ATF+XMG=Sillyness, and lots of it!

[VUPDblue]

So BRP made this thing called an XMG. It looks like a MG42 but it is an upper receiver for an AR or M16. BATFE said that it is, in and of itself, a title 1 firearm. Now they have ruled that installing said XMG upper on a M16 lower is a no-no. Basically, since they ruled the XMG a 'firearm' by itself, putting it on a select-fire lower would be 'making' a new machinegun and thus against the law. Pure sillyness IMHO, but I can see how they came to that conclusion.

XMG

 

[JosephR]

This is because it is beltfed? Yeah, it sounds like BS to me- they just do NOT want someone to have several hundred rounds of hell available to us...

 

[koveras225]

I'm kinda curious how exactly that got worked out - there's dozens of other belt-fed M16 conversions out there that as far as I know are perfectly legal to install on transferables... But then again - it's the BATFE - they don't have to be consistent about anything.

 

[JosephR]

The reason is nothing more than several hundred rounds of belt-fed 8mm or 308. Not something they want. They'd somehow like to keep these lowers running .223 or smaller, 9mm included...

 

[VUPDblue]

BRP is not disclosing any more of ATF's reasoning at this point. They did, however, say that they may be able to make changes to the XMG to make it NOT a Title I firearm. I'd like to know all the ins and outs of it but I doubt we ever will.

 

[Lawguns]

The ATF did the same thing about 5 years ago with a belt fed upper that would attach to a Mac / Cobray Lower. The word is that ATF said it changed the overall gun to much.