Aluminum body SWD DIAS?

Did SWD make an aluminum body DIAS? I thought they only made them in steel, but a guy offered me an aluminum one with a steel sear. Just want to make sure it is legit.

Get pics. It might have been one of the SWD auto connectors ("lightning links") that was "re-manufactured" into a DIAS, and which occupy an uncomfortable legal gray area.

If the serial number starts with "AC" it's definitely a former "lightning link".

YES, SWD did make ALUM body sears.

Just curious to know more about this.

In a nut shell, someone bought a SWD lighting link, and decided that they would rather a DIAS. So they destroyed the RLL, and either built a DIAS, or got one(like the ones out of Shotgun news for $105) and engraved it with the s/n that was on the RLL. Not legal in any way, shape, or form, but it was done. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

+1. It's the same as those FFL/SOTs who were charged by the feds for moving MAC10 serial numbers to M60s. It is a Class A Felony.

BTW, there are quite a few "former lightning link" DIAS out there. Definitely a buyer beware situation when you come across an SWD RDIAS.

The "remanufactured" LLs weren't actually destroyed. As I understand it, a or some Class 2s wrote to request a marking variance to relocate the LL serial number and mfg information for "repairs". After receiving permission, they cut and wrapped and welded/bonded the LL body around a new chunk of metal which they then finished machining into a DIAS.

Those machining operations exceed what the marking variance authorized them to do, and changed the type of machinegun conversion, which is also a no-no. Not quite as bad as the Class 2s who "remanufactured" M10s into M249s, but it's in the same shady back alley.

That's good to know. Who was it that did this? I couldn't see very many class 2's doing this, having the same idea to cut the s/n like that and re-machine them. Not that their info would show up any where, but if people know it was done, wonder who it was.

If memory serves correctly I beleive it was that Tim Bixler who "claimed" to have an ATF letter authorizing the conversion/modification and made the majority of them.

Circuits is correct that the RLL was not destroyed, instead the body of the Link was either bent into an "L" shape and retained the Serial Number and manufacturing markings and a DIAS body was milled to accept the cut and bent link body or just the serial number portion of the link was cut off and put on the body of the new DIAS and the manufacturer markings just re-engraved on the new DIAS.

I have seen one of these that was offered to me for sale locally many years ago and I passed. The one I saw just had the serial number portion of the former link in a slot milled on the underside of the body of the new DIAS. I did end up buying a non-molested RLL from the owner instead. When I went to pick up my Link when the transfer was finaliized I asked the owner about it and if he eventually sold it to a guy who called the ATF to confirm if it was "OK" and they said it was fine over the phone. I didnt argue but thought it was a bad idea regardless of the approval level provided.

I've seen two "former" RLLs that had no trace of the original metal –– the owners had simply bought DIAS and engraved the SN from the RLL on them: Both had SNs that started with "AC" (Auto Connector, SWD's trade name for the product) and thus were RLLs, and an FOIA request on one proved the status.

Which, to me, is way more than a gray area.

FWIW, some of the indicted FFL/SOTs referenced earlier in this thread turned MAC10-45s into Thompsons. Same caliber, same function, even a similar ROF. But still, in the federal .gov's eyes, a new, different SMG and thus a felony.

Hey, if you have a registered-receiver Uzi with the bolt-blocking bar intact, you cannot today remove the blocking bar. If you have a registered-receiver FA AR that was converted with an unserialled RDIAS, you cannot drill the hole for the autosear pin. And don't get me talking HK's .....

Bottom line is that ATF's official stance is that the NFA Registry was frozen on May 19, 1986. Quite literally: It has to be both the same hunk of metal and it also must function in the same way.

re: Tim Bixler's letter ... well, first of all, ATF letters are only legally admissible by the person to whom they are addressed ... and second, ATF's stance has evolved over the decades ... and the courts have ruled that ATF has no grandfathering legal authority, so what they said in the past does not matter: Only what they say today is defensible in court.

About five years ago, someone on subguns.com submitted a Form 1 for an MG. Guess it got examined first thing on a Monday morning, because the examiner mistakenly approved it. And then the applicant bragged about it on the internet, and ATF showed up on his doorstep demanding both the approved Form 1, and investigating whether he had actually built it (he had not yet done so). So just because ATF makes a mistake is no defense in court, either.

I play it safe ... because ATF, and DOJ, are deadly serious. And the retainer for a good criminal-court lawyer is more than the current cost of a transferable M60. I won't gamble with my future; YMMV.

Completely agree with you regarding DIASs that have no former RLL metal not even being close to a gray area.

However, in regards to the letter that Tim claimed to have I would theoretically think that if it did exist it would cover the work he performed as he was a 07/02 asking about the legality of performing a service.

While previous ATF letters are not 100% CYA even if they are addressed specifically to you, I beleive that it would be hard for a the industry in general to function at all if C2 manufacturers couldn't ask for determination letters about a product or process and then have the ATF go after their customers (because the letter only applied to the C2) who then resold the product or service based on the determination they received.

That would be similar to the ATF confiscating all the Vector Mini Uzi's and claiming the approval they gave Ralph to chop and reweld full size receivers into Mini's only applied to the Merrells and not any of the end customers who bought them and they prosecuted everyone who owned a Vector Mini that wasnt an SOT for being in possession of a post sample.

Granted the ATF can change their mind at any time or "redetermine" and confiscate like they did with the Akins, BRP upper, etc. However, if they really gave approval to a C2 to perform a service converting RLL into DIASs my take is that the odds of the end user ending up being prosecuted is slim to none. Granted whenever anybody tried to get Tim to publish the letter he never would, so it is probably a mute point. Pretty much the same deal as when Tom Spithaler at Oly beat around the bush on there OA2 forums for a year+ "claiming" to have approval to remanufacture Oly registered receivers but never actually provided any written proof or authorization. Then one day the ATF slammed the door on their balls and told them to stop.

Would I want to own a converted link (letter or not), well no, as I think it is just asking for trouble and potential confiscation, and resale issues down the road. Just buy a non-converted RLL or a DIAS and be happy and worry free.

My take is that some folks did this on their own because of damaged link and tried to be as legit as possible by performing an actual "repair" and using the original link as a starting point. Other saw a profit motivation to turn a $2K piece of metal at the time into a $5K piece of metal and it was easier to just buy a DIAS out of shotgun news and electro pencil the SWD Link Markings onto it. Why bother to go to the trouble of milling a special DIAS from scratch that the former link would fit in and leave more evidence to the end purchaser that their was this wierd piece of metal bent around the bottom of their DIAS with the serial number.

wait, isn't buying the RDIAS out of shotgun news a felony in the first place?

Not according to ATF Ruling 10-81.

But owning a pre-October, 1981 in conjunction with an AR15 into which it will fit is.

The courts have since effectively reversed 10-81, but there has never been any action taken on it by either the ATF or the federal courts since that time.

In a nutshell, when the ATF exercised its delegated authority to determine what is and what is not a machinegun, and determined that the DIAS was a machinegun conversion, and hence a machinegun all by itself, the correct procedure to have followed was to publish their determination, and register all those DIAS in existence free of charge, like they had to do with the Street Sweepers when the retroactively reclassified them as destructive devices a few years back.

What the the ATF did, was to claim that pre-10/81 DIASes would not be "considered" machineguns, while post-10/81 DIASes would be considered machineguns. Kind of like what they did with the Belgian G-series FALs or pre-1962 HK 41s imported with machinegun receivers and still out in circulation.

A district court later ruled that ATF could determine what is and what is not a machinegun, but had no power to "grandfather" anything. ATF blithely ignored this ruling, since it would have required them to either pay all the owners of now-contraband fair market value for their about-to-be-confiscated property, or add everything affected to the registry free of charge.

FOPA86, as well as Appeals Courts decisions have overturned that ruling.

RIF

Didn't know what you meant by that, so I left it alone. I was unclear myself, as the ruling was not overturned either. Only the "will not be applied" portion of the ruling was made moot by FOPA86, which was before the Appeals Courts got to it. The rest of the ruling stands to this day, and is also law.

this shit is so ridiculous..... really wish they would just open up the registry to what it was 34-67, no more questions just pay your $200 and have fun.

so if you bought a RDIAS with a sn# ACxxxx and the ATF approved it they could later come by your house and say "that's not legal anymore, we need to take it". why would they not need to pay you current market value for it like said above in regards to the H&Ks? another one is the guy who's Form 1 for an MG was approved, i know that's not right but isn't that legal seeing as he paid his $200 tax on the MG and has the paperwork to prove it?

In the first place, the item is contraband - you don't get paid for it any more than you would if they seized a stolen car you'd unwittingly bought. Your fiscal remedy, if any, has to come from the seller.

The Form 1, they'd refund the $200 tax, and take the item, if it had already been built.

That is just because the NFA Branch approves paperwork. A manufacturer doesn't send each firearm they make to the Tech Branch for approval of configuration. The manufacturer is responsible for correctly configuring how a machinegun or machinegun conversion device is configured. So if The NFA Branch becomes aware that a registered machinegun with serial # XXX is not in the proper configuration, they will have to do something about it. Usually that would be confiscation, determination of configuration, return if it is legal in configuration or destruction if determined that it is in improper configuration. The owner's only recourse is to sue the previous owner for selling an improper configured item. Then that owner must sue the guy he got it from. It keeps going back until the chain is broken. If an owners is dead or the dealer is out of business, then the last guy is stuck.

By the same token, the Tech Branch doesn't recall all NFA items every so often to be sure that they are in the proper configuration. They only do something if a question is raised. Once a question has been raised, then they have to do something about it.

If you want the registry to return to the 34-67 era contact you Congressman. They are the ones that made NFA law what it is today. Of course the original meaning of the National Firearms Act no longer exists. According to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi $200 in 1934 would be $3221.87 in 2010. That seems low to me. I would gladly pay $3221.87 for the tax stamp to buy a Post Sample MP5 for $900. But that is a whole other debate. YMMV.

Scott

Has anyone who bought one of these in good faith ever had a problem with ATF and had the gun confiscated or a future transfer halted/reversed?

Depends on your definition of "these."

But yeah, ATF has confiscated and destroyed, or reclassified-as-post-samples, many, many "transferable and bought in good faith" machine guns over the past 25 years. I'm guessing a couple hundred, but that's because I know of 50+, and I figure that for every one I hear of, there are another three or four that get lost that way and the owners don't publicize it ... because bitching about it only draws even more negative attention from ATF.

Sigh.

One of the early posts implies that the AC prefix serial numbers were only assigned to the autocomnectors. Is this true and if so, what prefix did they assign to the Dias?

Haven't seen a RDIAS serial number prefix. I have a SWD RDIAS serial number 00x.

I have read that they have AS as the prefix, (Auto Sear)

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.