emrisg said in his original post that he didn't want to spend the money for a sear. As much as I disagree, I have to support somebody for being specific in their purchase selection.
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least
capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Speedballing....that's slamming Benadryl right? Source: SudS aka Kevin
HK...The most addictive drug known to man.
We can't all afford to get sears, and if I had to choose, I would get an RR MP5 or HK93.
emrisg would have posted a price in his original post.
Last edited by PSG1 Nut; 03-07-2016 at 06:56 AM.
PSG1 Nut I know it wasn't meant as such. I can't imagine him paying 23k for an HK93. A fair price IMO with what I have in the past couple months is closer to say 18-20k. I think someone recently got one for 17k off GB but I could be mistaken. I don't follow pricing for RR's close enough, I just hunt for more USP's to increase the USP drawer 10-fold.
This horse has been beat to death, but I'll take another "swipe" at it. The NFA Technology Branch ruled that a hole drilled through the receiver was a defining feature of a roller locked machinegun receiver. That is why HK worked with the Tech to come up with the semi auto self. There are the southern Asian versions (Turkey and Pakistan specifically) of roller locked guns. They do have such a hole in the receiver. They also have a narrow "shelf" to block the installation of a full auto spec trigger frame in the grip housing and a block welded into the back of the receiver to block the insertion of a full auto spec bolt carrier. Those guns were not available here in the US during the time where semi auto guns could legally be converted to full auto for private individuals.
To my knowledge no manufacturer actually submitted an unaltered semi auto registered receiver converted with an unregistered sear to be registered as a registered machinegun receiver. Why? My guess would be that they knew it would not be approved. My thought would be that they figured it would be easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. A unaltered semi auto registered receiver converted with an unregistered auto sear was the quickest easiest way to convert a semi auto gun to full auto function and be registered as a RR machinegun.
I've heard the excuse that HK full auto parts were in very limited supply in the early 80's so the smiths had to convert the guns this way. I call Bull $hit on that excuse. Instead of making "catches" (auto sears) that convert using semi auto trigger frame geometry, make "catches" that work with full auto spec trigger frames. Weld a "U" shaped piece of sheet metal onto the semi auto trigger frame to return the trigger frame to full auto trigger frame dimensions and drill the hole for the "catch". Weld up the hammer to standard full auto specs. Then machine off the shelf, drill the hole in the receiver for the front push pin and weld some "ears" onto the semi auto steel grip housing. Would all of that be easier with full auto parts from HK? You bet, but none of that work was beyond what a good smith can do IMHO. But that is a lot more work than making and installing a "catch" that will work with the geometry of the semi auto trigger frame and welding up the semi auto hammer to "retimed" hammer specs and welding up and machining the carrier to full auto specs.
So OP, there are two school of thought on this subject that I am aware of. 1) "As long as the gun has NFA approved paperwork, such a conversion is GTG". The other camp (that I am a member of) believes that an unaltered semi auto registered receiver converted with an unregistered sear, as a "collection of parts", could have legal "entanglements" if the details of such a conversion is brought to the attention of the NFA Branch. Is such attention likely? No, I don't think so. Just as it is not very likely that I will be involved in a major automobile accident that is my fault on the way home tomorrow. But you can bet, I have very good insurance for that possibility because I don't want to loose my assets.
It is my understanding that a registered HK sear is an approved conversion device for a roller locked gun. A converted semi auto that was modified to to full auto specs using a front push pin is an approved registered receiver conversion to a machinegun for the roller locked platform. An unaltered semi auto semi auto receiver using an unregistered sear as a collection of parts, is not an "officially" approved HK machinegun conversion. If someone has a letter to that effect, I would love to see it. Yes, it was done, but that doesn't mean that an unaltered semi auto registered receiver converted with an unregistered auto sear is an approve RR conversion. There in lies the "rub" for me.
There has been those that has pointed out that "ATF Technology Branch has quite emphatically ruled that a registered receiver gun, that as a registered conversion using a clip-on style trigger group housing, cannot be later converted to a different method of trigger housing attachment." (The Complete Reference on the Legal NFA Conversion of HK Firearms - Into the murky depths) means that since the NFA Branch is aware of such conversions then they must be okay.
I would imagine someone in the Technology Branch has a subscription to Small Arms Review magazine. BRP had a full page to a half page ad for the XMG upper every month for five years. It wasn't until someone wrote a letter that the Tech. Branch got involved and ruled that the XMG upper (a Title I firearm) could not be used with an AR lower (another Title I firearm) and a registered AR conversion device (DIAS or LL), or a XMG upper (a Title I firearm) could not be used with a M16 registered receiver machine gun (a firearm in and of itself). Why, because there are one too many firearms functioning in full auto. But the Tech Branch didn't get involved until someone made them get involved. It is my understanding that most any Govt. Agency doesn't have the budget to "look" for problems. They address issues as they are made aware of because they are asked. They don't look for problems or they would have tackled the NFA registry many years ago.
Was the Tech. Branch aware of the XMG during that five years? Officially, the answer would be No. But of course they were. Like I said, someone at the Tech. Branch must be a "gun guy" and has a SAR subscription. Is the Tech Branch aware that these unaltered semi auto registered receiver converted with an unregistered auto sear exist? Because of the statements above, I think the answer would be Yes. To me there is a finer point of which HK RR machineguns were done with a push pin conversion and which ones were not? The Tech Branch doesn't know because they have not inspected every HK RR when it was "made" It is my understanding the Ballistics only did pp conversions, Fleming did both, and Hard Times Armory only did unaltered semi auto registered receiver converted with an unregistered sear, just to name a few. Could some HTA RR guns been converted to pp before the cut off in January of 1988? Does the owner of such a conversion have documentation that the pp conversion was done before 1988?
The same as it is today, ATF does not check how every Form 1 or Form 2 conversion that is done. The ATF "assumes" that the "maker" of a NFA firearm has followed the law and done the conversion they have registered was properly done. But no one from the ATF actually checks each conversion. They would only "check" if someone asks them to. So which style of RR conversion was done to which RR and when no one knows. But there would be a huge progression. If the Tech. Branch only physically checked HTA RR conversions that would not be fair, so the Tech Branch would be sued. So now the Tech. Branch would have to physically check all HK RR conversions. But wait, that wouldn't be fair, so the Tech. Branch would be sued. So the Tech. Branch would need to physically check all RR conversions. But what about conversion devices? So the Tech. Branch would be sued. So the Tech. Branch would need to inspect every machinegun in the Registry. My understanding is for US collectors there are 175,977 (NFATCA on the home page) transferable machineguns as of February 24, 2016.
What would that cost to have a couple of Agents to physically inspect each individual machinegun? Does the Agency have enough trained Agents to do such an inspection in a timely manor and still do the other duties required? If not, does the NFA Branch have the budget to hire and train those additional Agents? Then on top of that to have a legal ruling of each registered machineguns inspected. The same questions would come up as to personal for that. How much would all of that be? I'd be willing to bet that would be in the $10s of Billions (with a B) of dollars. Then there is the litigation. Say 10% of the transferables in the Registry are deemed "improper". I would put the average transferable machinegun at around $10,000. Multiply that times around 17,600 machineguns is $176,000,000 of current market value. At the very least, I'd think there would be a class action suit. What would that cost the Govt.? I don't think anybody really wants to open that can of worms.
Now lets bring this back to the individual. Could an unaltered semi auto registered receiver converted with an unregistered auto sear be transferred? Absolutely, it happens all the time. But all it would take is an inquiry into this specific conversion to bring just this one conversion under the microscope. To me, that is the $20,000 issue. Would such a transfer go fine? The odds are pretty good. But just like driving today and being the cause of a major accident, I have insurance for that. I remember NFATCA had written an article in SAR several years ago about NFA Title insurance, but as far as I know that never happened. I personally would not risk over $20,000 on what I would consider a "maybe".
So OP, IMHO there could be a legality issue with a unaltered semi auto registered receiver converted with an unregistered auto sear. I don't claim to know for sure. If anyone has a letter from the Tech. Branch that there is no legal issue with such a conversion, I will stand corrected. I have not written such a letter myself as I would need to have a specific serial # for the letter. I would never throw the seller of such a conversion "under the bus" to prove or disprove my point. I don't know as I would get a response without a specific serial # as that would open "the can of worms" mentioned above as to the whole registry.
If you wish to purchase such a unaltered semi auto registered receiver converted with an unregistered auto sear conversion, more power to you. All I wish to do is express my concerns and the reasons why I have those concerns. That is something I would want to know before spending over $20,000. I don't claim to have the answers, but I do have some questions. All I wish to do is raise those questions. Each individual can make up his own mind Buyer be ware. YMMV.
If this was such a big problem with RR clip on guns that some would have you too believe, this so called problem would have been taken care of since 1986 = 30yrs ago I mean really!
Typically for the price of a RR 93 you are pretty close to an M-16. M-16 is far more versatile and can do everything a 93 can for less (cheaper barrels, mags, etc.).
OP is asking about the specific gun F/A 93 and the possible issues.
Like does it recoil hard/what parts wear often or hard to work on etc.
Could care less about price.
Stated he didn't want a G3 or even a sear........ so answer the ?