What makes an MG an MG?

[crazymjb]

I see all these things like belt fed uppers available that use registered M16 lowers. Is there anything stopping someone from making a backplate for something like an M1919 or M2HB that uses a different linkage inside a registered M16 lower (IE no modification is made to the lower, but the sear is located elsewhere)? Or if the weapon can fire without that piece it would have to be the registered part? What about an open bolt upper that is engaged by a modidied sear placed in a registered lower, a la an M240?

Mike

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[richc]

There is a registered, serial numbered part that is defined as the MG. In the case of an M16 it is the lower. Or if it is an add-on like a lightning link, the lightning link is the registered part.

Interestingly, in the case of an Uzi it is the upper that is the registered piece. You can buy a FA Uzi lower without the NFA process.

So to answer your question, it depends...

 

[drgrant]

I see all these things like belt fed uppers available that use registered M16 lowers. Is there anything stopping someone from making a backplate for something like an M1919 or M2HB that uses a different linkage inside a registered M16 lower (IE no modification is made to the lower, but the sear is located elsewhere)? Or if the weapon can fire without that piece it would have to be the registered part? What about an open bolt upper that is engaged by a modidied sear placed in a registered lower, a la an M240?

This is certainly all possible but the problem is BATFE starts acting like a bunch of flaming douchebag c**k fruity mc gay gay a**h***s when it comes to stuff like this depending on the construction of the "upper". They don't like it when people get too ambitious with registered lowers. The problem is that "too ambitious" ends up being a nebulous concept. I think awhile ago someone had tried to make/market an MG42 upper that attached to an M16 registered sear/registered lower, and BATFE got all pissy about it. One of the NFA guys here probably has a better recollection of this incident than I do. Some of it may have to do with the functioning of the device and the level of functioning of the halves. For example, it's pretty easy to see BATFE getting pissy about such an "upper" if a guy could attach it to a semi lower, and could turn it into an MG with minimal modifications. It might also have something to do with an MG42 being an open bolt.

I think things like the Shrike, etc, fly under the radar because most of the FA functionality is still in the lower in that kind of a case. Putting a Shrike on a semi lower will just get you a belt fed semi.

-Mike

 

[crazymjb]

By that logic semis should be illegal because they are easily converted to FA.

I was just thinking out loud as I figured I could pretty easily adapt an M16 lower to function as the sear for something like an M240 if some of the parts were swapped out.

I can sort of understand their reasoning behind the open bolt thing, as open bolt weapons generally fire whenever the bolt is closed, and as a result, are more or less self timing, so if you drop the sear, they will just run away.

I'm sure if you replaced some of the internal parts on a registered FA lower, (or semi for that matter, but you could make it in a way that the parts would only work utilizing the hole for the auto sear, and you could make a lockout on the "upper receiver" such that it would only function if the lower was in place)

I'd honestly want to take a look at some of the cheaper transferable FA things and see if they could be adapted into more powerful, reliable, useful, belt-fed medium guns. Ah, I wish I had an FFL.

Anyway, just thinking out loud.

Mike

 

[01SVTvert]

By that logic semis should be illegal because they are easily converted to FA.

I was just thinking out loud as I figured I could pretty easily adapt an M16 lower to function as the sear for something like an M240 if some of the parts were swapped out.

I can sort of understand their reasoning behind the open bolt thing, as open bolt weapons generally fire whenever the bolt is closed, and as a result, are more or less self timing, so if you drop the sear, they will just run away.

I'm sure if you replaced some of the internal parts on a registered FA lower, (or semi for that matter, but you could make it in a way that the parts would only work utilizing the hole for the auto sear, and you could make a lockout on the "upper receiver" such that it would only function if the lower was in place)

I'd honestly want to take a look at some of the cheaper transferable FA things and see if they could be adapted into more powerful, reliable, useful, belt-fed medium guns. Ah, I wish I had an FFL.

Anyway, just thinking out loud.

Mike

Its been done and bounced by ATF as a machine gun. A SAW upper IIRC was made for the M10/M11 family and got bounced after two samples were made. A RPD upper for a M11 was made and the design nixed by ATF. There is an upper that looks like the American 180 and uses its drums that I believe is still waiting on approval several years after concept.

I think it was a MG42 upper that is shown in pcitures bolted down to a table with chains and sandbags to make it operate without a lower and that design was banned.

Check a couple of M11 uppers here: http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/showthread.php?66259-The-Dream-M11-9-Upper

 

[xtry51]

Shoelaces.