Hypothetical Legality of a Bolt Action Destructive Device Full Auto

[smec_289]

This is out there in theoretical land but wouldn't it be technically legal to build a bolt action "destructive device" Ingram upper? I've always liked the 20mm round for the highly technical reason that it is big.

It would seem legally possible to build one of these as an upper for the MAC family. (something like this but on a mac RR that houses the fire control http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm). I say this because a machine gun holds the upper most hierarchical ranking in the NFA world. A full auto can be an SBR or AOW without any additional registration so it seems that it could also be a destructive device. And yes, stating the obvious this would take very careful engineering as well as an ATF willing to give fair determinations but theoretically it should work correct?

 

[slimshady]

Assuming the upper isn't considered a firearm by itself, the MG classification trumps the DD, as it does with things like a Bofors 40mm. The question becomes why though? Saving a separate $200 would be of little use if one factors in having to purchase a MAC to utilize it. Even if you already own the MAC you would have an upper that only works with it, so if you ever sold the MAC the upper either goes with it or becomes a paperweight.

The reason non-standard uppers for these exist is to get a different/more practical gun out of an existing transferable MG as building a new one is no longer allowed. You can Form 1 DDs all day long, so no need for one for that reason. Do any states ban DDs but allow MGs? That would be the only scenario I can think of where the idea would have merit, although state law may still consider it a DD. For registration purposes ATF registers all MGs as MGs regardless of caliber, when they also meet the definition of DD they are still a DD just not registered as such. Most states have laws that mirror the Fed NFA, but since they do not normally register them they do not have to "only pick one" as to what it is defined as. IOW, the law is not going to state a DD is a bore diameter over .50 and then exempt ones that fire full automatically, it is still a DD AND an MG.

 

[smec_289]

I don't have a good answerer for the "why" other than that I find it interesting to see what the limits are of the Ingram platform. Financially speaking the $200 savings is rather trivial in comparison to the price of items discussed though I do find novel approaches to engineering interesting and like seeing the platform evolve in different directions. Just the same it would be nothing more than a "because we can" item in a time when the ATF seems more inclined to say "no you can't". A simpler approach would be a 40mm launcher as an upper but again it is merely a novelty.

 

[Tinman45]

If you’re going to produce a DD “just because you can”, I say go MK-18 40mm or go home.



Also, please make one for me, thank you, please.