View Full Version : Para: carrier/cover use in AOW FAL shorty?

November 22, 2000, 10:15
Now that I finally have my FAL finished, the second kit I bought for spare parts is looking like a nice build. However,the picture below is what I have in mind, don't ask me why as I just have that urge for it. I realize that a para setup might help with the back end, but I have no idea how the para compensates for the traditional butstock spring and tube. Basicly I have no clue as to how a para works, I haven't done my studying.

I also realize that with the DSA 13" upper this would need to be registered as a short barreled rifle, pistol or AOW. Sice I legally have the right to make 1 firearm per year for personal use only, could I pull this off myself or would a class 2 manufacturer need to do the work? I could use all new parts that have never been assembled into a rifle before as this might help things along in the paper work dept.

How would I compensate for not having the spring or spring tube like the traditional FAL?? I know the para has done this, but how was it done? Any help or pointers will be appreciated as I'm sure I can't be the only one here that has thought of this.



[ July 22, 2001: Message edited by: gary.jeter ]

[ July 22, 2001: Message edited by: gary.jeter ]

November 22, 2000, 10:48
The para has the recoil spring assembly built into the top cover.It uses its own unique bolt carrier also.The legalities end of it Im not qualified to say.However,what youre proposing is a class 3 weapon(SBR)and Im not sure the"personal manufacture"provision applies.HTH Happy Thanksgiving http://www.fnfal.com/forums/smile.gif

NRA life member since 1979,Hard Corps member,ISRA 3 yr member "Those willing to forfeit rights in the pursuit of security deserve neither"

November 22, 2000, 11:18
If you want to use a detachable magazine and there is no provision to install a stock, it looks like AOW stamp should cover it.

Olyarms recently sold the OA-93 AOW, I'd bet your project would be similar.

Don't think you could build this without a tax stamp. Apparently there is a 1994 law that set max weight of certain types of handguns to 50oz. This ended most of the assault rifle type handguns, unless you want a non-detachable magazine.

[This message has been edited by Eclipse (edited November 22, 2000).]

Drew Eckhardt
November 22, 2000, 17:50
Originally posted by Ted III:
However,the picture below is what I have in mind

That would be an illegal semi-automatic
assault weapon, because it takes a
detachable magazine (this qualifies
it for the features test), the magazine well
is outside the grip, it weighs over 50 ounces, and the fore end protects you from the heat of firing (you're only allowed one of hose features).

If you left the stock on, it would be legal as a short barreled rifle.

If you chopped the stock and used an additional pistol grip up front, it would be legal as an any-other-weapon.

I also realize that with the DSA 13" upper this would need to be registered as a short barreled rifle, pistol or AOW. Sice I legally have the right to make 1 firearm per year for personal use only, could I pull this off myself or would a class 2 manufacturer need to do the work?

You can make it yourself.

However, while the transfer tax on an AOW
is $5, the making tax is still $200. So, if you want an AOW it may be less expensive to pay some one who has the appropriate license
and has paid their special occupational tax.

November 22, 2000, 18:14
Can anyone post a few pics of the para that can show me how the top cover is set up to take the place of the standard recoil spring and tube?


November 22, 2000, 23:27
Talk about Earshplittin Loudenboumer!!!

No need to shave on the days you take that puppy to the range. It should burn your whiskers right down to the follicle. Maybe you can get Jen to put together a run of FNFAL.com Nomex assault-suits for your entry team. You might want to include a piece of rawhide in your range bag to bite down on during firing. While you are on this project, don't be a wimp. Open your wallet, get the license, and build it full auto. Then, call the local airport to get airspace clearance.

November 23, 2000, 00:17
I would love to build this full auto, however, here in the socialist state of Michigan The attourney general states there are no provitions in our constitution that allow for private ownership of class 3 machineguns by civilians. http://www.fnfal.com/forums/mad.gif So much for "shall not be infringed" however I plan to do something about this after I do a little homework. http://www.fnfal.com/forums/smile.gif

Anyway, I still need someone to show me how the para is set up so I can do a little planning for this kit.

Thanks again,

[This message has been edited by Ted III (edited November 24, 2000).]

November 23, 2000, 11:42
The Para 'body cover', it's PROPER name http://www.fnfal.com/forums/wink.gif , has a circular base affixed at the aft end. A pin protrudes forward from the base, onto which a stout recoil spring is assembled. The pin enters the breech block carrier. In recoil, the carrier slides along the receiver rails, and compresses the spring about the pin.

VOILA- my ARMS body cover is at my PhotoPoint site, but I've modified it for use on the FALO-C, and removed the pin. I also milled it to accept a SUIT t-bar. best of ALL worlds, coupled w/ the Canadian C1A1 rotor sight.
<A HREF="http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=101373" TARGET=_blank>
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=101373 (http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=101373</A>)[/url]


1*.....Train Like You Fight: Second Place is NOT an Option.

E.M. (Ted) Dannemiller II

[This message has been edited by EMDII (edited November 24, 2000).]

November 24, 2000, 08:27

I am thinking that there may be a good deal of misinfomation in this thread. I went to the ATF website to look up regs, and here is my understanding of the "law" as it pertains to issues in this thread:

1. A receiver, FAL or otherwise, can be assembled into a handgun if it has never been assembled into a long gun prior to being made into a handgun. Such assembly is a "handgun" and not a short-barreled rifle. There is no SBR tax due on such a weapon.

2. Any manufacture of full-auto after 1989 cannot be legally registered on the machine gun registry. All full auto after 1989 is for law enforcement or military use only.

Am I reading the regs right or not?

Download free targets at

Tec 9
November 24, 2000, 09:16

Not entirely correct. Yes, you can register is as a pistol if you make it on a virgin receiver, but it must be either: under 50oz in weight, or have a non-removable magazine. In this case, the best way to make the above weapon is the SBR/AOW route.

take care,

November 24, 2000, 13:32
OK, lots of clarification. Drew is Exactly right. Read his post and try to ignore most of the rest. This is all very complex and lots of bad info floating around. For instance:

TedIII, you can own C3 in Michigan. Michigan is a Curio&Relic only state, so you can only buy original Curio guns, but there are lots of them. All the WWII and previous on original receivers and even some newer stuff. Costa Mesa AR18 for instance. Check out the list.

The MG ban is '86, not '89. '89 is the semi import ban.

AOW is the way to go. Just add another pistol grip. SBR is $200 tax and you need your US parts count. If you have a C2 build you an AOW, you can build it with all import parts and transfer it for $5. It'll be cheaper to you than building a 922r compliant rifle. AND you can put evil features on it(No stock of any kind)including a silencer if you want to(additional $200 tax).

Pistol is definitely out, unless you meld the mag in. >50oz.

[This message has been edited by kev (edited November 24, 2000).]