MAK90 Sporter Rebirthed

redstategunnut · May 6, 2013, 08:10 PM

A friend of mine recently gave me a mint condition Clinton era MAK90 Sporter.

I fixed it:

nbk13nw · May 6, 2013, 08:14 PM

I need friends like that! Awesome that you were able to fix it. What was the issue?

Plumbnut · May 6, 2013, 08:16 PM

Really nice. I like that alot.

I have one too and I have a question for you,where did you get the furniture for it and did it fit right???

TATER · May 7, 2013, 01:22 PM

The angle of the receiver does not look to be correct.. Non the less, Remember guys, this would be a Chi-Com.
And has to stay compliant.. (U.S. Parts count)

RC20 · May 10, 2013, 10:01 AM

What he means is that once you remove the thumb hole stock and put a non thumb hole on it, you are in violation.

To correct that, it needs to have 5 US made parts of the listed ones (not all parts are listed, so it has to be relevant listed.)

If the stock is US made you have 3 of the require parts.

The easiest next step is a US made magazine as that accounts for 3 parts (the shell, floor plate and follower and the spring does not count which is an example of the bureaucracy aspect, but it is what it is)

You can also change the firing group but the MAK has the best one there as is the piston etc.

Adding a US rail or sight does not count as its not part of the core parts that are required (listed) as what constitutes the gun pr 9.22 (and I forget the rest of the numbers).

Bacteriophage · May 11, 2013, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Awesome that you were able to fix it. What was the issue?

He means that since it's a Clinton-era gun, it had to comply with the silly AWB rules of the time, including having a "thumbhole" stock and probably no flash hider, among other things. He made it a proper MAK.

dmt411 · May 11, 2013, 11:28 AM

I still need to "fix" mine, still has the thumb hole stock. What stock did you use?

RC20 · May 11, 2013, 11:38 AM

In this case you do have a serious issue with compliance as the gun has been pushed into the illegal modification of a gun category unless the right parts count with US origin has been used. Not likely to be caught of course.

A proper MAK of that era is as is, warts and all and my take is that it should be preserved.

What he did was changed it to look like a tactical AK47 (certainly fine and no issues with that, its his gun but I also believe you should be informed before you do that for the legal aspects as well as historic value).

The MAKs have an inherent value as they were unusually and a high quality underpinnings (maybe e solid would be better as the term quality is somewhat iffy with AKs, function and reliable yes.)

While I do plan to get a good stock on mine, its for function not appearance. No plans to add a bunch of stuff to it, but thats me and my take.

I will keep the thumb-hole as someday it will be sold and thats part of its intrinsic value as well as history (good or bad).

The wrong changes and you can't go back and then its a modified MAK and for whatever that sells for.

I do think for something historic, be it an old car of gun you should always think seriously about what you do to them. Some are never going to be worth much, others like the MAK appear to have a value in and of themselves. Once something is changed and you can't go back its lost and that can be a shame. I think the MAK is in that transition period.

Cutting the ears off a Model of 1917 receiver is not in that place, though it was a very reasonable thing to do when there were millions of them around. I don't think anyone should do it now, but again thats me and my take

Ben Dover · May 11, 2013, 11:59 AM

I had a gunsmith install a synthetic "dragunov" stock and gas tube optic mount on mine. At my insistence, he replaced the required parts to make the rifle 922r compliant, although he said that was probably unnecessary due to the Dragunov's similarity to a thumbhole stock.

Nittespanker · May 11, 2013, 12:09 PM

Plenty of these MAK 90 guns were imported before the 1993 Clinton crime bill.
If so wouldn't the be considered pre-ban?

RC20 · May 12, 2013, 09:42 AM

Not if it had a Thumb-hole (the most immediate visible signature).

Also the bayonet lug was removed and the flash suppressor threads (what left looks like threads but is the milling marks that removed them)

So if he did it to "fix" the MKA90 its obvious that it was ban era.

Don't get me wrong, it you like plastic its a nice looking piece (not my cup of tea but again thats me).

While I think its very unlikely to get caught, the penalties if you do are severe (and that can include your job).

Ben Dover · May 12, 2013, 10:47 AM

Just read 18 USC 922r and it should answer your questions.

that was why I insisted that my riifle be compliant, regardless of the opinion of the gunsmith.

I don't know if posting links to ther forums is allowed, (so I will not) but some of the AK-47 forums have long threads devoted to 922r compliance.

May 6, 2013, 08:10 PM	#1
redstategunnut Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 2009 Location: see name Posts: 405	MAK90 Sporter Rebirthed A friend of mine recently gave me a mint condition Clinton era MAK90 Sporter. I fixed it:

May 6, 2013, 08:14 PM	#2
nbk13nw Junior Member Join Date: February 28, 2013 Posts: 7	Re: MAK90 Sporter Rebirthed I need friends like that! Awesome that you were able to fix it. What was the issue?

May 11, 2013, 11:59 AM	#9
Ben Dover Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 2013 Location: High up in the Rocky Moun Posts: 665	I had a gunsmith install a synthetic "dragunov" stock and gas tube optic mount on mine. At my insistence, he replaced the required parts to make the rifle 922r compliant, although he said that was probably unnecessary due to the Dragunov's similarity to a thumbhole stock. __________________ The soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as the prisoner's chains. Dwight Eisenhower It is very important what a man stands for. But it is far more important what a man refuses to stand for.

May 12, 2013, 09:42 AM	#11
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 7,014	Not if it had a Thumb-hole (the most immediate visible signature). Also the bayonet lug was removed and the flash suppressor threads (what left looks like threads but is the milling marks that removed them) So if he did it to "fix" the MKA90 its obvious that it was ban era. Don't get me wrong, it you like plastic its a nice looking piece (not my cup of tea but again thats me). While I think its very unlikely to get caught, the penalties if you do are severe (and that can include your job). Last edited by RC20; May 12, 2013 at 09:53 AM.

May 12, 2013, 10:47 AM	#12
Ben Dover Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 2013 Location: High up in the Rocky Moun Posts: 665	Just read 18 USC 922r and it should answer your questions. that was why I insisted that my riifle be compliant, regardless of the opinion of the gunsmith. I don't know if posting links to ther forums is allowed, (so I will not) but some of the AK-47 forums have long threads devoted to 922r compliance. __________________ The soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as the prisoner's chains. Dwight Eisenhower It is very important what a man stands for. But it is far more important what a man refuses to stand for.

May 6, 2013, 08:16 PM	#3
Plumbnut Junior member Join Date: April 28, 2013 Posts: 219	Really nice. I like that alot. I have one too and I have a question for you,where did you get the furniture for it and did it fit right???

May 7, 2013, 01:22 PM	#4
TATER Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 963	The angle of the receiver does not look to be correct.. Non the less, Remember guys, this would be a Chi-Com. And has to stay compliant.. (U.S. Parts count)

May 10, 2013, 10:01 AM	#5
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 7,014	What he means is that once you remove the thumb hole stock and put a non thumb hole on it, you are in violation. To correct that, it needs to have 5 US made parts of the listed ones (not all parts are listed, so it has to be relevant listed.) If the stock is US made you have 3 of the require parts. The easiest next step is a US made magazine as that accounts for 3 parts (the shell, floor plate and follower and the spring does not count which is an example of the bureaucracy aspect, but it is what it is) You can also change the firing group but the MAK has the best one there as is the piston etc. Adding a US rail or sight does not count as its not part of the core parts that are required (listed) as what constitutes the gun pr 9.22 (and I forget the rest of the numbers).

May 11, 2013, 11:28 AM	#7
dmt411 Member Join Date: January 23, 2012 Posts: 54	I still need to "fix" mine, still has the thumb hole stock. What stock did you use?

May 11, 2013, 11:38 AM	#8
RC20 Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 7,014	In this case you do have a serious issue with compliance as the gun has been pushed into the illegal modification of a gun category unless the right parts count with US origin has been used. Not likely to be caught of course. A proper MAK of that era is as is, warts and all and my take is that it should be preserved. What he did was changed it to look like a tactical AK47 (certainly fine and no issues with that, its his gun but I also believe you should be informed before you do that for the legal aspects as well as historic value). The MAKs have an inherent value as they were unusually and a high quality underpinnings (maybe e solid would be better as the term quality is somewhat iffy with AKs, function and reliable yes.) While I do plan to get a good stock on mine, its for function not appearance. No plans to add a bunch of stuff to it, but thats me and my take. I will keep the thumb-hole as someday it will be sold and thats part of its intrinsic value as well as history (good or bad). The wrong changes and you can't go back and then its a modified MAK and for whatever that sells for. I do think for something historic, be it an old car of gun you should always think seriously about what you do to them. Some are never going to be worth much, others like the MAK appear to have a value in and of themselves. Once something is changed and you can't go back its lost and that can be a shame. I think the MAK is in that transition period. Cutting the ears off a Model of 1917 receiver is not in that place, though it was a very reasonable thing to do when there were millions of them around. I don't think anyone should do it now, but again thats me and my take

May 11, 2013, 12:09 PM	#10
Nittespanker Junior member Join Date: May 9, 2013 Posts: 70	Plenty of these MAK 90 guns were imported before the 1993 Clinton crime bill. If so wouldn't the be considered pre-ban?