UZI Talk Forums
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 6 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 103

Thread: It Is Past Time For An Update On The Tenko

  1. #1
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,249

    It Is Past Time For An Update On The Tenko

    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.

  2. #2
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Mackjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,751
    When did you get the determination back? Recently?

  3. #3
    UZI Talk Life Member
    strobro32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,281
    Sorry to hear that Scott. I hoped for your success.

  4. #4
    UZI Talk Supporter
    plodder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    455
    Scott: Thanks for the update & sympathy for your plight. The outcome, while disappointing to be sure, is not surprising. The government got to govern, I guess.

  5. #5
    Registered User Doobis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    114
    So they zip tied and C clamped scrap metal to it and held it all together in a vice but were too afraid to fire a non pressure bearing 3d printed component?

  6. #6
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Doobis View Post
    So they zip tied and C clamped scrap metal to it and held it all together in a vice but were too afraid to fire a non pressure bearing 3d printed component?
    No, the plastic version had residue on it. They fired it. But they need a reason to reverse their previous determination. So they would rather say that they didn't do their job than admit they were changing it because I hired a lawyer and wrote my Senator.

  7. #7
    UZI Talk Life Member
    rybread's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    U.S. F'N A
    Posts
    3,113
    Quote Originally Posted by strobro32 View Post
    Sorry to hear that Scott. I hoped for your success.
    As did I. This was the path to FA belt fed for me. I have belt fed and I have MGs but not belt fed FA.

    If they can “Make an accessory work“ by physically replicating an RR and that constitutes an MG, every upper is an MG.
    Live BRAVE, Live FREE!

    “To abandon FACTS is to abandon FREEDOM”

    It’s easy to fool someone, but almost impossible to convince them they’ve been fooled.

    I WON- January 8th 2021.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    76
    I wonder where this leaves the Lage 10-15?

  9. #9
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Louisana
    Posts
    1,745
    Scott,

    Very sorry to hear the news. I too hoped for your success. Good luck in the future and hoping things go your way.

  10. #10
    Mr. Miata
    UZI Talk Life Member
    Jmacken37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    4,748
    Sorry to hear this!
    AWWWW NUTS!

    REAL MEN DRIVE MIATAS

  11. #11
    Registered User Deerhurst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    340
    I'm glad they finally got back to you and saddened that they pulled the shit they are well known for.

    No shit a machine gun upper will fire with a receiver even if that receiver is cobbled together! I'm real tired of their shit. The ATF is gonna ATF and lie, deceive, and oppress.


    Since the same thing but printed is approved can you not sell the approved printed one and the aluminum as parts or just the prints for the aluminum pieces? If you sold the approved version of expect someone to have made the pieces in aluminum within the week. Is it legal for you to sell the complete prints for personal use?


    What a giant crock of shit. Please keep us posted on where this goes next.

  12. #12
    UZI Talk Life Member
    m11stuff@hotmail.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Donut77donut View Post
    I wonder where this leaves the Lage 10-15?
    I’ ve posted many times why I believe our determinations are taking so long. Surge of brace, binary trigger and other determinations. Criminal investigations of Glock switches, “fuel filters” and Molotov cocktails, etc. And to top it off, a government shutdown due to COVID. I am surprised Scott’s determination was finished/released. I figured they are still telecommuting.
    Richard Lage
    Lage Manufacturing, L.L.C.
    www.max-11.com

  13. #13
    UZI Talk Supporter

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,041
    How long does plastic version last?
    Any tests done to see how long?
    3/d printed should be a much lower cost to produce

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    86
    For everyone asking for him to sell the plastic one, I'm pretty sure they reversed their determination on that one when giving him this determination. I'm sure he will elaborate more but sounds to me both are mgs and would be illegal for him to sell any form of what his current design is. Was really hoping this would work out for you, variety is a fantastic thing. Hope you can get it worked out.

  15. #15
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    131
    I’m saddened to hear this: personally, as (the now former) number 11 on the waitlist, interpersonally, as a fellow human who can appreciate the pain and frustration of plans thwarted by an overwhelming and arbitrary force, and collectively as part of a community that is ready for innovation and willing to support it financially.

  16. #16
    UZI Talk Life Member
    skoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    462
    With their iron bar and clamp methodology it's a wonder that they approved any upper for an open bolt firearm. Did they offer any specifics on why it failed (and why the plastic one passed) that can be used to modify the design?

  17. #17
    UZI Talk Supporter
    sniperdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    5,071
    Haters gonna hate, and ATF is a hater!

  18. #18
    UZI Talk Supporter
    Gaujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,295
    This is so frustrating, and I think it is a violation of their mandate.
    Last edited by Gaujo; 01-25-2021 at 11:51 AM.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    55
    The ATF needs to be dismantled!

  20. #20
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,249
    Quote Originally Posted by skoda View Post
    With their iron bar and clamp methodology it's a wonder that they approved any upper for an open bolt firearm. Did they offer any specifics on why it failed (and why the plastic one passed) that can be used to modify the design?
    What they are saying now is that they didn't fire the first 3D version because they were afraid of catastrophic failure. That is a direct breach of their required procedures to give a determination without firing. Of course I know that they did fire the 3D plastic version because it had powder residue on it when I received it back. They also say that they actually shot the aluminum version because they believed that one is safe. With a vice, C-clamp, angle iron and zip ties they got the aluminum version to fire seven rounds automatically without the M10 receiver. If they had done the zip ties, vice, C-clamp treatment to the plastic version that would have fired.

    My opinion is that they would rather be considered incompetent than vindictive.

    Scott

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter.