My optimism has held me from writing this for quite some time. I need to come clean with where we are with the approval process. We have received a determination from the FATD that the Aluminum version of the Tenko is not only a firearm, but is a machinegun. We originally hired a lawyer whose specialty is specifically dealing with the NFA Branch to get the aluminum evacuation. I also wrote to my Senator's Office concerning getting the determination. There is no way to get the current design approved.
The lawyer has tried to get them to explain why in 3D printed form the adapter was not a firearm nor did it break any other laws yet made from aluminum the adapter is a machinegun. After months, their response is that they were afraid to shoot the the 3D printed version. Of course in the first determination there was no mention of this. If the issue had been one of structural integrity, the engineer I had hired could have given them any structural information that they would need.
I personally feel that this is a bold face lie. I checked the timing before I shipped the 3D printed adapter to the FATD, but I never fired it. I didn't think that I needed to. The ammunition is held and fired by an off the shelf AR upper receiver, of which we had no involvement in designing or building. I know that the FATD did fire the 3D printed version because it came back with powder residue on it. Since I was expecting them to fire it I didn't document the gunpowder residue. In the first determination there were also pictures of the 3D printed version which they used a Powder Springs M10 and a 16"M4 style upper to test fire the adapter. There are two photos (a close up of the M10 lower, adapter and upper and the same only further back so you can see the whole thing including barrel and stock. The caption mentioned the adapter just before being fired. There is no way that they took the time to put it all together with the stuff from their reference collection and then never shot it but put powder residue on the adapter.
We have exhausted about all the avenues that we can think of. They are clinging to their story that they didn't shoot the first one. They felt that they were safe to actually fire the aluminum version. Since they fired the aluminum version they also tried to fire the adapter without the M10 lower. To do so they used a vice mounted to a table, a C-clamp and angle iron to hold the buffer and spring into the adapter some zip ties. Basically they made an M10/45 receiver. They got it to fire seven rounds. Of course if they had used a vice mounted to a table, a C-clamp and angle iron to hold the buffer and spring into the adapter some zip ties on the first one, that would have fired.
I have no proof that they didn't fire the first one. Even if I did, suing them would be a huge gamble, take two years and somewhere around $100,000.00. We could still lose. That is way too big a risk.
We are going to redesign the internal mechanism and resubmit. Of course inthe current political climate, I don't know if anything that we could do to make it harder to shoot without the M10 lower could not be defeated somehow.
I tried to work this out with the BATF&E without going public. Whether that helped or hurt, I will never know. Maybe sitting and waiting for the determination might have caused a different outcome. I can't see how clamping an angle iron to the back of the upper isn't making a reciever. If an angle iron is clamped onto the factory upper, how is that not making a firearm? I just don't have the resources to fight a Government Agency. I still have hope to someday get the adapter approved so there are some questions I will not answer in this public forum. Thank you to those that are interested in our product. I hope someday to get it to you.
Scott
Manager A&S Conversions L.L.C.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Doobis
