you look at ammo prices now and the MG market in the last couple years, you'll see that as ammo has gotten more expensive, MG prices have flatlined or started falling. RR M-16's are going for less than $10K now (BFI's and Frankfords). Beltfeds are WAY down, especially 50's.

Making a new upper that will shoot up MORE ammo even faster is just not gonna fly with most people that own MG's - unless it uses bulk .22lr. Remember - most poeple who own machineguns have owned them for years. They got into MG's when they only cost 2x a semiauto version and a transfer tax. Now? They wouldn't buy one.

novus collectus
July 13th, 2009, 01:13 PM
I think the R&D cost ro create a non-firearm that would only see very, VERY limited civillian market use (cops and the .Mil can have REAL miniguns, made next week) is going to make it a non-starter.


When you look at ammo prices now and the MG market in the last couple years, you'll see that as ammo has gotten more expensive, MG prices have flatlined or started falling. RR M-16's are going for less than $10K now (BFI's and Frankfords). Beltfeds are WAY down, especially 50's.

Making a new upper that will shoot up MORE ammo even faster is just not gonna fly with most people that own MG's - unless it uses bulk .22lr. Remember - most poeple who own machineguns have owned them for years. They got into MG's when they only cost 2x a semiauto version and a transfer tax. Now? They wouldn't buy one.
Forget the marketting part for a few seconds, think of it in the context of a multi millionaire just wanting to have some legal fun.

But also think of it this way, a tinkerer who wants to make their own electric powered gatling gun legally.

kohburn
July 13th, 2009, 02:35 PM
what about a minigun pelletgun?

iriden
July 13th, 2009, 08:42 PM
a multimillionaire could just buy a beltfed or a real minigun or get a class 7 and class 2 SOT

mudskipper
July 13th, 2009, 09:14 PM
Yep. If I ever come into Monopoly Money, I'm gonna start a Corp. to make posties. Sure, I'll sell 'em to any qualified department that wants them and Demo letter them to whoever can give me something on a letterhead, but the real fun will be in R&D!!!

I'd wager at least 75% of the II 07 SOT's out there are.... well, nevermind....

Jim Keenan
July 22nd, 2009, 08:43 PM
I live in eager and constant anticipation of the next wonderful idea about how to evade the NFA and make a legal, tax-free, unregistered, full auto weapon. Lotsa luck, and enjoy the stainless steel toilet seat.

Jim

240 towles
July 22nd, 2009, 08:48 PM
I think you could, I saw a guy on youtube who made a belt fed shotgun on top of a M16 full auto lower. Jammed alot though.

midcountygunshop
July 22nd, 2009, 09:07 PM
It is a novel idea, but I don't think it would fly with the ATF. The mechanics of a minigun are completely different from any other machinegun. The ATF has to approve of things like this to determine if they are accessories or new firearms. I don't think anyone could make a minigun attachment that would specifically rely on a registered trigger group from another weapon, and not be able to be manipulated to fire with out that registered part. Not to mention the cost to manufacture would be tremendous. As a class 2, I can tell you I don't see a minigun(even postie) in my future beacause of the price tag to build. But hey, if we could convince our government to repeal the '86 law life would be much more simple. Oh well, just wishful thinking :(

novus collectus
July 22nd, 2009, 11:38 PM
I live in eager and constant anticipation of the next wonderful idea about how to evade the NFA and make a legal, tax-free, unregistered, full auto weapon. Lotsa luck, and enjoy the stainless steel toilet seat.

JimYOu don't get it, this is not avoiding crap, it is USING a registered device that is required in order to operate it.

mudskipper
July 28th, 2009, 10:56 PM
I live in eager and constant anticipation of the next wonderful idea about how to evade the NFA and make a legal, tax-free, unregistered, full auto weapon. Lotsa luck, and enjoy the stainless steel toilet seat.

Jim


Nothing illegal about it. Start a Corp., get the FFL, pay the SOT, operate on a commercial basis (make stuff, sell it, show income, pay taxes on it) and comply with all applicable laws.

1,000,000,000,000,000% legal.


You DO realize that there ARE companies out there that made machineguns this very afternoon, right? And they'll make more tommorow. And artillary. And explosives. And missles. And bombs. And every other piece of ordnance that gets used by the military or police agencies.... These are all PRIVATE companies. How? They filed the right paperwork. No one's frog-marching the owner or employees of these companies off to Club Fed for making NFA devices.

marko
July 28th, 2009, 11:15 PM
No one's frog-marching the owner or employees of these companies off to Club Fed for making NFA devices.


YET. That's coming in your lifetime.

hole punch
July 29th, 2009, 12:41 AM
YET. That's coming in your lifetime.

then how will our masters get their machines of war?

LostSoul
July 29th, 2009, 02:00 PM
then how will our masters get their machines of war?

From China, of course. :lol2:

Phy6
October 12th, 2009, 12:23 AM
From China, of course. :lol2:

:lol:
Mounted to Chinese Hummers no less!

august1410
October 12th, 2009, 12:29 AM
:lol:
Mounted to Chinese Hummers no less!

I got one of those once.......the exchange rate was goofy.....I either paid $11 or $1100.

Jim Keenan
October 13th, 2009, 09:59 PM
Oh, I get it. But a machinegun is registered with specific details; if those are changed, BATFE must be notified even if the nature of the firearm is not changed. If it is, the registration is void.

And yes, there are many companies making machineguns. And many more companies that have an NFA manufacturer's SOT in case they want to make machineguns. But I don't see FNH or Remington or the Class III manufacturer I know posting on here about some ingenious (and, of course, "legal") way to add to, or make, or modify something or other to fire full auto. I repeat, I admire the ingenuity, and I am sure BATFE would also, but they might not let their admiration stand in the way of reaching for the cuffs.

Jim

Kharn
October 14th, 2009, 05:54 AM
The ATF's recently approved the sale of conversion parts that use an M16 receiver to create an open-bolt 22lr fed by AM-180 drums.