View Full Version : Strike Industries SI-2017 MP5 Thing
KalashniKEV
01-06-17, 21:22
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/IMG_5301-920x506.jpg
Looks cool.
I wonder what it will cost and if it will run?
I could see that even if you had a pack and housing laying around, one would need to add:
$169 - Barrel
$55 - Front Trunnion
$449 - Complete BCG
$20 - Charging Handle
SIG Stock - $300 (Whoa!)
~$1000 Total
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/IMG_5324.png
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/IMG_5325.jpg
I think the barrel is MRP-ish?
Reminds me a little of that Special Weapons SP10 piece of crap.
Also wouldn't that push pin receiver be a "post sample" machine gun?
KalashniKEV
01-06-17, 23:55
Reminds me a little of that Special Weapons SP10 piece of crap.
I guess, a little. That was blowback though, I think.
Also wouldn't that push pin receiver be a "post sample" machine gun?
I don't see why it would.
The upper receiver is the control part on the MP5.
I guess, a little. That was blowback though, I think.
Actually it was just the same SW5 crap, in a crappy plastic shell.
I don't see why it would.
The upper receiver is the control part on the MP5.
Yes, and in the upper receiver, right behind the magazine well, is a swing hole for a push pin lower. Keep in mind I've never even heard of this company so I know nothing about them. But on my factory HK machine guns, that is the part that makes them a machine gun...forever.
KalashniKEV
01-07-17, 06:45
Yes, and in the upper receiver, right behind the magazine well, is a swing hole for a push pin lower. Keep in mind I've never even heard of this company so I know nothing about them. But on my factory HK machine guns, that is the part that makes them a machine gun...forever.
It's a different gun.
No different than the "air gap" in a DSA FAL (Upper is the Control Part, Made in the USA).
Since the upper is the control part on HK firearms, I thought that hole was very similar to having the third hole on an AR15 lower receiver for an auto sear, right? Even if you don't have a sear installed, the presence of the third hole on an AR15 lower means it's classified as a machine gun in the eyes of the ATF.
In the case of HK stuff, the swing hole allows a push-pin factory full-auto lower to be installed. This is why USA made HK clones have a shelf and no swing hole.
Other people with more NFA and machine gun knowledge please chime in.
I guess, a little. That was blowback though, I think.
I don't see why it would.
The upper receiver is the control part on the MP5.
SP10 was roller delay as well. Just poorly executed and heinously ugly. The presence of the pushpin hole behind the magwell makes for a Machinegun receiver UNLESS there is a FA bolt carrier block within the receiver as is found on the POF and MKE imports or in the SP5K.
MountainRaven
01-07-17, 11:47
Since the upper is the control part on HK firearms, I thought that hole was very similar to having the third hole on an AR15 lower receiver for an auto sear, right? Even if you don't have a sear installed, the presence of the third hole on an AR15 lower means it's classified as a machine gun in the eyes of the ATF.
In the case of HK stuff, the swing hole allows a push-pin factory full-auto lower to be installed. This is why USA made HK clones have a shelf and no swing hole.
Other people with more NFA and machine gun knowledge please chime in.
MKEs and POFs have the 'swing hole', but the guns have been modified in such a manner as to preclude the easy installation of a select-fire trigger and housing. I see no reason why Strike Industries couldn't follow the paths of MKE and POF rather than doing as H&K still do or PTR-91, Inc (who probably do as they do because it was the easiest, least expensive way to manufacture an HK91 clone).
Thanks for the clarification!
This thread has successfully furthered my resentment of everything ATF... Yay.
Good info though
Uglier than the POS Todd Bailey made.
MKEs and POFs have the 'swing hole', but the guns have been modified in such a manner as to preclude the easy installation of a select-fire trigger and housing. I see no reason why Strike Industries couldn't follow the paths of MKE and POF rather than doing as H&K still do or PTR-91, Inc (who probably do as they do because it was the easiest, least expensive way to manufacture an HK91 clone).
That would be a stupid decision because it makes this firearm worthless to registered HK sear/frame owners. It should have a standard semiauto shelf setup so that it is marketable to all comers. Also, it's not so much about the ability to install a FA FCG frame, as the block welded in the rear/bottom of the upper prevents installation of a FA bolt carrier. Even if one could install a FA lower/frame, the firearm would not function because the hammer could not be released from the automatic/safety sear.
KalashniKEV
01-07-17, 13:51
Since the upper is the control part on HK firearms, I thought that hole was very similar to having the third hole on an AR15 lower receiver for an auto sear, right?
You guys are all off track.
It's not an MP5.
It's an SI-2017 and will be marked as such along with "Strike Industries," a serial number, and the city of manufacture.
It's not an MP5.
The presence of the pushpin hole behind the magwell makes for a Machinegun receiver UNLESS there is a FA bolt carrier block within the receiver as is found on the POF and MKE imports or in the SP5K.
Not really.
The POF and latest import MKE guns will accept the front push pin, but still have a narrow shelf.
They also still have the FA block, but only as an import requirement. It's also been moved to a location that is easier to remove without damaging the weapon.
You guys are all off track.
It's not an MP5.
It's an SI-2017 and will be marked as such along with "Strike Industries," a serial number, and the city of manufacture.
It's not an MP5.
Not sure you are following along. Doesn't matter if it's an HK or a SI, the phrase that pays is "readily convertible." And IF it uses a standard HK style bolt carrier you might be looking at a machine gun only.
Didn't see them on the SI website so I don't know if this is being offered as a semi or a select fire weapon.
You guys are all off track.
It's not an MP5.
It's an SI-2017 and will be marked as such along with "Strike Industries," a serial number, and the city of manufacture.
It's not an MP5.
Not really.
The POF and latest import MKE guns will accept the front push pin, but still have a narrow shelf.
They also still have the FA block, but only as an import requirement. It's also been moved to a location that is easier to remove without damaging the weapon.
The FA carrier block is the key. ATF previously held that having a front pushpin even with a front shelf constituted making a MG. Hence why when installing a paddle mag release to a semi shelf receiver, ATF was very clear (in multiple letters) that only a blind pin hole could be drilled. The little tab/block on the rear of the magwell just behind the pushpin hole on the MKE/POF mp5s would not fly without the addition of the FA carrier block in the receiver.
There is an ATF letter floating around that deals with converting the MKE/POF type mp5 to use a HK semiauto shelf (so that a regustered sear may be used). In it, tech branch explicitly states that the FA carrier block may not be removed until AFTER the front pushpin hole has been covered by a standard wraparound shelf welded in place.
As for the SI mp5 project comment, it's mechanically an mp5 so the very well established ATF stance on the HK pattern roller delay series will apply to the SI offering. They have two options:
1. HK type semiauto shelf
2. MKE/POF type receiver FA carrier block with front pushpin.
I personally hope they go with option 1 and that this doesn't turn out to be a turd. Would be a neat addition as a sear/frame host.
KalashniKEV
01-07-17, 15:37
Guys... no hate... but this is why the HK community is the worst.
There are always parts scientists who pop up to take the most extreme gun-grabbing interpretation of any topic... one that the Tech Branch probably couldn't even come up with no matter how hard they strained their pea brains.
There is no issue with the gun as is. It's not an MP5. It's the "SI-2017." It's not an MP5.
The CZ Scorpion does not have a FA block, neither does the Taurus CT9, or the B&T guns- and those are all imported.
They will submit drawings, maybe a sample, and they will get approval. Just watch.
How long will it last? Who knows?
The Junior G-man letter writers managed to get a floppy SBR stock recognized for what it was shortly after it was approved. They also convinced the BATFE that the mag holder on a Glockeroni might potentially be used as a foregrip and needed to be deleted before approval- so maybe you're right, it could get smacked down for revision.
Now that you mention it, the hobby-grade commercial builders are probably starting a letter writing campaign against this right now- could you imagine if a dude could put together a functioning gun that used the roller lock system for a decent price?
They've already lost so much once licensed production came in AND the new "pistols."
Guys... no hate... but this is why the HK community is the worst.
There are always parts scientists who pop up to take the most extreme gun-grabbing interpretation of any topic... one that the Tech Branch probably couldn't even come up with no matter how hard they strained their pea brains.
There is no issue with the gun as is. It's not an MP5. It's the "SI-2017." It's not an MP5.
The CZ Scorpion does not have a FA block, neither does the Taurus CT9, or the B&T guns- and those are all imported.
They will submit drawings, maybe a sample, and they will get approval. Just watch.
How long will it last? Who knows?
The Junior G-man letter writers managed to get a floppy SBR stock recognized for what it was shortly after it was approved. They also convinced the BATFE that the mag holder on a Glockeroni might potentially be used as a foregrip and needed to be deleted before approval- so maybe you're right, it could get smacked down for revision.
Now that you mention it, the hobby-grade commercial builders are probably starting a letter writing campaign against this right now- could you imagine if a dude could put together a functioning gun that used the roller lock system for a decent price?
They've already lost so much once licensed production came in AND the new "pistols."
Actually B&T semiauto receivers differ slightly from fullauto receivers to prevent conversion to fullauto. Have you compared a fullauto to a semiauto Scorpion? Can you confirm there is no difference? Is there a fullauto CT9? If there are no FA variants then there is no FA block needed.
I'm not advocating letter writing to the ATF. Nothing good will come of it and it is to be avoided by all but manufacturers in my opinion. The SI is an MP5 variant. They advertise it as such. A letter needn't be written because ATF opinion on the mp5 (and all roller delays) is very well established.
Guys... no hate... but this is why the HK community is the worst.
There are always parts scientists who pop up to take the most extreme gun-grabbing interpretation of any topic... one that the Tech Branch probably couldn't even come up with no matter how hard they strained their pea brains.
Does not matter. A SW5 is also not a MP5, but if TB made them with a push pin hole and it accepted a standard bolt carrier, it's a post sample.
NFA technology branch really doesn't care of it's a Colt, Bushmaster, ASA, Olympic or home build with a Nodak Spud, if you drill a sear pin hole you have a machine gun. Same holds true for any HK type weapon, ATF has a long history of this.
Try this one on, if you have a HK94 registered receiver conversion that was done prior to 1986, but it is a clip and pin setup for the trigger group, you can't even drill a receiver hole on that gun even though the receiver is already a registered machine gun and transferable. ATF has stated specifically if you drill the hole after the fact, it renders the entire thing a "post sample" machine gun that cannot be owned by a private individual nor can it be transferred to a private individual.
Personally, I would love to be wrong, that GM9 might be ugly as sin, but it's starting to grow on me as I really don't have a SD type SBR and would very much like one. If you have info showing this thing to be a semi auto Title I firearm then I'd love to see it. Based on the drawings, I'm looking at machine gun receivers.
Does not matter. A SW5 is also not a MP5, but if TB made them with a push pin hole and it accepted a standard bolt carrier, it's a post sample.
NFA technology branch really doesn't care of it's a Colt, Bushmaster, ASA, Olympic or home build with a Nodak Spud, if you drill a sear pin hole you have a machine gun. Same holds true for any HK type weapon, ATF has a long history of this.
Try this one on, if you have a HK94 registered receiver conversion that was done prior to 1986, but it is a clip and pin setup for the trigger group, you can't even drill a receiver hole on that gun even though the receiver is already a registered machine gun and transferable. ATF has stated specifically if you drill the hole after the fact, it renders the entire thing a "post sample" machine gun that cannot be owned by a private individual nor can it be transferred to a private individual.
Personally, I would love to be wrong, that GM9 might be ugly as sin, but it's starting to grow on me as I really don't have a SD type SBR and would very much like one. If you have info showing this thing to be a semi auto Title I firearm then I'd love to see it. Based on the drawings, I'm looking at machine gun receivers.
Exactly.
They have two options:
1. HK type semiauto shelf
2. MKE/POF type receiver FA carrier block with front pushpin.
Or a possible 3rd option or even more. No one ever imagined option 2 was even an option until the guns were released and everyone gasped.
Or a possible 3rd option or even more. No one ever imagined option 2 was even an option until the guns were released and everyone gasped.
Well that's true too. The point is that ATF is not likely to allow a HK roller delay pattern firearm that uses a HK lower with a front pushpin without blocking FA function somewhere in the upper receiver. ATF has long held that the front pushpin = MG. Look at the mp5s converted by Vollmer that had a registered sear with the receiver modified into pushpin. The registered sear is forever married to the receiver, because the hole makes the Machinegun. That said, I was very surprised that ATF allowed the MKE/POF in with front pushpin at all. So are there possibly other ways around, absolutely. One possible way is to make bolt rails a different geometry, such that they require a carrier specifically milled to fit and will not accept a FA bolt carrier. Or a carriage block similar to the Swiss SIG 55x which prevents installation of a lower that has the FA sear release lever. Or a much longer shelf behind the pushpin, though ATF has disallowed drilling the hole in the past on guns that have the full shelf. I'm sure there are others. I don't believe these other ways will include a front pushpin without some integral (or welded) block within the upper to preclude FA conversion.
In any event, I wish SI well as this is a cool project.
KalashniKEV
01-09-17, 12:19
Or a possible 3rd option or even more. No one ever imagined option 2 was even an option until the guns were released and everyone gasped.
I'm sure if they write a letter explaining why it should not be allowed, or asking "Is it really true?!?!" they can get BATFE to either:
1) Reject it from the jump
2) Reverse any approval
This is why we have neckbeards actually bracing their neckbeard-brace against the beard of their necks these days. This is why an eccentric brake is considered a suppressor, even with no tube. This is why a forward-mounted magazine holder is zapretov, whether you put your hand on it or not. This is why we have dudes who successfully Form 1'd Machine Guns not too long ago and then called up to see why the BATFE complied with their request and granted the stamp.
This is why it does not pay to innovate.
This is why we are doomed as a nation.
I'm sure if they write a letter explaining why it should not be allowed, or asking "Is it really true?!?!" they can get BATFE to either:
1) Reject it from the jump
2) Reverse any approval
This is why we have neckbeards actually bracing their neckbeard-brace against the beard of their necks these days. This is why an eccentric brake is considered a suppressor, even with no tube. This is why a forward-mounted magazine holder is zapretov, whether you put your hand on it or not. This is why we have dudes who successfully Form 1'd Machine Guns not too long ago and then called up to see why the BATFE complied with their request and granted the stamp.
This is why it does not pay to innovate.
This is why we are doomed as a nation.
I think that's actually the purpose of the neck beard.
KalashniKEV
01-11-17, 11:13
Hate on this:
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15995289_1370318082987235_5650348760696133541_o.jpg?oh=8f7c141f98c7cde1137610ac96b5e856&oe=591982BF
contax_shooter
01-11-17, 11:51
I'd tap that.
KalashniKEV
01-11-17, 14:12
The weak link, I see, is the SIG stock.
Not only because everything SIG sucks, but because the comb is too high and it costs $300.
If they just kept inventing parts, and they came up with a 1923 mounted sidefolding stock (or if Stormwerkz made a 1913 mounted version of their excellent hinge), they would own the (dwindling) market for MCX and MPX too...
Hate on this:
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15995289_1370318082987235_5650348760696133541_o.jpg?oh=8f7c141f98c7cde1137610ac96b5e856&oe=591982BF
Looks like a modular mag well. Which is nice.
Hate on this:
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15995289_1370318082987235_5650348760696133541_o.jpg?oh=8f7c141f98c7cde1137610ac96b5e856&oe=591982BF
Kind of want.
The weak link, I see, is the SIG stock.
Not only because everything SIG sucks, but because the comb is too high and it costs $300.
If they just kept inventing parts, and they came up with a 1923 mounted sidefolding stock (or if Stormwerkz made a 1913 mounted version of their excellent hinge), they would own the (dwindling) market for MCX and MPX too...
If it's HK spec it's easily fixed as any K stock would fit including the ones made by B&T.
If it's HK spec it's easily fixed as any K stock would fit including the ones made by B&T.
Yeah, looks like it can use a K stock.
KalashniKEV
01-12-17, 09:37
Looks like a modular mag well. Which is nice.
It looks that way, but I doubt you'd get other mags to feed from the HK bolt head.
Yes... I'm sure the usual crowd will wish it took Glock mags, but I don't see that happening.
(Nor do I see the advantage...)
If it's HK spec it's easily fixed as any K stock would fit including the ones made by B&T.
Hahaha... so save $25??
I was thinking more about a 1913-end Stormwerkz hinge + the Manticore stock for ~$150 and you have a much higher quality stock to boot.
Hahaha... so save $25??
I was thinking more about a 1913-end Stormwerkz hinge + the Manticore stock for ~$150 and you have a much higher quality stock to boot.
For something like that, I really don't worry about $25 up or down. And I'm not sure Stormwerks makes a better product than B&T. Never owned anything by Stormwerkz or Manticore so can't say for sure.
But pretty sure this is what I'd go with.
https://www.hkparts.net/shop/pc/MP5K-SP89-SP5K-B-T-Folding-Stock-136p172.htm
KalashniKEV
01-12-17, 18:04
But pretty sure this is what I'd go with.
https://www.hkparts.net/shop/pc/MP5K-SP89-SP5K-B-T-Folding-Stock-136p172.htm
I'd give that thing a whirl for about $18... $275?
Heeellllll no!
I even LOL'd at:
"Material: Polymer, Steel"
The only steel in that thing is the pin in the hinge.
I'd give that thing a whirl for about $18... $275?
Heeellllll no!
I even LOL'd at:
"Material: Polymer, Steel"
The only steel in that thing is the pin in the hinge.
You know you are laughing at a parts website and not anything by HK or B&T right?
Anyway, pretty sure it's the same thing as a UMP stock with different attachment points, I never had a problem with my UMP stock, works fine.
Anyway....options. Options are good. You would probably go with what you stated above, I have had good experiences with B&T stuff. Not sure why you'd get spun up over options.
Anyway, do we have anything reliable stating this will actually be a civie Title I firearm or that a Civie semi auto will also be available? No sense in arguing stock options unless it's going to actually be a thing.
It looks that way, but I doubt you'd get other mags to feed from the HK bolt head.
Yes... I'm sure the usual crowd will wish it took Glock mags, but I don't see that happening.
(Nor do I see the advantage...)
.
I am thinking more along the lines of mp5 9/40/10 options, not shoehorning other mags into the mp5. Glock mags in an mp5 would be a crime against nature.
KalashniKEV
01-12-17, 21:55
I never had a problem with my UMP stock, works fine.
...but I'll bet you overpaid by more than 10x for what it is.
I'm certainly not mad at it taking K-gun format and SIG stock format.
I was just having a laugh at the expense of the HK community that these lazy Euros can spend half the year on vacation, plop two pieces out of a mold, place the pin and stick a buffer on the end and actually sell it for $300.
Anyway, do we have anything reliable stating this will actually be a civie Title I firearm or that a Civie semi auto will also be available?
Sure, it's the same as an EVO but no import is needed.
I am thinking more along the lines of mp5 9/40/10 options, not shoehorning other mags into the mp5. Glock mags in an mp5 would be a crime against nature.
Yes, but you know if you were manning the SHOT booth holding this thing, thousands of people per day would ask you, "Why dey don't make dis for esstendid Glock mags?"
...but I'll bet you overpaid by more than 10x for what it is.
I'm certainly not mad at it taking K-gun format and SIG stock format.
I was just having a laugh at the expense of the HK community that these lazy Euros can spend half the year on vacation, plop two pieces out of a mold, place the pin and stick a buffer on the end and actually sell it for $300.
You don't know the half of it. I wanted a UMP so I had to buy two guns essentially, a USC and a UMP parts kit, then I took the cost of two firearms and paid somebody the cost of a third firearm to build all that crap together into a single firearm. Even worse, the USC parts I no longer needed were essentially worthless as nobody wanted them so I couldn't even recoup part of the investment on Gunbroker. I think I sold that crap at a serious loss, can't even remember.
But I have what is essentially a factory semi UMP and I don't give a damn what it took to get it.
Sure, it's the same as an EVO but no import is needed.
Evo doesn't use a HK swing down group and doesn't seem to use a HK bolt carrier setup, more importantly it doesn't have a push pin issue like how ATF loves to classify HK pattern machine gun receivers.
So just because Swiss semi auto 553s and TP9s are being imported won't make a lick of difference about how ATF classifies a domestic production firearm. I asked if you had ANYTHING denoting classification as a Title I firearm, because your personal opinion really isn't going to factor into anything.
I have in the past, been of the opinion, that ATF frequently fails to make rulings and determinations based upon their own definitions and previous rulings, but they went ahead and ignored my opinion just the same.
That said, I was effin amazed when MKE guns came in with actual freaking push pins (second import series) pretty much violating the ATF mantra that "once a machine gun, always a machine gun." Adding the bolt carrier block really shouldn't have meant shit. If you make an AR lower with a sear pin hole in the receiver, I don't care what kind of goofy carrier block you cobble together chances of it flying are zilch. ATF either dropped the ball, owed Turkey something politically or just got too lazy to look up their own rules.
You don't know the half of it. I wanted a UMP so I had to buy two guns essentially, a USC and a UMP parts kit, then I took the cost of two firearms and paid somebody the cost of a third firearm to build all that crap together into a single firearm. Even worse, the USC parts I no longer needed were essentially worthless as nobody wanted them so I couldn't even recoup part of the investment on Gunbroker. I think I sold that crap at a serious loss, can't even remember.
But I have what is essentially a factory semi UMP and I don't give a damn what it took to get it.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat with my Sig 556-based 552 clone. I have FAR too much $ in this thing. Literally every Swiss 55x I purchased after putting that faux552 together has been significantly less costly than the clone.
That said, I was effin amazed when MKE guns came in with actual freaking push pins (second import series) pretty much violating the ATF mantra that "once a machine gun, always a machine gun." Adding the bolt carrier block really shouldn't have meant shit. If you make an AR lower with a sear pin hole in the receiver, I don't care what kind of goofy carrier block you cobble together chances of it flying are zilch. ATF either dropped the ball, owed Turkey something politically or just got too lazy to look up their own rules.
Brother you and me both. Amazed. This configuration flies in contradiction to ALL established ATF "policy" on the 9x series that we've all come to know. While neat, I don't/won't own any because they are not sear compatible and getting them to that configuration will cost another $1k or so.
contax_shooter
01-13-17, 08:42
My biggest complaint is that it's 2017 and this doesn't have a BHO, although from what I understand the standard MP5 9mm magazines cannot facilitate that.
My biggest complaint is that it's 2017 and this doesn't have a BHO, although from what I understand the standard MP5 9mm magazines cannot facilitate that.
BHO is tricky on an mp5. The catch has to engage the forward face of the carrier, not the bolt head. Engaging the bolt head will push the rollers out against the bolt rails. This will result in dimpling of the rails in a sheet metal mp5 receiver. May not be an issue in a monolithic aluminum chassis such as the SI design, but could present additional engineering hurdles. Could possibly be accomplished by using UMP9 mags. Certainly worth exploring, but then it also changes the manual of arms for the mp5. I recall reading on HK Pro that Joe at Dakota Tactical looked into incorporating a BHO on his 9mm guns, but then abandoned it du to the hurdles associated with adding this feature to the 9mm mp5.
KalashniKEV
01-13-17, 15:05
Evo doesn't use a HK swing down group and doesn't seem to use a HK bolt carrier setup, more importantly it doesn't have a push pin...
You daaaaaamn right.
I asked if you had ANYTHING denoting classification as a Title I firearm, because your personal opinion really isn't going to factor into anything.
Don't even worry about it, professor. It's good to go.
That said, I was effin amazed when MKE guns came in with actual freaking push pins...
WHY???
(j/k, I know why... and I know that the junk peddlars on TOS are still ranting like, "ENJOY YOUR UNREGISTERED MACHINE GUN!!! DON'T BE SURPRISED WHEN THE ATF KNOCKS DOWN YOUR DOOR AND KILLS YOUR DOG!!! THAT GUN IS ILLEGAL!!!)
ATF either dropped the ball, owed Turkey something politically or just got too lazy to look up their own rules.
You're thinking about it in completely the wrong way.
This is the same reason we don't have F1 machine guns... after they started giving away F1 machine guns back in 2014.
This is the same reason they were forced to reverse on the neckbeard brace.
You're thinking about it in completely the wrong way.
My thinking is based upon a long history of dealing with ATF and their determinations, rulings and definitions.
Shoe strings classed as machine guns.
Suppressors classed as a firearm.
Reciprocating stocks classed as machine guns.
Empty volumes of air classed as machine guns.
I've seen it all and more.
But just to get us on the same page, I'd love - love - love this to be a Title I firearm. If / when that day happens I will gladly post "Double K was absolutely right and I was completely wrong with respect to the classification of this SI firearm by ATF."
Then I will probably buy at least one of the damn things even if the front end is Todd Bailey ugly and it will require the purchase of a $300 polymer stock.
KalashniKEV
01-13-17, 20:01
But just to get us on the same page, I'd love - love - love this to be a Title I firearm. If / when that day happens I will gladly post "Double K was absolutely right and I was completely wrong...
It's a regular PCC, so you might want to hold that text in your clipboard... ;)
(j/k, I know why... and I know that the junk peddlars on TOS are still ranting like, "ENJOY YOUR UNREGISTERED MACHINE GUN!!! DON'T BE SURPRISED WHEN THE ATF KNOCKS DOWN YOUR DOOR AND KILLS YOUR DOG!!! THAT GUN IS ILLEGAL!!!)
I've not heard anyone anywhere claiming the MKE or POF dual pushpin imports were MGs. They were approved for import by ATF. They cannot be MGs without removing the auto bolt carrier block welded into the receiver.
This is the same reason we don't have F1 machine guns... after they started giving away F1 machine guns back in 2014.
No, 922(o) is why we don't have post-86 form-1 MGs. Though the letter writers have certainly F'd things up - Akins accelerator, arm brace...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.