PDA

View Full Version : How to tell if a FAL receiver is full auto


JP223
August 17, 2007, 20:49
What parts in a receiver makes it a machine gun. I know about the bolt group and, trigger/hammer. Is the ejector the same? I have a friend who is a O7 FFL with, a class2. He wants to make a post-sample FAL. I don't know much abot them. Thanks for all your help guys!!

AndyC
August 19, 2007, 17:17
Originally posted by JP223
What parts in a receiver makes it a machine gun. I know about the bolt group and, trigger/hammer. Is the ejector the same? I have a friend who is a O7 FFL with, a class2. He wants to make a post-sample FAL. I don't know much abot them. Thanks for all your help guys!!
Look up the safety-sear - that should give you a starting-point.

JP223
November 04, 2007, 22:16
Sorry if i mad some foks made here. I just asked. I do have a friend who just got his o7 FFL/class 2 SOT. He has never did any FAL work. Again sorry for any trouble I have made.

MAINER
November 05, 2007, 08:41
JP223, by now I'm sure you realize that you've hit on a "touchy" subject here. We spend a great deal of time and money building legal semi-auto rifles that are fully compliant with 922 rules and regs. When asked by someone new "how do I make a machinegun?", it gets a lot of danders up. The question seems to reappear every few months and always gets the same reception.
I have no idea how or where to get a full-auto rifle, other than to go thru the proper channels and buy it from a licenced dealer. Something I personally have no intrest in and with the cost of ammo these days? :uhoh:

We try and keep everything nice and legal here and questions along those lines will receive a much warmer reception. :)

Regards

crcksht
November 05, 2007, 09:59
Originally posted by JP223
Sorry if i mad some foks made here. I just asked. I do have a friend who just got his o7 FFL/class 2 SOT. He has never did any FAL work. Again sorry for any trouble I have made.

A licensed class 2 who "has never did any FAL work" would ask a friend who is both grammar and spelling impaired to get on a website to ask for instructions on making a F-A FAL?

English Mike
November 05, 2007, 12:09
Don't worry about it JP - it's just that there have been some "fishing" expeditions made here in the past on this matter by those who should be chasing real criminals, rather than trying to make new ones.

PS Why JP233, as that's a Brit thing?

JP223
November 05, 2007, 22:38
Again, sorry for any trouble and, the miss spelling.

IanMor
November 27, 2007, 23:13
I know almost everything about the FAL anyone can ever want to know... Including the naughty-naughty. I have studied these fine firearms for nearly 30 years. What I don't know, I know where to look up.

If your pal has the credentials, it is simple to find out. Any knuckle head who ever tinkered on a 350 Chevy motor can figure it out after building a couple rifles and getting a few unusual parts that don't make any sense from the early kits.

JP, you and he are on your own. Earn it the hard way like the rest of us.... If you are legit.

If not..... Doom on you.

Ian

Radio
November 28, 2007, 17:31
:rofl: How could I have missed this thread the first time around?

Or did I skip it on purpose because there was something similar running around Gunsmithing or General Firearms around the same time, and I just got tired of it?

In my opinion the BEST post in this thread, other than maybe the locking shoulder (which is just my brand of humor) would be Para Driver who said it to a "T" in Post #9. Bon Voyage and good luck with Bubba, dude, or STFU and give Sarah a kiss for us.

--Radio

(PS-- Is it not a sad indictment of our current education system where a fellow would misspell "miss spell"??)

buddiiee
December 09, 2007, 03:31
...

IanMor
December 16, 2007, 12:16
O.K. I have followed this thread for a while now, and seeing it is in the reference section, it may serve a legitimate purpose to mention the actual differences between FA and SA FAL receivers. I am going to send a notice to tha mods after I post this, if they see it is not in keeping with what they want, they have my full permission to delete it.

On a FAL the primary differances between FA and SA are going to be found in the ejector block. If you look at your DSA made ejector block, you will see it is primarily a 1 piece unit. and it will have 2 holes in it for what are called "Soft Pins" to hold it into the receiver. If the ejector nose breaks, drive out the 2 pins and replace it. Many ejector blocks are 2 piece, in the event of ejector nose breakage on these, drive out the top pin and replace.

The Rosetta stone of understanding a full auto FAL is found with the receiver center section that came with many early kits. This center section often had the full auto ejector block and safety sear intact, and often packed in their proper relation ship with each other (i.e. assembled).

To answer the question completely and correctly, The differances between FA and SA Fals are primarily 2 fold. First being the ejector block. It is cut to receive the safety sear. Second being the receiver itself, there is a clearance cut on the left hand side where the hinge pin goes through the receiver, this clearance allows the safety sear to contact the lower receiver parts, directly impinging on the hammer notch retaining the hammer until the bolt is completly in battery. (This is why it's called a safety sear!).

The only thing you have to know is, if you have a cut in the hinge of your receiver, It better be a Belgian rifle, and have the letter "G" somewhere in the begining of the the serial number, and DON'T use a full auto ejector block in the assembly of a legal fire arm.

In my humble opinion, fully automatic fire is not desireable in this rifle. It is not very controlable, and once you do master it, you waste quite a bit of ammo to get on target. It is quite formidable enough on semi only operation. Thank you for your indulgence. I shall now report myself to the moderators.

Ian

JP223
January 12, 2008, 23:34
Thanks for the info...I'm truly sorry about all of this. This is a great site with, great people.

OEF_VET
January 25, 2008, 04:42
Ya' know, I am a Type 07 FFL / Class 2 SOT, and there's a lot of attitude in this thread that really kind of turns me off.

Like I said, I am an FFL, and let me clue some of you in on a few things:

1) A Type 07 FFL (manufacturer) doesn't need a LE Demo letter to build a post-sample MG, as someone stated earlier. Of course, if you really knew as much as you think you know, you wouldn't have said that.

2) Not all Type 07's know everything there is to know about every firearm. I have never owned an FAL, nor have I ever been issued one. I spent 8 years in the U.S. Army, we didn't get FAL's. Now, I know the M-16 inside and out, forwards, and backwards; but I don't know spit-all about an FAL.

3) When you get an FFL, the nice folks at BATFE don't send you a book entitled "How to Build Any Machine Gun You Might Want."

4) The Pierce County, Missouri Sheriff's Department is currently in the market to sell 3 registered post-sample L1A1's. The guns are on Form 5's, registered as post-sample machine guns, but the conversion work was never done - they are still semi-auto. Even though they have never been converted, they are MG's, and will always remain MG's. There's no removing them from the registry and selling them as semi-auto rifles.

I considered buying two of those rifles, and doing the work necessary to convert tham to full-auto. (Heck, if they're registered as such, they might as well be full-auto, right?) Of course, being a reasonably intelligent person, I know my limitations. I know that I have no experience with the FAL, and that if I were going to do that work, I better do some research. Well, the internet is a wonderful tool for research. So, being a little bit familiar with the internet, I am familiar with FALFiles. I thought to myself, "Self, if you're looking to know something about the FAL, what better place to start than the FALFiles, right?" Well, I log on, and do a bit of searching and come across this thread.

Some of you seem to know everything, and being all-knowing, you know that it is impossible for a Type 07 FFL / Class 2 SOT not to know how to convert an FAL. Well, guess what... it's not impossible. I don't know how to do it. But, when I do want to learn, it's obvious I can't come here and pick your collective minds. Oh well, it seems many of them are too closed to begin with.

Some of you may be familiar with my company already, from places like ARFCOM or THR. For those of you who aren't, and don't believe that a Type 07 doesn't know anything about the FAL, feel free to call me. The number is (615) 668-5345. The website address is www.elite-tactical.com. Or, you can go to BATFE's FFL EZ-check, and verify my FFL. It's 1-62-187-07-9L-02758.

In short, don't always assume you know everything that's going on about everybody. From time-to-time, you might be mistaken, and you could be talking to someone who can legally do those things many of you can only dream about. Oh, and to that end, I'm going to type up an ATF Form 2 tomorrow and build a new M-16 in y'alls honor. Oh, and that new M-16 is going to cost me a grand total of $490. Don't you wish you could do that?

brownknees
January 25, 2008, 10:53
If you have something intelligent, polite, and accurate to say about firearms (full-auto, or otherwise), you comments are very welcome here. :wink:

1811GNR
January 25, 2008, 11:08
Originally posted by IanMor

The only thing you have to know is, if you have a cut in the hinge of your receiver, It better be a Belgian rifle, and have the letter "G" somewhere in the begining of the the serial number, and DON'T use a full auto ejector block in the assembly of a legal fire arm.

Ian

The above info is incomplete.
Some Belgian FALs without a "G" prefix can, legally, and will, have a sear cut receiver. These willl be Type III receiver models imported by Steyr or Katsenes. They will have semi auto ejector blocks installed. There were approximately 2000 of the Steyr imports and 20 of the Katsenes. Completely legal as long as the ejector block is not changed to a full auto version. There were also some L1A1s imported by Century during the AWB that were sold to individual LEOs that are available from time to time.
There are "G" prefix serial numbered Belgians without the sear cut too. Commonly known as "Rogak".
It is legal to use a full auto ejector block in a semi auto receiver. So long as it isn't one of the above described Belgian type IIIs.

Para Driver
January 25, 2008, 15:20
Originally posted by OEF_VET
In short, don't always assume you know everything that's going on about everybody. From time-to-time, you might be mistaken, and you could be talking to someone who can legally do those things many of you can only dream about. Oh, and to that end, I'm going to type up an ATF Form 2 tomorrow and build a new M-16 in y'alls honor. Oh, and that new M-16 is going to cost me a grand total of $490. Don't you wish you could do that?

Valid points, but many of us are quite wary of .gov's intentions and some have spent more than $490 on legal defense. Mosses and ScottV2 come to mind. You can't blame us for being cautious of potential entrapment schemes.

OEF_VET
January 25, 2008, 15:34
Entrapment or conspiracy charges are a little harder to make than asking a question of an anonymous person on the internet.

For instance, I can tell you that in order to convert an AR-15 into a fully-automatic weapon, all you need to do is drill a hole for the sear pin, probably mill out the 'high-shelf' in your lower, then swap out your trigger, hammer, disconnector, sear, and bolt carrier. It's that easy. That's simply posting readily-available information.

Now, if I said "come over to the shop with your AR and I'll build you an illegal machine gun," and you agreed to do so, that'd be an illegal conspiracy. If I were a government agent, and you would otherwise not be predisposed to doing such an act, it would also be entrapment.

Entrapment is when you are coaxed into committing a crime you otherwise wouldn't have committed. The free exchange of information is not entrapment, as it is not a crime. And, if you had previously broken the law by building illegal machine guns, and a government agent convinced you to build another, as part of their investigation, it's not entrapment, as it's a crime you are predisposed to commit. Kind of like drug busts. If a cop gets a known drug dealer to sell them drugs, it's not entrapment. But, if a cop convinces an otherwise upstanding citizen to get them drugs, it would likely be entrapment.

OEF_VET
January 25, 2008, 15:41
Another point I'd like to raise is someone crucified the original poster for his lack of typing / grammatical skills, and implied that someone who can't spell correctly has no business attempting to build machine guns.

Well, as you can read, I'm fairly articulate (and a bit verbose at times), and I do a decent job of spelling.

But, my business partner, who owns 25% of the company is not. He is a high-school graduate, and a career machinist. He can do pretty much anything you want done with a mill or lathe. He can even run a CNC machine pretty dang well. He's come up with some very interesting suppressor designs, and can easily convert them from ideas in his head to blueprints, to effective, working examples. But, his spelling and grammar are atrocious. He knows as much about FAL's as I do, and a little less about AK's. Had he come on here asking questions about what needs to be done to convert an FAL into a machine gun, many of you would have treated him like the waste product that comes from your fourth point-of-contact. But, he is a Type 07 FFL. He just doesn't know anything about FAL's, and he types poorly. Not everyone is as well-rounded as some folks here would like to think they should be.

Bug Tussell
January 25, 2008, 16:15
Originally posted by OEF_VET
Ya' know, I am a Type 07 FFL / Class 2 SOT, and there's a lot of attitude in this thread that really kind of turns me off.

Like I said, I am an FFL, and let me clue some of you in on a few things:

1) A Type 07 FFL (manufacturer) doesn't need a LE Demo letter to build a post-sample MG, as someone stated earlier. Of course, if you really knew as much as you think you know, you wouldn't have said that.

2) Not all Type 07's know everything there is to know about every firearm. I have never owned an FAL, nor have I ever been issued one. I spent 8 years in the U.S. Army, we didn't get FAL's. Now, I know the M-16 inside and out, forwards, and backwards; but I don't know spit-all about an FAL.

3) When you get an FFL, the nice folks at BATFE don't send you a book entitled "How to Build Any Machine Gun You Might Want."

4) The Pierce County, Missouri Sheriff's Department is currently in the market to sell 3 registered post-sample L1A1's. The guns are on Form 5's, registered as post-sample machine guns, but the conversion work was never done - they are still semi-auto. Even though they have never been converted, they are MG's, and will always remain MG's. There's no removing them from the registry and selling them as semi-auto rifles.

I considered buying two of those rifles, and doing the work necessary to convert tham to full-auto. (Heck, if they're registered as such, they might as well be full-auto, right?) Of course, being a reasonably intelligent person, I know my limitations. I know that I have no experience with the FAL, and that if I were going to do that work, I better do some research. Well, the internet is a wonderful tool for research. So, being a little bit familiar with the internet, I am familiar with FALFiles. I thought to myself, "Self, if you're looking to know something about the FAL, what better place to start than the FALFiles, right?" Well, I log on, and do a bit of searching and come across this thread.

Some of you seem to know everything, and being all-knowing, you know that it is impossible for a Type 07 FFL / Class 2 SOT not to know how to convert an FAL. Well, guess what... it's not impossible. I don't know how to do it. But, when I do want to learn, it's obvious I can't come here and pick your collective minds. Oh well, it seems many of them are too closed to begin with.

Some of you may be familiar with my company already, from places like ARFCOM or THR. For those of you who aren't, and don't believe that a Type 07 doesn't know anything about the FAL, feel free to call me. The number is (615) 668-5345. The website address is www.elite-tactical.com. Or, you can go to BATFE's FFL EZ-check, and verify my FFL. It's 1-62-187-07-9L-02758.

In short, don't always assume you know everything that's going on about everybody. From time-to-time, you might be mistaken, and you could be talking to someone who can legally do those things many of you can only dream about. Oh, and to that end, I'm going to type up an ATF Form 2 tomorrow and build a new M-16 in y'alls honor. Oh, and that new M-16 is going to cost me a grand total of $490. Don't you wish you could do that?


:bow: Well said. :aug:

IanMor
January 25, 2008, 19:11
1811GNR

Thanks for that extra bit of info. I kinda overlooked that because I was not too familliar with the other rifles you mentioned. Thank you for bringing that out for our greater understanding.

OEF_VET

Thank you for providing us with a reality check. You are right. Sometimes we tend to be too cautious. I guess it is the results of living in these trying times where we fear our government, instead of our government fearing us.


All the best,
Ian

RT
January 26, 2008, 11:49
OEF_VET I have no typing / grammatical skills also. but thanks for the info. but you need to understand we get people asking question's about every 6 months or so. and with people on this fourm who have been taken to the wood shed by the B.A.T.F, for a misfire or a bad spring. we get jumpy . like Para Driver said it is better to be cautious than holding hand's with bubba~Richard. and welcome to the fal files we hope you stay. we can learn from you and you can learn from the members here us the fal files~R

OEF_VET
January 26, 2008, 21:00
Originally posted by rtgunsmoke
OEF_VET I have no typing / grammatical skills also. but thanks for the info. but you need to understand we get people asking question's about every 6 months or so. and with people on this fourm who have been taken to the wood shed by the B.A.T.F, for a misfire or a bad spring. we get jumpy . like Para Driver said it is better to be cautious than holding hand's with bubba~Richard. and welcome to the fal files we hope you stay. we can learn from you and you can learn from the members here us the fal files~R

Being "taken to the woodshed by the B.A.T.F. for a misfire or a bad spring" is different than telling someone the differences between semi-auto and full-auto guns, or telling them how to convert a semi-auto into a machine gun.

A misfire or bad spring, even unintentional, is an overt act which, by legal definition, created a machine gun. Is it stupid, that that unintentional act could get someone "taken to the wood shed"? Yes, it is. If the spring failed due to age or to poor manufacturing, that's a shame, even a travesty. Unfortunately, BATFE employees aren't always gun people. Trust me, I know first-hand just how unsavvy some BATFE employees are in relation to guns or the laws they are charged with enforcing.

But, simply telling someone the information isn't going to land you in Federal Court. If you tell them how to do it, and then illegally do it as a demonstration, then, sure, you're in trouble. Because by converting a gun without the proper license, you violated the law (a tax law, at that).

Simply saying that a semi-auto gun will have a semi-widget in place of a full-auto widget, or that a full-auto will need a cut made underneath the whatchamacallit (I used to love those candy bars - am I showing my age?) is not a crime. If it were a crime to pass along that information, don't you think BATFE would be prosecuting every publisher who printed a book of machine gun schematics?

Radio
January 29, 2008, 04:03
I've stayed mostly out of this but I'll weigh in with a couple of things.

First IanMor is apparently not very familiar with the differences between a semi-auto FAL and a ful-auto FAL. His information is rather incomplete. I do not, at this time, care to correct his descriptions in this thread-- and go through the process yet AGAIN-- as I've already done this dance before too many times. Search the archives if you so desire. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel differently.

Second, while I understand the viewpoint offered by OEF_VET regarding not being aware of proper conversion procedures on EVERY rifle ever made, your characterization, sir, is off target. We get these questions ALL THE TIME... often more frequently than Richard intimated (see Post# 9)... and they virtually NEVER approach us as an FFL etc seeking this information. These inquiries are almost ALWAYS in the guise of a private individual looking for full auto tips. Heck, I received an email similar to this topic just this month. If only indeed we did get FFLs posting for instruction, your argument would have a bit more salt to it... sadly, frustratingly, such is not the case.

--Radio

IanMor
January 30, 2008, 07:07
Radio,

Thank you for your reply. I believe we simply just misunderstand each other. This medium of communication has it's limitations. I reread my post again last night to see where I may have been "incomplete" I honestly don't see where I dropped the ball on addressing "How to tell if a receiver is full auto" I pretty much covered that directly.

I did draw a great deal of attention to the FA ejector block because it is different than the usual block that comes with most comercially available semi auto rifles. I felt this was in keeping with the original direction of his inquiry.

I left it open on how the safety sear works because that is getting into the fire control group of the rifle, and in my opinion, getting away from the receiver group, which was the focus of his question. I honestly do not feel that I was being as simple as "the wheels on the bus go round and round" Again, I am sincere when I ask you to enlighten me where I messed up.

Respectfully,
Ian

OEF_VET
February 04, 2008, 03:57
Radio,

Before I looked here, you know what my first step was to inquire about making an FAL full-auto capable? I called a friend of mine, who isn't an FFL, but has vastly more experience with FAL's than I. For all I knew, making an FAL fire full-auto was as simple as it is with an AR/M-16 - you more or less just swap out a few parts (with a modicum of machining work). He wasn't sure of the differences, though. So, he said he'd ask a friend of his who is a Type 07 FFL with FAL experience. He is also the person who reminded me of FALFiles. He said he'd come here and try to figure out what I needed to know. When I logged on a couple days later, I saw this thread, and thought at first that it was my buddy who posted it. (Then I saw the dates, and realized it wasn't.)

Had Jacob come here, asking for information for me, many of the people here would have treated him as they treated the original poster, yet they would have been 100% off-base. Loosen the tinfoil, sir. Sometimes, things are as the person stating them has said.

1811GNR
February 04, 2008, 09:03
Originally posted by OEF_VET


4) The Pierce County, Missouri Sheriff's Department is currently in the market to sell 3 registered post-sample L1A1's. The guns are on Form 5's, registered as post-sample machine guns, but the conversion work was never done - they are still semi-auto. Even though they have never been converted, they are MG's, and will always remain MG's. There's no removing them from the registry and selling them as semi-auto rifles.

I considered buying two of those rifles, and doing the work necessary to convert tham to full-auto. (Heck, if they're registered as such, they might as well be full-auto, right?) Of course, being a reasonably intelligent person, I know my limitations. I know that I have no experience with the FAL, and that if I were going to do that work, I better do some research. Well, the internet is a wonderful tool for research. So, being a little bit familiar with the internet, I am familiar with FALFiles. I thought to myself, "Self, if you're looking to know something about the FAL, what better place to start than the FALFiles, right?" Well, I log on, and do a bit of searching and come across this thread.



If these are original L1A1's and all of the original pieces are there the only thing you have to do to "convert" them is make it possible for the selector to travel all of the way to the auto position.

gunplumber
February 04, 2008, 12:30
Originally posted by 1811GNR


If these are original L1A1's and all of the original pieces are there the only thing you have to do to "convert" them is make it possible for the selector to travel all of the way to the auto position.

No, this is incorrect. There is another modification required.

By the way, I have a posty IMBEL receiver for sale $250. Or a posty G1 on a DSA receiver for $750.

BeachinBeemer
February 04, 2008, 22:14
Guys, I'm a newbie here-been lurking for 2+years--I personally know jp223-have shot f/a with he and his dad and friends-The family have a legal class3 business-by that I mean that they can buy and sell f/a, suppressors and other related items-I don't know if that is a class2 license-I know that my class3 guy is a class2 holder and whatnot--I'm just the ultimate consumer in the "foodchain"--I imagine jp223's post was and is legitimate-the paranoia and holier than thou/asswipe attitudes disappoints me-for what it is worth-I'm just a newbie here but been in the class3 fraternity for a few years. Also own a nice PAC paratrooper/imbel/suppressed.-Beemer

gunplumber
February 04, 2008, 22:43
to make a full auto

install full auto ejector block

machine receiver to clear safety sear.

insure FA carrier

Insure FA trigger return plunger.

Thats about it. But the question of "what makes a FA receiver" isn't a simple answer.

The easy part is "any receiver that was sold as a semiauto and had the sear cut made."

But there are over 4000 legitimate guns out there that are sear cut semis.

Kindof like the open bolt semis of the early 80s. They were ok then, but can't make them that way now.

ATF interpretations have never been consistent, nor has enforcement of those.

1811GNR
February 05, 2008, 23:46
Originally posted by gunplumber


No, this is incorrect. There is another modification required.

By the way, I have a posty IMBEL receiver for sale $250. Or a posty G1 on a DSA receiver for $750.

Not as smart as I thunk I were. What did the Brits leave undone?

gunplumber
February 06, 2008, 13:04
the trigger return plunger stops against the top hat stud of the lower receiver. The trigger cannot be pulled far enough to the rear for full auto fire. An L2A1 has a shorter trigger return plunger.

brunop
February 06, 2008, 19:09
I love this place.

OEF_Vet: I hope you stay. Good on ya for saying what you did.

Radio
February 06, 2008, 20:32
I hope OEF_Vet stays, too, but he is obviously unaware that too many other people have cried "wolf" for too many years before he got here. Remember that in the fable, even when the boy had a legitimate situation, nobody listened because of their predisposition built up from prior history. Which is too bad for the innocent queries, whether "wolf" related or "FAL" related.

--Radio

brunop
February 06, 2008, 20:56
True, and I think we can be sensitive to the fact that people here have been burned by BATFE/JBT types - the defense against which costs good people good money - even if the charges don't stick.

But the 'cries wolf' thing doesn't exactly work here, as it isn't the same boy crying wolf all the time. And JP doesn't appear to by crying wolf at all.

Bottom line? There were some people here that treated a normal guy (and member of the larger community) badly. How about just saying, "Can't help you out", or "barring recommendation from someone who I know, I'm not answering" or (get this one...) not answering at all?.

OEF_Vet got it right. We (good people/denziens of the Files) treated a normal guy, and potential friend, member, and gun builder like a POS - calling into question his intelligence, intent, and honor. And JP responded like a gentleman, with this, "Sorry to cause problems..." or something of the sort.

Frankly, I think some people here owe the guy an apology.

gunplumber
February 06, 2008, 21:17
I agree. One of the effective means of controlling a populace is to be ambiguous over what is against the law, this way honest people will live in fear of somehow, somwhere, committing Think Crime.

jaygee
February 11, 2008, 15:24
Many of us are familiar with the G series FALs from 1960-63, but what of
those that were brought in from that time til '68-'69, when the ATF
began the "no safety sear cut" policy ? It's my understanding, and I
could be wrong, that a dedicated semi FAL from this time would have a
sear cut , a semi ejector block, and comercial markings. Also heard of
FALs such as this being available in small numbers stateside but have
not been fast enough to get to see one in the flesh. Any one care to
shed some light on these ??

gunplumber
February 11, 2008, 15:48
Originally posted by jaygee
Many of us are familiar with the G series FALs from 1960-63, but what of
those that were brought in from that time til '68-'69, when the ATF
began the "no safety sear cut" policy ? It's my understanding, and I
could be wrong, that a dedicated semi FAL from this time would have a
sear cut , a semi ejector block, and comercial markings. Also heard of
FALs such as this being available in small numbers stateside but have
not been fast enough to get to see one in the flesh. Any one care to
shed some light on these ??

there are over 2000 Steyr impor and Katnses (?) that are sear cut and they were imported in the 80s. But as is clear from previous posts, there is more to making a machinegun than merely having a sear cut.

In fact, one could argue it is easier (depending on skill and equipment) to make a Hesse into a machinegun than a sear cut steyr. On the former, its more-or less 3 passes with a 3/8" endmill. On the latter, you need to change the ejector block, the selector, the trigger retrn plunger, and weld up th bolt carrier.

In either case, you cannot make one a machinegun without taking some obvious steps - and doing that is illegal

jaygee
February 11, 2008, 18:57
It would appear that after reading the various threads on this subject that
all FALs imported between 1963 and 1970 into the USA are ILLEGAL;
whether they were legally imported at the time or not ! Why? Because
during that time period, there was no provision to leave the sear slot
uncut. It has been reported by FN that after the shutoff of G series
guns through Browning in '63, the primary determining factor of legality
for US importation was the condition of the ejector block. Check CG's
metric FAL notes. Uncut sear guns didn't appear til after that date, and
showed up on "FAL USA" receivers; type 2.

farmer2010
March 23, 2008, 23:08
HEY i dont know much about this stuff but stay on the side of the laws, a 4x8 jail cell really sucks ,i dont know how long you can get for breaking this law, but gun dealers told me storys of ppl geting 10 to 20 years for it, Its not worth it, hell if you dont have a licence and want to shoot one, plenty of ppl will take you out to shoot theirs that have it leagal, rapid fire aint worth losing every thing you own and your freedome and your gun rights, i dont like alot of laws but i follow them to the best of my knowlage, cause if not they cost you alot of money, but is good to read about this stuff some ppl dont no whats legal or illegal in buying guns

JP223
November 01, 2008, 12:19
Man, I got sooo much crap for this!

renaissance_warrior
November 02, 2008, 23:33
From whom and about what? Your questions? It's all good here. :beer:

brownknees
November 03, 2008, 11:08
Originally posted by JP223
Man, I got sooo much crap for this!

You are now fully assimilated into the FALBorg collective.
Congratulatiuons 7.62 of 35,000.:biggrin:

JP223
November 03, 2008, 19:08
thanks guys

Radio
November 04, 2008, 18:33
You've weathered the storm, but whatever happened to OEF_VET? Just dropped off the map.

--Radio

Kingphish
December 31, 2008, 04:48
quote:Originally posted by OEF_VET

4) The Pierce County, Missouri Sheriff's Department is currently in the market to sell 3 registered post-sample L1A1's. The guns are on Form 5's, registered as post-sample machine guns, but the conversion work was never done - they are still semi-auto. Even though they have never been converted, they are MG's, and will always remain MG's. There's no removing them from the registry and selling them as semi-auto rifles.


I think that OEF_VET is incorrect on the above point. The cut/pasted letter below from BATF refers to an M1 carbine converted to M2 (and NFA registered) that the owner wishes to remove from the NFA Registry. From what I read, since the converted M1 carbine was not originally made as a machine gun, it could be converted back from M2 configuration and de-listed from the NFA.

The L1A1's were also not originally made as machine guns; in fact, no machine gun parts or receiver alterations were ever made. Should be able to de-list them from the NFA, per the terms of the letter below.

Comments?

June 11, 1970

Assistant Regional Commissioner (ATF)
Southwest Region

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division
National Office CP:AT:EO:[]

Okla, LI 3134 - [ ] - Removal of Firearm from machine gun
SWR SI 998 [ ] category

This refers to your Information Transmittal of February 16,
1969, with attachments, requesting a ruling concerning the status
under the National Firearms Act of a U.S. Carbine, caliber .30 M1,
serial number [ ], converted to an M2 capable of full automatic
fire and now restored to its original condition as an M1 capable of
only semiautomatic fire.

The U.S. Carbine, caliber .30M1 is a semiautomatic rifle and
is the basic model from which the M1A1, M2 and M3 models were
developed. Therefore, the U.S. Carbine, caliber .30 M1 did not
evolve as a machine gun. Accordingly, an M1 Carbine, as marked,
converted from semiautomatic fire to full automatic fire, may be
removed from the classification of a machine gun by the removal and
destruction of the conversion parts. We believe this position is
consistent with the provision for the removal of a short-barreled
shotgun from the purview of the Act by replacement of the short
barrel with one over 18 inches and for the removal from the purview
of the Act of a semiautomatic pistol which was modified to fire
full automatic and which is returned to semiautomatic fire only, by
replacement of the modified part or parts. We reaffirm our
position that a weapon originally designed as a machine gun remains
a machine gun and may not be removed from the purview of the Act.

In accordance with the above, the information given by [ ] of
my staff to [ ] is correct and [ ] may be advised that in view
of the fact that he has abandoned the full automatic parts from his
carbine to the [ ] branch office, we have removed his firearm
from the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.


[ ] Director

Attachments

6/10/70

jaygee
December 31, 2008, 11:09
This will make for some fascinating L1A1 conjecture; I had the opportunity to
purchase an L1A1 at a show about ten years back. It was all set up as a
semi - right and proper - and even appeared to be all original English
parts. I elected to past because because of the possible/probable B.S. that
would ensue if this ever became a law enforcement issue. Who out there
would REALLY know the law and it's fine points in such a case. Some one at
the top of the ladder might rule in your favor, but just as easily, could go the
other way, and fry your butt! Case in point.....a dealer we all know in SWPA
had a FN type 3 50.00 rifle confiscated by an BATFE field agent because the
piece had a sear cut in the upper receiver. As most of us know, certainly any
advanced FAL collector, over 2000 of these weapons were imported by
Steyr legally in the '70s, before the error was caught and rectified. ATF has
never cracked down on these FALs as a bunch, as they were considered semi
autos unless furthur modified. It will cost the dealer a lot more than the
rifle is worth to get it returned, and don't think BATFE doesn't know this.
What remains unanswered is the status of the METRIC FALs that came into
the USA between say 1964 and 1969. Altho few in number, some did make
it here and ALL of them have the sear cut in the upper receiver. At the time
they were legal on the basis of 1) originally built as semi autos, 2) the
presence of a semi auto ejector block, and a number of other semi only parts.
Most, if not all, these weapons have serials in the G series, which further
muddies the water on their status....as they are naturally above the "legal"
G series numbers. For that matter the G series continued well into FAL USA
production, with the "Rojack FALs" being a prime example. With the Steyr
type 3 sear cut FALs now being in jeopardy, imagine what will be thought of
the previously legal metric FALs from the mid to late '60s ! This is the basis
for my earlier statement that outside of the "legal G " series rifles, all FALs
from the '60s are potentially illegal, and this now includes a big bunch of FALs
from the '70s too! It all depends on circumstances which nobody has any
real control over, so there we are....waist deep in muddy water, on a quick
sand bottom!!

kev
December 31, 2008, 21:02
Kingphish,.................no. Totally different situation and very dated info from BATFE. The M1/M2 situation is unique in the world of MG's as the receivers of those two models are identical. There is no difference between an M1 receiver and an M2 receiver. All the 'parts' that make the M2 selectfire are 'parts'. You can actually purchase a registered handful of metal bits that will legally convert an M1 to M2. Not so with the L1A1.

As issued, the L1A1 functioned semi auto only, but it's still considered by BATFE to be a MG due to it's ability to be converted by simply adding uncontrolled parts. The receiver of the L1A1 is already milled for the full auto sear(in this case a 'safety' sear)and it is installed and functional. Generally speaking, a semi FAL receiver is not sear-cut, or if it is as in those special cases mentioned several times above, sear installation is blocked by the semi-only ejector block.

It's all quite complicated and definitely clear as mud, but that's pretty much how it all works. A sear-cut receiver with a sear installed is a MG whether it fires full auto or not. A non-sear-cut receiver is a semi. There are sear-cut receivers with semi-auto ejector blocks in them that fire semi only, and BATFE treats them as semis as long as they're not tampered with, but they're not supposed to exist and were only allowed due to an oversight. There's a whole 'nother group that hasn't been mentioned yet,.................and I hate bringing them up, but,.........

Original L1A1's imported into the US for law enforcement sale(presumably as semis)that have trickled into the general population. These guns are sear-cut with FA ejector blocks installed(and probably the safety sear as well)and I personally think they're a violation just waiting to happen. The fact that they initially went to LE without registration doesn't change the fact that they are MG's in the eyes of BATFE even if BATFE hasn't done anything about it(yet). I think someone screwed the pooch on initial import as well as subsequent sale and somebody somewhere will eventually pay for that,................probably the guy who's innocently in possession when the day arrives.

jempi
February 16, 2009, 21:32
if someone can explane to me how to place pictures on this thread i would try to show the difference between the two rifles as i have both a SA as well as a FA in my gunlocker , i only can say that it is a very expersive operation to change a semi-auto into a full-auto as it involves almost all the moving parts of the rifle,that is if you want to retain the selective fire option . with some types of the rifle like the israeli one you only have to remove the safety switch . a L1A1 on the oder hand is allmost imposible to modify to full-auto as it is not metric and the hammer and trigger assembly that you need will not fit a english made rifle .:fal:

royke
March 02, 2009, 23:16
I examined a British L1A1 reciever made without searcut. Any idea how many of these exist compared to searcut ones? I would assume that this would be a legal rifle? I compared it to my G Series and the L1A1 does not have the G series style cut in the reciever......

moses
March 04, 2009, 04:20
Jempi.......................

WOW! :uhoh: :confused:

jaykden
March 04, 2009, 04:53
i see jempi is from belgium..... so that would explain somthing to me... like the "..changing it from SA to FA...." comment.


actually all you need to do to make an original L1A1 go FA is remove the selector switch, obviously thats a quick and dirty of doing so as you have NO way to put the safety on.... but it will work.

jerry704
August 16, 2011, 22:39
i just assembled a full auto fal........ on my iphone!!!!:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: really cool app that shows every part and in x ray ..... sorry guys just thought id throw a lil salt in the wounds.

TNMntns
October 28, 2011, 10:44
OK just found this and been reading it and it raises a hypothetical question. Suppose these L1A1s that OEF_VET was considering buying from the sherrifs department were some of those British rifles Century sold to LE back in the day and then the sherrifs department registered them as FA with the intention of having them converted but never did. Those would be British recievers and as such, are sear cut already. While this would make for a very easy conversion I believe it would also make it impossible to ever have them reclassified as semi autos no matter what and even attempting to do that might cause BATF to go on a witch hunt to try to gather up any other Brit L1A1s that are floating around. There was just one for sale on Gunbroker last week. gunplumber what's your take on this ?

Vaughn L. Allen
October 29, 2011, 16:22
Originally posted by JP223
Man, I got sooo much crap for this!

+1 Needless crap by a bunch of paranoiac know-it-alls! My best friend has his 07 FFL and I help him work on all of his stuff. I know how to make a lot of rifles FA but will not do it because it's a violation of the law.

I also know how to make crack cocaine and take a bunch of chemicals and turn them into methamphetamine thanks to training that I've received as a law enforcement officer. Just because someone possesses the knowlege doesn't mean that the person is a criminal.

FAL Hawaii
November 01, 2011, 04:30
Well lucky for you JP223 you didn't ask how to make it semi auto.

Monticore
December 06, 2011, 00:39
This seems as good as any for my first post.

I am about to purchase a friend of a friends Dad's collection.

I live in California and have no intention of ever getting into full auto.

The complete rifle looks just like this one:
http://frontlinearmory.com/FAL/izzyhb/izzyhb.htm

There is also a parts kit.

The lower on both of these function in a way that has me nervous.

I absolutely DO NOT want to know how to make a full auto rifle.
I want to find out what I can do to make a full auto into semi auto only.

I hope someone will answer these questions for me.

I have a legally configured AR15.
My selector lever cannot turn to the point where the full auto selection would exist. Will the FAL selector spin all the way to the full auto selection, if it were only capable of semi auto?

If it does spin to the FA selection, will it behave like semi auto where the hammer will lock up after the weapon cycles and releasing the trigger to reset makes it ready to fire again? I assume if it were FA the hammer would not lock back.
I assume I can test this with the lower separated and manually locking the hammer down after each trigger pull.

If it turns out that either or both are setup as full auto, can I simply swap parts out and replace with semi only parts?
Would I be able to sell the "bad" parts out of CA? Probably to a certain class of dealer.

Once again, I do NOT want to make a FA.
I want to identify if I am about to attempt the purchase of one and will need to modify it/them before my FFL transfers it/them over to me.

Thanks for any words of wisdom you may offer.
In California, www.CalGuns.net is a great resource.
Quite a few people have recommended this forum as the definitive resource for the FAL. Please keep me on the right side of prison bars and help me figure out what I need to do to stay there.

Monti-

def90
December 06, 2011, 09:10
Originally posted by Monticore

I have a legally configured AR15.
My selector lever cannot turn to the point where the full auto selection would exist. Will the FAL selector spin all the way to the full auto selection, if it were only capable of semi auto?

If it does spin to the FA selection, will it behave like semi auto where the hammer will lock up after the weapon cycles and releasing the trigger to reset makes it ready to fire again? I assume if it were FA the hammer would not lock back.
I assume I can test this with the lower separated and manually locking the hammer down after each trigger pull.




Yes the selector will move to the FA position, it will fire, once, the hammer will not reset. This does not make it a full auto gun. All FALs in the US will behave exactly the same way unless you are one of the lucky few.

With a US made receiver the rifle will never be a full auto gun no matter what you do to it other than putting it into a milling machine and milling out the appropriate safety sear slots. Don't worry about it. If you are worried just buy a semi auto selector and then completely forget about it.

harleyrider
December 06, 2011, 10:28
Wow! That is a beautiful Izzy HB Monticore! Love that dark furniture & dark metal finish. Is that just dark parkerizing or paint over park?

HR

Monticore
December 06, 2011, 18:23
Originally posted by harleyrider
Wow! That is a beautiful Izzy HB Monticore! Love that dark furniture & dark metal finish. Is that just dark parkerizing or paint over park?

HR

Hi HR,

I wish I knew. The one I am about to buy just happens to look just like the one in the pics. I just need to make sure it's in a transferable condition to get it in my name.

I'm also buying a parts kit. Since I do not know if either are 922r compliant, I may be buying new parts just to be sure.

Monti-

Monticore
December 06, 2011, 18:26
Originally posted by def90



Yes the selector will move to the FA position, it will fire, once, the hammer will not reset. This does not make it a full auto gun. All FALs in the US will behave exactly the same way unless you are one of the lucky few.

With a US made receiver the rifle will never be a full auto gun no matter what you do to it other than putting it into a milling machine and milling out the appropriate safety sear slots. Don't worry about it. If you are worried just buy a semi auto selector and then completely forget about it.

Thanks def,

A semi auto selector can count towards 922r compliance, right?

Monti-

4x401
December 07, 2011, 16:04
Originally posted by Monticore


Thanks def,

A semi auto selector can count towards 922r compliance, right?

Monti-

No, selectors don`t count.

And to add, I believe you would need to change the trigger to a standard metric. I`ve never seen a semi-only Izzy selector.

Monticore
December 07, 2011, 17:16
Originally posted by 4x401


No, selectors don`t count.

And to add, I believe you would need to change the trigger to a standard metric. I`ve never seen a semi-only Izzy selector.

Thanks for jumping in 4x.

I will be buying a complete rifle that looks like that Izzy HBAR.
I also just got an STG kit.
There are two stripped uppers that I need to research better. On paper one is an inch L1A1 and the other metric, cannot recall make.

What I do not know on the Izzy is when the original owner bought it and if it's compliant already.

For the STG kit, with help from some folks over at www.calguns.net (my neck of the woods), it appears I need some compliance parts. I like the idea of it staying old school stock in appearance so I'm reluctant to change out the butt stock. It is nicked and scuffed just enough to look used, not abused. I like the idea of the metal hand guards too.

My Google skills are failing me in trying to find a good selection of 922 parts somewhere. GunThings looks to have a pretty complete list but at this stage I don't know what I don't know and don't exactly know the right questions to ask yet. I'm slowly getting there.

One question I have-
Is an FFL obligated to ensure 922r compliance before doing the transfer?
I hope not as I don't want to buy a bunch of parts before I own the thing in case the deal falls through.

4x401
December 07, 2011, 20:40
Originally posted by Monticore

One question I have-
Is an FFL obligated to ensure 922r compliance before doing the transfer?
I hope not as I don't want to buy a bunch of parts before I own the thing in case the deal falls through.

My FFL don`t give 2 $hits about compliance parts when doing transfers, but he`s an 07/SOT in Oregon. :smile:

It would not surprise me if the FFL "in your neck of the woods", does take issue. Hopefully your rifle is already compliant, because there are not alot of compliant parts available for Izzy rifles these days. There isn`t alot of demand, and what was made years ago is scarce.

hershey
December 07, 2011, 20:47
i think the concensus on 922r is that it only applies to a licensed builder, or to take it a little further, the assembler of the weapon, if the rifle is already built, it should just be a transfer.

Monticore
December 08, 2011, 13:17
Originally posted by hershey
i think the concensus on 922r is that it only applies to a licensed builder, or to take it a little further, the assembler of the weapon, if the rifle is already built, it should just be a transfer.

I like the sound of that. Then I only have to buy parts for the one I will build up. When I get the complete rifle transferred I will ask what they think.

TNAndy
January 28, 2012, 09:37
to make a full auto

install full auto ejector block

machine receiver to clear safety sear.

insure FA carrier

Insure FA trigger return plunger.

Thats about it. But the question of "what makes a FA receiver" isn't a simple answer.

The easy part is "any receiver that was sold as a semiauto and had the sear cut made."

But there are over 4000 legitimate guns out there that are sear cut semis.

Kindof like the open bolt semis of the early 80s. They were ok then, but can't make them that way now.

ATF interpretations have never been consistent, nor has enforcement of those.

Does a semiautomatic FAL have a safety sear? I got the impression FA rifles had them and SA rifles did not. I mean, if there's no sear cut, then a sear wouldn't fit into the lower receiver at all, right? Further, I thought the sear was the crucial part that sensed that the trigger was still held down and tripped the next cycle once the bolt closed over the chamber. :confused: When you build from a kit, is throwing the sear in the garbage the first thing you do to make sure it's built semi-auto?

Before you guys flame me for asking noob questions, please rest assured I have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in full auto.

hk22045
February 28, 2015, 04:36
Just happened on this thread but it strikes home real fast. I posted (tried to at least) pics of a Fal kit i have has for 20 years sitting in a box. Several kind soles have helped by identified it as a FALO Israeli kit. It complete except for a receiver. I have built AKs and all this reference to a "IZZY" had me think Russian as lots of AKs are referenced so.Now it turns out to be Israely and i wonder what my options are to be 100% legal yet build it out. What are your thoughts? If any body can explain how to use Photobucket i will post pics of the kit here. I have the pictures loaded in photobucket but just cant figure out how to attach them into the thread (hope i too dont get flamed for poor typing skills)

andresere
February 28, 2015, 11:47
Post this in the "FN Files" section (under 'Weapon Specific Forums' heading). You will get more exposure, and the Izzys used FNs so it belongs there. As to Photobucket, when you see the picture, under or next to the picture, you should see 6 choices -
Email & IM
Direct
HTML
HTML thumb
IMG
IMG thumb

Copy the link for IMG. Just paste that into your message, and this should happen
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll166/andresere/Bump/Epic_adef21_582752_zpsd713160d.jpg (http://s288.photobucket.com/user/andresere/media/Bump/Epic_adef21_582752_zpsd713160d.jpg.html)

paco
March 25, 2015, 18:04
i see jempi is from belgium..... so that would explain somthing to me... like the "..changing it from SA to FA...." comment.


actually all you need to do to make an original L1A1 go FA is remove the selector switch, obviously thats a quick and dirty of doing so as you have NO way to put the safety on.... but it will work.

Hi,
I tried to remove the selector on a shorty L1A1 (see my thread on it). It works with my other FN FAL's but not on this one.
However, i tried to swap the lower with a german and it fit. In dry it seems to work fine. Need to test it... :D

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a254/joeplf/FAL/DSCN7038_zpsff632e1d.jpg (http://s13.photobucket.com/user/joeplf/media/FAL/DSCN7038_zpsff632e1d.jpg.html)

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a254/joeplf/FAL/DSCN7039_zpse375ccc3.jpg (http://s13.photobucket.com/user/joeplf/media/FAL/DSCN7039_zpse375ccc3.jpg.html)

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a254/joeplf/FAL/DSCN7155_zps7edd2471.jpg (http://s13.photobucket.com/user/joeplf/media/FAL/DSCN7155_zps7edd2471.jpg.html)
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a254/joeplf/FAL/DSCN7373_zpsycfhyliy.jpg (http://s13.photobucket.com/user/joeplf/media/FAL/DSCN7373_zpsycfhyliy.jpg.html)
swapped lower...
[URL=http://s13.photobucket.com/user/joeplf/media/FAL/DSCN7374_zps6cmixibi.jpg.html][IMG]http://i13.photobucket.com
switched to"D " Dauerfeuer = Rock und Roll :biggrin:

Paco