Azrial 1,091 Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 I have been wanting to post about this for a while, but since that never stops me anyway, here goes. For the purposes of 922® compliance when rebuilding a Saiga to standard pistol grip configuration, how many of you leave the standard thread protector in place, you know to protect the threads and give a finished look to the barrel? After a reading of 922® I have come to the conclusion that this is a count problem. 922® mentions muzzle attachments, not "flash hider" or "Muzzle Brake" or for that matter "Door Breachers" specifically. Any flash suppressor, Muzzle Brake, Door Breachers, or even the stock muzzle thread protector is a muzzle attachment and would count toward the total count of non-US made parts. It would just as easily toward compliance if US-made, like the Shark "brake." A lot of the confusion has come out of confusing 922® and the AWB. Bare threads count for nothing and are neutral. There, I hope I did not make anyone spit their coffee out on the keyboard but I was just trying to save some potential heartache to anyone that "thinks" that they are in compliance with a stock muzzle thread protector and not counting it as a "evil" part. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 A muzzle nut is considered a 'thread protector', not a muzzle device. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BobAsh 582 Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 (edited) A muzzle nut is considered a 'thread protector', not a muzzle device. Although it does "attach" to the muzzle, I tend to agree with this assertion. Since the nut's purpose is to cover the threads that are intended to mount a "muzzle attachment", and because it has no effect on the function of the gun. Edited August 13, 2007 by BobAsh Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kresk 10,063 Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 I agree with Bob and Naolith--don't think a thread protector means squat on a parts count. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 when i read it... i concluded that a muzzle "attachment" bears no effect to parts count on the shotguns do to the fact it's designed for it did i missunderstand too then? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vjor 2 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 whoa !!!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 whoa !!!!!! that ain't helpfull Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dinzag 31 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 I think the problem with that assertion is there is no clear definition out there. What we personally believe is fine, but do you really want to take a chance? Thread protector, chokes, brakes, comps, hiders, brain core samplers If someone can point to an ATF definition that out clearly draws the line, we'll run with that, but until that happens, I would caution everyone to throw in that extra part. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted August 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Yep, I was not happy about this little thought of mine either. But 922R does not go in to purpose, the AWB did. But it does attach to your muzzle, ergo a Muzzle Attachment. I would hate to have to try and make the argument in court that a part that attached to the muzzle was not a muzzle attachment. mccumber1916 You are quite correct, it was designed for it and is just fine, till you start changing the configuration, then it is a foreign part for the purposes of the count. If you disagree, fine, but I just wanted to bring it up, though I was unhappy about it. Also as much as I hate the idea, you could just take off the thread protector/choke, cut off the threads (Still 18"?) or screw on a US made brake/Suppressor/Choke. Don't shoot the messenger here, I am just putting this out there to help all that think they have all their 922R bases covered, avoid a heartache. I am no lawyer, but have worked as a prosecutor for the state, and if I was on the prosecution side of this I know my argument in the matter. Right now my position is defense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 as far as thread protector... i doubt a LEO would enforce it let alone ATF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 (edited) as far as thread protector... i doubt a LEO would enforce itlet alone ATF You mean the same ATF that said a shoestring was a machine gun? Or the same ATF who conspired to intercept a package with a malfunctioning AR15 in it (owned by a State Trooper) on its way to Colt for repairs so they could charge him with owning an illegal machine gun? As has been seen, they'll perjure themselves, rescind old rulings and institute new ones if they want to get you. Edited August 14, 2007 by nalioth Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dinzag 31 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 as far as thread protector... i doubt a LEO would enforce itlet alone ATF You mean the same ATF that said a shoestring was a machine gun? Or the same ATF who conspired to intercept a package with a malfunctioning AR15 in it (owned by a State Trooper) on it's way to Colt for repairs so they could charge him with owning an illegal machine gun? As has been seen, they'll perjure themselves, rescind old rulings and institute new ones if they want to get you. Exactly! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 as far as thread protector... i doubt a LEO would enforce itlet alone ATF You mean the same ATF that said a shoestring was a machine gun? Or the same ATF who conspired to intercept a package with a malfunctioning AR15 in it (owned by a State Trooper) on it's way to Colt for repairs so they could charge him with owning an illegal machine gun? As has been seen, they'll perjure themselves, rescind old rulings and institute new ones if they want to get you. Exactly! and then there's that^ well... you could wrap the threads in tape i suppose Quote Link to post Share on other sites
my762buzz 141 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 The soupbowl letter from the ATF ignores the muzzle thread protector in the parts count. Maybe its time to get a new parts clearification letter from the alphabet boys. The gas piston, muzzle thread protector, and all applicable trunnions can be addressed again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Juggernaut 11,054 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 922R is totally retarded! I do and WILL comply, BUT It's harder than keeping up with Mrs.J! What she wants changes with her mood. It seems 922R is the same way. At least Mrs.J is cute! Sadly, the BATFE is not. Edit to add: I'm sure this is really helping secure our streets from bad people owning bad guns vs. making good people sweat the parts count, good to see my tax dollar put to such good use! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MD_Willington 11 Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 BATFE recanted on the string... ..but I still play the 922r BATFE Browney Points game.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
6500rpm 670 Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 +1 on buffering with extra compliance parts. There's just too much shit available these days not to, lots of them improve quality over the OEM part, and most barrel nuts/thread protectors are fugly anyway. Good point, but I think it would be a stretch to be called out on it unless there was something else they were after to start with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mccumber1916 1 Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 +1 on buffering with extra compliance parts. There's just too much shit available these days not to, lots of them improve quality over the OEM part, and most barrel nuts/thread protectors are fugly anyway. Good point, but I think it would be a stretch to be called out on it unless there was something else they were after to start with. i know this is a dumb-ish question... but i'm only 6months old here... given the existance of ak flats... i'm surprised no one has mad their own reciever is there a reason no one has? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Juggernaut 11,054 Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 +1 on buffering with extra compliance parts. There's just too much shit available these days not to, lots of them improve quality over the OEM part, and most barrel nuts/thread protectors are fugly anyway. Good point, but I think it would be a stretch to be called out on it unless there was something else they were after to start with. ALWAYS best to play it safe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 +1 on buffering with extra compliance parts. There's just too much shit available these days not to, lots of them improve quality over the OEM part, and most barrel nuts/thread protectors are fugly anyway. Good point, but I think it would be a stretch to be called out on it unless there was something else they were after to start with. i know this is a dumb-ish question... but i'm only 6months old here... given the existance of ak flats... i'm surprised no one has mad their own reciever is there a reason no one has? Your question would probably get a lot more answers on AkFiles or AKForum. You'd not believe the number of folks who make their own receivers from flats. I don't think there is too much call for them here (since the Saigas come with a receiver). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RDSWriter 5 Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 I'm not sure why everyone is confused about how to get compliant, there are multiple manufacturers of grips, stocks, FCGs, forearms, muzzle attachments, gas pistons, magazines and drums............. Personally, I've always counted the trunion even though the ATF doesn't... there are plenty of ways to get US parts on your Saiga. The easiest way is to just pony up the $200 and SBS it. It's a cheap, fun way to get compliant. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Juggernaut 11,054 Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 I have NO problem getting/being compliant. in fact, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT! In fact my Compliant firearms I am sure are far superior to their original configuration. I have a beef with a ridicules, poorly written piece of legislation, which has led to be poorly interpreted. I FEAR where lobbiest will try and violate MY second amendment rights with these unpopular laws! I REFUSE to wake up some morning to find I'm a felon due to the stroke of a pen from an evil hand. Even after jumping through every hoop that has come along with all of this. Lastly, for real... how, in any way shape or form, does 922R help America or American Gun owners? does it even help out American manufactures?? Seems more like a way to manipulate and control IMHO! Sorry folks, Rant Off! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BobAsh 582 Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 +1 on buffering with extra compliance parts. There's just too much shit available these days not to, lots of them improve quality over the OEM part, and most barrel nuts/thread protectors are fugly anyway. Good point, but I think it would be a stretch to be called out on it unless there was something else they were after to start with. i know this is a dumb-ish question... but i'm only 6months old here... given the existance of ak flats... i'm surprised no one has mad their own reciever is there a reason no one has? It's easier to "922" a gun than to make a whole new receiver on shotgun trunnions, and make it work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
6500rpm 670 Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 No dumb-ish questions, all questions bring answers......hopefully correct ones, sometimes smartass-ish one's I've done more than a few builds and a few conversions, the best answer I can give you on a flat build is that it's a lot of work and only gives you the benefit of one part. Even with the builds I've done,I purchased the receivers from NoDak Spud LLC to insure they were properly heat treated and the rails were installed and trimmed. The 12's take different parts than standard versions so things like front trunions are unavailable. The other thing is that Saiga/VEPR models already have a reputation for quailty build foundations and it saves you some work to just do the conversion to your likes. If you just want to do a build for fun, there's still cheap kits available from places like Copes as well as plenty of compliance parts. It also tends to make you ask more questions, look at how your gun works a little closer, and gives you a better understanding in the end. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Navy87Guy 1 Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 Personally, I've always counted the trunion even though the ATF doesn't... there are plenty of ways to get US parts on your Saiga. Huh? The trunnion is one of the 16 countable parts in a standard AK rifle (even though a stock Saiga sporter only has 14 without the muzzle device and pistol grip): 1) Receiver (2) Barrel (3) Trunnion (4) Muzzle attachments(flash hiders, brakes, barrel extensions, barrel nuts)* (5) Bolt (6) Bolt carrier (7) Gas piston (8) Trigger (9) Hammer (10) Disconnecter (11) Buttstock (12) Pistol grip (13) Forearm handguard (14) Magazine body (15) Follower (16) Floorplate Back to the original question....I'm not sure I understand it. Who would go to the trouble of threading the barrel and not putting an attachment on there? There's nothing under the shroud on the FSB of a Saiga rifle. Or was he referring to the threaded barrel on a Saiga shotgun? Here's another question: if I install a choke on the my S12, does that count as a muzzle device?? I think the answer is yes -- so I'm factoring that into my parts count when I do my conversion (that makes 14 countable parts in a shotgun -- so I need 4 US parts to be compliant. I'll have 5 plus a buffer with my AGP mags!) Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
soberups 1 Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 I would love to observe an actual trial involving the ATF vs. some unsuspecting gun owner whose only crime was to be off on his parts count. Bearing in mind that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, it would be incumbent upon the ATF to explain all the various technicalities and interpretations of the 922R statute to a jury. Since hundreds of reasonably intelligent gun owners can spend thousands of hours on the internet and STILL not come up with a clear definition, I highly doubt that even the best prosecutor could explain it to a jury in any sort of a coherent manner. "Reasonable doubt" and "criminal intent" anyone? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RDSWriter 5 Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) Personally, I've always counted the trunion even though the ATF doesn't... there are plenty of ways to get US parts on your Saiga. Huh? The trunnion is one of the 16 countable parts in a standard AK rifle In the letter from the BATF Technology Branch to Soupbowl Enterprises, Chief Owen indicated that there are only 13 imported parts from the 922r list for Saiga SHOTGUNS. Refer to Page 2, Section H of the following link. Apparently they do not consider the trunion-like piece of metal a trunion on the S12. ATF Letter Concerning Imported Parts Count Edited August 30, 2007 by RDSWriter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kalash 0 Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 I personally wouldn't lose any sleep over 922R. Can you show me a case where an individual was charged,tried and convicted of violating 922R solely? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TonyRumore 1,332 Posted August 30, 2007 Report Share Posted August 30, 2007 I am guessing that the BATFE did not count the "trunion" because they consider that piece to be the actual "receiver" in the Saiga-12. It has the S/N on it and "receives" both the barrel and the bolt. That makes the part the receiver. They may also consider the front and rear trunion "assembled" in the channel to be the receiver, much like their ruling on the M60 receiver. Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RDSWriter 5 Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 (edited) I am guessing that the BATFE did not count the "trunion" because they consider that piece to be the actual "receiver" in the Saiga-12. It has the S/N on it and "receives" both the barrel and the bolt. That makes the part the receiver. They may also consider the front and rear trunion "assembled" in the channel to be the receiver, much like their ruling on the M60 receiver. Tony Good point on the trunion/receiver. I am somewhat perplexed by their inconsistency... though not surprised. On the older ROMAK series Romanian AKs, the trunion is counted as an imported part (typical of an AK stamped receiver rifle). But, the ROMAK trunion contains the serial number for these rifles... and there are absolutely zero marks on the sheetmetal receiver of any kind. In fact, I inquired to the Tech Branch as to how one would replace the trunion in the event of damage. The official response... I can't legally replace the trunion since it is the serialized part of the receiver. So I wonder if the BATFE would consider these AK rifles not to have trunions... hmm. Another letter may be in short order. Edited August 31, 2007 by RDSWriter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.