An C2/SOT can make pretty much whatever and play with it, but it would eventually have to be destroyed.
Then here's my understanding so far-This is very bad information.
18 U.S.C. 922(o) specifically addresses this point. The manufacture of machineguns solely for testing or research purposes is not (my emphasis added) recognized as a legitimate exception to the ban on possession or transfer of firearms...
Manufacturers may make and stockpile after May 19, 1986 only if the weapons are held for sale to Federal or State agencies, for distribution as bona fide sales samples, or for export.
Now, given that the UMP is the full auto production model of the USC, is readily and cheaply available to any agency (and dealer/mfr who wants to sell them), and doesn't require modification of a civilian weapon to work... And given that a FFL (in any but the C&R class) requires legit business... Do you really think the folks at ATF would buy into the excuse "I just wanted to see if it would work"?
Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this should not be considered legal advice. Running afoul of BATFE regulations can wind you up in a heap of trouble and I recommend that you contact a lawyer for specific guidance. The Internet and this forum should never be used as acceptable substitutes for qualified legal guidance.
According to the Top Notch site (I know, not the folks to mention here but I think it is valid) that to get the parts to work together correctly you need to modify the upper with a couple minor cuts. However, ATF has ruled that these cuts make the USC upper (the receiver in the whole mess) contraband. Here's the info posted there.I guess my real question then is how do I make an auto USC but without altering the host USC permanently?
There's a well known HKPro member who told me his department (small department in the southwest) uses registered post sample HK trigger packs modified to fit clip-on semi guns. The department allows the officers to supply their personal weapons and issues them the full auto pack. All to save the department money. The difference there is, the semi guns don't get altered.Further, it is very difficult to prove intent to sell a conversion sear used to convert a semi auto version of a gun that can be purchased in full auto version for the same or less money.
This is correct. That is why all posties are MFG'd for sale to qualified LEO agencies.Rather than just offering cite to cite, I'll agree to disagree with your interpretation. It is my impression, after consultation with the BATFE, that creating a machinegun SOLELY for the purposes of R&D is prohibited under current interpretation of regulations and statute.
No, it is actually very easy, and quite common. For example:Further, it is very difficult to prove intent to sell a conversion sear used to convert a semi auto version of a gun that can be purchased in full auto version for the same or less money.