Atf Correspondence

LEN SAVAGE, PRESIDENT

tlistor

706-675-0287 Home 706-675-0818 Shop

June 16,2008 Mr. John R. Spencer Chief, Firearms Technology Branch 244 Needy Rd. Martinsburg, WV 25405 Dear Mr. Spencer, I received the Firearms Technology Branch's (FTB) guidance document [903050:MMK 3311/2008-472] referring to the latest submission by my company. Historic Arms, LLC, for a proposed product, a firearm of original design. This firearm has been designed as a short-barreled rifle, because its barrel is less than 16 inches in length, and thus falls under purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), and must be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). I am concerned about the apparent lack of a written standard used to examine and test our submitted firearm. It appears that our submitted firearm was initially tested according to one set of criteria, and that FTB determined and verified that it is a firearm because it fired a projectile, {see page 6}. Since it fires a projectile, has a barrel less than 16 inches in length, and according to FTB {see page 7} is intended to use the shoulder stock and pistol grip of MAC-type registered machinegun in which it is installed, it is a short-barreled rifle according to ATF regulations and United States Code. TTie submitted firearm was registered in the NFRTR by my company as a short-barreled rifle via an ATF Form 2 prior to submission to FTB. Our concern is that FTB was apparently dissatisfied with the results of the first live fire test, because FTB changed the testing criteria and live fire tested the submitted firearm again. The new criteria for this second live fire test [see page 7, second paragraph] cannot be foimd in any of our company's engineering books or manuals, and does not appear to be a valid scientific testing procedure, for the following reasons: •

Using a foreign object to cause a firearm to fire fiilly automatic has historically been viewed by ATF to be a "conversion device," under the reasoning that the foreign object converts the fu-earm to a machinegun. One example of the use of such a foreign object is the use of a shoestring, memorialized by ATF/FTB in three different Letter Rulings.

•

There is no valid and reliable evidence that the new criteria FTB has been universally applied to all MAC-type uppers. In fact, several MAC-type uppers incorporate an ammimition feed

device on the "upper", as does thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC. If the criteria FTB applied to the testing of our latest submission was applied to testing the many caliber conversion uppers that are sold at retail with no restrictions, such as the .22 longrifleMAC upper made by "Flemming," (1) all of them would fire infiillyautomatic mode until the ammunition supply was exhausted, (2) there would be no way for the shooter to stop firing. Suchfiillyautomaticfiringunder these conditions ~ termed "sputter fire" because it is imcontrolled firing — is dangerous. •

On page 4, a sample MAC-10 upper is shown. ATF does not consider this sample MAC-10 upper to be afirearm;consequently, no Form 4473 or NICS check during over the counter sales is required; and there is no requirement for this MAC-10 upper to be serial numbered. If FTB tested this sample MAC-10 upper using the same criteria FTB used to test the firearm submitted by Historic Arms, LLC, the sample MAC-10 upper would fire a projectile. According to ATF regulations and United States Code, the sample MAC-10 upper is, therefore, a firearm. Since ATF does not consider a MAC-10 upper to be afirearm,the materials that FTB added during the second test of thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC (aluminum plate, chain and tensioning bolts) must be afirearm,firearmreceiver, or a device intended to convert afirearmto a machinegun.

•

Also, importantly, if FTB applied the the first test it applied to thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC to the sample MAC-10 upper pictured in FTB's guidance, FTB would classify the MAC-10 upper as afirearmbecause it fires a projectile. In fact, as noted, ATF does not regard the sample MAC-10 upper as afirearmat this time, which contradicts FTB's current classification of thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC in that regard.

•

The materials FTB added converted thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC into a machinegun; therefore, the materials constitute a machinegun receiver, a machinegim, or a conversion device.

•

FTB's manipulation of test criteria in order to achieve a specific result is clear and reliable proof of "Outcome Based Testing." Taken at face value, it appears that the purpose of the second test was to produce the outcome offindinga way to convert the Historic Arms, LLC submittedfirearminto a machinegim.

•

Since FTB has not applied the first or second test criteria to other MAC-10 uppers, and doing so would result in a FTB determining that all other MAC-10 uppers are machine guns or at leastfirearms,it appears that FTB has singled out thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC to preclude its manufacture and sale. [Please refer to the enclosed table.]

In summary, the second test FTB used was not valid. The reasons are that the second test's criteria and application (1) has not been consistent or uniformly applied to all MAC-10 uppers, (2) apparently singles out thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC to preclude its manufacture and sale, and (3) ignores the fact that applying the second test to other MAC-10 uppers would convert them into machineguns, as was the case with thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC. Also, importantly, if the test FTB applied to thefirearmsubmitted by

Historic Arms, LLC was applied to the sample MAC-10 upper pictured in FTB's guidance, the MAC-10 upper would be classified as afirearmbecause it fires a projectile. In fact, as noted, ATF does not regard the sample MAC-10 upper as afirearmat this time. It is difficult to understand how FTB would single out afirearmthat is not a machine gun, convert it into a machinegun and thus preclude its manufacture and sale, while ignoring the fact that FTB could convert millions of MAC-10 uppers that ATF currently does not define as firearms, intofirearmsor machinegims. I believe a human error occurred; that we are all human and make errors; and that this error can be addressed with a correction letterfi-omFTB; and the return of my submitted short barrel rifle. If this is not the case please notify me immediately Respectfiilly, Len Savage

DEVICES FOR MAC-TYPE REGISTERED MACHINEGUNS THAT FIRE FROM AN OPEN BOLT CONFIGURATION Name of firearm or device,

Classification under the GCA

Classification under the NFA

Sample MAC-10 upper shown* Calico upper* Flemming type .22 upper* Anthony Smith Soumi upper* Stoney Creek Soumi upper*

Not a firearm

54RCCU 7.62x54R Caliber Conversion Unit

Not a firearm

Results of FTB Test #1 [ducttape,metal plate^plastic ties] Firearm

Results of FTB Test #2 [chain,metal plate,tension bolts] Firearm

Not a firearm Not a firearm

Not a firearm Not a firearm

Machinegun Machinegun

Machinegun Machinegun

Not a firearm

Not a fiream

Machinegun

Machinegun

Not a firearm

Not a firearm

Machinegun

Machinegun

Firearm**

Firearm: Short Barreled Rifle

Firearm

Machinegun

* All of the these have been classified by ATF/FTB to be NON-firearms. **Historic Arms LLC intentions are to keep "prohibited persons"fi"ompossessing a 54R Caliber Conversion Device to address a stated ATF concern. ATF considers "uppers" for a MAC-Type firearm to not be afirearmor thefiiameor receiver of a firearm. A convicted felon could in theory own [or in Mr. Flemming's case] manufacture these "uppers" openly for distribution to general public.

U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

SEP 3 0 2004 www..f..ov

903050:RDC 3311/2004-379

Mr. Brian A. Blakely

Dear Mr. Blakely: This refers to your letter of February 6,2004, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), in which you inquired about the legality of a small section of string intended for use as a means for increasing the cycling rate of a semiautomatic rifle. As you may be aware, the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), defines "machinegun" to include the following: .. .any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person [holding added]. In 1996, FTB examined and classified a 14-inch long shoestring with a loop at each end. The string was attached to the cocking handle of a semiautomatic rifle and was looped around the trigger and attached to the shooter's finger. The device caused the weapon to fire repeatedly until finger pressure was released from the string. Because this item was designed and intended to convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegim, FTB determined that it was a machinegun as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). We thank you for your inquiry, regret the delay in response, and trust the foregoing has been responsive. Sincerely yours,

t

Sterling Nixon Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Martinsburg, WV

25401

www.atf.gov

903050:MMK 3311/2008-472

JUN 10 2008 Mr. Len Savage Historic Arms, LLC 1486 Cherry Road Franklin, Georgia 30217 Dear Mr. Savage: This refers to your letter of April 21, 2008, to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), regarding a submitted prototype. Your submission is a modified PKM-type, 7.62x54R caliber machinegun receiver assembly, which you have designated the Model 54RCCS, serial number VI. You request verification that the sample is designed to be fired fi-om the shoulder, has a barrel length of less than 16 inches, and is designed for "exclusive use in a MAC-type machinegun as a caliber conversion device. The submitted sample (photo immediately below) is comprised of the following components: Modified PKM-type receiver, mated with a MAC-type upper. Unmodified PKM-type top cover and feed-tray assembly. Newly manufactured plastic forearm. Shortened PKM-type gas system. Barrel approximately 15-3/4 inches long. Modified PKM-type machinegun bolt carrier assembly. PKM-type bolt assembly.

Submitted Sample Historic Arms U.C, IVkxtel: 54RCCS, Serial No.: VI

Mr. Len Savage

The FTB examination noted the following external markings: On the right side of the receiver • • • •

HISTORIC ARMS LLC FRANKLIN GA > F 54RCCS 7.62x54R SERIAL N o - V I

On the top of the feed-tray assembly

•

EA-141

•

1976

FTB examination noted the PKM-type receiver was modified in the following manner (see photos, below): • •

The lower rear portion of the machinegun receiver where the trigger guard is mounted and a short section of the rear, was removed. The rear trunion/stock-mounting-block was removed.

-3-

Mr. Len Savage

Serial No.: Vt

A modified MAC-type upper assembly was inserted into the rear of the PKM-type machinegun receiver and welded in place (see photos below and next page).

fxsrtion of original receiver

L

Mr. Len Savage

MAC-Type upper

PKwl-iype rt

The left-side bolt guide rail was widened in a manner preventing installation of an unmodified machinegun bolt.

K TiiewTO2iTiVki!ac\\iTe.dp\2A.e was. \\e\Aed m p\?ice. \o acA. 2is A caXch foi \.\\e lop covtT lock. A new manufactured ejection port cover was added to the left side.

-5Mr. Len Savage In addition, a modified PKM-type machinegun bolt-carrier-group was found installed. The following characteristics/features of this bolt carrier were noted: •

Gas piston was shortened.

Original sear notch removed and a plate welded on to act as a sear notch for a MAC-type machinegun sear.

MOCitfl^u wvyii-wui 11^1 r-(oowiiii.^ijr

u i i-i¥ii^.HjMic;u Q u i i - y ^ a i 1 ici A S S C H l b l y

Mr. Len Savage

•

Left-side guide-rail notch in the bolt widened from 3/32 inch to 1/4 inch.

Guide-rail slot

The submitted sample was test fired on May 8, 2008, at the ATF test range, Martinsburg, West Virginia, utilizing commercially available Wolf brand, 7.62x54R caliber ammunition. Due to the absence of a rear trunnion block to hold the recoil spring and guide rod in place, an aluminum plate (from stock), approximately 1-1/4 inch x 1 inch and approximately 3/16 inch thick, was tied to the rear of the receiver using duct tape and two plastic ties (see photo below).

-7-

Mr. Len Savage

With the normal factory trigger removed, the operating handle becomes the trigger which initiates the automatic, open-bolt firing sequence. A belt of three rounds was loaded into the sample; the operating handle was pulled back and released. The sample fired one round, and the plastic ties separated under the recoil forces. Next, to more securely hold the aluminum plate in place, a small section of metal chain was used (see photo, next page). The chain was selected since it incorporated a tensioning bolt that could securely hold the aluminum plate in place and would not be cut by the sharp edges of the aluminum plate.

Again, a belt of three rounds of ammunition was loaded into the sample; the operating handle was pulled back and released. The sample fired all three rounds automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This test was repeated with an additional three rounds of ammunition, with the same result. The use of a modified bolt did not remove the machinegun features of this bolt. It is still an open-bolt operated device. In review of your modifications of the PKM-type machinegun receiver, it was determined that the original machinegun design features/characteristics were retained. Specifically, a PKM-type machinegun receiver; an open-bolt firing mechanism; an original PKM-type machinegun belt feed ammunition mechanism; and a shortened PKM-type machinegun barrel. It was determined that a MAC-type upper assembly was welded to the PKM-tj^se machinegun receiver, which allows the PKM-type machinegun receiver to be attached to a MAC-type machinegun receiver. These modifications do not allow for a shoulder stock. Instead, the intent is to use the shoulder stock and/or pistol grip on the MAC-type machinegun receiver to which it is mounted. Further, the mating of the two machinegun receivers, simply allows the MAC-type machinegun receiver to be utilized in initiafing the automatic firing sequence of the PKM-type machinegun receiver.

Mr. Len Savage

In conclusion, FTB foimd that the "Model 54RCCS, serial number VI" submitted with your correspondence is a weapon that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger; it also incorporates the frame or receiver of a machinegun. Therefore, the submitted sample constitutes a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). With regard to your request we determine if the submitted sample is a caliber conversion device or not. The welding of MAC-type upper section to the internal portion of your PKM-type receiver does not create a caUber conversion. Further, the combination of the MAC-type machinegun and your PKM-type machinegun would result in the creation of a new machinegun. We regret that our.response in this matter has not been_more favorable. Because your sample constitutes a "machinegun," in and of itself and you are a registered SOT, the machinegun must be properly registered with the ATF National Firearms Act Branch by close of business of the next business day following your receipt of this letter. Please notify FTB when the registration process is complete. The sample will be returned to you under separate cover upon receipt of a notice of proper regisfration. To expedite the return of your prototype, please provide FTB with yoiu: FedEx account number or other appropriate carrier information within 30 days after receiving this letter. We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your request for an evaluation and classification. If we can be of any fiirther assistance, please contact us. Sincerely yours,

^ .

John R. Spencer Chief, "Firearms Technology Branch

LEN SAVAGE, PRESIDENT

tlistori

706-675-0287 Home 706-675-0818 Shop

April 21,2008 Mr. John R. Spencer Chief, Firearms Technology Branch 244 Needy Rd. Martinsburg, WV 25405 Dear Mr. Spencer, I have shipped to you a prototype firearm [Model:54RCCS S/N VI]. Enclosed you will find the submitted form 2. Please verify the following with respect to the submitted prototype: " Designed to befiredfiromthe shoulder. ° Has a barrel length of less than 16 inches. ° Designed for exclusive use in MAC type machineguns as a caliber conversion system. I have an information package available containing analysis and documentation if you require it. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully,

CALICO

54RCCS IT