UZI Talk Forums
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44

Thread: Belt fed Macs in our future 2021?

  1. #21
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Roaster72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant435 View Post
    I always wanted a belt fed until I realized Iíd have to hand link the ammo one by one. I think Iíll stick with multiple drums if I want to dump tons of rounds.
    This guy gets it.

    Years ago I bought one of the first Razorback beltfed 22 uppers for the ar15/M16. I did a writeup on here. Pretty much since that review, the thing has been sitting in the back of my safe and will soon be sold. It just isn't fun loading belts even with a loading setup.

    With the Ingram family, 71 round drums are the new norm. 50 round Zmags are around $50 and work great. A beltfed brings nothing to the table. Sure it would be "neat" but I would figure most users would tire of it shortly. Remember also that links and belts have a lifespan much shorter than magazines.
    My gun collection is one murderous rampage away from becoming an arsenal

  2. #22
    UZI Talk Life Member
    strobro32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,097
    Not only that but the 70 round drums are the easiest magazine I've ever had to load. Awesome design.

  3. #23
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,057
    To each his own. I can see why a belt fed .22lr is would not have a lot of appeal. I have heard nothing but how finicky a belt fed .22lr is. I don't bring my belt fed out very often, but boy is it fun. Twice the trigger time as a Beta C with a 200 round belt. As far as loading the belt, I do it while watching TV. That's where I usually load up mags, drums, and belts. YMMV.

    Scott

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    69
    Not interested in beltfed 22 mostly just due to all the potential issues there would be but ya know there's belt feeding devices for pretty much all calibers and belts.

    I've been debating on making a belt fed mg42 aka Mac-42 upper. Would retain pretty much all original mg42/m53 parts except obvious modifications to fire only with the Mac lower. I think conceptionally it's got good promise as a upper but most likely I'll just rebuild it as a m53/mg3.
    If anyone wants to send me a kit I'd love to give it a try. Mg42 stock would attach to your Mac lower, lower would slide into the rear of the upper, would use the original mg42 bolt.

  5. #25
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,057
    And there is the rub, the parts set. I am not aware of any source for parts sets. To make new parts would be very cost prohibitive. There has already been an "upper" for the AR-15/M16 series of firearms based on the MG34. Problem is that the FATD considered it a Title I firearm. So that would be one too many firearms firing automatically. Good luck with your project.

    Scott

    BTW the upper was called the XMG.
    Last edited by A&S Conversions; 10-05-2020 at 07:35 PM.

  6. #26
    UZI Talk Life Member
    rybread's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    U.S. F'N A
    Posts
    2,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Hood886 View Post
    Not interested in beltfed 22 mostly just due to all the potential issues there would be but ya know there's belt feeding devices for pretty much all calibers and belts.

    I've been debating on making a belt fed mg42 aka Mac-42 upper. Would retain pretty much all original mg42/m53 parts except obvious modifications to fire only with the Mac lower. I think conceptionally it's got good promise as a upper but most likely I'll just rebuild it as a m53/mg3.
    If anyone wants to send me a kit I'd love to give it a try. Mg42 stock would attach to your Mac lower, lower would slide into the rear of the upper, would use the original mg42 bolt.
    You could use the internals; bolt/ feed mechanism/ cover etc. but you’d need to build an all new “upper housing” to host them- can’t use the old receiver.
    Live BRAVE, Live FREE!

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by A&S Conversions View Post
    And there is the rub, the parts set. I am not aware of any source for parts sets. To make new parts would be very cost prohibitive. There has already been an "upper" for the AR-15/M16 series of firearms based on the MG34. Problem is that the FATD considered it a Title I firearm. So that would be one too many firearms firing automatically. Good luck with your project.

    Scott

    BTW the upper was called the XMG.
    Yeah they show up from time to time but I think they have truly dried up this time. Reason the xmg is title 1 is because brp wanted it to be. They could have come back and adjust the design if they were unhappy with the determination.

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by rybread View Post
    You could use the internals; bolt/ feed mechanism/ cover etc. but you’d need to build an all new “upper housing” to host them- can’t use the old receiver.
    No I could reuse everything, would weld a small chunck of square tube in the rear to hook the back of the Mac into. The entire uppers back half would basically have a bottom gap cut into it for the Mac to slide into the upper. Gun would be unuseable without the back lower and the lower would act more than just a fire control group. So technically the cut up chunks are no longer a receiver and the new receiver wouldn't be a mg42 receiver nor would it fire with anything but a mac installed.

  9. #29
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Gaujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Hood886 View Post
    No I could reuse everything, would weld a small chunck of square tube in the rear to hook the back of the Mac into. The entire uppers back half would basically have a bottom gap cut into it for the Mac to slide into the upper. Gun would be unuseable without the back lower and the lower would act more than just a fire control group. So technically the cut up chunks are no longer a receiver and the new receiver wouldn't be a mg42 receiver nor would it fire with anything but a mac installed.
    Ernie Wrenn found different, and I would do some research in his efforts before spending time on it, but you do you.
    https://www.royaltigerimports.com/pr...mg43001-pk.htm

  10. #30
    UZI Talk Life Member
    rybread's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    U.S. F'N A
    Posts
    2,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Hood886 View Post
    No I could reuse everything, would weld a small chunck of square tube in the rear to hook the back of the Mac into. The entire uppers back half would basically have a bottom gap cut into it for the Mac to slide into the upper. Gun would be unuseable without the back lower and the lower would act more than just a fire control group. So technically the cut up chunks are no longer a receiver and the new receiver wouldn't be a mg42 receiver nor would it fire with anything but a mac installed.
    Technically, and actually... the ATF would disagree. Iím not trying to discourage you- far from it- just encouraging you to do it right. If you use any part of the original receiver they would see that as a reactivation / two machine guns. This is why I destroyed a perfectly fine shotgun and built a new housing to host the shotgun components for my 12 ga upper.
    Live BRAVE, Live FREE!

  11. #31
    Registered User DistalRadius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,220
    Well this is gonna generate debate, but considering that he is starting with a parts kit where the receiver is already demilled I think he should be fine to use those metal chunks (cuz that's all they are) to make a new unserialized upper receiver (as long it isn't an MG42 receiver and cannot host a S/A M11).

    Begin contentious in-fighting!

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    69
    Distal gets it, I'm not starting from any receiver just chunks of steel. If your gonna tell me a demilled receiver is to close to a mg then all parts kit builds are MGs. Obviously this would not be for resale due to the lack of available kits.

  13. #33
    UZI Talk Life Member
    rybread's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    U.S. F'N A
    Posts
    2,827
    Quote Originally Posted by DistalRadius View Post
    Begin contentious in-fighting!
    Lmao perfect. I’d say go for it, especially if it’s just for your use- but to your point if parts kits were plentiful and you intended to pursue a determination it would be a non starter. I’m eager to see what you do & hope its successful!
    Live BRAVE, Live FREE!

  14. #34
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Gaujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Hood886 View Post
    Distal gets it, I'm not starting from any receiver just chunks of steel. If your gonna tell me a demilled receiver is to close to a mg then all parts kit builds are MGs. Obviously this would not be for resale due to the lack of available kits.
    I'm going to tell you that. An AK-47 built from a full auto parts kit has an all new semi-automatic only receiver. There is a concept of "once a machinegun reciever always a machinegun reciever", even from a parts kit. Earnie went down for some Maxim guns he built because he converted original receivers to semi if I undrestood them correctly. I dig in on this here, and read the rest after that post. If you haven't read this lawsuit it's a good idea.

    If you still don't want to do some reading, understand the takeaway at least: The existing rulings indicate that if you want to re use parts from another machinegun system you have to use an all new receiver, for sure. As to whether or not you can use use the parts from a parts kit on an all new reciever is unproven.
    Last edited by Gaujo; 10-06-2020 at 03:48 PM.

  15. #35
    UZI Talk Life Member
    rybread's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    U.S. F'N A
    Posts
    2,827
    Gaugo gets it! I’ve spent 3+ years examining this very question for my own upper. I assure you if it did not make sense to cut a perfectly good shotgun to bits (a pricey one) and build a new non-receiver housing, I would have chosen not to.
    Live BRAVE, Live FREE!

  16. #36
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,057
    In my research I believe that "rybread" is correct. The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division of the BATF&E would not be agreeable with parts of a demilitarized machinegun receiver being used as part of an "upper" for another machinegun. The Government gives specific details of how a machinegun receiver is to be demilitarized so that it can be possessed by a private individual. If one or two of the sections are welded/reattached, then it is as if those parts were never cut. If all of the cuts are not there, then the FATD doesn't view the demilitarization of the receiver as being complete. Therefore, the FATD would consider that machinegun as still live whether the receiver can fire a round or not. I would make sure that any part of the receiver is used, then that part is demilitarized as the current MG42 specs.

    If you want to weld a MG42 peices back together, I would not post about it any more. You're an adult and responsible for your actions. Whether you build one for yourself or you wish to go into commercial production, makes no difference as to how law enforcement would view such an item, that I am aware of. The likelihood that the BATF&E would become aware of it is much more likely if such an item was for sale. But there is no "pass" because it is a one off for personal use. If that was true you could just build yourself a MG42 from the parts set, just modify it a little from factory configuration and attached your Mac style RR.

    Are you likely to go to prison for 10 years if you build a MG42 "upper" from a partially rewelded MG42 get yourself? Probably not, but what if this "upper" comes to the attention of the FATD? I would think that you would probably be able to buy two transferable MG42s for what it would cost to defend yourself in Federal court. Do whatever you want to. It is my understanding that welding any parts of the demilitarized receiver back together is considered reactivating the original machinegun receiver. If that is what you want to do, I suggest you do so in secret. Good luck with your upper project.

    Scott

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    69
    That's all nice and everything Scott and I appreciate your concern but you know there's plenty of submissions for rewelded semi auto conversions of mg42s. The atf has already ruled rewelding a mg42 with a few modifications and a blocking bar to be completely legal. So wouldn't be much different then that. Wouldn't be able to fire without the lower, couldn't fire with a semi lower, couldn't fire with a mg42 trigger pack.

    With all that said I'm a 07 FFL so I'm not to worried about it and more than likely will just form 2 and build it as a standard m53 in 308. Much less work for the same outcome. But I think the idea is feasible and not unlawful. With that being said the atf is on a role of redetermining things they have already determined okay so I don't think anyone dealing in nfa accessories is safe from a redetermination. But I'm sure we don't need to go down that rabbit hole.

  18. #38
    Registered User DistalRadius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,220
    Quote Originally Posted by A&S Conversions View Post
    In my research I believe that "rybread" is correct. The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division of the BATF&E would not be agreeable with parts of a demilitarized machinegun receiver being used as part of an "upper" for another machinegun. The Government gives specific details of how a machinegun receiver is to be demilitarized so that it can be possessed by a private individual. If one or two of the sections are welded/reattached, then it is as if those parts were never cut. If all of the cuts are not there, then the FATD doesn't view the demilitarization of the receiver as being complete. Therefore, the FATD would consider that machinegun as still live whether the receiver can fire a round or not. I would make sure that any part of the receiver is used, then that part is demilitarized as the current MG42 specs.
    Scott
    I see where you're coming from here but I gotta disagree. IMO, Those inanimate chunks o' metal are not "parts of a demilitarized machinegun receiver", they're just chunks of metal, legally no different than a billet of steel or a bucket of ore. If you don't build them into a machinegun, it is not "still a machinegun" because that machinegun was destroyed when it was demilled, by ATFs own definition. The use of hardened "denial pins" or dimensional changes to prevent use of unmodified MG parts is commonly accepted, I don't see why that couldn't be employed here.

  19. #39
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,057
    Quote Originally Posted by DistalRadius View Post
    I see where you're coming from here but I gotta disagree. IMO, Those inanimate chunks o' metal are not "parts of a demilitarized machinegun receiver", they're just chunks of metal, legally no different than a billet of steel or a bucket of ore. If you don't build them into a machinegun, it is not "still a machinegun" because that machinegun was destroyed when it was demilled, by ATFs own definition. The use of hardened "denial pins" or dimensional changes to prevent use of unmodified MG parts is commonly accepted, I don't see why that couldn't be employed here.
    And that is the $64,000 question. Could it be done? To be honest, since I don't work for the FATD, my opinion is no better than anyone else's opinion. I choose to look at it as a worse case scenario, because getting that wrong has huge consequences. If you can make a Post Sample machinegun that sounds like the easiest way to go. As we all know logic and FATD determinations are not necessarily the same thing. I would think if the receiver parts could be modified before the parts were welded together, that would satisfy the FATD. But welding the receiver parts and then modifying the receiver just would not fly. If the parts of the receiver are welded together, that would be a machinegun receiver again. I am not knowledgeable about the finer points of a MG42 receivers. I just don't see where the FATD would be down with welding a demilitarized machinegun receiver back together and then modifying it. Once a machinegun, always a machinegun until the receiver is properly demilitarized. Anything beyond that will be how the FATD examiner happens to feel or what his supervisor has told him recently. Welding the parts of the receiver might be how someone else would do it. That is way too risky to me. VMMV.

    Scott
    Last edited by A&S Conversions; 10-06-2020 at 09:35 PM.

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by SecondAmend View Post
    Thanks for clarifying. Years ago a guy wanted to sell me a Sten and indicated that it was "SAFE" and "AUTO" only, and when I test fired it that was all there was. The gun may have been worn or broken. I didn't buy it. That's my Sten experience.
    That was done purposely because of stupid places like Conneckistan where select fire with semi was deemed an evil AW but disabling the semi feature and making it only FA deemed it just a MG from their twisted bad water New Haven thought process.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter.