LEN SAVAGE, PRESIDENT

tlistor

706-675-0287 Home
706-675-0818 Shop

June 16,2008

Mr. John R. Spencer

Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
244 Needy Rd.
Martinsburg, WV 25405

Dear Mr. Spencer,

I received the Firearms Technology Branch's (FTB) guidance document [903050:MMK

3311/2008-472] referring to the latest submission by my company. Historic Arms, LLC, for a
proposed product, a firearm of original design. This firearm has been designed as a
short-barreled rifle, because its barrel is less than 16 inches in length, and thus falls under
purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), and must be registered in the National Firearms
Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR).

I am concerned about the apparent lack of a written standard used to examine and test our
submitted firearm. It appears that our submitted firearm was initially tested according to one set
of criteria, and that FTB determined and verified that it is a firearm because it fired a projectile,
{see page 6}.

Since it fires a projectile, has a barrel less than 16 inches in length, and according to FTB {see
page 7} is intended to use the shoulder stock and pistol grip of MAC-type registered machinegun
in which it is installed, it is a short-barreled rifle according to ATF regulations and United States
Code. TTie submitted firearm was registered in the NFRTR by my company as a short-barreled
rifle via an ATF Form 2 prior to submission to FTB.

Our concern is that FTB was apparently dissatisfied with the results of the first live fire test,
because FTB changed the testing criteria and live fire tested the submitted firearm again. The
new criteria for this second live fire test [see page 7, second paragraph] cannot be foimd in any of
our company's engineering books or manuals, and does not appear to be a valid scientific testing
procedure, for the following reasons:

• Using a foreign object to cause a firearm to fire fiilly automatic has historically been viewed
by ATF to be a "conversion device," under the reasoning that the foreign object converts the
fu-earm to a machinegun. One example of the use of such a foreign object is the use of a
shoestring, memorialized by ATF/FTB in three different Letter Rulings.

• There is no valid and reliable evidence that the new criteria FTB has been universally applied
to all MAC-type uppers. In fact, several MAC-type uppers incorporate an ammimition feed
 device on the "upper", as does thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC. If the criteria
FTB applied to the testing of our latest submission was applied to testing the many caliber
conversion uppers that are sold at retail with no restrictions, such as the .22 longrifleMAC
upper made by "Flemming," (1) all of them would fire infiillyautomatic mode until the
ammunition supply was exhausted, (2) there would be no way for the shooter to stop firing.
Suchfiillyautomaticfiringunder these conditions ~ termed "sputter fire" because it is
imcontrolled firing — is dangerous.

• On page 4, a sample MAC-10 upper is shown. ATF does not consider this sample MAC-10
upper to be afirearm;consequently, no Form 4473 or NICS check during over the counter
sales is required; and there is no requirement for this MAC-10 upper to be serial numbered.
If FTB tested this sample MAC-10 upper using the same criteria FTB used to test the firearm
submitted by Historic Arms, LLC, the sample MAC-10 upper would fire a projectile.
According to ATF regulations and United States Code, the sample MAC-10 upper is,
therefore, a firearm. Since ATF does not consider a MAC-10 upper to be afirearm,the
materials that FTB added during the second test of thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms,
LLC (aluminum plate, chain and tensioning bolts) must be afirearm,firearmreceiver, or a
device intended to convert afirearmto a machinegun.

• Also, importantly, if FTB applied the the first test it applied to thefirearmsubmitted by
Historic Arms, LLC to the sample MAC-10 upper pictured in FTB's guidance, FTB would
classify the MAC-10 upper as afirearmbecause it fires a projectile. In fact, as noted, ATF
does not regard the sample MAC-10 upper as afirearmat this time, which contradicts FTB's
current classification of thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC in that regard.

• The materials FTB added converted thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC into a
machinegun; therefore, the materials constitute a machinegun receiver, a machinegim, or a
conversion device.

• FTB's manipulation of test criteria in order to achieve a specific result is clear and reliable
proof of "Outcome Based Testing." Taken at face value, it appears that the purpose of the
second test was to produce the outcome offindinga way to convert the Historic Arms, LLC
submittedfirearminto a machinegim.

• Since FTB has not applied the first or second test criteria to other MAC-10 uppers, and doing
so would result in a FTB determining that all other MAC-10 uppers are machine guns or at
leastfirearms,it appears that FTB has singled out thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms,
LLC to preclude its manufacture and sale. [Please refer to the enclosed table.]

In summary, the second test FTB used was not valid. The reasons are that the second test's
criteria and application (1) has not been consistent or uniformly applied to all MAC-10 uppers,
(2) apparently singles out thefirearmsubmitted by Historic Arms, LLC to preclude its
manufacture and sale, and (3) ignores the fact that applying the second test to other MAC-10
uppers would convert them into machineguns, as was the case with thefirearmsubmitted by
Historic Arms, LLC. Also, importantly, if the test FTB applied to thefirearmsubmitted by
Historic Arms, LLC was applied to the sample MAC-10 upper pictured in FTB's guidance, the
MAC-10 upper would be classified as afirearmbecause it fires a projectile. In fact, as noted,
ATF does not regard the sample MAC-10 upper as afirearmat this time.

It is difficult to understand how FTB would single out afirearmthat is not a machine gun,
convert it into a machinegun and thus preclude its manufacture and sale, while ignoring the fact
that FTB could convert millions of MAC-10 uppers that ATF currently does not define as
firearms, intofirearmsor machinegims.

I believe a human error occurred; that we are all human and make errors; and that this error can
be addressed with a correction letterfi-omFTB; and the return of my submitted short barrel rifle.

If this is not the case please notify me immediately

Respectfiilly,

Len Savage
 DEVICES FOR MAC-TYPE REGISTERED MACHINEGUNS
THAT FIRE FROM AN OPEN BOLT CONFIGURATION
Name of Classification Classification Results of FTB Results of FTB
firearm or under the GCA under the NFA Test #1 Test #2
device, [ducttape,metal [chain,metal
plate^plastic plate,tension
ties] bolts]
Sample MAC-10 Not a firearm Not a firearm Firearm Firearm
upper shown*
Calico upper* Not a firearm Not a firearm Machinegun Machinegun
Flemming type Not a firearm Not a firearm Machinegun Machinegun
.22 upper*
Anthony Smith Not a firearm Not a fiream Machinegun Machinegun
Soumi upper*
Stoney Creek Not a firearm Not a firearm Machinegun Machinegun
Soumi upper*

54RCCU Firearm** Firearm: Firearm Machinegun

7.62x54R Short Barreled
Caliber Rifle
Conversion Unit

* All of the these have been classified by ATF/FTB to be NON-firearms.

**Historic Arms LLC intentions are to keep "prohibited persons"fi"ompossessing a 54R Caliber
Conversion Device to address a stated ATF concern. ATF considers "uppers" for a MAC-Type
firearm to not be afirearmor thefiiameor receiver of a firearm. A convicted felon could in
theory own [or in Mr. Flemming's case] manufacture these "uppers" openly for distribution to
general public.
 U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives

SEP 3 0 2004

903050:RDC
www..f..ov 3311/2004-379

Mr. Brian A. Blakely

Dear Mr. Blakely:

This refers to your letter of February 6,2004, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF), Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), in which you inquired about the legality
of a small section of string intended for use as a means for increasing the cycling rate of a
semiautomatic rifle.

As you may be aware, the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), defines "machinegun" to
include the following:
.. .any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more
than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This term shall also include
the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or
combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and
any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession
or under the control of a person [holding added].
In 1996, FTB examined and classified a 14-inch long shoestring with a loop at each end. The
string was attached to the cocking handle of a semiautomatic rifle and was looped around the
trigger and attached to the shooter's finger. The device caused the weapon to fire repeatedly
until finger pressure was released from the string. Because this item was designed and intended
to convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegim, FTB determined that it was a machinegun
as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).

We thank you for your inquiry, regret the delay in response, and trust the foregoing has been
responsive.

Sincerely yours,

t
Sterling Nixon
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
 U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives

Martinsburg, WV 25401 903050:MMK

www.atf.gov 3311/2008-472

JUN 10 2008
Mr. Len Savage
Historic Arms, LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Franklin, Georgia 30217

Dear Mr. Savage:

This refers to your letter of April 21, 2008, to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), regarding a submitted prototype. Your
submission is a modified PKM-type, 7.62x54R caliber machinegun receiver assembly, which
you have designated the Model 54RCCS, serial number VI. You request verification that the
sample is designed to be fired fi-om the shoulder, has a barrel length of less than 16 inches, and is
designed for "exclusive use in a MAC-type machinegun as a caliber conversion device.

The submitted sample (photo immediately below) is comprised of the following components:

Modified PKM-type receiver, mated with a MAC-type upper.

Unmodified PKM-type top cover and feed-tray assembly.
Newly manufactured plastic forearm.
Shortened PKM-type gas system.
Barrel approximately 15-3/4 inches long.
Modified PKM-type machinegun bolt carrier assembly.
PKM-type bolt assembly.

Submitted Sample
Historic Arms U.C, IVkxtel: 54RCCS, Serial No.: VI
Mr. Len Savage

The FTB examination noted the following external markings:

On the right side of the receiver

• HISTORIC ARMS LLC

• FRANKLIN GA > F
• 54RCCS 7.62x54R
• SERIAL N o - V I

On the top of the feed-tray assembly

• EA-141
• 1976

FTB examination noted the PKM-type receiver was modified in the following manner (see
photos, below):

• The lower rear portion of the machinegun receiver where the trigger guard is mounted
and a short section of the rear, was removed.
• The rear trunion/stock-mounting-block was removed.
 -3-

Mr. Len Savage

Serial No.: Vt

A modified MAC-type upper assembly was inserted into the rear of the PKM-type
machinegun receiver and welded in place (see photos below and next page).

fxsrtion of original receiver

L
Mr. Len Savage

MAC-Type upper PKwl-iype rt

The left-side bolt guide rail was widened in a manner preventing installation of an
unmodified machinegun bolt.
K TiiewTO2iTiVki!ac\\iTe.dp\2A.e was. \\e\Aed m p\?ice. \o acA. 2is A caXch foi \.\\e lop covtT lock.
A new manufactured ejection port cover was added to the left side.
 -5-

Mr. Len Savage

In addition, a modified PKM-type machinegun bolt-carrier-group was found installed. The

following characteristics/features of this bolt carrier were noted:

• Gas piston was shortened.

Original sear notch removed and a plate welded on to act as a sear notch for a MAC-type
machinegun sear.

MOCitfl^u wvyii-wui 11^1 r-(oowiiii.^ijr u i i-i¥ii^.HjMic;u Q u i i - y ^ a i 1 ici A S S C H l b l y

Mr. Len Savage

• Left-side guide-rail notch in the bolt widened from 3/32 inch to 1/4 inch.

Guide-rail slot

The submitted sample was test fired on May 8, 2008, at the ATF test range, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, utilizing commercially available Wolf brand, 7.62x54R caliber ammunition. Due to the
absence of a rear trunnion block to hold the recoil spring and guide rod in place, an aluminum
plate (from stock), approximately 1-1/4 inch x 1 inch and approximately 3/16 inch thick, was
tied to the rear of the receiver using duct tape and two plastic ties (see photo below).
 -7-

Mr. Len Savage

With the normal factory trigger removed, the operating handle becomes the trigger which
initiates the automatic, open-bolt firing sequence. A belt of three rounds was loaded into the
sample; the operating handle was pulled back and released. The sample fired one round, and the
plastic ties separated under the recoil forces.

Next, to more securely hold the aluminum plate in place, a small section of metal chain was used
(see photo, next page). The chain was selected since it incorporated a tensioning bolt that could
securely hold the aluminum plate in place and would not be cut by the sharp edges of the
aluminum plate.

Again, a belt of three rounds of ammunition was loaded into the sample; the operating handle
was pulled back and released. The sample fired all three rounds automatically, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This test was repeated with an additional three
rounds of ammunition, with the same result.

The use of a modified bolt did not remove the machinegun features of this bolt. It is still an
open-bolt operated device.

In review of your modifications of the PKM-type machinegun receiver, it was determined that
the original machinegun design features/characteristics were retained. Specifically, a PKM-type
machinegun receiver; an open-bolt firing mechanism; an original PKM-type machinegun belt
feed ammunition mechanism; and a shortened PKM-type machinegun barrel. It was determined
that a MAC-type upper assembly was welded to the PKM-tj^se machinegun receiver, which
allows the PKM-type machinegun receiver to be attached to a MAC-type machinegun receiver.
These modifications do not allow for a shoulder stock. Instead, the intent is to use the shoulder
stock and/or pistol grip on the MAC-type machinegun receiver to which it is mounted. Further,
the mating of the two machinegun receivers, simply allows the MAC-type machinegun receiver
to be utilized in initiafing the automatic firing sequence of the PKM-type machinegun receiver.
Mr. Len Savage

In conclusion, FTB foimd that the "Model 54RCCS, serial number VI" submitted with your
correspondence is a weapon that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger; it also incorporates the frame or receiver of a
machinegun. Therefore, the submitted sample constitutes a "machinegun" as defined in 26
U.S.C. § 5845(b).

With regard to your request we determine if the submitted sample is a caliber conversion device
or not. The welding of MAC-type upper section to the internal portion of your PKM-type
receiver does not create a caUber conversion. Further, the combination of the MAC-type
machinegun and your PKM-type machinegun would result in the creation of a new machinegun.

We regret that our.response in this matter has not been_more favorable. Because your sample
constitutes a "machinegun," in and of itself and you are a registered SOT, the machinegun must
be properly registered with the ATF National Firearms Act Branch by close of business of the
next business day following your receipt of this letter. Please notify FTB when the registration
process is complete.

The sample will be returned to you under separate cover upon receipt of a notice of proper
regisfration. To expedite the return of your prototype, please provide FTB with yoiu: FedEx
account number or other appropriate carrier information within 30 days after receiving this letter.

We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your request for an evaluation and classification.
If we can be of any fiirther assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely yours,

^ .

John R. Spencer
Chief, "Firearms Technology Branch
 LEN SAVAGE, PRESIDENT

tlistori

706-675-0287 Home
706-675-0818 Shop

April 21,2008

Mr. John R. Spencer

Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
244 Needy Rd.
Martinsburg, WV 25405

Dear Mr. Spencer,

I have shipped to you a prototype firearm [Model:54RCCS S/N VI]. Enclosed you will find the
submitted form 2.

Please verify the following with respect to the submitted prototype:

" Designed to befiredfiromthe shoulder.

° Has a barrel length of less than 16 inches.
° Designed for exclusive use in MAC type machineguns as a caliber conversion system.

I have an information package available containing analysis and documentation if you require it.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Respectfully,
CALICO

54RCCS

IT