How is this Mini Conversion legal....

Jack007

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 24 / 0 / 0
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
1,055
Location
Midwest
I can see the bolt being legal, although I don't remember Group making that many Mini bolts before May 19th. What I don't understand is how the bolt fits without the trunnion being relieved? These feet are definitely not shaved to "pass". If B & G had access to Group bolts why on earth would they go to so much trouble to cut down the registered Full size ones? I was always led to believe that the cut down bolts came well after the ban. I'm thinking the law has been "stretched" somewhere along the way here....
 

cvasqu03

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 26 / 0 / 0
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
2,073
Location
Miami, Florida
I didn't see any pictures that showed the trunion so how are you certain it wasn't relieved? A relieved trunion is my only guess as to how this works, but then I've never had the chance to work on a full auto mini so I'm not the most knowledgeable on the subject.
 

trilogymac

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 7 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
507
Location
Houston, TX
Good morning Jack!
I think it's similar to the Fleming sear guns with the trunnion opened up for feet. The registered bolt could have been sitting on a shelf and then when the minis came into the country, the mini hosts trunnion was opened up and the bolt installed. Or, they could have been targeted for use in micros. It's easier to modify an open bolt mini than weld the feed lip on a Micro. I've also seen group bolts that were registered by SWD with the trunnion opened up. Don't see it as an issue other than the bolt might be considered married to the host. I hear it all the time that a mini trunnion cant be opened up for the feet to clear, but I've never seen a letter.
As far as B-G cutting down bolts, I'm not sure they cut down full size bolts. I think the full size bolts you see were cut down by the owners which is also a non issue.
I went and looked at my old records and I purchased a new group registered mini bolt with feet in 1989. At the time like a dumb ass, I cut off the feet. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have cut off the feet but rather, opened up the trunnion and rocked on. I paid 325.00 or 375.00 for it, cant remember which. Maybe its best I cut off the feet. If I hadn't, 39 years later, be might be speculating if it was righteous. :)
 
Last edited:

Jack007

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 24 / 0 / 0
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
1,055
Location
Midwest
It's such a shame that Dave doesn't frequent this board much since he sold it. Such a wealth of information off the top of his head.
 

amphibian

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 34 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
4,518
Location
FL
Don't see it as an issue other than the bolt might be considered married to the host. I hear it all the time that a mini trunnion cant be opened up for the feet to clear, but I've never seen a letter.
I would think it would have to be married. I wrote the original conversion article here a long time ago. I spoke to Bill Fleming on the phone back in the day where he told me what I put in the conversion article.
To me, relieving the trunnion is just like removing the blocking bar in the full size UZI. The only purpose of that blocking bar is to prevent you from dropping in an unmodified UZI SMG Open bolt and likewise, the only reason the trunnion on semi Mini is not relieved is the same - to stop you from dropping in an unmodified Mini UZI SMG bolt.
So I would be leary of chopping the feet off as again, that would analagous to slotting the bolt of a full size UZI SMG.

I agree there is a lot of confusion on this but what is clear is that their is a history of the Fleming Mini UZI sear guns which the receivers are clearly engraved to matched the sear and clearly married which is why I think they bring a premium.

Maybe there are some Mini bolt's with feet that are married but I haven't seen them either.

Now where it really gets fuzzy are the full auto closed bolt setups for the Mini and Micro but that is another discussion....
 
Last edited:

David Hineline

FFL/SOT
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
774
Location
South Sioux City, NE
Asked and answered the last time it was for sale on Gunbroker.

 

Jack007

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 24 / 0 / 0
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
1,055
Location
Midwest
It is indeed the same gun apparently! I never paid attention to the S/N. Good job David!
And yes, the CURRENT seller confirmed to me that the trunnion has been relieved.
That doesn't completely answer the rhetorical question "HOW IS THIS LEGAL?"
I therefore will posit that this gun is in fact 100% ILLEGAL contraband and subject to forfeiture and seizure based on all past ATF actions. No formal rulings obviously. Amphibian is spot on with his analogies. I will further posit that the bolt, in its current condition should never have been registered. It is NOT a "machinegun" per GCA68 standards.
Having said that, the odds that a future buyer would ever have a problem are slim to none. All the paperwork is correct and legal. This just got in under the May 19th, 1986 wire along with a TON of others. I was there and lived through that insanity.
 

amphibian

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 34 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
4,518
Location
FL
To add to my previous post about not seeing a Mini bolt being married.... we must remember that the Mini semi didn't come into the US till 1987.
Fleming was lucky registering sears since the same sear is used in a full size as a Mini. I doubt anybody knew back in 86 that IMI was going to import semi Mini's with different trunions vs not using a blocking bar. Mini bolts were rare back then which is why Fleming and others would buy Group bolts.
So it makes no sense to me how this gun would be legit with a relieved trunnion. I think the only way to get a transferable with a relieved trunion is a Fleming sear gun married to the receiver or a re-weld....I know S&H did Uzi sears also but don't know if they are married or not. Fleming did tell me he did reweld an IMI full size into a Mini. I don't recall asking how many he did.
 

sweersa

Well-known member
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
234
Location
Michigan
While not always UZI specific, there are improperly registered machine guns on the registry. An example of this would be an unmodified semi-auto HK 91 receiver registered as an MG (RR), using a modified trigger pack with sear as the conversion device. Originally, the trigger pack or sear should have been registered, not the receiver as the receiver itself is not an MG by federal definition. These guns are less desirable due to their goofy status, but are largely considered to be "married" to the unregistered conversion device and thus left alone.

From a realistic/practical standpoint, the AFT is probably not too concerned about that, so long as they don't think any monkey business is going on. (They have bigger fish to fry, or they should!)
 

hkg3k

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
453
While not always UZI specific, there are improperly registered machine guns on the registry. An example of this would be an unmodified semi-auto HK 91 receiver registered as an MG (RR), using a modified trigger pack with sear as the conversion device. Originally, the trigger pack or sear should have been registered, not the receiver as the receiver itself is not an MG by federal definition. These guns are less desirable due to their goofy status, but are largely considered to be "married" to the unregistered conversion device and thus left alone.

From a realistic/practical standpoint, the AFT is probably not too concerned about that, so long as they don't think any monkey business is going on. (They have bigger fish to fry, or they should!)
If you're jumping on the "unaltered registered receiver with unregistered conversion device" slippery slope...don't forget to include RR Uzis with slotted bolt, among others. :oops:
 

Hey...

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 14 / 0 / 0
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
3,304
Location
Atlanta
The bolt is legal right, looks electo-pencilled like any other they’ve done. The gun/contraband comes extra
 

sweersa

Well-known member
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
234
Location
Michigan
If you're jumping on the "unaltered registered receiver with unregistered conversion device" slippery slope...don't forget to include RR Uzis with slotted bolt, among others. :oops:
Yes, and some have suspiciously had the blocking bar removed, and slotted bolt magically replaced with a spec bolt. I believe a member here has documented RR UZIs being sold throughout the years that had went through such a transformation, and was able to document it with serial numbers. An interesting observation, of course. One I understand, but don't want to be involved with, personally.
 

hkg3k

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
453
Yes, and some have suspiciously had the blocking bar removed, and slotted bolt magically replaced with a spec bolt. I believe a member here has documented RR UZIs being sold throughout the years that had went through such a transformation, and was able to document it with serial numbers. An interesting observation, of course. One I understand, but don't want to be involved with, personally.

(Illegal) alteration of a receiver (drilling that 3rd HK hole -or- removing the blocking bar from an RR Uzi) wasn't the point of my post...there's zero ambiguity there (or least there shouldn't be).

When one "paints" a clip-on RR HK as having a "goofy status," they better be willing to acknowledge all the other transferable machine guns in good standing which fall under that same umbrella...the RR Uzi with slotted bolt, RR FNC, RR 10/22 for example, off the top of my head. The HK and Uzi examples are not worth less because of their status, IMO...it's because of less flexibility of the their configuration. At one time, the RR clip-on HKs actually sold for more money than sear-gun HKs.

There's plenty of BATF history and documentation which runs counter to Sterling Nixon's famous clarification letter of the early 2000's. Yet there's still those who believe that BATF will be "rounding up" all those "improper" HK's and Uzi's any day now...and have been saying same for the last 20 years. I own no clip-on RR HKs, RR Uzi with slotted bolt, RR FNC or RR 10/22...but I would not hesitate to purchase for the right deal.

Sterling Nixon in his short tenure as Chief of Tech Branch wreaked all kinds of havoc with his stupidity...the clarification letter relating to the above, arbitrarily switching the registered plate on Maxim guns from left to right and of course the "shoestring is a machine gun" letter, just to name a few. He was an idiot and created confusion for the ages...
 

sweersa

Well-known member
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
234
Location
Michigan
(Illegal) alteration of a receiver (drilling that 3rd HK hole -or- removing the blocking bar from an RR Uzi) wasn't the point of my post...there's zero ambiguity there (or least there shouldn't be).

When one "paints" a clip-on RR HK as having a "goofy status," they better be willing to acknowledge all the other transferable machine guns in good standing which fall under that same umbrella...the RR Uzi with slotted bolt, RR FNC, RR 10/22 for example, off the top of my head. The HK and Uzi examples are not worth less because of their status, IMO...it's because of less flexibility of the their configuration. At one time, the RR clip-on HKs actually sold for more money than sear-gun HKs.

There's plenty of BATF history and documentation which runs counter to Sterling Nixon's famous clarification letter of the early 2000's. Yet there's still those who believe that BATF will be "rounding up" all those "improper" HK's and Uzi's any day now...and have been saying same for the last 20 years. I own no clip-on RR HKs, RR Uzi with slotted bolt, RR FNC or RR 10/22...but I would not hesitate to purchase for the right deal.

Sterling Nixon in his short tenure as Chief of Tech Branch wreaked all kinds of havoc with his stupidity...the clarification letter relating to the above, arbitrarily switching the registered plate on Maxim guns from left to right and of course the "shoestring is a machine gun" letter, just to name a few. He was an idiot and created confusion for the ages...

The confusion stems from the NFA and the clowns who enforce it anyways. In an ideal, actual free country, we wouldn't even be having the conversation about it, save for admiring beautiful factory built select fire examples and maybe some homemade conversions.
 

Please Visit our Sister Sites Below

Sister Board - Sturmgewehr Sister Board - MachinegunBoards


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter
Top