RPB M10 9mm

[wrhk33]

Was the semi-auto receiver even cut to accept the stock rails?

 

[azakms]

Was the semi-auto receiver even cut to accept the stock rails?

No, it was shipped separately and the receiver was never cut to take the stock.

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

Was the semi-auto receiver even cut to accept the stock rails?

Even if it was, it wouldn’t matter. An AR-15 pistol can readily accept a buttstock without any modification to the receiver, but it’s not an SBR as long as a buttstock isn’t installed. (Even if it has a buttstock in its presence). The potential for it to be illegal doesn’t make it illegal. If that were the case then basically every single semi-auto firearm in existence is an “unregistered machine gun” if it’s stored in the same room as a dremel tool and a drill press.

 

[Deerhurst]

Has the AFT finally let go of their bullshit "constructive intent" junk?

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

Has the AFT finally let go of their bullshit "constructive intent" junk?

As far as I know they have never applied that “logic” to this situation. I’ve heard of them successfully charging a few people with “constructive possession” of a machine gun (though even that is pretty rare)

 

[hkg3k]

In all my years in this hobby (>40 now), this is the only case of a SBR constructive possession arrest I have knowledge of...happened back in 2009. If you read the entire article, yes, the guy was also a total idiot. Of note, he was arrested by local Sheriffs and not ATF. I do not know the ultimate disposition of the case.

Florida Man Arrested for Constructive Possession of an SBR

 

[Deerhurst]

As far as I know they have never applied that “logic” to this situation. I’ve heard of them successfully charging a few people with “constructive possession” of a machine gun (though even that is pretty rare)

They definitely have tried to apply constructive intent/posession to SBRs. They tried to charge a guy with an unregistered SBR due to having a cane foot on a AR pistol buffer tube that was there to keep it from sliding around in a safe.

Id have to dig further to see what I can find specifically on the Mac.

 

[A&S Conversions]

Is it illegal to own a stock and a pistol that that stock “could” be used on? Probably not. Do I want to worry about spending the market value of a Colt M16 on lawyers to keep the life I have? Absolutely, not. My dealings have scared the hell out of me and I didn’t get charged with anything. My family is paying that price still. So if you want to risk the life you have over the cost of a cheap weekend away for those items, go for it. I have found it is not about right or wrong. It is about how deep the pockets are and how far they want to push. We’re all adults, you decide.

Scott

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

They definitely have tried to apply constructive intent/posession to SBRs. They tried to charge a guy with an unregistered SBR due to having a cane foot on a AR pistol buffer tube that was there to keep it from sliding around in a safe.

Id have to dig further to see what I can find specifically on the Mac.

It was installed on the gun. That’s not “constructive possession”, that IS an SBR, they were trying to claim the cane foot was a buttstock, since it was actually installed on the firearm.

It would be different if he had a cane foot sitting near the gun, uninstalled, and was somehow charged. That would be “constructive possession”. “Constructive possession” means you have the components to assemble it, even though it’s not actually assembled. Like if the cane foot was stored in the same safe as the AR pistol and they said he had the intention of using it as a buttstock on that gun even though it wasn’t on the gun already.

Since it was already installed on the gun, that’s not “constructive possession”, that’s just flat out “possesion of an unregistered SBR” if they want to argue that the cane foot constitutes a “buttstock”.

The guy who posted right above you did some digging and found one instance of someone being charged with actual constructive possession of an SBR back in 2009, and I agree, he was an idiot, and it wasn’t the feds that charged him either, but an overzealous local law enforcement officer that came across his classified ad online and wanted to be deputy of the month, and staged an undercover purchase of his firearm, arresting him for something that I’d wager 90% of the rest of the department wouldn’t even realize was potentially illegal… and we don’t know what the outcome of the case was either.

I have a huge collection of legal documents pertaining to the MAC and as many legal entanglements that I’ve been able to find searching online databases etc… lots of illegal machine gun conversions, but no unregistered SBRs that I could come up with (especially with the stock not even installed in the gun), doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, but you probably won’t have much luck finding any documented example of it in a public database.

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

Is it illegal to own a stock and a pistol that that stock “could” be used on? Probably not. Do I want to worry about spending the market value of a Colt M16 on lawyers to keep the life I have? Absolutely, not. My dealings have scared the hell out of me and I didn’t get charged with anything. My family is paying that price still. So if you want to risk the life you have over the cost of a cheap weekend away for those items, go for it. I have found it is not about right or wrong. It is about how deep the pockets are and how far they want to push. We’re all adults, you decide.

Scott

I have had a visit from the ATF once a couple years ago, it was unpleasant, annoying, intrusive and scared my wife.. but they left empty handed and didn’t really seem like they were going out of their way to come up with any kind of trumped up charges. They were looking for items that were undeniably illegal at that point in time based on a change of heart they had regarding a specific item, in this case some “solvent traps” I had purchased off gunbroker for resale (when they were still perfectly legal) and they had already long since been resold before their visit, which was over a year after I had purchased them.. so they were a little late. Could they have somehow concocted a “constructive possession of something” charge using the inventory of parts I had at that time? (I have a small gun parts business online, mostly MAC stuff) Maybe….
But they didn’t ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

All of this said, I don’t think OP has much to worry about with his pistol, especially considering it’s not even cut open to accept the wire stock in question and would require quite a bit of modification for it to be installed.

 

[timkel]

ATF went after Contender firearms over this very issue in 1992. Atf lost their case at the US supreme court.

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992)

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

supreme.justia.com

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

ATF went after Contender firearms over this very issue in 1992. Atf lost their case at the US supreme court.

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505 (1992)

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

supreme.justia.com

Thanks for sharing, this is very useful landmark case to save for reference. I highlighted the supreme courts decision for anyone wondering.

Lost story short, the Supreme Court ruled that simply owning the components required to assemble an SBR, doesn’t constitute possession of an SBR, and that it “must be assembled” in order to qualify as an SBR under the definition outlined in the NFA.

So it’s okay for someone to own a MAC wirestock and an RPB M10 pistol, as long as they don’t install it.


I honestly wish the whole “you got a tax stamp for that thing son?” Nosey Fudd-like attitude towards this kind of stuff would just cease to exist regardless of whether or not it’s legal. If you aren’t on the ATFs payroll, who cares what other people do with their own stuff or whether or not it’s legal (if they’re not hurting anyone anyway) just my 2 cents. These laws shouldn’t even exist in the first place and they do nothing to actually stop criminals from committing crime. I don’t think all the convicted felon gang bangers in Chicago have tax stamps for their glock switches… the NFA sure doesn’t seem to be stopping them though.

I guess it just grinds my gears to see someone showing off their new toy that they were proud to post here (rightfully so, as it’s a very nice example) only to have someone comment and in effect, accuse them of committing a federal felony. That’s a pretty harsh indictment, especially when it’s not even the case here.

It gets annoying everytime an open bolt RPB pops up or an FRT/super safety or some other gray area firearm or accessory, and all the junior ATF explorers and legal eagles all come out of the woodwork and start with the “that’s illegal!” crap. Seriously… Who cares 🙄

I’m not saying we should all go around committing felonies and posting illegal firearms on the internet, but publicly nitpicking someone’s gun in an effort to call out its potentially illegal attributes is Fudd behavior, borderline snitching, and its lame…

 

[hkg3k]

The guy who posted right above you did some digging and found one instance of someone being charged with actual constructive possession of an SBR back in 2009, and I agree, he was an idiot, and it wasn’t the feds that charged him either, but an overzealous local law enforcement officer that came across his classified ad online and wanted to be deputy of the month, and staged an undercover purchase of his firearm, arresting him for something that I’d wager 90% of the rest of the department wouldn’t even realize was potentially illegal… and we don’t know what the outcome of the case was either.

I didn't have to do a whole lot of "digging," as I remembered that singular case and some of its details. And just to clarify...I didn't post it as a cautionary tale, as I view a M10 open-bolt semi (that hasn't been cut to receive a stock) + wire stock, as vastly different from a SP89 with both front grip and stock, which are easily attached, posted for sale by some dumba** and the local five-o use it as a "public safety" media event.

I can't recall in my experience anyone who's ever been charged Federally with "constructive possession" of a SBR. IMO, it's an extraordinarily high legal bar to clear -and- if you did find yourself so charged...you've got much bigger problems (and charges) to worry about.

 

[charles_the_hammer]

I assume a semi-auto MAC with a "dummy" stock attached that doesn't unfold or extend is "legal", right? Maybe some of the Junior Detectives here could put their Dick Tracy skills to work and figure out how these things were able to be produced and sold as legal, semi-automatic pistols? I mean, those folding wire stocks they installed on these things theoretically COULD have at one point been able to unfold and for an unspecified amount of time these stocks COULD have been in the same room as the pistols, which means the company that made these things could have committed an "imaginary potential maybe kinda sorta constructive possession of illegal SBR's" violation. Someone here should definitely make haste and call the BATF and get a ruling on these "Commemorative MAC-10's". There's no telling how many violations could have occurred while manufacturing these things. Anyone who owns one should be preparing to not only get a visit from the feds but from the Fashion Police as well for owning a firearm so horribly tacky. GROSS (and probably ILLEGAL)!!!

 

[Deerhurst]

It was installed on the gun. That’s not “constructive possession”, that IS an SBR, they were trying to claim the cane foot was a buttstock, since it was actually installed on the firearm.

It would be different if he had a cane foot sitting near the gun, uninstalled, and was somehow charged. That would be “constructive possession”. “Constructive possession” means you have the components to assemble it, even though it’s not actually assembled. Like if the cane foot was stored in the same safe as the AR pistol and they said he had the intention of using it as a buttstock on that gun even though it wasn’t on the gun already.

Since it was already installed on the gun, that’s not “constructive possession”, that’s just flat out “possesion of an unregistered SBR” if they want to argue that the cane foot constitutes a “buttstock”.

The guy who posted right above you did some digging and found one instance of someone being charged with actual constructive possession of an SBR back in 2009, and I agree, he was an idiot, and it wasn’t the feds that charged him either, but an overzealous local law enforcement officer that came across his classified ad online and wanted to be deputy of the month, and staged an undercover purchase of his firearm, arresting him for something that I’d wager 90% of the rest of the department wouldn’t even realize was potentially illegal… and we don’t know what the outcome of the case was either.

I have a huge collection of legal documents pertaining to the MAC and as many legal entanglements that I’ve been able to find searching online databases etc… lots of illegal machine gun conversions, but no unregistered SBRs that I could come up with (especially with the stock not even installed in the gun), doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, but you probably won’t have much luck finding any documented example of it in a public database.

Cane foot. Literally a rubber plug like you would put on the foot of a chair. Nothing more, nothing less. No more interesting than the feet on your computer that keeps it from sliding around the desk.


Big scary SBR stock there!

 

[Deerhurst]

I assume a semi-auto MAC with a "dummy" stock attached that doesn't unfold or extend is "legal", right? Maybe some of the Junior Detectives here could put their Dick Tracy skills to work and figure out how these things were able to be produced and sold as legal, semi-automatic pistols? I mean, those folding wire stocks they installed on these things theoretically COULD have at one point been able to unfold and for an unspecified amount of time these stocks COULD have been in the same room as the pistols, which means the company that made these things could have committed an "imaginary potential maybe kinda sorta constructive possession of illegal SBR's" violation. Someone here should definitely make haste and call the BATF and get a ruling on these "Commemorative MAC-10's". There's no telling how many violations could have occurred while manufacturing these things. Anyone who owns one should be preparing to not only get a visit from the feds but from the Fashion Police as well for owning a firearm so horribly tacky. GROSS (and probably ILLEGAL)!!!


View attachment 41803

Lots of manufacturers do pinned and welded stocks. AFT has also allowed stocks that were neither pinned nor welded but other ways rendered unusable. Some they went back on like the early PPS-43c imports. Still legal to.own an early import but later imports had to be welded. The early guns are easy to reactivate the stock. Very nice when wanting to F1 SBR one.


I've been in the builders game to know there is very little actual direction outside a few makes/models and it always changes. Best you can sometimes do is the best you can to do denials. Most things in the building realm have no actual direction so we often try to use "approved" denials for similar firearms.

 

[charles_the_hammer]

Lots of manufacturers do pinned and welded stocks. AFT has also allowed stocks that were neither pinned nor welded but other ways rendered unusable. Some they went back on like the early PPS-43c imports. Still legal to.own an early import but later imports had to be welded. The early guns are easy to reactivate the stock. Very nice when wanting to F1 SBR one.


I've been in the builders game to know there is very little actual direction outside a few makes/models and it always changes. Best you can sometimes do is the best you can to do denials. Most things in the building realm have no actual direction so we often try to use "approved" denials for similar firearms.

I remember those PPS-43 pistols with the welded top folding stocks. I was considering getting one of them but I didn't like the way they had to change what I assume would be the front trunnion on them in order to make them a legal, semi-auto pistol. Something about it just looked "off" to me for whatever reason.



And I actually like the welded and inoperable stocks on certain types of pistols. It prevents them from looking goofy as hell with long "carbine barrels" they were never meant to have or other assorted nonsense. Sure it probably turns them into a "range toy" but I really don't care. I grew up in the 80's loving Uzi's and MAC's and I don't really feel like shelling out $15,000-$20,000 for a NFA version or having semi-auto one with a stupid looking 16" barrel. I built one of these "range toy" semi-auto Uzi pistols with a welded stock about 10 years ago using an Israeli parts kit and a McKay receiver and semi-auto bolt group. I tack welded the inner part of the stock in two inconspicuous locations and then welded again on the inside of the receiver so that it could not be removed. I got the idea and instructions on how to do everything from one of those gun magazines:





Right now - as we speak in fact - I am preparing to "ruin the collectible value" of a RPB open bolt, semi-auto MAC-10 9mm by welding a factory wire stock into the permanently closed position and then welding it into the rear part of the receiver so that it will neither fold open nor extend, effectively rendering it a "dummy stock" that exists purely for aesthetic purposes. I also got a dummy 2 stage suppressor for it so that I may ruin it even further. I mean, why turn this thing into something that looks like an early, legit version of a M-10/9 when I could just leave it in it's neutered "gray brick" configuration?

 

[Hey...]

Right now - as we speak in fact - I am preparing to "ruin the collectible value" of a RPB open bolt, semi-auto MAC-10 9mm by welding a factory wire stock into the permanently closed position and then welding it into the rear part of the receiver so that it will neither fold open nor extend, effectively rendering it a "dummy stock" that exists purely for aesthetic purposes. I also got a dummy 2 stage suppressor for it so that I may ruin it even further. I mean, why turn this thing into something that looks like an early, legit version of a M-10/9 when I could just leave it in it's neutered "gray brick" configuration?

Already done, probably 2015 guy posted a semi with the stock welded closed, legs cut off and welded to the gun. It was done well.

This, not as nice.. Here’s junk for sale

Loading…

www.gunbroker.com

 

[charles_the_hammer]

Already done, probably 2015 guy posted a semi with the stock welded closed, legs cut off and welded to the gun. It was done well.

This, not as nice.. Here’s junk for sale

View attachment 41811

Loading…

www.gunbroker.com

OK, see that's just plain weird-looking to me. Dude has one of those $85 fake stocks they sell on GunBroker that screws into the hole on the bottom rear part of the receiver, strange safety switch, bracket and strap hanger that attach with a C-clip, cut down barrel with fine threads, extended paddle mag release, and the coup de grâce - the original rear sight hacked off and replaced with another front sight.

I agree with your assessment - total trash.

No $85 screw-down stock for me. I'm going "all in" and destroying an original wire stock purely for aesthetic purposes.

 

[Deerhurst]

I remember those PPS-43 pistols with the welded top folding stocks. I was considering getting one of them but I didn't like the way they had to change what I assume would be the front trunnion on them in order to make them a legal, semi-auto pistol. Something about it just looked "off" to me for whatever reason.

View attachment 41808

And I actually like the welded and inoperable stocks on certain types of pistols. It prevents them from looking goofy as hell with long "carbine barrels" they were never meant to have or other assorted nonsense. Sure it probably turns them into a "range toy" but I really don't care. I grew up in the 80's loving Uzi's and MAC's and I don't really feel like shelling out $15,000-$20,000 for a NFA version or having semi-auto one with a stupid looking 16" barrel. I built one of these "range toy" semi-auto Uzi pistols with a welded stock about 10 years ago using an Israeli parts kit and a McKay receiver and semi-auto bolt group. I tack welded the inner part of the stock in two inconspicuous locations and then welded again on the inside of the receiver so that it could not be removed. I got the idea and instructions on how to do everything from one of those gun magazines:

View attachment 41807

View attachment 41806

Right now - as we speak in fact - I am preparing to "ruin the collectible value" of a RPB open bolt, semi-auto MAC-10 9mm by welding a factory wire stock into the permanently closed position and then welding it into the rear part of the receiver so that it will neither fold open nor extend, effectively rendering it a "dummy stock" that exists purely for aesthetic purposes. I also got a dummy 2 stage suppressor for it so that I may ruin it even further. I mean, why turn this thing into something that looks like an early, legit version of a M-10/9 when I could just leave it in it's neutered "gray brick" configuration?

Semi auto PPS43 trunnions have a larger bore diameter so a "military" barrel cannot be installed. The only difference is the journal diameter. Push the pin out of the trunnion, open the receiver halves and dump the barrel out just like the parts kit gun. Otherwise they are the same as the FA guns. The only real denial on the SA PPS43 is the dent in the top of the receiver. Requires an endmill to cut a channel in the top of the bolt to clearance. An unmodified FA bolt will not drop in.

The early guns had the stock denial as simply missing the spring on the stock latch button and the hole for the button is under sized preventing it from being pressed. To reactivate a stock on one of those you push the button out, drill the hole out, put a return spring on the button and press it back in place. The later guns have a tack weld at the folder joint.

I have an early style I should get off my butt and SBR. Hell, I have a a couple grand worth of things I want to Form 1 at this point. I could keep myself quiet busy once the stamps started flowing in but lighter in the wallet.