922r NEED HELP FAST
i have a norinco mak-90 that i put a romanian sidefolding wire stock on and replaced the handguards with black plastic and put a tapco pistol grip on. The only thing i did to it was grind the block on the stock to make it fit inside to receiver is this gun compliant or not i have a guy trying to tell me that it is NOT compliant and he is going to turn me in i live in Iowa if this helps
0
-
he also said something about the triger grouping 0 -
And that i need to put in a different gas piston that the one in it is NONcompliant 0 -
i did not build the gun i got it from a dealer and just changed the grips stock and forend nothing else you can look at it on gunlistings.org in rifles date july 14 Iowa 0 -
It makes no difference who built it, to determine compliance it only matters what parts are on it (or not on it). I am trying to help you and you are fighting me. A MAK-90 was legal when imported OEM, but when you added the folding stock and pistol grip you had to add enough parts to make it 922r compliant.
1) Look at the list and tick off the parts which you know are made in the USA.
2)If you don't know where the parts came from then just figure that the parts don't comply and don't tick off that box.
3) Now look at the little calculator at the bottom to see if the rifle is compliant.0 -
ok thanks Mark looks like i need to take it apart and put everything on it that it came with thanks for the help 0 -
Figure a Century Romanian High Capacity SAR-1 and Wasr 10 have the following US made parts in them.
US made pistol grip --- 1
US made fire control group (trigger, disconector, hammer) --- 3
US made piston --- 1
On the newer wasr 10's with the removable slant muzzle brake, the removable brake is required to be US made as well. No removable brake = no worry.
Since you changed your Mak-90 you need to match that configuration to use foreign made high capacity magazines. That's if you want to keep the foreign made folding stock.
Pistons really aren't that hard to change but they require drilling out the old pin (rivet), threading in a new piston, and hammering in a new rivet.
Scroll down on this page to Removing the gas piston:
http://howtobuildanaktyperifle.com/preparing_parts_the_kit.htm
To install a new US piston, scroll down on this page to Installing a new gas piston:
http://howtobuildanaktyperifle.com/final_assembly_of_the_rifle.htm
Fire control groups are really simple to change. Go to this page to see how to do that:
www.gunsnet.net/Linx310/index.shtml
There is a tutorial on the left hand side.
Don't want to drill the Piston - ditch the foreign Romanian folding stock for a full set of US Made Stocks and US made pistol grip. You still need to add a US made fire control group. I recommend the Tapco G2 FCG.
Edited to add, you could also use US made Magazines instead of foreign made magazines to get around the US parts count, but who in their right mind would do that? US made AK mags are crap!0 -
A good friend would let you know if you might not be compliant, but who's this troll that's threatening to turn you in???
I wouldn't forget his name, and I'd keep my distance and warn others.[8D]0 -
There is a new letter from the ATF about 922r compliance.
With basic repairs/maintainence/cleaning/shooting you have no worries. However, since you've put the folder stock on, etc. you now have to be 922r compliant.
0 -
Section 3 of the letter dated 29 April looks to be a huge change in policy if 922r now only applies to the actual assembly of the firearm and not simple possession. I had never once heard such wordage from any BATFE compliance officer, but there it is in writing from the Technology Branch.
Of course none of that applies in this situation because it was nitro1973 who installed the folding stock on an otherwise legal MAK-90 so it is now up to him to make the rifle compliant.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
Section 3 of the letter dated 29 April looks to be a huge change in policy if 922r now only applies to the actual assembly of the firearm and not simple possession. I had never once heard such wordage from any BATFE compliance officer, but there it is in writing from the Technology Branch.
Of course none of that applies in this situation because it was nitro1973 who installed the folding stock on an otherwise legal MAK-90 so it is now up to him to make the rifle compliant.
Yup, thats what I take from this, but I've only spent 5 minutes in a law school and that was finding a bathroom and vending machine.
But, I got the letter from a thread on falfiles.com about people worrying about what the rifle they bought was built from...0 -
Well, a few points.
1. Unless the BATFE can prove that YOU assembled the gun, you can't be criminally convicted. Merely *possessing* a non 922a compliant gun isn't a crime, its BUILDING it that's against the law, or at least so says the BATFE right now.
For Mark, yes I think this may mark a change in BATFE policy. . .but BATFE hasn't really been consistent on this (see below).
Not incidentally, admitting on public internet forums that you've deliberately constructed a potentially illegal weapon with knowledge (before OR after the fact) that it was illegal to do so. . . a statement like that would REALLY make getting a conviction for the BATFE pretty easy, wouldn't it?
2. I've heard (but can't verify) that NOBODY EVER has been actually criminally prosecuted for 922A violations (ie possessors OR contructors). The BATFE, instead simply confiscates illegal weapons it comes across. Why not is debatable. It might be because proving who constructed a given gun is next to impossible. Some have speculated that 922A isn't really enforceable in a court of law, and the BATFE doesn't want precedent against it.
I don't know the answer. . .I don't want to be a test case. . .I don't want my gun confiscated. . .I don't even want to worry that my gun MIGHT be confiscated. Get it?
3. What I do know is that there are enough US-made parts for AKs floating around that it in most cases its possible to satisfy 922A not too expensively and without major gunsmithing headaches.
4. In my opinion, 922A, bluntly, is a stupid rule. Its ambiguous, confusing, poorly enforced, and most important contributes absolutely not one iota to public safety. Anyone who threatens to sic the BATFE on someone for this sort of nonsense is an @#$hole.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments