Jump to content

922R Problem ignored with many Saiga Builds?


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by BobAsh
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
as far as thread protector... i doubt a LEO would enforce it

let 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 by nalioth
Link to post
Share on other sites
as far as thread protector... i doubt a LEO would enforce it

let 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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
as far as thread protector... i doubt a LEO would enforce it

let 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

+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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
+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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+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).
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
+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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No dumb-ish questions, all questions bring answers......hopefully correct ones, sometimes smartass-ish one's :rolleyes: 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by RDSWriter
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by RDSWriter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...