Sig MCX in MA

E.Stoner

NES Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
1,885
Likes
2,073
Location
Masslandia
Feedback: 10 / 0 / 0
Ok this has been burning my ass for months...

Why is the Sig MCX verboten in the People Republic?
Now I know this is model of rifle that was used in the Pulse shooting which supposedly the straw that broke Maura's back and led to the whole 7/20 cluster-fun, but as far as I can dell it it doesn't pass the AW Ban AR copy/dupe criteria especially in it's 2nd gen (or new 3rd Gen Virtus?) model.
The uppers and lowers are no longer compatible with AR upper and lowers with the new bolt carriers and trigger groups. At this point the only mechanical similarity is that it accepts STAGNAG mags, muzzle devices, perhaps AR-style grips.
In every other respect it is not the same or similar design.
It's piston operated (not DI), has internal recoil springs (no buffer tube), non-compatible trigger group, bolt/bcg, controls, barrels, charging handle, controls, and rails.

Am I missing something? Or is this simply just another pile on the Mass-mountain of bullshit.

There are other guns that are also mechanically fundamentally different but share an AR style manual of arms that are being sold. Why is the Sig excluded?
 
in terms of the AWB the MCX is obviously not listed since it was released ~30 years after the AWB was written. prior to 7/20 they were being massified and sold. they weren't abundant but they were around. since 7/20 it seems many dealers are extra cautious about rifles that use the same parts as an AR or could be construed as being an AR "copy". this 7/20 business was left intentionally vague so as to prohibit as much as possible. I cannot blame the dealers as I would be equally cautious.

ultimately none of my speculation matters since I'm not the FFL doing your transfers.

--

on a separate note, why has the MCX been burning your ass? in the absence of running a supressor, I would just opt for a standard DI rifle, maybe a piston operated upper or preferable to all of the above would be a tavor. i've shot the MCX once and honestly see no advantage to any solid value adams arms piston upper which is far cheaper and compatible with a usual lower. further there are now various reliability issues popping up with the MCX. while I commend Sig for coming up with all these new rifles, reality is that their most reliable rifles are the old school 556 and DI rifles like the M400. personally I don't care how cool a design is, reliability is #1.
 
Last edited:
The one rifle i absolutely regret not getting when I had a chance to...Sig MPX 9mm Carbine. One day....i hope
 
in terms of the AWB the MCX is obviously not listed since it was released ~30 years after the AWB was written. prior to 7/20 they were being massified and sold. they weren't abundant but they were around. since 7/20 it seems many dealers are extra cautious about rifles that use the same parts as an AR or could be construed as being an AR "copy". this 7/20 business was left intentionally vague so as to prohibit as much as possible. I cannot blame the dealers as I would be equally cautious.

ultimately none of my speculation matters since I'm not the FFL doing your transfers.

--

on a separate note, why has the MCX been burning your ass? in the absence of running a supressor, I would just opt for a standard DI rifle, maybe a piston operated upper or preferable to all of the above would be a tavor. i've shot the MCX once and honestly see no advantage to any solid value adams arms piston upper which is far cheaper and compatible with a usual lower. further there are now various reliability issues popping up with the MCX. while I commend Sig for coming up with all these new rifles, reality is that their most reliable rifles are the old school 556 and DI rifles like the M400. personally I don't care how cool a design is, reliability is #1.

Interesting... I could see how the 1st generation could have been considered because MCX uppers could be placed on AR lowers and the bolt carrier group shared some common parts, but I believe this is no longer the case with the new design and it should be good to go. I wonder if dealers are still being cautions or haven't caught on to the change yet?
If it's just a transfer issue than that's different.

What has my ass burning in not the gun itself but the restriction (or perceived restriction) of the model based on an illogical premise.
But yes I want one, and I would like to pay market value not "Like-new Glock on Armslist" or three fingers up the pooper prices.
It think its a pretty cool platform that is begging to be SBR'd and one day, god willing, suppressed in 300 BLK.
I also don't really believe in buying a platform right when it comes out. 1st Gen models always have problems that need to get shaken out based on a couple years of actual use. I think the MCX could be getting there and when the prices calm down I would really like to pick one up.
 
I've heard nothing but good things from people who actually own one. Lots of negative reports from people who'd never buy a US-made Sig.

It being Sig, they probably are the ones saying it's not MA legal. :(
 
The Sig 556/SCM series was discontinued because of the number of rifles sold with crooked barrels from the factory and the fact the cost per unit was too high compared to AR/AK platforms which have lots of aftermarket support which the Sig rifles don't have.

Which is a shame because it was nice to have the variety. I'm kicking myself for not buying a SCM from NES two years ago when I was looking for one and changed my mind last minute over financial concerns.
 
From all of the folks that I have spoken to (even ones that have had some mechanical problems that were eventually resolved) they love the guns. Lots of people with the Gen 1 versions are perfectly happy with leaving them as is until they have problems. Most people report reliability and really excellent accuracy.
I feel that Sig get disproportionately bashed because of the relatively high price tag and people's unrealistic expectation of ZERO problems. These are the people that are squawking the loudest when unexpected problems come up even ones that are created by the user.
I should confess I am unapologetic Sig-lover, and I have a problem. [laugh]
 
This one was actually 5.56 (we used our own mags) - not sure if that means it was MPX or MCX.
MCX and MPXmost excellent!
Would love an MPX ***corrected*** too but don't really see the point if you cant use standard mags in mass.
 
Last edited:
I was up at the Sig pro shop just yesterday, and apparently Sig has been pretty annoyed at MA about classifying the MCX as an AR platform as well. So they got their lawyers involved and they determined that the MCX Virtus is significantly different enough from an AR platform that legally it can not be banned outright in MA as an AR platform. Of course that means you still have to find an FFL in MA that is willing to take the transfer, and will have to pin the stock, weld on a muzzle break, and limit the mags to 10 rounds to get around the more general "assault weapon" rules in Masslandia. I haven't yet started talking to local FFL's, but I recently picked up an MPX 9mm carbine that essentially had those same mods done to make them MA-compliant. The challenge, as I understand it, is more the availability of the Virtus. I talked to a few folks in my Sig Academy class that have had theirs on order for up to 6 months.
 
I was up at the Sig pro shop just yesterday, and apparently Sig has been pretty annoyed at MA about classifying the MCX as an AR platform as well. So they got their lawyers involved and they determined that the MCX Virtus is significantly different enough from an AR platform that legally it can not be banned outright in MA as an AR platform. Of course that means you still have to find an FFL in MA that is willing to take the transfer, and will have to pin the stock, weld on a muzzle break, and limit the mags to 10 rounds to get around the more general "assault weapon" rules in Masslandia. I haven't yet started talking to local FFL's, but I recently picked up an MPX 9mm carbine that essentially had those same mods done to make them MA-compliant. The challenge, as I understand it, is more the availability of the Virtus. I talked to a few folks in my Sig Academy class that have had theirs on order for up to 6 months.

Great news, man, thanks! I guess I thought they were already MA-ok, guess not.

I like the Virtus, if they start selling for sub $2000 I could be tempted.
 
I was up at the Sig pro shop just yesterday, and apparently Sig has been pretty annoyed at MA about classifying the MCX as an AR platform as well. So they got their lawyers involved and they determined that the MCX Virtus is significantly different enough from an AR platform that legally it can not be banned outright in MA as an AR platform. Of course that means you still have to find an FFL in MA that is willing to take the transfer, and will have to pin the stock, weld on a muzzle break, and limit the mags to 10 rounds to get around the more general "assault weapon" rules in Masslandia. I haven't yet started talking to local FFL's, but I recently picked up an MPX 9mm carbine that essentially had those same mods done to make them MA-compliant. The challenge, as I understand it, is more the availability of the Virtus. I talked to a few folks in my Sig Academy class that have had theirs on order for up to 6 months.

Not sure why they think that. It is, by definition, an assault weapon. Folding stock and flash suppressor from the factory. They do not make a “state compliant” model.

Edit: if we’re playing by the “once an assault weapon, always an assault weapon” rules. I admit I have very little idea what the rules are in MA these days since they are constantly changing based on letters, notices, word of mouth, and not actual...laws.
 
If you are going by Healey's BS, if it's not an AR then it's the feature test but it has to be manufactured as compliant (once an AW, always an AW). What are the chances Sig will build one in a compliant configuration?
Maybe is the OP could get a large enough group buy, Sig would do a small run in a compliant config? (unfortunately I'm not in the market for one, so I'm just throwing the idea out there).
 
If you are going by Healey's BS, if it's not an AR then it's the feature test but it has to be manufactured as compliant (once an AW, always an AW). What are the chances Sig will build one in a compliant configuration?
Maybe is the OP could get a large enough group buy, Sig would do a small run in a compliant config? (unfortunately I'm not in the market for one, so I'm just throwing the idea out there).

Forget Healy, follow the actual law, buy the free state version from a shop who will make it compliant. There are plenty in Mass and a few in NH.

There are MA dealers who have been advertising the MCX carbine in the classifieds for a while now.
 
So the way it works is that if it's deemed an "AR clone", regardless of features it's banned in MA. But, since the MCX has evolved significantly over the past few years it now shares very little with the AR platform. So by MA law, it passses the AR test, but now it has to pass the feature test. It can only have 2 out of the following 4 things: a removable magazine, pistol grip, threaded barrel, and folding or collapsible stock. Not much you can do about the pistol grip or mag, but you can have a muzzle break welded to the barrel and have the stock pinned in place. So then, it's not an AR platform and it only has two of the four cosmetic features of an "assault weapon" so it's compliant. Sig told me that if I can find an FFL that will take the transfer (aka comfortable that the MCX is indeed not an AR clone) and can do the smithing work, I could get one. And apparently Healey doesn't have much of a leg to stand on from a legal perspective (this is what Sig's lawyers determined). That being said, some FFL's will just not want to take on the risk of an inquiry even if they are legally in the right. But I know of at least one shop that did this for me on an MPX so I'm hoping they'll do the same for the MCX. It's just that the MPX shares even less in common with the AR platform, so the risk is probably slightly lower. If anyone knows of an FFL that will take a transfer on an MCX, I'm all ears!
 
So the way it works is that if it's deemed an "AR clone", regardless of features it's banned in MA. But, since the MCX has evolved significantly over the past few years it now shares very little with the AR platform. So by MA law, it passses the AR test, but now it has to pass the feature test. It can only have 2 out of the following 4 things: a removable magazine, pistol grip, threaded barrel, and folding or collapsible stock. Not much you can do about the pistol grip or mag, but you can have a muzzle break welded to the barrel and have the stock pinned in place. So then, it's not an AR platform and it only has two of the four cosmetic features of an "assault weapon" so it's compliant. Sig told me that if I can find an FFL that will take the transfer (aka comfortable that the MCX is indeed not an AR clone) and can do the smithing work, I could get one. And apparently Healey doesn't have much of a leg to stand on from a legal perspective (this is what Sig's lawyers determined). That being said, some FFL's will just not want to take on the risk of an inquiry even if they are legally in the right. But I know of at least one shop that did this for me on an MPX so I'm hoping they'll do the same for the MCX. It's just that the MPX shares even less in common with the AR platform, so the risk is probably slightly lower. If anyone knows of an FFL that will take a transfer on an MCX, I'm all ears!

Only potential problem I can see, and please remember I do not agree with this, is if you follow Healey's commandments, you can not make an AW into a non-AW. So pinning the stock and welding the muzzle device by anyone other than the manufacturer would be a no go.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, I do not agree with this BS!
 
Only potential problem I can see, and please remember I do not agree with this, is if you follow Healey's commandments, you can not make an AW into a non-AW. So pinning the stock and welding the muzzle device by anyone other than the manufacturer would be a no go.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, I do not agree with this BS!

Whatever a licensed manufacturer does to it (Massify) before transfer doesn't matter.
 
Whatever a licensed manufacturer does to it (Massify) before transfer doesn't matter.

It's not "A" licensed manufacturer, it's "the" manufacturer. If Sig offers one that is MA compliant then it would have been manufactured an a non AW. Maura says that's ok.

Another example would be EddieCoyle manufactures a fixed box mag rifle, this is not an AW, but if he bought a complete rifle, that was an AW, and then converted it to a fixed box mag, it would still be an AW... according to Maura....I think....IANAL....God I hate MA
 
Only potential problem I can see, and please remember I do not agree with this, is if you follow Healey's commandments, you can not make an AW into a non-AW. So pinning the stock and welding the muzzle device by anyone other than the manufacturer would be a no go.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, I do not agree with this BS!

I'd like to know what MGL/CMR she is basing that particular part of her toilet paper guidance on.
 
It's not "A" licensed manufacturer, it's "the" manufacturer. If Sig offers one that is MA compliant then it would have been manufactured an a non AW. Maura says that's ok.

Another example would be EddieCoyle manufactures a fixed box mag rifle, this is not an AW, but if he bought a complete rifle, that was an AW, and then converted it to a fixed box mag, it would still be an AW... according to Maura....I think....IANAL....God I hate MA

Please do NOT listen to Sig when it comes to Mass law.

Don't waste your time thinking about this nonsense. Follow the AWB, ignore Maura's made-up nonsense. It really just affects FFLs.
 
Please do NOT listen to Sig when it comes to Mass law.

Don't waste your time thinking about this nonsense. Follow the AWB, ignore Maura's made-up nonsense. It really just affects FFLs.

You can't completely ignore it if what you want has to come through an FFL. Not everything is available FTF, FTF of a questionable item often has a premium price, and we know she's watching the efa10s. Besides, do you want to be the test case?
 
I don't know the "source" but Glidden has been preaching that it was illegal to convert a gun that left the mfr with too many evil features to a Massified gun for many years. I don't agree with it either and don't know if it was his interpretation or from higher up but we are talking probably 10+ years since he first told me (and his LE students) this.
 
I don't know the "source" but Glidden has been preaching that it was illegal to convert a gun that left the mfr with too many evil features to a Massified gun for many years. I don't agree with it either and don't know if it was his interpretation or from higher up but we are talking probably 10+ years since he first told me (and his LE students) this.

This could be a real benefit to the small mfgs (Littleton), they can easily build MA compliant rifles. There is no reason they couldn't buy complete stripped lowers (sub out the production work) and then assemble complete compliant rifles. They wouldn't even need their own machining equipment. The small scale would increase the price a little, but stay away from the low end market should help.
 
Back
Top Bottom