Freedom Ordnance FM-9 belt fed on a mac discussion thread

[sardo_67]

The upper has to be built from scratch. Original

Why's that?

 

[West_Texas_King]

Why's that?

The upper on a SAW is the receiver, so you can't use it as a non-firearm upper. It's kinda like a FAL or HK, you can modify it to use an AR lower but that still doesn't make it any less of a receiver in itself. At that point it would be two guns in one....and even if you use a semi auto SAW the ATF would view it as making a semi auto receiver into a contraband full auto. That's one of the primary reasons we don't have SAW and RPD uppers, as the ATF had determined they were firearms instead of simply uppers. Also reference the XMG uppers for AR's, the ATF determined they were in fact receivers. They're still legal to use, but only on semi-auto receivers...M16 receivers constitute a full auto conversion. On a semi-auto lower, you're not making the upper (which is a firearm by itself) a full auto; it's legal to put two semi-auto firearms together. Put a semi-auto firearm on a full auto lower, and you've made a full auto firearm out of the XMG, thus constituting an illegal full auto conversion.

To make a long explanation brief, one would need to make a receiver from scratch that is not only incapable of being a firearm by itself, it also cannot be compatible with a SAW fire control group. It can't work in any configuration as a firearm, only as an upper for a registered MG.

One of the issues they ran into was that the SAW was so drastically different from the M10 that they called shenanigans on it being too far removed from the original MG, likely because they simply wanted to railroad the designer. The way I figure it could be done is to remove the belt feed mechanism (but leave the receiver intact so it can still have those parts installed) and run solely on the mags. In this configuration, it's no different than the Sabre which has already been approved. Give it the recoil rod that extends into the stock and makes it an integral part of the lower. Once it's sold, well, the owner can put in all the belt feed mechanisms he wants as an upgrade, but it can still feed out of mags in just the same way that the Sabre can.

 

[A&S Conversions]

The upper on a SAW is the receiver, so you can't use it as a non-firearm upper. It's kinda like a FAL or HK, you can modify it to use an AR lower but that still doesn't make it any less of a receiver in itself. At that point it would be two guns in one....and even if you use a semi auto SAW the ATF would view it as making a semi auto receiver into a contraband full auto. That's one of the primary reasons we don't have SAW and RPD uppers, as the ATF had determined they were firearms instead of simply uppers. Also reference the XMG uppers for AR's, the ATF determined they were in fact receivers. They're still legal to use, but only on semi-auto receivers...M16 receivers constitute a full auto conversion. On a semi-auto lower, you're not making the upper (which is a firearm by itself) a full auto; it's legal to put two semi-auto firearms together. Put a semi-auto firearm on a full auto lower, and you've made a full auto firearm out of the XMG, thus constituting an illegal full auto conversion.

To make a long explanation brief, one would need to make a receiver from scratch that is not only incapable of being a firearm by itself, it also cannot be compatible with a SAW fire control group. It can't work in any configuration as a firearm, only as an upper for a registered MG.

One of the issues they ran into was that the SAW was so drastically different from the M10 that they called shenanigans on it being too far removed from the original MG, likely because they simply wanted to railroad the designer. The way I figure it could be done is to remove the belt feed mechanism (but leave the receiver intact so it can still have those parts installed) and run solely on the mags. In this configuration, it's no different than the Sabre which has already been approved. Give it the recoil rod that extends into the stock and makes it an integral part of the lower. Once it's sold, well, the owner can put in all the belt feed mechanisms he wants as an upgrade, but it can still feed out of mags in just the same way that the Sabre can.

You make some interesting points but as far as the XMG, I believe you are incorrect. The XMG "upper" was originally sold as a Title I firearm (and still is). There is a serial # manufacturer's name, city, state, and model. But most importantly a XMG "upper" must be transferred via 4473 like any other Title I firearm. For a XMG to function as a machinegun there would need to be an AR-15 type semi auto lower (also a title I firearm) and a AR-15 type of registered machinegun conversion device such as a Lightning Link or Drop In Auto Sear or a M16 registered receiver (a Title II firearm). A Machinegun may only be one firearm per registration. So a XMG "upper" (Title I firearm) + an AR-15 type lower receiver (Title I firearm) + an AR-15 machinegun conversion device or a XMG "upper" (Title I firearm) and a M16 RR (Title II firearm) = one too many firearms firing automatically per one registration.

It is my understanding that Freedom Ordinance has no intention to make a 9mm belt fed upper because they don't feel that there would be the return they would need on their investment. Certainly a rifle caliber beltfed upper based on the M249 SAW would bring other buyers from outside the "MAC" community. It would seem to me that "you need to walk before you can run" would apply here. A viable rifle caliber upper would need to be well established before a belt fed. Take a Slidefire BFR-556A http://www.slidefire.com/products/rifles/bfr-556a bring it to a smith with a M16 RR or conversion device and you could have a 5.56X45 belt fed machinegun. How many M16 RR or LL/DIAS owners are doing that right now? Not many.

If you feel that there is a huge demand for this product, make the product, fill that void, and make that big profit. It is my understanding that there is a HUGE difference between making a one off and actually producing any item even with limited production, let alone a complicated mechanical item like a belt feed unit. There are a number of talented individuals that might be able to make a prototype. But coming up with production tolerances, programing to make the pieces consistent, producing and packaging the finished product, marketing, customer services, websites, service after the sale, while actually making a profit to live on is not even the same galaxy, let alone ball park as making a one off that might or might not hold up to long term use, IMHO. If it was that easy, there would already be several on the market. At most of the full auto shoots I have been at, beltfed guns have been a very tiny percentage of the machineguns there. And I'm lucky enough to own a 5.56X45 beltfed with multiple configurations and I rarely shoot them. Mostly because of logistics and some from the expense. YMMV.

Scott

ETA

The upper has to be built from scratch. Original

Why's that?

Once a machinegun, always a machinegun. A machinegun must be destroyed as per NFA Branch guide lines https://www.atf.gov/firearms/machinegun-destruction to not be considered a firearm. I believe that is why you don't see full auto machinegun receivers modified and sold as Title I firearms. So it is my limited understanding, to use a destroyed machinegun receiver as an "upper" i.e. an unregulated part, the parts of that receiver must be modified so it would not be considered a firearm (let alone a machinegun) before welding it back together. If not, welding it back together would make a machinegun or possibly even a Title I firearm. It is my understanding that modifying the receiver after completion would still be a firearm even after being modified to an "upper" configuration. If the upper receiver was considered by the Tech Branch as a firearm, like the XMG that resulting firearm can't be used with a machinegun as an "upper".

So most seem to agree that using virgin materials to make the "upper" will be less likely to be considered a firearm than a modified rewelded firearm receiver. Ultimately, if someone is looking to have a design ruled by the Tech Branch as not being a firearm in and of itself, then using materials that had never been a firearm would seem a safer bet. How much of Len's design was "bad blood" and how much was you welded together a machinegun receiver then modified it, I don't know. My prototype will be made with materials that were never considered a firearm at any point.

 

[rybread]

On a semi-auto lower, you're not making the upper (which is a firearm by itself) a full auto; it's legal to put two semi-auto firearms together. Put a semi-auto firearm on a full auto lower, and you've made a full auto firearm out of the XMG, thus constituting an illegal full auto conversion.

Clearest explanation of this I have seen.

The way I figure it could be done is to remove the belt feed mechanism (but leave the receiver intact so it can still have those parts installed) and run solely on the mags.

This is what I did with my upper- MG-34 converted to mag fed 9mm.

 

[Zammer217]

Anyone heard anymore on the 5.56 AR upper? Heard a rumor of one being developed but nothing of late.

 

[sardo_67]

Oh no I get you can't take a receiver and cut part off. I thought you meant you'd need a new design.


Basically if you took the sheet metal channel off the Saw and replaced it with a Mac receiver that had the stock and rear buffer/recoil rod attached it wouldn't work on its own.

The ATF has a list of things that make up a receiver so in a Saw it may not be possible because of the trunion and rails.

 

[West_Texas_King]

You make some interesting points but as far as the XMG, I believe you are incorrect. The XMG "upper" was originally sold as a Title I firearm (and still is). There is a serial # manufacturer's name, city, state, and model. But most importantly a XMG "upper" must be transferred via 4473 like any other Title I firearm. For a XMG to function as a machinegun there would need to be an AR-15 type semi auto lower (also a title I firearm) and a AR-15 type of registered machinegun conversion device such as a Lightning Link or Drop In Auto Sear or a M16 registered receiver (a Title II firearm). A Machinegun may only be one firearm per registration. So a XMG "upper" (Title I firearm) + an AR-15 type lower receiver (Title I firearm) + an AR-15 machinegun conversion device or a XMG "upper" (Title I firearm) and a M16 RR (Title II firearm) = one too many firearms firing automatically per one registration.

That's all well and good, except that the XMG is a viable example.
The XMG upper is registered as a Title 1 and is illegal to use on a MG.
The SAW upper wasn't registered as a Title 1 and is considered a contraband MG.
Only difference between the XMG and the SAW example of the past is that the XMG upper was registered. ATF simply considered the SAW upper a firearm in itself, regardless of whether the manufacturer considered it a firearm. So you're still using a registered MG (the M10) to convert another firearm (SAW upper) into full auto, and to be even more specific, the ATF actually considered the SAW upper itself to be a MG.

It is my understanding that Freedom Ordinance has no intention to make a 9mm belt fed upper because they don't feel that there would be the return they would need on their investment. Certainly a rifle caliber beltfed upper based on the M249 SAW would bring other buyers from outside the "MAC" community. It would seem to me that "you need to walk before you can run" would apply here. A viable rifle caliber upper would need to be well established before a belt fed. Take a Slidefire BFR-556A http://www.slidefire.com/products/rifles/bfr-556a bring it to a smith with a M16 RR or conversion device and you could have a 5.56X45 belt fed machinegun. How many M16 RR or LL/DIAS owners are doing that right now? Not many.

That much was decided long ago, but that also doesn't mean Freedom Ordnance decides what the market responds to. The difference between the beltfed uppers for M16's and a SAW upper for a mac is too much to reconcile in this regard, but I'll try to touch on the important parts.

First, the beltfed M16 uppers aren't supported as well as they need to be; it's not a case of people not buying them because they don't want them but rather people not buying them because they're inferior.
Second, Freedom Ordnance has already stated they're considering a beltfed upper for M16's...if people aren't buying them then why are they considering them?
Third, there is no SAW upper for an M16....if there was then things would be different.
Fourth, there is no SAW substitute, and seeing as how rare and expensive and desirable a transferable example is, you can see where there is a demand to be filled.
Lastly, the Sabre never took off because of the fact that it was a relatively poor design and the company itself didn't really support it.

A SAW upper as I described would be a rifle caliber upper without the belt feeding mechanism, so essentially the same as a Sabre. The SAW itself has been proven already...so an upper utilizing the same parts would be equally proven and spares are available even if the company goes tits up. One only needs to install existing parts to make it beltfed and replace existing parts if they wear out.

If you feel that there is a huge demand for this product, make the product, fill that void, and make that big profit. It is my understanding that there is a HUGE difference between making a one off and actually producing any item even with limited production, let alone a complicated mechanical item like a belt feed unit. There are a number of talented individuals that might be able to make a prototype. But coming up with production tolerances, programing to make the pieces consistent, producing and packaging the finished product, marketing, customer services, websites, service after the sale, while actually making a profit to live on is not even the same galaxy, let alone ball park as making a one off that might or might not hold up to long term use, IMHO. If it was that easy, there would already be several on the market. At most of the full auto shoots I have been at, beltfed guns have been a very tiny percentage of the machineguns there. And I'm lucky enough to own a 5.56X45 beltfed with multiple configurations and I rarely shoot them. Mostly because of logistics and some from the expense.

I'm in no position to start a company up solely to design and build SAW uppers, it's just a matter of debate.
I believe it's a feasible concept as I can see how it could be built, approved, and marketed.
The primary reason I see why nobody is making such a thing currently is because they see mac owners as cheap.
They don't consider the guys who would happily drop $30K on a combination of MG and upper to get something virtually unobtainable.
They don't consider the guys who have a mac and a lot of other more expensive MG's.
They don't consider someone in the market for a beltfed LMG and only see M60's and HK21's instead of a SAW.
Then of course you have the logistics of getting it approved....lots of negative in that regard and most see it as an impossibility due to the previous SAW upper's legality.
Finally, how many companies are going to spend that kind of money to begin with?
From a business perspective, there's a lot of under-researched points to consider, so they do what anyone else would do in the circumstances....write the idea off due to a lack of understanding or premature conclusions of the matter.

Once a machinegun, always a machinegun. A machinegun must be destroyed as per NFA Branch guide lines https://www.atf.gov/firearms/machinegun-destruction to not be considered a firearm. I believe that is why you don't see full auto machinegun receivers modified and sold as Title I firearms. So it is my limited understanding, to use a destroyed machinegun receiver as an "upper" i.e. an unregulated part, the parts of that receiver must be modified so it would not be considered a firearm (let alone a machinegun) before welding it back together. If not, welding it back together would make a machinegun or possibly even a Title I firearm. It is my understanding that modifying the receiver after completion would still be a firearm even after being modified to an "upper" configuration. If the upper receiver was considered by the Tech Branch as a firearm, like the XMG that resulting firearm can't be used with a machinegun as an "upper".

So most seem to agree that using virgin materials to make the "upper" will be less likely to be considered a firearm than a modified rewelded firearm receiver. Ultimately, if someone is looking to have a design ruled by the Tech Branch as not being a firearm in and of itself, then using materials that had never been a firearm would seem a safer bet. How much of Len's design was "bad blood" and how much was you welded together a machinegun receiver then modified it, I don't know. My prototype will be made with materials that were never considered a firearm at any point.

Your information is correct, you'll never see a MG receiver reclassified as a Title 1.
You can put all the denial blocks and modifications you want, but you'll just have a MG that's stuck being semi-auto.

A destroyed receiver is considered "virgin" materials, so you can use those pieces the same way that you could use an unformed sheet of steel. The ATF contended that his upper was made as a receiver regardless of whether it was a MG or not, or whether it used to be a MG or not. So by "virgin" it would mean a non-firearm upper that diverges from the SAW enough that it could never be used as a receiver by itself at any point in its construction. He effected certain modifications to a handmade SAW receiver that converted it to only work with an M10, but the underlying SAW receiver was still there. That's why one would need to maintain parts commonality with a SAW but at the same time never be capable of firing a shot without the lower (this is where the Sabre-style recoil rod comes in). Ultimately, the denial was a result of bad blood, as the upper had been modified several times in response to ATF's conclusions, boiling down to "It's just too different from the original machine gun, denied".

 

[FreedomJosh]

Anyone heard anymore on the 5.56 AR upper? Heard a rumor of one being developed but nothing of late.

We have other projects that are getting the focus and machine time right now. It's not a rumor we will make one it's just not happening in the time frame I had hoped.

 

[skoda]

We have other projects that are getting the focus and machine time right now. It's not a rumor we will make one it's just not happening in the time frame I had hoped.

Good to hear that. Wait-wait-wait.

 

[Gaujo]

Why's that?

There is a provision that you cannot use another existant machine gun. I think feed mechanism and links of another gun would be one thing but the main body of another gun is certainly not going to work. This is been proved by numerous other uppers including the RPD prototype.

EDIT: See Brother_Evil's reply for much more detail on the "one a machine gun, always a machine gun" rules.