UZI Talk Forums
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 6 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 103

Thread: It Is Past Time For An Update On The Tenko

  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    84
    Meanwhile, my company FEG Defense in Budapest Hungary is on month 9 of getting the AMD65 pistol approved for import. They did the Dragunov clone and that was approved fast but we used a former ATF lawyer and that helped.

    But they failed us on the other AK pistol when the branch said they found wooden fibers in the rear of the AK trunion area. When we got it back, they band sawed cut the entire rear section of the AK receiver when they had just opened the top cover and look inside and see that their wasn't any fibers in it.

    Clowns....

    all of them.

  2. #22
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Gaujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,009
    They really seem to hate adaptations. We have seen less scrutiny of some dedicated rifle uppers we all know, but remember that the first SABRE submission was rejected on similar grounds before they added the external buffer tube.
    Last edited by Gaujo; 01-25-2021 at 12:51 PM.

  3. #23
    UZI Talk Supporter

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    164
    Hey Scott, just to echo the sentiment of everyone else here, that's total BS. Technically with a bit of ingenuity, anything can be made FA...but that they had to use everything and the kitchen sink to cobble together something that works...is ridiculous. I'm really sorry that all that work, time and money has not produced a better outcome. Best wishes on the possibility of it getting approved in the future. Whatever the outcome, I wish you good luck!

  4. #24
    Registered User Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by A&S Conversions View Post

    ...My opinion is that they would rather be considered incompetent than vindictive.

    Scott
    I mean they are allowed to be both. 😂

  5. #25
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Louisana
    Posts
    1,714
    And who really is going to carry around a C clamp, angle iron, zip ties, vice and try to shoot this thing. Really?!

  6. #26
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaujo View Post
    They really seem to hate adaptations. We have seen less scrutiny of some dedicated rifle uppers we all know, but remember that the first SABRE submission was rejected on similar grounds before they added the external buffer tube.
    It is my understanding that the original S.A.B.R.E. submission had a captured recoil spring. So with that submission the lower was just used as fire control. The lower receiver did not hold one end of the recoil spring. The second S.A.B.R.E. submission used a TASK style buffer/recoil spring system.

    Like the factory upper, our recoil system is held on one end by the inside of the back plate of the lower receiver. To me the M10 lower receiver does three things:

    1)Holds the upper.

    2)Holds the fire control.

    3)Holds the back end of the recoil spring

    What th Tech Branch did was use a vice to hold the upper. Use zip ties to hold in the fire control. And they used a peice of angle iron to simulate the back plate of the lower receiver held onto the Tenko adapter with a C-clamp to hold the back end of the recoil spring. Think of the pictures of the RPD upper held by a pipe vice on a table with the recoil spring inside the stock held onto the back of the upper with zip ties.

    The M10 machinegun is a simple machine. That is why the M10 lower receiver can be replaced by a vice, zip ties, and an angle iron held on by a C-clamp.

    Scott

  7. #27
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Near Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,670
    This blows.

    The BATF and their capricious ways caused me a $7,000 loss. Long story and less than your loss but at the heart of it, the same sort of inexplicable undisciplined agency behavior.
    My name is actually Scott and I really do live in Texas.

    I know, not very creative but it is factual.

    By the way - Facebook is truly evil; resist the urge to participate.

  8. #28
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,160
    Quote Originally Posted by cajun 22 View Post
    And who really is going to carry around a C clamp, angle iron, zip ties, vice and try to shoot this thing. Really?!
    On an economic level, who in their right mind would spend $2,995.00 on the Tenko adapter only to use it in a vice mounted to a table? I get that a semi automatic open bolt M10 can easily be converted , but it would not be easy to convert one to be used with the Tenko adapter. There are several easily made conversions for various platforms that would be less than $100.00.

    Scott

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by A&S Conversions View Post
    On an economic level, who in their right mind would spend $2,995.00 on the Tenko adapter only to use it in a vice mounted to a table? I get that a semi automatic open bolt M10 can easily be converted , but it would not be easy to convert one to be used with the Tenko adapter. There are several easily made conversions for various platforms that would be less than $100.00.

    Scott
    I'm sure real world implications of positive or negative impacts to public safety were not on the FATD's checklist when 'evaluating' whether or not to grant permission for these non-shootable parts to be sold. They seem not to operate in good faith in cases like these. If any individual assembled a machinegun receiver in a vice, with metal angle, c-clamps & zip ties, they would throw the book at him for illegal possession of an unregistered MG. Clearly quite illogical of them to suggest that them doing the same means that your design is the machinegun because it could attach to their receiver. Sorry to hear about the determination & treatment you got, Scott. I think it goes without saying how excited many people were for the Tenko to come out.

    Glad to hear you might still explore similar designs in the future! God willing, we'll see a non-gun determination in the coming years and you can bring this product to market. If you ever do choose not to pursue this project, though, you could always have a last laugh by disseminating the 3d model to the various anonymous 3d gun printing folks for them to 'release'. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking and I'm mildly aware of your opinions on that from seeing other posts, but I bring it up only talking about a case where you would otherwise be trashing the project. That way it would also carry 0 liability for you (assuming you don't embed your personal information in the file of course).
    Last edited by Dropsith; 01-26-2021 at 11:25 AM.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    172
    Really sorry to read about this. It does seem like internal recoil mechanisms have a LOT more trouble getting through the ATF. Frankly, I'm not even sure why they're not ruling that standard M11/9 uppers are MGs based on the standard they're using (which seems to be fabricating an entirely new lower receiver to test!). I hope the next submission goes more smoothly.

  11. #31
    Registered User KickStand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    720
    Am I missing something here, they slammed fired the upper?

    Take an open bolt MAC upper (max 31?) with a mag well that’s forward of the receiver, you can simply load a mag, insert the mag, put the back of the upper against your chest, pull the bolt back via the charging handle and let it go, that will slam fire the upper until it’s out of ammo or until it jams or you can’t take it anymore. You don’t need a vise, c clamp and zip ties.
    God forbid any gun has a firing pin stuck in the forward position.



    How are any of these open bolt uppers with a forward mag well getting approved? I must be missing something and yes I know the ar upper used was close bolt but damn I guess super glue on a firing pin would not allow the atf to approve damn near anything.
    Last edited by KickStand; 01-26-2021 at 12:37 PM.

  12. #32
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,160
    Sorry but I can't really speak as to why other submissions were approved. We have a patented device inside the adapter that allows the closed bolt AR upper to fire. There was no slam fire. The Examiner activated the device without the M10 receiver installed.

    We are not giving up. We are addressing how they managed to make the Tenko fire and try and come up with countermeasures to make that more difficult.

    Scott

  13. #33
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Gaujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,009
    Glad to hear it!

  14. #34
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Roaster72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by A&S Conversions View Post

    What th Tech Branch did was use a vice to hold the upper. Use zip ties to hold in the fire control. And they used a peice of angle iron to simulate the back plate of the lower receiver held onto the Tenko adapter with a C-clamp to hold the back end of the recoil spring. Think of the pictures of the RPD upper held by a pipe vice on a table with the recoil spring inside the stock held onto the back of the upper with zip ties.


    Scott
    First of all, let me express my condolences. It is obvious to anyone on this board how much of your life, soul and bank account you poured into this endeavor.

    For those not knowledgeable about history, please read the below link. It contains the photo that Scott references.
    http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/savage2.htm

    Calling the tech branch capricious would be kind. For example, the Fleming uppers if evaluated today would certainly not pass examination standards. Of course we all shouldn't forget their approval and subsequent disapproval of the Akins Accelerator.

    Sadly our now former president has, I believe, emboldened the ATF when he issued an order that they make a finding that a floppy stock is a machine gun. Like the good lapdogs they are, they delivered that ruling that confounds all logic and the definition of a machine gun to get to the president's desired result.

    Scott, I wish you the best in your redesign. You're a smart fella and if it's possible, you're the guy to do it.
    My gun collection is one murderous rampage away from becoming an arsenal

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    37
    Perhaps your adapter could be altered to be a legal accessory for my semi-auto m11. My semi-auto m11 would love using AR uppers.

  16. #36
    Registered User Deerhurst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by A&S Conversions View Post
    Sorry but I can't really speak as to why other submissions were approved. We have a patented device inside the adapter that allows the closed bolt AR upper to fire. There was no slam fire. The Examiner activated the device without the M10 receiver installed.

    We are not giving up. We are addressing how they managed to make the Tenko fire and try and come up with countermeasures to make that more difficult.

    Scott
    Hell yeah! That's the American way!

    Glad to hear you are continuing on this challenge.

  17. #37
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,160
    Quote Originally Posted by donkeyslayer View Post
    Perhaps your adapter could be altered to be a legal accessory for my semi-auto m11. My semi-auto m11 would love using AR uppers.
    We have a tentative design for the M11/NINE RR. We first must get the M10 approved. Once the M10 is selling, we should have a path for the M11/NINE. We have no plans to pursue the semi auto market. We could probably adapt to the semi auto, but we are just way too expensive to do anything in that market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deerhurst View Post
    Hell yeah! That's the American way!

    Glad to hear you are continuing on this challenge.
    We don't have a choice. We have too much in it to give up.

    Scott

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    74
    I hate to hear what you are going through. I hope it all gets worked out and that we get to enjoy the tenko 16 ourselves!

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    16
    I'm really sorry to hear this. Perhaps you guys should reach out to that former ATF lawyer mentioned by prdubi above. It's gross you have to grease the wheels with former employees, but it's better that than to lose your shirt.

  20. #40
    UZI Talk Life Member
    strobro32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,224
    I'm not that smart so please educate me.

    The BATFE takes your upper and adds their parts to create a machine gun? Then they blame you? They just did what they throw people in jail for.

+ 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.