Third Party Press

Semi auto MP44 build

true

I dont take it as a smart a$$ comment. Guess I was just stating was that more has been done to this build to make it much harder to convert than the PTR44s. I can safely say that this receiver was destroyed and torched before it was built. It was made from the scraps of 3 receivers. Not only is the slot welded up, the interior of the receiver has a welded rail along the entire auto trip side so only the semi bolt and carrier can fit. To remove it would be to destroy the receiver. There are thousands of legal semi rewelds of different guns that have passed BATF standards (BRENs come to mind) but there are also many others that are done legally without being submitted to ATF tech branch using the standards set by the ATF. There has never been an official submitted mp44 semi as far as i know, but if you look at what got ATF approval with the PTR44, it at least set a standard for what they consider a semi-auto MP44 since the parts can be interchangeable. I have done much more to this build to make sure it could no never be readily convertible.

True your build re the PTR's. I found the first PTR I handled quite interesting regarding how little they had changed to make it a legal semi, much less getting it imported into the US.
I hope any of us with a rebuild gun would be treated so well if screwed with by some overzealous feds.
Pete
 
True your build re the PTR's. I found the first PTR I handled quite interesting regarding how little they had changed to make it a legal semi, much less getting it imported into the US.
I hope any of us with a rebuild gun would be treated so well if screwed with by some overzealous feds.
Pete

Hi Pete,

Agreed, a very smart question -

Obviously all have endeavored to the N'th degree to stay within the BATf's guidelines for legally manufacturing a non-sporting rifle "for personal use."
(Including, but obviously not limited to confirming diligently to USC 922r and using existing clone firearms as a basis for the denial elements.)

However...

...My biggest concern (and IMO the BATF's) with non-sporting firearms comes with the selling part of the equation - in my case I will not sell them as an operable firearm, the MP44's will be blow torch cut for the next owner to do as he wishes (the dollar amount difference is negligible anyway.)

BTW - my MP44's were spot checked by BATF - when a pyrotechnic permit is pulled in LA county, you may get a spot check, as the permit goes through the city. They are there for the Pyrotechnic technician primarily, checking his one card, but they will also check the firearms and firearms permits (CA requires both Federal License and CA DOJ permits to wrangle firearms) are in order, as was the case with us - all my semi AW's on site were checked and lowers examined - no smiling, no small talk.
Obviously not the BATF Tech branch - but, worth a mention,
 
Last edited:
...BTW - my MP44's were spot checked by BATF - when a pyrotechnic permit is pulled in LA county, you may get a spot check, as the permit goes through the city. They are there for the Pyrotechnic technician primarily, checking his one card, but they will also check the firearms and firearms permits (CA requires both Federal License and CA DOJ permits to wrangle firearms) are in order, as was the case with us - all my semi AW's on site were checked and lowers examined - no smiling, no small talk. Obviously not the BATF Tech branch - but, worth a mention,

Interesting, Obviously you get a job like that based on a number of attributes to include being knowledgeable on firearms; but did he know what he was looking at? To a lot of firearms enthusiasts a sturmgewehr is this thing that Hitler did that’s like an AK but older, no shite had an “expert” tell me that. It’s a good data point for sure Pit, but without a tech branch condoned procedure it’s still a gamble.
 
..a sturmgewehr is this thing that Hitler did that’s like an AK but older, no shite had an “expert” tell me that..

:laugh: I don't wholly disagree with this. I've always thought old Mikhail heavily borrowed (stole) the concept of such a piece if not the strict execution. A novice probably couldn't tell one from the other at 20 feet.
 
:laugh: I don't wholly disagree with this. I've always thought old Mikhail heavily borrowed (stole) the concept of such a piece if not the strict execution. A novice probably couldn't tell one from the other at 20 feet.

Agreed - hard to say what he stole/borrowed, we could have a 100 page thread on that topic alone. Certainly not the tilting bolt for ex. but my point was the gross oversimplification in reference to supposed experts.
 
Last edited:
Just to add my two cents on building a semi-auto MP44, besides those denials noted already I make my receive 1/4 inch longer so that the rear hole for the stock and pistol grip/FCG. The pin will not pass through the hole on a FA pistol grip/FCG. I then cut the pistol grip at the rear and add the 1/4 inch extension to allow the takedown pin to fit. You do not see the extra length nor does it effect the operation of the weapon but it keeps the tech boys from attempting to install a FA lower. In the lower I cut the middle section of the push through selector and weld them to the lower with the E showing. On the bottom of the receiver I weld a tab that fits into the lower section where the middle of the selector used to be. Just a couple of more denials to keep the "intent" of the build semi-auto. Harry
 
check in CA.

Hi Pete,

Agreed, a very smart question -

Obviously all have endeavored to the N'th degree to stay within the BATf's guidelines for legally manufacturing a non-sporting rifle "for personal use."
(Including, but obviously not limited to confirming diligently to USC 922r and using existing clone firearms as a basis for the denial elements.)

However...

...My biggest concern (and IMO the BATF's) with non-sporting firearms comes with the selling part of the equation - in my case I will not sell them as an operable firearm, the MP44's will be blow torch cut for the next owner to do as he wishes (the dollar amount difference is negligible anyway.)

BTW - my MP44's were spot checked by BATF - when a pyrotechnic permit is pulled in LA county, you may get a spot check, as the permit goes through the city. They are there for the Pyrotechnic technician primarily, checking his one card, but they will also check the firearms and firearms permits (CA requires both Federal License and CA DOJ permits to wrangle firearms) are in order, as was the case with us - all my semi AW's on site were checked and lowers examined - no smiling, no small talk.
Obviously not the BATF Tech branch - but, worth a mention,

That's real interesting re the checking in CA. Pit. The part about not selling as well. Personal building is one thing, entering into commerce is quite another. I get inquiries regularly re doing builds but I'd have to put my manufacturers info on them. I suppose I could send a gun to Tech for evaluation but don't choose to do that. There's a couple guys out there offering to do builds but I know little about their legalities or build quality.
Pete
 
some else on another post indicated Legacy had this semi auto

take a gander and feel free to comment

https://www.legacy-collectibles.com...rman/ww2-german-mp44-semi-auto-parts-kit.html

And Recon is selling on gunbroker right now a semi MP44 built "using the pattern of the PTR44" I honestly think this is all good news. If they feel comfortable selling these than I have to believe we have a precedent for our personal builds. Even at the range Ive seen PTR44s and those .22 StGs pretty frequently. People are used to seeing this pattern of rifle and it doesn't draw the range Nazi attention it might have years ago.
 
And theres this:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/734108837

A PTR44 using a real MP44 lower (with sears removed) and an original bolt and carrier. Can't see the Auto-trip side of the carrier but the safety sear trip is still there. I have no problem with this set-up but its obvious it doesn't take a lot to get a real MP44 lower on a PTR44.
 
And Recon is selling on gunbroker right now a semi MP44 built "using the pattern of the PTR44" I honestly think this is all good news. If they feel comfortable selling these than I have to believe we have a precedent for our personal builds. Even at the range Ive seen PTR44s and those .22 StGs pretty frequently. People are used to seeing this pattern of rifle and it doesn't draw the range Nazi attention it might have years ago.

I always bring my STG 22 when I take my semi to the range, for range nazi's and RSO's who know everything ( oh wait a minute I m a RSO)

as an builder of almost every AK variant, I was always comfortable. If you have a welded up or sealed full auto slot on the back of the receiver, a full auto lower can not fit, it will not fit. the atf cant make one fit, unless you remove the full auto trip on the lower aka a semi lower.
oh these MP-44 rifle kits are not recent imports, they are de-milled war trophy's

I wonder whether they fall under 922 regulations can anyone answer that
 
If you have a welded up or sealed full auto slot on the back of the receiver, a full auto lower can not fit, it will not fit. the atf cant make one fit, unless you remove the full auto trip on the lower aka a semi lower.

Agreed -

MP44
 
Semi on GB

And theres this:

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/734108837

A PTR44 using a real MP44 lower (with sears removed) and an original bolt and carrier. Can't see the Auto-trip side of the carrier but the safety sear trip is still there. I have no problem with this set-up but its obvious it doesn't take a lot to get a real MP44 lower on a PTR44.

My first semi uses a PTR44 receiver I got as a bare receiver from Jerry at Recon with a few issues I had to fix. It has a ser. # so it must have come from a PTR broken down into parts for some reason.
That rifle lives with a neutered MP44 lower that went right on with rec. bushings sized to MP pin size. Other than pin size and FA fire control parts or lack thereof the lowers are interchangeable.
Pete
 
I suppose the question really is...

Can you do it because the ATF hasn’t said you can’t?

Or

Can you not do it because the ATF hasn’t said you can?
 
I suppose the question really is...

Can you do it because the ATF hasn’t said you can’t?

Or

Can you not do it because the ATF hasn’t said you can?


What ever do not send them a request letter, I have seen so many projects get rejected. because someone just had to have a letter and ended up screwing the rest. this has happen time after time

When well enough was good enough, let them concentrate on bump stocks.

I believe this thread has demonstrated that if you follow logic and common sense, you are good to go

its not like there is aft agent at every range or website ( but they want you to think they are)

when was the last time or anytime you heard of someone getting arrested for not complying with 922 regulations???
 
922

What ever do not send them a request letter, I have seen so many projects get rejected. because someone just had to have a letter and ended up screwing the rest. this has happen time after time

When well enough was good enough, let them concentrate on bump stocks.

I believe this thread has demonstrated that if you follow logic and common sense, you are good to go

its not like there is aft agent at every range or website ( but they want you to think they are)

when was the last time or anytime you heard of someone getting arrested for not complying with 922 regulations???

I've read or heard it enough times that I tend to believe that no one has ever been prosecuted for violating R922.
If I remember the text of the reg. right it says "It shall be illegal to assemble" Don't recall it says anything about possession. Makes me think "they" would be looking at manufacturers of multiple weapons for sale not guys putting one rifle together in their garage workshop.
I'm sure someone will respond if they have better info. than me.
Pete
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top