Single Tax Stamp F/A MP5SD?????

[SSMDIVE]

I have a buddy who is a dealer and said he is getting a Full auto MP5SD Flemming RR transferred in and that it is on a *single* form4????? It is showing as "pending"

Both he and I are a little confused. Can this happen? My thoughts are that it is

1. One stamp for F/A.
2. One stamp for suppressed.

The only way I can see this is if the can is not really a can. But hey.... I could be wrong and HK's seem a little stranger than most other NFA items.

Thoughts?

[Glockdude1]

A good friend of mine has a MP5SD. He paid for 2 stamps when he bought his.

[SSMDIVE]

Yeah, my buddy the dealer has a postie and it was still two stamps.... Hence the confusion.

[Brother_Evil]

As you posted on HK Pro, I would imagine that one stamp is for the machinegun with a can that is not removable. That will make for a real PITA. The SD has ports in the barrel. Over time those ports will plug. There will come a point the ports won't bleed off enough gas and the 115 gr and 124 gr will be supersonic. I have heard of this configuration.

Is the can in the description of the firearm? Just because the model is listed as SD won't necessarily mean anything to the examiner. Is the gun an actual SD model with a can? Or is it a a RR that might have once been a SD and was converted to a standard MP5 configuration, but the paperwork was never updated? Just asking.

Did your buddy notice that the SD submachinegun was a Post Sample and the can was either a Pre Sample or transferable? If the can was made in Germany then it is a Pre Sample not Post Sample. If it has the Knights upgraded can then the can was built here and is transferable.

Scott

[944turbo]

As Brother Evil stated so well, it depends on if the suppressor is detachable or not. Hint, on a good conversion it will be. I'd look at who converted it and make judgements based on that. Mine was done by S&H of Oklahoma which is one of the better ones and is a two stamp gun with ported barrel and has a removable suppressor. It's the most quiet supressed 9mm subgun that I've ever fired. I've seen Hard Times Armory ones that were one stamp. The suppressor needs cleaning quite a bit which would be a challenge if it didn't come off the gun and have a removable end cap.

[SSMDIVE]

We have not gotten the gun in yet. When he found it he called me to see if I wanted to buy it, but right now I am saving up for a house and just could not justify spending that much.

I was just on the phone with him today and we started talking about the gun and that a buddy bought it and it is on the way when he mentioned the gun only having one stamp.... It started a long conversation on how it could happen and I said I would post something about it to see if the collective group knew about it.

Brother Evil....Don't have the details yet.... I'll get more info in a few weeks when I am back in town and see the gun.

All I know as of right now is that it is a single stamp MP5SD flemming RR.

Ill update when I have hands on the weapon.... I just found it funny that a suppressor/MG could even be a 1 stamp weapon.

[Brother_Evil]

It is my understanding that "back in the day" the Tech Branch would allow a can on a RR, if it was permanent "not easily removed". That is no more. But the gun and suppressor would be "grandfathered" in. Personally, I'd spend the money on updating the gun. I bought a CA89 SD. The gun is tough enough to clean with a removable can. I can only imagine how a SD with can that could not be removed would be to clean.

The big question to me would be, is the RR an original push pin gun? Meaning that the push pin hole was made in the original semi auto receiver at the time of conversion, when the original Form 2 was filed. If not, but is now, when was it converted to push pin? Or is it a RR that has an unaltered semi auto receiver that was converted using an unregistered conversion device (sear)?

It is my understanding that unless the push pin hole was to be done to the semi auto receiver, at the time of original conversion, which is when it should have been done, there could be a legal issue. If the hole was not done at the time of conversion and there is documentation that the hole was added to the receiver prior to January 1988 (Tech Branch announcement declared in the Industrial Seminar at the 1988 SHOT Show), it still might be OK. If the Tech Branch could determine that the hole was added to the receiver after that date, the gun would be considered contraband and illegal.

It is also my understanding that a registered receiver machinegun with an unaltered semi auto receiver and an unregistered conversion device could be considered an improper conversion and also considered contraband. Is the Tech Branch going out and looking for these guns? No. But if a question is raised buy someone (buyer, seller, or transferring dealer) concerning a firearm of this type, there could be legal entanglements.

I think that most would agree that the NFA Branch has steadily narrowed and defined perimeters of NFA firearms. When you file a Form 1 or a manufacturer files a Form 2, the resultant NFA item isn't sent to the Tech Branch for "approval". The Tech Branch assumes that you know what you are doing and are following the law. The unaltered semi auto guns should not have been registered as RR. The conversion device should have been registered. If they had, there wouldn't be an issue.

I'm not pointing this out to say all these guns should be removed from the registry. My intent is to make buyers of RR machineguns, aware that there might be an issue with a RR gun that has an unaltered semi auto receiver and an unregistered conversion device or a PP gun, depending on when the push pin feature was added to the semi auto receiver. The PP gun should be researched before purchase. There where some RR guns that were properly converted at the time of registration. Others were not. Buyer Be Ware.

I have heard some express "If it has valid paper work, it is good to go". I personally would not want to own a machinegun with a possible issue that might lead to legal entanglements in Federal Court. Legal entanglements would involve a specialized lawyer with a big retainer. Even if the gun is sold and gone, you could still be held liable. If everyone after you that owned the gun is still around, once there is a problem, that guy will sue whomever he got it from. If the dealer that transferred it to you is no longer in business, you could end up being the one "holding the bag". So you have to reimburse the guy you sold it to. But if the guy you got it from isn't there, there is no one for you to sue to get your money back.

Scott

[bwsmg]

The original post in question is not related to HK style RR pushpin issues.

Since you insist on this 1988 theory answer one simple question.

How many HK style single pushpin RRs has ATF confiscated on record based on your posted theory? Don’t reply with hearsay. Give us some facts…!

ATF claims there register is correct and up to date with NFATCA endorsement, but I have my doubts about that as well, so I’m guessing title2 is risky business in general.

[Brother_Evil]

"How many HK style single pushpin RRs has ATF confiscated on record based on your posted theory? Don’t reply with hearsay. Give us some facts…!"

To be honest, I don't have any case #s. But I was offered a Ciener RR that had an unmodified semi auto receiver with an unregistered conversion device at a very attractive price for an all HK MP5. That deal would have been a local deal with one stamp and no dealer transfer fee. After doing some research about that configuration (the seller wasn't much help as all he knew was that he had valid paperwork), I decided not to purchase that gun. This was in 2004. No offense but it isn't a priority to search out the information again. I do remember that there is a possible problem with this configuration.

Could we agree to disagree? I posted information as I understand it. You have a different opinion. That is fine with me. By the same token, if you own one of these unaltered semi auto RR, why not write the Tech Branch and ask for a ruling? Once you have the ruling from the Tech Branch, post it here. If I'm wrong, I'm not afraid to state it in this public forum. If you don't own a gun like this, then it is just a difference of opinion.

Maybe my information has no validity. If the gun I was offered had been for $2,000, I might have it today. But the owner wanted $14,000. That is way too much to risk, IMHO, on something that might have a problem. Again, that is just my opinion, nothing more. I'm not saying all the guns in that configuration are illegal. All I'm saying is "buyer be ware". If you are offered a machinegun in this configuration, do your own research and make your own informed decision. YMMV.

Scott

[farmallsh]

What you may have is an SD SBR conversion with a RDTS "fake" can attached. Ralph has made quite a few and always offers them as an option when he builds his SD's.
The fact is a suppressor must be build seperate of the gun which in turn requires a serial # that is submitted for approval prior to contruction. The rifle itself has its own serial # which is used for the SBR OR RR machine gun identification for the form 3 or 4.
All my SD's are 3 stamp guns in machine gun configuration.
I have never seen a single stamp SD. Not saying their out there but I could'nt see how they would be legal.
Do some home work and keep us posted.

[bullyforyou]

there are indeed some single stamp guns out there. i think a majority of the single stamp MG/suppressor guns were sterlings and stens with integral cans, but there were some HK's as well.

[bama_brannon]

My dealer here in central florida has a one stamp SD, I believe made be Ceiner. He called the ATF when he acquired the firearm and he was told that several were registered that way originally and they were not going to change it now.

[chili17]

I have seen a few RR 1 stamp Hard Times Armory SDs. They all had wiped suppressors too. I believe Brother has it correct when back in the day if the suppressor was not easily removable and it was a RR gun the atfe would let it slide with one stamp. FWIW the 1 stamp RR mp5sds I have seen had no marking on the suppressors.

[snipertn]

Tho I am no expert on the subjecl, I know for a fact that at one time in the early 80 s I could have bought a MP5SD for one stamp. As stated above if the suppressor was not easily removeable, it was registered as one stamp. Those were the days before or when the bleeding heart liberals were just trying to take all our weapons away from us.













t

[SSMDIVE]

Chili.... You know the dealer that I am talking about that brought this up, SPW.

I will be in town next mth and hope to take a look at it.

[farmallsh]

Some of those HTA SD guns are fugly. Ciener made some wild looking SD's as well. Those type of "integral" guns I could see being a single stamp gun. Couldnt see a traditional style style HK SD with a thread on suppressor being legal as a single stamp BUT, anythings possible.

[bwsmg]

The original ATF ruling only required 1 stamp based on the factory design MP5SD has 5 ports on the middle of the barrel length causing it to be unsafe and unreliably to shoot without the suppressor regardless ease of removal. Afterwards a few class2 made MP5SDs without the original ported barrel design and ATF changed their ruling to require 2 stamps across the board.

The modern method of porting gun barrels is by EDM. It was not a common tool in most machine shops pre 90s without big bucks. Now I’ve notice more of them since you can get smaller EDMs for around $15,000. In the old days of barrel porting the barrel had to be hard packed with ultra fine sand and drilled to limit metal burs in the bore. Time consuming, inconstant results, and not cost effective process

[Vegas SMG]

Clearly, BATF's determination was made based soley on the suppressor being permanently attached to the firearm as stated in their opinion letter. Anyway, I think this is the ruling you guys were looking for.

[December 23, 1983]

Dear Mr: [xxxxxxxx]

This refers to your letter of December 6, 1983, enclosed with a
firearm submitted for an examination to determine if this full
automatic weapon, incorporating an integral silencer, can be
transferred with the payment of only one transfer tax.

An examination of the submitted sample reveals that it is an
altered Heckler and Koch (H&K) Model 94 firearm incorporating an
integral silencer or muffling device. The alterations to the H&K
Model 94 firearm all take place in the trigger group with no
modification to the actual receiver of the firearm.

The muffling device, or silencer, is permanently attached to the
receiver of the firearm. Such a device, when so affixed to the
receiver of the H&K Model 94 as the submitted sample, would be
subject to only the one $200 transfer tax.

The model designation of 94S is suitable, however, the [xxx]
abbreviation used to identify your firm may be used only if your
Federal license reflects these initials. Further, since the
trigger group alone is a combination of parts designed, and
intended to convert a weapon into a machinegun, and subject to the
purview of the National Firearms Act, we would suggest that the
firm name, model designation, and serial number also be marked on
it.

We are returning the submitted sample to you at the above address,
under separate cover.

We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your needs. If
we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

Sincerely yours,


Edward M. Owen, Jr.
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

Don't even try to figure out their logic in this ruling, but BATF considers a ported barrel to be a suppressor in and of itself.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, DC 20226

E:CE:FT:RAT
3311
JUL 15 1997

Dear :

This refers to Your letter of May 17, 1997, in which you ask if you
could buy and possess a ported barrel designed to fit onto a
Swedish K and use it with your registered firearm silencer which is
designed for use with the Smith & Wesson (S&W), Model 76
machinegun.

As defined Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.), chapter 44,
section 921(a) (24), the term "firearm silencer" and "firearm
muffler" means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing
the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of
parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling
or fabricating a firearm silencer or muffler, and any part intended
only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

A firearm barrel, ported and threaded at its muzzle, which is
intended for use in the assembly of a firearm silencer would meet
the above definition, Therefore, the barrel in question would have
to be registered in accordance with the provisions of the National
Firearms Act.

We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. If
we may be of further assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely yours,

Edward M. Owen, Jr.

Chief, Firearms Technology Branch