HKPRO Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Is the Zenith Z43P a poor choice for a sear host?

4K views 30 replies 9 participants last post by  straightgrain 
#1 ·
I am looking for a 5.56 host for a Fleming sear and have found a Zenith Z43P in my state for a fair price . Researching the pistol I found conflicting opinions about whether the sear would fit without alterations and if the alterations are legal . I do not wish to reinvent the wheel nor even approach any alterations that are questionable . It also seems the Z43P has some proprietary parts ,available only from MKE .That really scares me . Should I walk away from this pistol ?

Thanks Unclebear
 
#2 ·
Should I walk away from this pistol ?

Thanks Unclebear
Should I walk away from this pistol ?

Thanks Unclebear
I would. Zenith has chosen a different system for prevention of full auto conversion. My limited understanding is that before the full auto carrier block at the rear of the receiver is removed, a wrap around semiautomatic shelf must be welded onto the Zenith reciever. With the cutting and welding required for the conversion I would also have the reciever refinished. You would also need the semiautomatic carrier welded up and profiled to full auto specs or buy a full auto spec carrier. Unless you can do that work yourself I am guessing that the bill for that work would be at least $600+ range. If the price is low enough that the additional $600+ is cost effective, go for it. Other wise I would buy a clone in the HK style of conversion with a full auto carrier. Lots of this stuff has been gone over many times. Please use the search function and read up on your questions. If you need clarification then ask the board. YMMV.

Scott
 
#7 ·
Could you please explain how a Title I firearm being reconfigured into a Title II firearm would be a "new gun". It is my understanding that whether Title I or Title II configuration, the item continues to be by definition a firearm. A rifle with a barrel length less than 16" is more regulated than a rifle with a barrel length 16" or greater. But the rifle remains a firearm.

Scott
 
#15 ·
To add another layer of confusion, there is an ATF letter floating around that basically says there are several styles of lawful semi configuration, and converting from one to another isn't a problem, so long as the pushpin holes in the magazine well are closed before the sear block is removed.
 
#16 ·
And if what you are saying is correct (not doubting you), then that suggests you would not need to SBR as I suggested. Regardless, my 93 to 53 conversion requires compliance with the same rules as if you were creating a new firearm from a flat. And, that would be required even if I retained every marking of the 93, to include model designation. In that example, I am not sure an 07 manufacturer would even be required to retain the serial number, and could essentially manufacture a new firearm (but that’s a whole new discussion of even more pontificating).
 
#31 · (Edited)
I am unwilling to rehash this subject, yet again. There are those that want to understand it and there are those that want to fight it. There has been no change to 922(r) or the implementation of 922(r). There is no "exception" for pre-89 receivers. 922(r) is a making issue, not a possession issue. When you file a Form 1 you are making a new weapon TODAY. Making today requires abiding by the stupidity of 922(r). That means the parts count plays a role. If all you are doing is changing the barrel length, then no 922(r) is in play for whatever reason ATF chose to use.

If you don't like the response or feel that what I have said is wrong, feel free to engage the services of an attorney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top