10/22 Full Auto Conversion


The Jackal
September 1, 2005, 06:43 PM
I need some info. I am looking into a full auto conversion of my 10/22 and came across this thread (http://www.techimo.com/forum/t51109.html) on the topic. Some of it seems contradictory. Can you legally convert to a full auto or not?

If you enjoyed reading about "10/22 Full Auto Conversion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
September 1, 2005, 06:45 PM
That would be a big fat NO.

PAC 762
September 1, 2005, 06:48 PM
Not unless you are a federally licensed MG manufacturer making a dealer sample. My guess is that you're not, since you had to ask this question. There are no new MG's allowed on the civilian registry. You need to find one for sale that was converted and registered prior to the 86 ban, complete the form 4, pay the $200 tax, and buy it.

September 1, 2005, 06:51 PM
simple answer NO ! 1984 was the last time you could register a full auto weapon for the public , making a new one violates that ! only if you are a L. E. dept ( not person ) can you purchase a NEW ( post 84 weapon ) othert wise you can purchase a class 3 weapon of pre status after getting your Class 3 license from Batfe, and if you get caught W/O that licence and the weapon in your posestion serious time in the pokey . ( there are schools that offer training in class 3 usage )

September 1, 2005, 06:53 PM
Longer answer:

There are ways to legally make full-auto firearms, and perhaps full-auto conversions of semi-autos, but they involve you being licensed by the federal government to manufacture full-auto weapons. Unless you actually are building guns, selling them legally to LE entities, and raking in money, it will very rapidly become much cheaper to have just paid for a transferrable NFA weapon. That's even assuming you get the license and have dealt with the ATF going over you with a microscope.

So. Short answer? No. Longer answer? Well...no.

Mike ;)

September 1, 2005, 06:58 PM
You can "convert" your 10/22 by buying a transferrable 10/22 trigger pack and putting it in your semi-auto 10/22. The packs currently run $7-8k AFAIK. Other than that, you're out of luck.

September 1, 2005, 07:21 PM
what a troll. New member, with a moniker like that, asking for full auto info. Can you spell FED???

September 1, 2005, 07:51 PM
I doubt that a real fed would be sillying around like that. :p You can get a pre-86 (not 84) f.a. weapon without paying the transfer tax, if you're acquiring it from a governmental agency. (transfer would be done on Form 5)

The Jackal
September 1, 2005, 08:03 PM
Thanks. I ask to keep my arse outa trouble. I would love to have a full auto, but not for that cash, and it's not worth going to jail for.

I could always turn it into a gatling gun. LOL! Can you believe this! (http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1900/1930.htm)

September 1, 2005, 08:18 PM
CleverNickname has it right. Everything else is bogus.
It is perfectly legal to convert a 10/22 to select fire. A company named Norell made select fire trigger pacs for the Ruger 10/22. You can buy these completely legally and put one in your 10/22.
The trigger pac is an NFA item and is transfered on a form 4.

A quick check of an NFA board shows an ad right here for several of them: http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=6360&query=retrieval

September 1, 2005, 08:45 PM
What exactly is bogus about no new civillian MG's since 1986??? :confused:

September 1, 2005, 10:20 PM
what a troll. New member, with a moniker like that, asking for full auto info. Can you spell FED???

Yeah thats what I was thinking. If I got a nickle everytime a new member of a gun forum asked about full-auto......

September 1, 2005, 10:32 PM
The only legal way to convert your 10/22 is to get a FFL and pay the Class 2 Special Occupational Tax that allows you to build post-1986 machineguns.


Buy one of John Norrell's registered 10/22 trigger packs. As someone else said they go for around $7000 now.


Move to some place like Afghanistan and you can do whatever you want.

The Jackal
September 1, 2005, 10:33 PM
Sheesh, you would think it was a crime to ask about full autos around here. I know this may be hard to believe but not all of us have been into fire arms for decades on end. Try to show a little respect for those who are trying to learn more rather than crapping on them for not being as all-knowing as you would like them to be.

BTW, I can honestly say I have never been accused of being a fed before, that is a first. I have been accused of being an @ss, arrogant, even sarcastic, but never a fed. I will have to remember that one.

September 1, 2005, 10:40 PM
and sorry if I got the dates confudsed I was only off by 2 years !!! :neener: but you still cannot buy a new one or due a full conversion .

September 1, 2005, 10:45 PM
Hey, they have accused me of being a fed before- don't take it personal...I didn't even ask a question about illiegal stuff or full auto...just a strategies and tactics question

The Jackal
September 1, 2005, 11:04 PM
I would hope that my tax dollars are better spent than having feds probe for full autos online. That being said, it would not surprise me if there was an entire depart of feds that sat around doing just that. I mean, heaven forbid free people have the right to bare arms. Sometimes I think our founding fathers are rolling over in thier graves at the crap that passes as law these days.

September 2, 2005, 12:49 AM
Jackal, you should realize that there is a good reason seasoned gun enthusiasts are a bit, well, "paranoid" about feds prowling about. They have arrested people before on conspiracy charges related to the unlawful manufacturing of machine guns simply by observing them explaining how to convert a semi-auto to select fire to "an interested newbie". It's a bogus charge on so many levels, but that doesn't stop them from trying, and worse, succeeding. If someone here tells you how to do such a thing, they could go away for a long time, in addition to never legally owning a firearm in the USA again.

It's something taken quite seriously; I'd say the paranoia is well-founded. Responding to someone's statement with sarcasm and spite doesn't help anyone, either. The best way to learn is to watch the experienced and keep your mouth shut unless you have a question. No bickering, no flaming, no name-calling. We come together on the boards because we enjoy learning together and sharing stories and information...Well, most of us. Some might come with a badge and a gun looking for an easy arrest.

September 2, 2005, 01:21 AM
Well, I think the answer to the original question is a qualified 'Maybe.' Didn't that guy 'Stewart,' the one who used to sell .50 BMG kits and got busted for it, also make a MG and didn't the 9th Circus Court rule that he didn't break any laws because he built it himself without moving it across state lines? I seem to remember something like that but I still don't think I want to go out and build one to test the theory. Besides, FA weapons are expensive to feed.

September 2, 2005, 10:30 AM
Apparently, the forms are there, but nobody outside the ATF has ever seen them. :confused:


September 2, 2005, 10:55 AM
"What exactly is bogus about no new civillian MG's since 1986???"

That wasn't the question being asked. He asked if he could convert a Ruger 10/22 to full auto. The answer is absolutely: yes. It is perfectly legal, dispite most of what has been posted here. There are legal definitions that come into play here: what ATF considers the machine gun. In this case the machine gun is the trigger pac. And, the Norell trigger pacs were registered machine guns before 1986. Since the ATF considers the trigger pac to be the registered machine gun, you can put it in any 10/22 you want to put it in. It is no different than an AR15 drop- in auto sear or an AR15 Lightning Link. If you want to fire your 10/22 full auto, you simply buy a Norell trigger pac and take about two minutes to install it in your 10/22. It is full auto, and it is perfectly legal.
Therefore, saying it is illegal to do so, or calling this guy a troll is bogus. You are giving out bad information.

September 2, 2005, 12:52 PM
This might give a little insight as to what is legal and illegal Jackal:


See Section M for National Firearms Act (NFA) weapons.

September 2, 2005, 01:08 PM
Jackal: If folks didn't have the right to "bare arms," there wouldn't be any short-sleeved shirts sold. ;)

September 2, 2005, 01:33 PM
You are giving out bad information.

Huh? I didn't give out any information.

Father Knows Best
September 2, 2005, 02:54 PM
Folks are arguing about semantics here, but all agree on the underlying principles. As CleverNickname said, and as Exposure agreed, it is generally illegal to manufacture a new machine gun. That generally includes "converting" an existing semi-auto to fire full automatic. The only exception is that certain semi-auto firearms can be "converted" by use of registered conversion parts such as the Norrell trigger packs. As 444 correctly points out, the Norrell trigger packs are themselves "registered machine guns" under the law. Therefore, you aren't really "manufacturing" a "new" machine gun by installing one of those trigger packs in a semi-auto 10/22.

Another example would be certain registered selective fire lowers or sears for HK pattern rifles, or for the FNC. For the FNC, for example, you can buy a "registered full auto sear." It is a conversion part. Again, the part itself is registered already, so installing it in a semi-auto firearm does not constitute manufacturing a new, unregistered machine gun.

What you cannot do is convert a semi-auto firearm to full auto using unregistered parts. That would be manufacturing a new machine gun.

Father Knows Best
September 2, 2005, 03:11 PM
Didn't that guy 'Stewart,' the one who used to sell .50 BMG kits and got busted for it, also make a MG and didn't the 9th Circus Court rule that he didn't break any laws because he built it himself without moving it across state lines?

Sort of but not quite. The case is United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003). In that case, Stewart was prosecuted for (among other things) possession of five machine guns that he had built himself, largely using parts that he machined in his own home. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, he argued that the law banning mere possession of a machine gun was unconstitutional because it was beyond Congress's enumerated Constitutional powers. The only potential Constitutional basis for the NFA was the interstate commerce clause, and since he had not bought or sold the machine guns or moved them across state lines, there was no basis for Congress to regulate their possession. The 9th Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision and overturned his conviction.

The U.S., however, immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, which granted a stay of the decision pending appeal. Although the Supremes ultimately did not hear the cases, On June 13, 2005, they did vacate the 9th Circuit's judgment and remand the case for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ___ (2005). The Gonzales case was the one in which the Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 vote that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the local growth and use of marijuana.

While the 9th Circuit has not acted on the remand, yet (it's been just a little over two months), the outcome is pretty much all but determined. In light of Gonzales, the 9th Circuit will have to reverse itself and affirm Stewart's conviction for illegal possession of a machine gun. Thus, the 9th Circuit's decision in Stewart has effectively been overturned.

If you enjoyed reading about "10/22 Full Auto Conversion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!