Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: HK 51

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I had a both a 51 and a 51B (belt fed), both of which were Vollmer conversions done early 80s.

    The first thing you are gonna want to do is find a A2 stock for that 51 but pretty sure you are gonna need to mod the recoil spring guide to work reliably. The para stock on a 51 is absolutely punishing.

    The belt fed 51B was incredibly heavy which soaked up a bit of the recoil, but still would want a A2 type stock.

    Obviously somebody modded a FMP G3 down to 51 length, given the differences in NFA laws vs. Swiss laws this is probably nothing more than a cutdown with a modded bolt carrier and recoil spring guide. Not sure if they'd have to retime the sear trip or anything like that.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by juliet9 View Post
    I know how it was numbered. The only relevance that has is HK never made one.

    I am not curious enough to care to ask the guy. I don't think it is true and is irrelevant to me. I simply find it funny how this guy or that guy had a "government contract", which often seems nothing more than a ploy to sell something.

    My "source" is dealing with Bill Flemming for 30 plus years. I am almost certain, no check that, I am certain IF, and that is a BIG IF, he was contacted by a British company per the SAS to purchase his conversions of HK91's into something he dreamt up for the firing line a Knob Creek, he would have mentioned it. Bill was a talker, and something like that most likely wouldn't have slipped thru the cracks.

    Not questioning your purchase or the price, just the story the fellow you call "gun Jesus" told.
    LOL. Pretty true. But IF Fleming did provide prototypes to the British government for consideration, I'm sure they NDA'd him thoroughly. But Jon Ciener was they guy who believed he knew everything about everything and didn't mind telling you about it.

    At least Bill's shit usually worked.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    609
    Feedback Score
    0
    I wrote an email to Ian and asked him, here is his unedited response :

    “Hi Oliver,

    I was extremely skeptical about this myself when I first saw the claim. I confirmed it with three independent sources who were in a position to know, and only then was willing to say it on camera. One was with the Royal Armouries and two with British SOF.

    I think it is important to remember that Flaming was an acknowledged expert not he HK platform in those pre-internet days, and that H&K would have been almost certainly unwilling to make a model like this in the extremely limited quantities that SAS/SBS wanted. And I said that they were used by those units - but not that they were used effectively. The gun is absolutely a bad idea, and it was dropped pretty quickly in favor of the H&K factory-made 33K. Given the UK obsession with small arms secrecy, I expect Fleming wasted quite directly to not discuss the project.

    Ian”

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    So the first thing you want to know about 51s is you probably want to keep it on semi. They really do beat themselves to death and no amount of aftermarket buffers is gonna save them.

    G3k is really as short as that round goes, you can rest assured that HK did lots of experimenting with a 51 concept and there is a reason they didn't bring it to market.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    69
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by OLIAR15 View Post
    I wrote an email to Ian and asked him, here is his unedited response :

    “Hi Oliver,

    I was extremely skeptical about this myself when I first saw the claim. I confirmed it with three independent sources who were in a position to know, and only then was willing to say it on camera. One was with the Royal Armouries and two with British SOF.

    I think it is important to remember that Flaming was an acknowledged expert not he HK platform in those pre-internet days, and that H&K would have been almost certainly unwilling to make a model like this in the extremely limited quantities that SAS/SBS wanted. And I said that they were used by those units - but not that they were used effectively. The gun is absolutely a bad idea, and it was dropped pretty quickly in favor of the H&K factory-made 33K. Given the UK obsession with small arms secrecy, I expect Fleming wasted quite directly to not discuss the project.

    Ian”
    I don't know Ian, but I am still skeptical myself. Bill's "acknowledged expertise" in the HK platform was basically turning/registering semi-auto receiver weapons into machine-guns under the NFA and cutting guns apart to make stuff that was "cool" for the civilian market. So the majority of his initial HK "expertise" was removing the front push pin block on semi auto weapons to allow use of factory trigger packs , and when the ATF said that was a no-no, he designed the infamous auto sear.

    So, I am still amiss that an elite unit like the SAS would accept a weapon from a guy from the States that was basically working in his garage for all practical purposes . You would think someone would have come here and tried one first, and that would been all that was necessary to say it was a "no go".

    I also disagree with Ian's statement the HK would not make the gun for the SAS upon request. How would they know they might get large future orders? Not to mention "bragging rights" of another HK military contract. Perhaps HK knew it was a bad idea.

    To make another point, if NAVSPECWARGRU wants a weapon, or one is to be modified which they are famous for, the armorers at Crane do the work, not some guy in his garage.

    At this point, I can't say 100% whether Flemming and the SAS association is true or not. I never heard it from Bill, and I realize the is not concrete. If in fact as Ian says Flemming was secretive due to the nature of the UK and guns, it is still hard to believe that after 40 or more years, he never said anything. Old news at that point, very old new and pretty much a nothing burger. The three sources he said he found to confirm the rumor only one of which would say anything on camera. What? Dude, this was in the 80's. No one gives a shit what rifles the SAS may have tried in the late 70's early 80's.

    By the way, the UK wasn't so secret when they go their LMT 7.62 rifles.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by juliet9 View Post
    I don't know Ian, but I am still skeptical myself. Bill's "acknowledged expertise" in the HK platform was basically turning/registering semi-auto receiver weapons into machine-guns under the NFA and cutting guns apart to make stuff that was "cool" for the civilian market. So the majority of his initial HK "expertise" was removing the front push pin block on semi auto weapons to allow use of factory trigger packs , and when the ATF said that was a no-no, he designed the infamous auto sear.
    Ummmm, right up until 86 ATF allowed registered receiver conversions of HK91s. Fleming also did registered sears from about 81 forward. You could also register a trigger box like DLO did.

    The only time ATF said you can't modify a HK receiver was post 86 when people with registered sear packs wanted to modify the host weapon for a swing down pack setup. This would normally required the registered sear pack to be married to the host weapon but ATF was still saying no way after FOPA 86.

    The ruling was also applied to register receiver guns which still had a clip and shelf setup, this resulted in the "empty volume of air is a machine gun" determination letter when people asked where the new machine gun existed if they drilled a hole on a registered receiver HK conversion.

    There were lots of ways to lawfully register a HK 90 series as a select fire weapon, probably even some registered bolt conversions floating around out there. I've even seen an example of a registered trigger frame.

    Vollmer mostly did registered receivers, unless they were installing somebody else's sear pack (Qualified, Fleming, etc.) and that went on until Robbie got the shop shut down doing "off the books" conversions for his high school buddies.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    69
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    as did Ciener and LaFrance.

    fully aware of when things could and couldn't be done. Folks (Flemming of course) were drilling holes in AK receivers to enable installation of the sear. ATF considered drilling the hole as manufacturing a machingun, as they did on the HK series. The ones that were done prior to the ruling were grandfathered in, so you can find an AK with a registered sear.

    The vast majority of the many, many Volmer HK weapons I have seen or owned were Flemming/Qualified sear packs. Flemming, Balistics, Ceiner, LaFrance, Pearl did a few {and I know I am forgetting a couple) did more reg rec or reg trigger packs from my experience versus volmer.

    I have never seen a "registered bolt" for an HK weapon. Not certain how it would work w/o a full auto trigger pack with the shelf cut which is a no-no with the ATF. Considered manufacturing a machine-gun once again.

    That being said, the discussion isn't about the history of of civilian MG's in the US, but whether a world renown special op's unit came to request, obtain, and use operationally as has been claimed in this thread, from a smith in oklahoma who was cutting rifles apart and modifying them for the civilian market.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by juliet9 View Post
    as did Ciener and LaFrance.

    fully aware of when things could and couldn't be done. Folks (Flemming of course) were drilling holes in AK receivers to enable installation of the sear. ATF considered drilling the hole as manufacturing a machingun, as they did on the HK series. The ones that were done prior to the ruling were grandfathered in, so you can find an AK with a registered sear.
    All of it was manufacturing a machine gun prior to may 1986. Didn't matter if you registered a receiver, sear, trigger box, bolt or lighting link. It was all the same manufacture and registration of a machine gun.

    Registered bolts were more common in Uzi conversions, but if you did it on a HK, the bolt would become the machine gun and then you'd just install a clip and pin pack set up for full auto. The sear would not be registered because the bolt would be the registered component, exactly the same as a DLO trigger box conversion. Registered receivers and registered sear conversions were obviously the most common because you typically modified those parts anyway as part of the conversion.

    Also everyone was fine with cutting shelves prior to May 1986, it was done on most of the Vollmer conversions I've seen so it was set up for a swing down trigger pack. Hell Vollmer even cut up 91 receivers to let them accept belt fed mechanisms for their 91 to 21 conversion. ATF never said you couldn't cut a receiver.

    What you are remembering is IF you registered a receiver prior to May 1986 but didn't cut the shelf they wouldn't let you do it AFTER that date because if you did, they claimed it was a NEW machine gun and that would change the status from Transferable to Post Sample.

    Dan Shea covered this pretty extensively in his book The Machine Gun Dealers Bible.

    As for Fleming / SAS discussions, you obviously know some of the same people and know something about the subject. You should really take the time to check out Ian at Forgotten Weapons, he pretty much knows everyone. He is also a remarkably well sourced individual who takes this stuff pretty seriously.

    I also sorta suspect Bill pitched the 51 concept to everyone he could think of vs. the SAS heard about Bill and his wonder 51 and came seeking his expertise. And if they decided they liked the 51, you can be pretty certain that it would be licensed and manufactured at Royal Ordnance. The Brits were probably just beta testing an R&D version that already existed rather than take the time to spec one out on their own.

    This was actually pretty common in the "sell stuff to the military" world back then.
    Last edited by SteyrAUG; 02-10-22 at 17:50.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    69
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Flemming and others were stamping serial numbers on basically anything that was metal the closer May of 86 got. There simply was not enough time to register completed weapons.

    It turned out to be some foresight on Flemming's part to come up with the sear. I was buying 20 at at time for $400/ea (edited to add, IIRC, I may have paid only $200 each when I first bought them) back in the day when enthusiasts still had a chance to be involved in the NFA world, before the days of the internet when you knew all the players and it wasn't a few opportunists turning the hobby into a bidding war for lawyers, doctors, and any other wealthy guy who acquires Title II items to feed his ego., to tell his friends he has machine-guns. Part of an "elite group". Basically turned it into commodity trading.

    Again, I have never seen an HK registered bolt. This is the first I have heard of one, or at least I don't recall it. Probably didn't interest me if I did see one.

    I suppose it is possible he pitched it, but I don't believe Bill "designed" it with the intent of military use, nothing close to it. My recollection as I have stated here a couple of times, it was simply a novelty item to make a bunch of noise and throw flames on the firing line. That is how I saw it, and how most enthusiasts saw it. A conversation piece. I don't know if you were a Knob Creek attendee long ago, but cats were coming up with all kinds of modified items to show off at the shoot. Flemming was not alone in that.

    Where I am having trouble reconciling it is that any spec op's group would have an interest in something so useless. At face value it is LOUD, huge flash signature, and pretty violent to shoot. I don't know how you mitigate all those issues, particularly the available technology of sound and flash suppression that long ago. I guess I appreciated the effort, but the end result was less than impressive. The belt fed version was the worst, would beat itself to death as all 7.62 belt fed HK's tend to do.
    Last edited by juliet9; 02-11-22 at 08:25.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,892
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by juliet9 View Post
    Flemming and others were stamping serial numbers on basically anything that was metal the closer May of 86 got. There simply was not enough time to register completed weapons.

    It turned out to be some foresight on Flemming's part to come up with the sear. I was buying 20 at at time for $400/ea (edited to add, IIRC, I may have paid only $200 each when I first bought them) back in the day when enthusiasts still had a chance to be involved in the NFA world, before the days of the internet when you knew all the players and it wasn't a few opportunists turning the hobby into a bidding war for lawyers, doctors, and any other wealthy guy who acquires Title II items to feed his ego., to tell his friends he has machine-guns. Part of an "elite group". Basically turned it into commodity trading.

    Again, I have never seen an HK registered bolt. This is the first I have heard of one, or at least I don't recall it. Probably didn't interest me if I did see one.

    I suppose it is possible he pitched it, but I don't believe Bill "designed" it with the intent of military use, nothing close to it. My recollection as I have stated here a couple of times, it was simply a novelty item to make a bunch of noise and throw flames on the firing line. That is how I saw it, and how most enthusiasts saw it. A conversation piece. I don't know if you were a Knob Creek attendee long ago, but cats were coming up with all kinds of modified items to show off at the shoot. Flemming was not alone in that.

    Where I am having trouble reconciling it is that any spec op's group would have an interest in something so useless. At face value it is LOUD, huge flash signature, and pretty violent to shoot. I don't know how you mitigate all those issues, particularly the available technology of sound and flash suppression that long ago. I guess I appreciated the effort, but the end result was less than impressive. The belt fed version was the worst, would beat itself to death as all 7.62 belt fed HK's tend to do.
    So not much argument, I will simply touch on a few points where I might not have explained well enough.

    I never said or suggested Bill designed the 51. I'm sure HK explored it and decided it wasn't feasible / practical and certainly Vollmer did it before anyone else. Also I 100% agree he didn't design it with the intent of selling to the military, he built it because he wanted to see if he could. But once you do that, and you sell a few, you pretty much pitch it to anyone. Also this was the days before the internet so if Vollmer didn't pitch it to the UK military they probably never heard of Vollmer. But if Fleming offered it in the form of sending a catalog or specs, they probably said "Hey....maybe..."

    And trust me I understand novelty guns, I had a 51B for chrissakes, it's one of the most useless fireball makers of all time. But back in the mid90s I had the money and thought it was cool. Now I just wish I had all that .308 ammo back because I sent thousands of rounds of Hirtenberger down the pipe.

    So I'll leave you with this, check out the Forgotten Weapons channel on youtube. Given what you obviously know, you will love it. Ian goes into great detail when it comes to history, specs and the like.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •