BATFE Changes it's mind - SA MG42 now classified as rifle

[Rhino_66]

There is some justification in the U.S. Code and Code of Federal Register for them to declare that the MG42 is a rifle and therefore subject to 27 CFR 478.39 in regard to imported parts count.

From 18 USC Sec. 921 (Definitions)

(7) The term "rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

Note that it says fired from the shoulder. Unfortunately there is no requirement for a forward hand grip or hand support to define a rifle. This is where they are getting their justification to phuck us.



Why are some folks counting the trigger housing and pistol grip in the parts count? The MG42 pistol grip is NOT countable as it is NOT a separate part. It is integral to the trigger housing. Just as a milled AK receiver does not have a trunnion, the MG42 gripstick is a trigger housing, not a trigger housing and pistol grip.

The milled aluminum housing that used the AR-15 grip DOES have a separate pistol grip and adds an additional countable part to the list.

Since the bolt carrier is substantially modified and will no longer function in it's original configuration, it should be classified as a U.S. made part. This goes along with the indications made in previous ATF letters. Hopefully Orin has one of the letters that has that text.

If this holds true, the FAL parts gripstick should also count as a U.S. made part. The FAL parts gripstick is substantially modified and will not function in the original configuration. The FCG and gripstick should then count as 4 U.S. made parts.

Receiver, bolt carrier, FCG, and gripstick would be 6 U.S. made parts.


The original 20 countable parts are:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings
(2) Barrels
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)
(5) Muzzle attachments
(6) Bolts
(7) Bolt carriers
(8 ) Operating rods
(9) Gas pistons
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers
(12) Hammers
(13) Sears
(14) Disconnectors
(15) Buttstocks
(16) Pistol grips
(17) Forearms, handguards
(18 ) Magazine bodies
(19) Followers
(20) Floorplates


By removing the ones that we know are not present, we are left with:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings
(2) Barrels
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)
(5) Muzzle attachments
(6) Bolts
(7) Bolt carriers
(8 ) Operating rods
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers
(12) Hammers
(14) Disconnectors
(15) Buttstocks
(18 ) Magazine bodies

This is 14 parts. So even if the carrier and gripstick are not considered U.S. made, the receiver and FCG will be 4 parts and leave us with 10 imported parts. As long as an ammo box or drum is NOT attached to the feed tray, the parts count is met. If they're attached, they would most likely be considered to be the magazine body and the belt would be the follower. It's bullcrap, but that's our gubmint...

If the modified carrier and gripstick are considered U.S. parts, ammo box and drums are kosher. The milled aluminum grip stick would also take care of this.

[smoggle]

Is the flash hider or the recoil booster or the front barrel bushing considered a muzzle attachment? The flash hider isn't attached to the barrel.

Sounds like a cottage industry could be set up making comliance parts.

[none123]

There is some justification in the U.S. Code and Code of Federal Register for them to declare that the MG42 is a rifle and therefore subject to 27 CFR 478.39 in regard to imported parts count.

From 18 USC Sec. 921 (Definitions)

(7) The term "rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

Note that it says fired from the shoulder. Unfortunately there is no requirement for a forward hand grip or hand support to define a rifle. This is where they are getting their justification to phuck us.



Why are some folks counting the trigger housing and pistol grip in the parts count? The MG42 pistol grip is NOT countable as it is NOT a separate part. It is integral to the trigger housing. Just as a milled AK receiver does not have a trunnion, the MG42 gripstick is a trigger housing, not a trigger housing and pistol grip.

The milled aluminum housing that used the AR-15 grip DOES have a separate pistol grip and adds an additional countable part to the list.

Since the bolt carrier is substantially modified and will no longer function in it's original configuration, it should be classified as a U.S. made part. This goes along with the indications made in previous ATF letters. Hopefully Orin has one of the letters that has that text.

If this holds true, the FAL parts gripstick should also count as a U.S. made part. The FAL parts gripstick is substantially modified and will not function in the original configuration. The FCG and gripstick should then count as 4 U.S. made parts.

Receiver, bolt carrier, FCG, and gripstick would be 6 U.S. made parts.


The original 20 countable parts are:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings
(2) Barrels
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)
(5) Muzzle attachments
(6) Bolts
(7) Bolt carriers
(8 ) Operating rods
(9) Gas pistons
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers
(12) Hammers
(13) Sears
(14) Disconnectors
(15) Buttstocks
(16) Pistol grips
(17) Forearms, handguards
(18 ) Magazine bodies
(19) Followers
(20) Floorplates


By removing the ones that we know are not present, we are left with:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings
(2) Barrels
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions)
(5) Muzzle attachments
(6) Bolts
(7) Bolt carriers
(8 ) Operating rods
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers
(12) Hammers
(14) Disconnectors
(15) Buttstocks
(18 ) Magazine bodies

This is 14 parts. So even if the carrier and gripstick are not considered U.S. made, the receiver and FCG will be 4 parts and leave us with 10 imported parts. As long as an ammo box or drum is NOT attached to the feed tray, the parts count is met. If they're attached, they would most likely be considered to be the magazine body and the belt would be the follower. It's bullcrap, but that's our gubmint...

If the modified carrier and gripstick are considered U.S. parts, ammo box and drums are kosher. The milled aluminum grip stick would also take care of this.

by that reasoning then the TNW mg34 should also be ruled as a rifle and would in it's current configuration br non compliant...or at least thats a argument that can be made

[TOM R]

guys I don't believe you need to buy a new made grip stick, brp uses a modded original, has anyone found the letter regarding transformation of parts? taking foreign made parts and modifying them to be accepted as "new made" i would think this will apply to the grip stick, bolt wedge,bolt carrier, mainspring,cocking handle, and in the brp grip design the grip pannels are modded ( notched to fit the modded grip ) any thoughts?

does anyone have the brp letter? does it say rifle or firearm?

[TOM R]

this thread in the stickies section has some letters posted in it http://www.panzer46.net/mg42board/viewtopic.php?t=1417

[HerrMueller]

This would also..I think.. have an impact on a 1919 with an A6 stock attached. I'd like to know who complained..if anyone..Or are they ( the BATFE) just trying to shut us down..The bottom line is they need to make a clear decision. you can't say one weapon is this type and another is this type when they both have the same outward design.It will not hold up under the law.

[propos]

That's a good point about the 1919 with an A-6 stock. Seriously though. Has anyone ever tried shooting an MG-42 in the offhand position? Hell, I could put a buttstock on an M-2 Browning but that doesn't make it a rifle. What other MG's have buttstocks? Does anyone shoot an MG-34 off the shoulder without a rest? There is something rotten in Denmark and it ain't the fish. In any of the German manuals is there a description of shooting the MG-42 from the shoulder. Is it an approved method? I believe a point can be made as to the original use and intent of the designer and the ordnance people. In pictures you see German soldiers shooting the MG-42 standing up but always with it resting on another soldier's shoulder. Has anyone ever seen a photo of any soldier shooting offhand unsupported? Granted that fact will cut no ice with the Feds, but who knows.
edited to add: I bet the guy who made this decision is reading this thread and laughing his butt off.

[TOM R]

the 1919a6, mg34,mg42 among others are designed to be fired supported or from a mount, first off if you held it like a rifle they are too long and front heavy, second if you could hold it like that i am sure the gun gets hot enought o burn your hand there is no forearm cause it ain't designed to be held that way , third with the bottom eject and hving your hand close to that (if you were standin holding like a rifle) if there is an out of battery explosion/bad round it then is a saftey issue and your arm and body will most certainly be peppered with shrapnel or worse, even with the assault sling setup the gun is shot from the hip

[gunslingerdoc]

Im with Rhino.

I think the FAL or AR grip stick counts as a US made part. The receiver certainly counts. And a 3 piece US made FCG whether FAL or AR makes another 3 parts. The way the bolt extension is modified it should count as well - personally, I view it like a bolt carrier, eg. Ak bolt carrier, since the bolt isnt modified and could be used in a FA gun.

Would the BATF see the charging handle as an op rod? I doubt it.

Is the modified charging handle modified enough to really count as US part - I would say no since it doesnt take much work to fix it for a SA gun. Even though it shouldnt work with and unground extension, I dont think it looks modified enough.

Stupid, but then BATF contadicts themselves all the time....

Hopefully Orin will get this sorted out. If not we can still work around it easily.

Panance - I want one of your FAL FCG grip sticks BAD....!!!! I'll even send you one of my working ones if that will help. Just email me to let me know. In Fact I need 2-3 of your grip sticks.

[nlander]

The BRP bolt carrier and the trigger housing sold on Weaponeer should also count as one each. But this does little for the folks trying to retain the item as original as possible by converting the old parts.
Write your congressman!!!

[762x51]

The ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) classifications of semiautomatic weapons are rife with contradictions.
Here are a few examples:

1) M60 – American Arms Delta (U.S. Ordnance) – Classified a “firearm”

2) Browning M1919 – American Arms Delta (U.S. Ordnance) – Classified a “firearm”.
There is no mention of the variation such as A4 or A6 in the letter so any style Browning M1919 is a “firearm”.

3) Russian RPD light machinegun – Vector arms – Classified a “firearm”

4) MG42 – BRP Corp., Classified a “rifle” because BRP asked that it be classified a “rifle”. To quote the FTB from BRP’s classification letter “ This is in reply to your recent letter, as well as subsequent facsimile message, to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Accompanying the letter was a prototype of a semiautomatic version of German MG42 that you wish have classified as a semiautomatic rifle.”

and the ultimate

5) Browning Automatic Rifle (B.A.R.) – Ohio Ordnance – Classified a “firearm”.

Regards,
Orin

[j.bal]

That make a good argument.

[propos]

Exactly what I meant. None of those MG's was designed or meant to be fired from the shoulder. Only an idiot would do so. And does anybody know who leaned on the Feds to have the Sa-42 reclassified? Whoever it was is a sorry SOB. If it was a manufacturer, they're only hurting themselves. Think about it. Many of us can't afford a completely built factory MG-42, but we can and do buy parts and such from the same manufacturers. Now, cut off the kit buyers and you have less buyers for your parts while you sit on your $$$$MG's waiting for someone to buy one.
You know, some people just like to rain on someone else's parade. And why would BRP want the Feds to classify their product as a rifle? Makes no sense...unless?
In any case, I'm confident that this situation will be resolved. Although it wouldn't hurt to call your congress critter and complain. It is an election year and they probably would like to score points with the voters.

[j.bal]

I sent a letter of concern about this topic to each my Crongressmen. In Georgia I have some conservitive members. John Linder being one. The author of the Fair Tax. I don't expect much but it might help.

I am writing today with some concerns I have about the BATFE, more exact the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB). I am a home builder of firearms, following all the rules and regulations put forth by the government. In a recent decision by Sterling Nixon, Chief FTB he indicated that a German MG-42 built in the semi-auto configuration was classified as a "rifle" ( defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968) when a few months earlier it was classified as a "firearm", (as defined by the same act). The reason the classification is important is that when building any "rifle", Federal Firearms Regulations Section 922r. plays a role in it's configuration. Meaning whether it has the proper amount of imported parts or not. Simular weapons that have been classified as "firearms" are the M60 American Arms Delta (US Ordnance) , Browning 1919 American Arms Delta (US Ornance), Russian RPD Light Machinegun Semi-Auto (Vector Arms) and the Browning Automatic Rifle BAR (Ohio Ordnance). I know that the Fair Tax is a subject close to your heart and I personally would like to see it happen, if for no other reason then to reign in the IRS. I feel the same way about the BATFE and the total control that they have in making decisions. Like the one Mr. Nixon made stating that a 14 inch shoe lace is classified as a machinegun. A copy of that classification can be supplied to you. Now this may not seem like a big deal and I understand if it does not get on the top of your list of things to do. But it can be frustrating to try and follow the rules and regulations then have them changed for no reason. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

[salt6]

The probable reason BRP wanted it as a rifle is they build a USA receiver.

[renovate7]

ALMOST time for CLO involvement (Congressional Liaison Office).

[M1 Tanker]

Why are some folks counting the trigger housing and pistol grip in the parts count? The MG42 pistol grip is NOT countable as it is NOT a separate part. It is integral to the trigger housing. Just as a milled AK receiver does not have a trunnion, the MG42 gripstick is a trigger housing, not a trigger housing and pistol grip.

This I will disagree with. The HK G3 and the Cetme have a trigger housing almost just like the MG42. The grip frame(trigger housing) is counted seperate of the pistol grip, which is plastic and attaches to the trigger housing.

here is a pic with and without the "pistol grip"

[M1 Tanker]

Normally plastic anyway, the one I posted is wood.

Also, I can't edit my post for some reason.

[JBaum]

Anyone who built an MG42 semi and followed the laws at the time of build are OK to possess that build.

I built an AR15 pistol before the assault weapons ban. It was still legal after the ban took effect, because it was legal when I built it. The same would apply with SAs that were built before ATFE changed the ruling about a weapon/rifle. If it was built before the change, then the configuration is acceptable for that gun. It only changes new production.

The date of the notification of change and whether your SA was built before or after that date is the important part.

While the future looks dim for others, those who complied with the law of the day should be OK.

[HerrMueller]

Isn't the 303 Bren a rewelded receiver firearm thats BATFE approved??? , has a butt stock and fires from a bipod?? I saw an add..I think in Sarco's section in SNG for a 303 Bren...$3300.00...I think Soooooo.... Whats up with that??? Should we add that to the ????!!! List??? On Tom R's letter??