View Full Version : Autosear in Hk Sl-8?
December 26, 2001, 10:35 PM
Is it legal to put a transferable/registered sear in a new SL-8?
And, if so, could it be made to work?
And, if so, could one put G36 parts on the resulting gun, such as a short barrel and folding stock?
December 26, 2001, 11:06 PM
No way to make a SL-8 full auto legal. Don't even go there!
The way that the law was written would prohibit its manufacture. Registered sear or not.
I'd try to explain it, but it would be all wrong anyway. One of the techno-weenies can do it. No sense in typing and having it all chopped up.
I'm just saving you from the mental masturbation thing when you go to bed tonight. :D
December 28, 2001, 05:42 AM
I will try to explain, I'm not 100% sure but this is my educated guess. The BATF will only allow you minimal latitude in modifying MGs, the HK sear will go into any of the HKs that are functionally identical. Most KH long guns are of the same pattern and just use a variant of the same receiver so this is OK. The Sten receiver is similar to the Sterling so the BATF has allowed people to remanufacture Stens into Sterlings as it is not too much of a change. Those are the only two examples that come to mind right now. Fabricating a functioning machinegun from a HK SL8 and a registered sear won't pass their muster. If it would work I, and others, would buy up all the MAC 10s I could lay my hands on and convert them to FN-MAG 58 and other fun stuff that is rare or unheard of in the US (transferable). Does that answer things for you?
I base this on a conversation I had a while back with the guy from Long Mountain Outfitters who once made a device that would allow him to use an M16 DIAS in an AK I think it was. He sent a letter to the BATF about it and he was told that his device that allowed his drop in sear to be used was, in their view, a machinegun. It did not matter that his conversion already required a registered machinegun to work (the DIAS) he needed two machineguns (per ATF definition) to make one gun fire fully automatic.
December 31, 2001, 04:42 PM
Jake, the difference between a Mac 10 and a MAG58 or an M16 and an AK is in no way equal to the different between an older HK and a newer designed HK that has the same trigger guts from the factory.
The HK-94/SL8 difference is more like the Sten/Sterling difference.
An an unmodified M16 sear will not work in an unmodified AK action. An unmodified Mac 10 sear will not work in an unmodified Mag58 action. But, an unmodified HK sear will work in an unmodified new HK (SL8) without any cutting or welding or drilling.
December 31, 2001, 08:50 PM
It is my understanding that if the sear will fit into the gun without modification or use of adapters, you can install it. I have seen some sear guns where the sear and the gun were "married" on the Form 4, listing the sear (w/serial number) and gun (w/ serial number) as a single machinegun. Many Hk94's were converted to generic MP5's by doing this.
December 31, 2001, 09:44 PM
You can't install it!
Not sure whether it is was part the 86' ban or other (possibly 94'). But in one of those laws it states specifically that you cannot possess a machine gun of foreign origin imported after one of those dates. You cannot make one either using one of those guns. Only foreign guns manufactured prior to the date can be converted. Domestic guns are exempt. Although, law enforcement agencies (government) and dealers are exempt, law enforcement personnel and PFC's are not.
December 31, 2001, 09:56 PM
Nope. Not true.
The registered sear is the machine gun. The gun is not an imported machine gun, as neither is an HK-94 imported in 1998 and later converted to an MP5 with a registered "conversion part." Likewise, the 1968 GCA banned imported machine guns, but thousands of semi-auto UZIs were imported and converted to full auto with registered receivers (by class-IIs before 1986) or registered bolts (by anyone after May 19, 1986).
December 31, 2001, 10:05 PM
Actually you can alter parts of the gun and even make adaptors, as long as you do not modify the receiver. You could modify the trigger parts to accept the sear. There is a lot of info here www.hkpro.com/hkconversions.htm
Anyway, I read tons of stuff on this since I posted that question yesterday and know much more now.
December 31, 2001, 10:50 PM
Remember vividly the conversation I had with BATF. Although civil, it was a verbal boxing match of ideas. I wanted to import a semi auto G36 for my personal collection. Was thinking of a SBR model in order to circumvent the 94' Assault weapons law and we went round and round. He (BAFT) started quoting me text about the different laws and part of the deal was percentages of part of foreign origin and number of dark feature. I finally brought up the idea of using a SL8 as a base and purchasing the parts. Install a auto sear and make my problems go away. He quoted me again some federal statute (with lots of techno crap) and the then the coup de grace. Something having to do with the gun (receiver) was going to be altered from its original configuration or something to that affect and that was strictly prohibited. The whole master plan died.
Called my CLEO and asked if he wanted a G36 demo. Got a burner now.
January 1, 2002, 02:43 AM
True, you cannot import a semi-auto G36. There was a ban on imports of that type in 1991. And you cannot put a sear in an SL-8 if you are modifying the receiver. If you want a semi-auto G36, the closest you can come now is pretty close! Get an SL-8, put on a G36 barrel fixed to 16" (Special Weapons is working on one for $125), put on a G36 forearm ($50), put on a G36 sight ($575), put on an M16 magwell adaptor (Special Weapons, $315) and put on the not yet available SW pistol-grip stock kit ($265). The mag-well adaptor comes with enough US made parts to make it legal. It will look just like a G36 and work the same way, but with M16 magazines.
January 1, 2002, 02:55 AM
It will look just like a G36 and work the same way, but with M16 magazines.
Two years ago I almost bought a SL-8, but the mag restrictions caused me to move on. Wound up getting a different rifle, and then into NFA weaps because of that choice.
Thanks for the good info HKP7PSP - nice username, too. My fave 9mm pistol. Accurate as heck, shame it heats up so fast.
January 1, 2002, 03:09 AM
Yes, the PSP heats up, but that is more of an issue during practice than for defense. I mean, if you were about to die, and emptied your magazine into someone, I think it would be ok. That pistol is one serious tool with just the right features. That being said, I am wearing a Glock 35 right now for the long sight radius and 16 shots. Murder rate in boston is up 100% and there was a robbery this week where the guys came in and shot a clerk and knifed another right from the start. But the clerks pulled out a pistol and shot every robber. The Boston Police are actually saying "good job." But the local liberals are saying they were lucky the defense worked but you cannot count on defending yourself and implied one should do nothing. I was thinking if that happened to me, I would want a BFG. Power, firepower, capacity, light trigger, sight radius == Glock 35. Quality, safety, speed, compactness == HKPSP.
January 1, 2002, 03:11 AM
Here is a pic of my SL8, I made it black.
January 1, 2002, 03:12 AM
And a photo of my newly-black USC.
January 1, 2002, 11:45 AM
More on importing a semi-auto G36. Yes, one cannot import a machine gun after the GCA of 1968. An MP5 is a machine gun receiver according to the ATF. An HK-94 or SL8 is not. The "distinguishing characteristic" is the push-pin lower on the MP5 (HK-94 does not have that). I know it seems small, but HK was forced to modify the MP5 design into the HK-94 in order to import it. Likewise, UZIs after 1968 had to be closed-bolt for semi-auto, and eventually they were forced to make the short barrel not fit. The G36, like the MP5, is a machine-gun receiver. So, you cannot put a semi-auto lower on it and be able to import it, due to the GCA of 1968, as even then it is a machine gun. And, to make matters worse, even if changes were made, you *still* could not import it due to the Bush AW ban. Now I know you wanted to get around the AW ban by SBR-ing it, but that will not work. This part I am not sure of, but I think you cannot have pre-ban features on a post-ban SBR-weapon either, even if you can have a short barrel. All you can have is a short barrel. But, if you take an SL-8, you can put in enough US made parts to have it be considered US made (just like all those new AKs made from Romanian/Bulgarian and US parts). Then, you can modify it to take normal capacity magazines and a pistol grip. Special Weapons is selling such US made parts. Then you can make something that looks and works like a G36. This is just like someone now taking an HK-94 and making it look and work like an MP5. In the end, it would be too expensive to sell to police departments, but if you want it for fun, as I do, then it would be an interesting project.
January 1, 2002, 04:43 PM
Dealer direct on a new SL8 is $999 and that makes your project very tempting. But I did the same as others and moved on. Purchased a Robinson Armament 96 Expeditionary and never looked back. Also, just took a SR15 M4 carbine from Knight on trade, cheap and may transfer it to myself. And when I feel the need for speed, there are no shortages of machine guns around here.
January 1, 2002, 05:12 PM
Yeah, I love the m96. I have all three styles. It is fantastic. I also have some of those Knights and aside from the fake flash hider, they are flawless.
January 1, 2002, 05:19 PM
Did Knight forget to permanently attach those fake hiders. Didn't see any pins or the ability to silver solder with the lock washer in the way. Was thinking something a bit more authentic like Wilson's Compensator, but don't want to damage the finish by having to sweat off the (fake) hider.
January 1, 2002, 06:00 PM
Yeah, I have a Wilson gun also, and like that hider much better, because at least I can rationalize that it does something! I hate fake parts and would rather have nothing than a fake hider. On the other hand, I HATE the Armalite muzzle brake!!!! The think is soooo loud it is crazy! The Wilson is the best. In fact, I am sort of ****** at Knights because they refuse to ship rifles to my state (MA) even though they are legal. I had to get them from a dealer, which was fine, but I did not like their attitude. So I have 4 of their rifles, but if I had nothing now, I would probably buy a Wilson again, an M96, and maybe a Les Baer for a varmint version. I also have not lost faith on Carbon-15s even though none of mine have worked for long (and I have had 6 of them).
But I like the m96 Recon the best, so I am in no hurry to make changes to my Knights. www.photomosaic.com/m96 -- some photos of me with my first m96.
January 1, 2002, 09:50 PM
This part I am not sure of, but I think you cannot have pre-ban features on a post-ban SBR-weapon either, even if you can have a short barrel. All you can have is a short barrel.
You can't have a postban SBR with preban features, even though it is now on the NFA registry. You can, OTOH, buy a preban rifle and retain the features if it is converted to SBR status. The same does not hold true for pistol to SBR. For example, coverting an SP89 to an SBR (adding the PDW stock) would require the stock to be fixed, as you have just manufactured a new rifle.
I will not attempt the other question because I do not want to get anyone into legal trouble. The only way you are going to get a correct answer is to mail the ATF Tech branch and get it in writing. If you are truly serious about this project, you probably won't mind the short time it takes for them to respond.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.