AK Sponsor
Posted: 9/2/2010 3:36:33 AM EDT
| If the original thumb hole is modified- excess cut off, but still one piece, is it 922 complaint? |
| Simply reshaping a thumbhole stock to make it more ergonomically correct doesn't change the rifle's original configuration that allowed its importation. 922(r) comes into play if you were to change the rifle's configuration in such a way that would have made non-importable originally, by adding the "evil features" back. If your plan involves modifying it so that it has a separate and distinct PG than you would need to consider the foreign parts content as defined by 922(r). |
|
If you reshape the original stock to have what is considered a pistol grip (i.e.- a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon). That is a "Deadly Feature" regardless of how it is attached. You are only allowed one "Deadly Feature" on a post ban rifle and on your MAK it is the mag well that allows for a removable magazine.
The only way I got 922r compliant on my OEM reshaped and extended stocked MAK was to instal a polished Tapco G2 trigger group,Tapco gas piston and a USA made tacked on muzzle brake (CNC Warrior). If my info is incorrect please correct me. |
|
Quoted:
If you reshape the original stock to have what is considered a pistol grip (i.e.- a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon). That is a "Deadly Feature" regardless of how it is attached. You are only allowed one "Deadly Feature" on a post ban rifle and on your MAK it is the mag well that allows for a removable magazine. The only way I got 922r compliant on my OEM reshaped and extended stocked MAK was to instal a polished Tapco G2 trigger group,Tapco gas piston and a USA made tacked on muzzle brake (CNC Warrior). If my info is incorrect please correct me. Ok.. re-read my original post above. 
If he were to cut away the stock in such a way that the PG became a distinct grip, separate from the buttstock, you would be correct. But, just reshaping the original thumbhole to make it more ergonomic, comfortable, and usable doesn't require 922(r) compliance. I know of at least a couple of aftermarket thumbhole stocks that have been made for the MAKs over the years and they were legal before 922 compliant US parts were even available. In addition to the aftermarket stocks, the NHM series rifles originally had a style of thumbhole quite different from the MAKs. I have one left over from my NHM and if I wanted to keep a thumbhole it would be the one. It's actually fairly comfortable in comparison. Here is a pic from when I first bought it and before I did the conversion. 
|
|
Quoted:
If you reshape the original stock to have what is considered a pistol grip (i.e.- a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon). That is a "Deadly Feature" regardless of how it is attached. You are only allowed one "Deadly Feature" on a post ban rifle and on your MAK it is the mag well that allows for a removable magazine. The only way I got 922r compliant on my OEM reshaped and extended stocked MAK was to instal a polished Tapco G2 trigger group,Tapco gas piston and a USA made tacked on muzzle brake (CNC Warrior). If my info is incorrect please correct me. i don't think you can count a muzzle attachment if it is welded on, it becomes part of the barrel at this point. you will have to use us mag parts to get your other us parts count. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you reshape the original stock to have what is considered a pistol grip (i.e.- a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon). That is a "Deadly Feature" regardless of how it is attached. You are only allowed one "Deadly Feature" on a post ban rifle and on your MAK it is the mag well that allows for a removable magazine. The only way I got 922r compliant on my OEM reshaped and extended stocked MAK was to instal a polished Tapco G2 trigger group,Tapco gas piston and a USA made tacked on muzzle brake (CNC Warrior). If my info is incorrect please correct me. i don't think you can count a muzzle attachment if it is welded on, it becomes part of the barrel at this point. you will have to use us mag parts to get your other us parts count. Good catch mays. If a muzzle device is tack welded in place it is considered part of the barrel and doesn't count as far as 922(r) is concerned. If it is a foreign made brake it works in our favor, but i believe this is the first time I've seen it work the other way. By the parts listed above he only has 4 US parts. On a stamped AK, not counting the brake you would need 5. Of course a US PG would be an easy solution if you like the buttstock you have modified to work for you. Of course, as stated earlier if it is still a thumbole stock none of it really matters. But if you cut the lower part away so that there is no thumb "hole" then it will need to comply with 922(r). |
|
Thanks for the clarification. This is what I have learned. With the OEM thumb hole stock and my "Barrel extension" I still have only one Deadly feature(mag well). So I don't even have to worry about 922r compliance. I really thought any "Muzzle device" was a Deadly feature.
Sweet! |
|
I really don't know how it factors in, in your case.
I just know that for purposes of 922(r) parts count, if it is tack welded on it doesn't count as a foreign part since the MD and barrel are considered to be one part. For example, if you were to put a standard butt stock and PG on a stamped AK without a threaded muzzle (most MAKs) you would need 5 US parts to bring your foreign parts count down to the maximum of 10. If the barrel had threads but had a MD tack welded in place this wouldn't change, but if it was threaded and the MD wasn't welded and could be removed then you would need six total US parts to be compliant. When you get down to deciding whether or not you need to be compliant I'm not sure how the MD, tack welded or not, factors in. |
|
This is the link I got the 922r info from http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/BuildAkVerifyCompliance
Here is the info at the bottom of the page pertaining to my welded on muzzle brake that I thought was valid "Barrel extensions would only be there if you welded one on, and that'd make it a domestic part". That is why I counted it as a part. But as long as it is not considered a Deadly feature it means I'm good to go. If I would have threaded the barrel and screwed it on then it would be a second deadly feature and thus I would need to be 922r compliant. |
|
Quoted:
This "922r compliance" thing has caused an overblown wave of paranoia. Can anyone post a link to just one case of anyone ever being prosecuted over this?? I guess there must be some test that can prove which country the wood on your stock is indigenous to?? I don't view a desire to stay on the right side of the law as paranoia. This issue has been debated to death and many points have been made in a lot of other posts and threads, so I won't rehash it now. Mainly because I'm tired of making the same arguements over and over. But, like it or not 922(r) is the law. And, while some of the finer points of the letter of the law may be open to question and interpretation I just don't see the point in chancing that an attorney, prosecutor, or judge is going to take a liberal stance on the subject. Instead I prefer to keep it simple and remove any doubt about the legality of my weapons. But I do realize that everyone has their own comfort zone when it comes to legal issues so anyone can do as they please. But, when responding to questions regarding 922(r) compliance I will only give what I feel is the safest course of action, and that is to follow it to the letter. The gains of not complying with 922(r) are minute to non-existant, but the risks could be pretty grave. Depending on the circumstances it could mean losing the rifle, fines, jail time, losing your right to possess any firearm, or any combination of the above. If you were to ever use the rifle in defense of your life or property the fact that you used an "illegal' firearm could make a huge difference in the legal aftermath, both criminal and civil. I consider that to be taking prudent measures but if you consider it to be paranoia, then so be it. |
|
That is why I counted it as a part. But as long as it is not considered a Deadly feature it means I'm good to go. If I would have threaded the barrel and screwed it on then it would be a second deadly feature and thus I would need to be 922r compliant.
Kind of a good place to point out here, 992r is about the maximum number of imported parts (10), not the number of US parts. People should just forget about the number of US parts, it doesn't matter. For example, compared to a 922r subject rifle with a bare muzzle, if you thread a barrel and put on a US made muzzle break it doesn't help you at all in parts count, because you still have all the same imported parts from before. |
|
Quoted:
This "922r compliance" thing has caused an overblown wave of paranoia. Can anyone post a link to just one case of anyone ever being prosecuted over this?? For all anyone knows dozens - even hundreds of people might have been prosecuted for violating this law. 95 +% of Federal criminal cases are resolved by plea bargains. No opinion results from such a case (because a plea bargain case isn't appealed) and so no opinion is reported. So my question is: Have you spent thousands of hours pouring over Federal criminal cases on line? Do you even have access to those cases on line? If not, your lack of knowledge tells us nothing more than my lack of knowledge (since I haven't spent the time to search EVERY Federal criminal conviction in the US). |
|
Quoted:
I guess there must be some test that can prove which country the wood on your stock is indigenous to?? One more point: The general rule is no assembly using foreign parts. The exception to the rule (assembly using no more than ten foreign parts) is what many people call a "loophole". Here's the bad news: The defendant (maybe you  ) has the burden of proving that he comes within the exception to the general rule (fits within the "loophole") in order to avoid conviction. If there is a test to determine where the wood came from it's a safe bet that your appointed public defender won't be given the money to pay for it.
|
|
The simple fact is, the BATFE has:
1. unlimited resources 2. lawyers that do nothing but these legal matters 3. as many lawyers as they need to work on the case until they win 4. excessive amount of time to fight it in court until they win 5. excessive amount of money to keep it in court until they win 6. the motivation to win at all costs in order to set legal precedant 7. the absolute support of the federal government You (we) likely have: 1. limited resources 2. a lawyer that may not specifically deal in these legal matters 3. maybe the intermittent help of a few more lawyers from your lawyer's law firm 4. limited amount of time to fight it until there's no more time 5. limited amount of money to fight it until there's no more money 6. the motivation to win as long as there's time and money in order to set legal precedant 7. no support from the federal government |
AK Sponsor