PDA

View Full Version : STG-44 Advise.


Dr. Mauser
June 8, 2009, 03:14 PM
I've found a STG-44 for $8000, I want to know what you guys think, is it worth the buy (which would have to be a loan) Or should I save my cash monies?

haha i cant post the link seeing as how im at an apple store at the mall, but its on Gunbroker, will post the link later.

A little bit for info on it:

The original receiver has cut out and replaced by a Semi-Auto one seeing as how the seller is located in Washington and fully automatic weapons are illegal. The seller has the original and it would look good if it was re-blued, but Im not sure if its worth the buy...

Advise?

Tamara
June 8, 2009, 10:41 PM
The original receiver has cut out and replaced by a Semi-Auto one seeing as how the seller is located in Washington and fully automatic weapons are illegal. The seller has the original...

The original receiver is a machine gun unless it is torch-cut to BATFEIEIO specifications, and thus illegal for you to own.

Dr. Mauser
June 8, 2009, 10:44 PM
I couldnt even own the receiver, even if the weapon only fires in semi-auto?

Tamara
June 8, 2009, 10:56 PM
To repeat: The original receiver is legally a machine gun all by itself, whether it has the rest of the parts connected to it or not, unless it is torch-cut to BATFE specifications.

It is illegal in CA.

Even if you were not in CA, it is illegal for you to transfer on a Form 4 through a Class 3 SOT, since you are 19.

It is also illegal for the seller to own the original receiver in WA state, again unless it is torch-cut to BATFE specs.

EDIT: Searching Gunbroker, this (http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=130460582) is the only StG-44 I'm finding, and it's neither $8k, nor semiauto, nor in WA...

EDIT II: Further, even if the gun is a parts kit built on a new semi-auto receiver, it would be illegal in CA, since it is semiauto, feeds from a detachable magazine, and has a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously below the action.

Dr. Mauser
June 8, 2009, 11:14 PM
heres the link:

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=130756567

Tamara
June 8, 2009, 11:21 PM
Something smells bad about that.

Re-weld receiver with a BATFE-compliant semiauto trigger group, and a push-pin FA trigger group?

In a non-NFA state?

And he's selling it as a Title I gun? Hell, he's in "constructive possession" of a machine gun in those pictures.

Either that guy is clueless and lucky, or it's a sting.

Either way, don't worry about it; you can't own that gun in California.

Dr. Mauser
June 8, 2009, 11:24 PM
I HATE THIS STATE!

Ever since I've been here the laws seem to get worse and worse every day, and I'm just more and more disappointed with the State run by the Governator...any other laws here that will dampen my WWII collection?

Tamara
June 8, 2009, 11:26 PM
...and I'm just more and more disappointed with the State run by the Governator

Don't feel too bad, that gun's been illegal in California since Arnold was still filming Total Recall, the year before you were born. :o :(

raftman
June 9, 2009, 04:10 PM
To me, no gun is worth that much money.

Dr. Mauser
June 9, 2009, 05:23 PM
I want it for the Collection value, but i may just get one of those replica blank firing ones...who knows

KLRANGL
June 9, 2009, 06:08 PM
I sent him a question about it, since I was curious. Lets see if he responds...

Hkmp5sd
June 9, 2009, 07:22 PM
To me, no gun is worth that much money.

Surely you jest. There are plenty of guns that I would pay that much for. Unfortunately, most are post '86 machineguns.

Tamara
June 9, 2009, 07:44 PM
I want it for the Collection value, but i may just get one of those replica blank firing ones...who knows

They're not really all that.

I had a customer who owned an StG-44 buzzgun. I declined the offer to fire it every time he offered, as I was 26 at the time and mortally a-feared it would break while I was shooting it and I'd feel obliged to pay for repairs.

It was typically crude late-war German manufacture (nice fit and finish are hard to achieve when you have G.P. 500-pounders coming through the ceiling) and a lot bigger, heavier, and clunkier than you'd think.

raftman
June 9, 2009, 07:54 PM
Im all seriousness, maybe it's because I am overly practical... if I had a spare $8,000 to spend on something, it definitely would not be a gun. For me to spend that kind of money on any item or object, it would have to do something, that a much cheaper counterpart couldn't. As a photographer, I buy expensive lenses even though cheap ones are readily available, because the pricier ones have capabilities, features, and produce superior image quality that make spending more something that's worthwhile. A semi-auto StG44 doesn't do anything than AK47 (and clones/variants thereof) can't, so why pay 15 times as much?

Dr. Mauser
June 9, 2009, 08:17 PM
[quote]A semi-auto StG44 doesn't do anything than AK47 (and clones/variants thereof) can't, so why pay 15 times as much?[quote]

The collectable value...its all about the Swastica lately, Gew 98s arent worth anything compared to a non-peened K98 with all visable Waffenamps and Swasticas.

Tamara
June 9, 2009, 08:50 PM
The collectable value...

What "collectible value"?

A re-weld parts kit gun or modern repro has no "collectible value". (...and discussion of such doesn't even belong in the "Curio & Relic" subforum, since such a gun would not qualify as a C&R, any more than a Century Arms semiauto "CETME" or "FAL" would... The Title I gun at the Gunbroker link is no more a real StG-44 than Jeff Gordon's weekend ride is a real Chevy Impala.)

James K
June 9, 2009, 09:26 PM
Best to understand this:

A person owning a machinegun in the U.S. can't just convert it to semi-auto unless it had already been registered as a machinegun. And if it was already registered as a machinegun, he would have to be a lunatic to convert it to semi and lose many thousands of dollars.

If a person owns an unregistered StG.44 in the U.S., he is in violation of the law. He cannot convert it to semi-auto and make it legal. It doesn't matter what receiver he puts on it, his initial possession of the machinegun was illegal.

A person who owns an unregistered machinegun in the U.S. cannot deactivate it or cut it up and make it legal. His possession of it was illegal, the law violation has already taken place and he can't "unviolate" the law.

Further, he can't even legally destroy it or drop it in a lake, because that is destroying evidence of a felony, the felony being illegal possession of the gun.

Now a manufactuer with a proper license can make a machinegun using scrap or parts, but he may not legally (since 1986) sell or transfer that gun to an individual, only to another NFA licensee or a governmental entity.

So any way you look at it, the seller here is in violation of the law, and anyone buying the gun would also be in violation. Is it a BATFE scam to trap people? Maybe, or maybe it is just the ignorance of the sort of person who thinks others are ignorant.

Jim

Tamara
June 9, 2009, 10:08 PM
A person owning a machinegun in the U.S. can't just convert it to semi-auto...

IIRC, a batch of parts kits made it into the country not too many years back. There's also a company in Germany doing semiauto repros, although I don't believe they've rec'd BATFE approval for importation.

There have been rumors of Title I semis being built on the parts kits, although I don't have firsthand knowledge.

What I think we see here is a guy buying a parts-kit semi, and then snagging an FA trigger group from another vendor, and not knowing what the term "constructive possession" means...

Dr. Mauser
June 9, 2009, 10:21 PM
Collectable value by meens of the sort of gun it is, the STG-44 is a pretty rare find, even though its cut up and ghoulish looking I wouldnt mind owning one...Legally mind you. Have you spoken with that seller and shed light with him that the sell he is making may be illegal?...look the real reason for this thread to to ask if that was a decent price to add to my collection of WWII esk rifles, and weapons. I wanted to start a list with the firearms from that era from Number 1. to however many I should add to my collection.

FALPhil
June 10, 2009, 06:28 AM
A person owning a machinegun in the U.S. can't just convert it to semi-auto unless it had already been registered as a machinegun. And if it was already registered as a machinegun, he would have to be a lunatic to convert it to semi and lose many thousands of dollars.

If a person owns an unregistered StG.44 in the U.S., he is in violation of the law. He cannot convert it to semi-auto and make it legal. It doesn't matter what receiver he puts on it, his initial possession of the machinegun was illegal.

Not true. This is pure F-Troop propaganda.

The case, U.S. v. One FAL Rifle disproved this. This was a case in which a full auto FAL had the safety sear welded and cut off so that it could not fire full auto nor be easily converted with hand tools. The court found against the plaintiff (US government). F-Troop will not tell you this, and when you ask for an opinion, they will lie. But the precedent has been set in federal court.

Now, whether you want to wave the proverbial red flag in front of them and take your chances is a different issue. They have been know to pursue criminal proceedings with their unlimited resources, knowing they will lose, but making a point and draining your bank account in the process. But the old saw, "once a machine gun, always a machine gun", has been struck down in court.

With regards to this particular gun, there may be other technical violations.

Tamara
June 10, 2009, 07:11 AM
With regards to this particular gun, there may be other technical violations.

You mean like the full-auto push-pin trigger group?

That'd be like owning an early push-pin HK-41 and a G3 "S-E-F" trigger group. "Constructive possession" all day long.

KLRANGL
June 10, 2009, 07:20 AM
For what its worth, this is the reply I got... he was not happy in the least

What I wrote:
If you are in possession of the parts that can readily convert that rifle
into full automatic, are you not technically in possession of an automatic
rifle?

His response:
Absolutley not.... Anyone can own a lower. Anyone can own a receiver. Anyone can own a parts kit.
This Rifle is 922 compliant. You cant just stick the lower on and have a full automatic weapon. This has many things changed to comply with federal regulations... Obviously you have no education on this subject. Gunbroker also takes offense to people e-mailing and harrasing dedicated customers who provide a service to the public.
Are you interested in purchasing the firearm? or are you just wanting to make an ignorant comment?

I sent him a nice letter of apology. Hopefully I didn't overstep my bounds here, but I was curious.
I hope he doesn't get arrested though...

Edit:
I'd also like a bit of a clarification. You guys are tossing around the word "constructive possession" like it means possession of the parts necessary to "construct" and full auto weapon. I though it was originally a law definition for having possession of a item, without actually possessing the item. I can see how the two definitions overlap, I was just curious as to which one was more correct. Thanks.

Further edit:
He also changed the description, adding this bit:
*** Because of ignorant people sending me e-mails I need to make sure everyone understands , "You cant just switch out lowers and get this firearm to fire on Automatic".... You would have to reverse the conversions, purchase a Fully automatic operating rod/bolt carrier, de- solder the slots in the receiver, etc. So please if you do not understand firearms and laws, please refrain from comments..*****
While I am no expert on this subject, I wouldn't want to do business with someone who personally insults people for legitimate concerns. Bad karma for him...

Tamara
June 10, 2009, 08:04 AM
If the gun has BATFE approval, he's good to go.

The original wording of his ad was what set my spider sense tingling. You have to admit he made it sound like he's selling the gun, plus everything you need to make a buzzgun out of it.

The thing everyone's been calling a "lower receiver" is a trigger pack, and is not the "receiver", as defined by the BATFE. I'd imagine, given the similarity of construction between the StG-44 and its lineal descendant, the G-3, that legal precedents established for the HK rifle would apply here. As long as adding the FA trigger group won't make it a buzzgun, there should be no legal problem, but you're out in a gray area with a lot of these parts kit guns that rely on BATF opinion letters.

"Consrtuctive possession" means what you say it does, and has been used by the BATFE to describe the situation where one, say, owns an AR-15 and all the M-16 fire control bits. Even if they are not in the gun, the BATFE considers you to be in "constructive possession" of a machine gun.

KLRANGL
June 10, 2009, 10:46 AM
The original wording of his ad was what set my spider sense tingling. You have to admit he made it sound like he's selling the gun, plus everything you need to make a buzzgun out of it.

That was my assumption to, hence why I asked him. Getting a rude response was not warranted, IMO. Some people are just grumpy I guess :p

And if I had the money, I would have certainly added that to my collection. WWII weapons are like Pokemon. Gota catchem all...

James K
June 10, 2009, 12:38 PM
If you really want to see some fun, tell him you are forwarding his offer to BATFE to confirm his claim that the gun is legal!

Note that he never said the gun was BATFE approved, he said it is 922 compliant, which applies to the percentage of US made parts in a semi-auto rifle, nothing to do with the gun's status as an auto weapon.

Tamara, those parts kits can be made into semi-autos by a licensed manufacturer, or even into automatics for demos or for LE use. But the parts kits don't include the receiver or (recently) the barrels, so he wouldn't have the original receiver. There is something very fishy here. There were a fair number of StG DEWATS sold in the early 1960's and I suspect someone got hold of one that was never registered and decided to make it "legal" by converting it to a semi-auto. That may not be done, as I pointed out above.
The 1968 law required registration of ALL machineguns, including DEWATs which had been sold as "non-guns." If a DEWAT had been registered, it could have been reactivated to full auto by paying the $200 tax. Making it a semi would be very stupid.

The seller here is either very ignorant, or playing games with his own and his customer's freedom. He is also very arrogant and nasty, characteristics that often go along with stupidity and ignorance. My advice is to give him a very wide berth. He already has given himself enough rope for a hanging.

Jim

Tamara
June 10, 2009, 10:02 PM
But the parts kits don't include the receiver or (recently) the barrels, so he wouldn't have the original receiver.

I think the seller is making the common mistake of calling the trigger pack a "lower receiver", but that's just my read on the situation.