redstategunnut
New member
A friend of mine recently gave me a mint condition Clinton era MAK90 Sporter.
I fixed it:
I fixed it:
MAK90 Sporter Rebirthed
- Thread starter redstategunnut
- Start date
What he means is that once you remove the thumb hole stock and put a non thumb hole on it, you are in violation.
To correct that, it needs to have 5 US made parts of the listed ones (not all parts are listed, so it has to be relevant listed.)
If the stock is US made you have 3 of the require parts.
The easiest next step is a US made magazine as that accounts for 3 parts (the shell, floor plate and follower and the spring does not count which is an example of the bureaucracy aspect, but it is what it is)
You can also change the firing group but the MAK has the best one there as is the piston etc.
Adding a US rail or sight does not count as its not part of the core parts that are required (listed) as what constitutes the gun pr 9.22 (and I forget the rest of the numbers).
To correct that, it needs to have 5 US made parts of the listed ones (not all parts are listed, so it has to be relevant listed.)
If the stock is US made you have 3 of the require parts.
The easiest next step is a US made magazine as that accounts for 3 parts (the shell, floor plate and follower and the spring does not count which is an example of the bureaucracy aspect, but it is what it is)
You can also change the firing group but the MAK has the best one there as is the piston etc.
Adding a US rail or sight does not count as its not part of the core parts that are required (listed) as what constitutes the gun pr 9.22 (and I forget the rest of the numbers).
Bacteriophage
New member
He means that since it's a Clinton-era gun, it had to comply with the silly AWB rules of the time, including having a "thumbhole" stock and probably no flash hider, among other things. He made it a proper MAK.
In this case you do have a serious issue with compliance as the gun has been pushed into the illegal modification of a gun category unless the right parts count with US origin has been used. Not likely to be caught of course.
A proper MAK of that era is as is, warts and all and my take is that it should be preserved.
What he did was changed it to look like a tactical AK47 (certainly fine and no issues with that, its his gun but I also believe you should be informed before you do that for the legal aspects as well as historic value).
The MAKs have an inherent value as they were unusually and a high quality underpinnings (maybe e solid would be better as the term quality is somewhat iffy with AKs, function and reliable yes.)
While I do plan to get a good stock on mine, its for function not appearance. No plans to add a bunch of stuff to it, but thats me and my take.
I will keep the thumb-hole as someday it will be sold and thats part of its intrinsic value as well as history (good or bad).
The wrong changes and you can't go back and then its a modified MAK and for whatever that sells for.
I do think for something historic, be it an old car of gun you should always think seriously about what you do to them. Some are never going to be worth much, others like the MAK appear to have a value in and of themselves. Once something is changed and you can't go back its lost and that can be a shame. I think the MAK is in that transition period.
Cutting the ears off a Model of 1917 receiver is not in that place, though it was a very reasonable thing to do when there were millions of them around. I don't think anyone should do it now, but again thats me and my take
A proper MAK of that era is as is, warts and all and my take is that it should be preserved.
What he did was changed it to look like a tactical AK47 (certainly fine and no issues with that, its his gun but I also believe you should be informed before you do that for the legal aspects as well as historic value).
The MAKs have an inherent value as they were unusually and a high quality underpinnings (maybe e solid would be better as the term quality is somewhat iffy with AKs, function and reliable yes.)
While I do plan to get a good stock on mine, its for function not appearance. No plans to add a bunch of stuff to it, but thats me and my take.
I will keep the thumb-hole as someday it will be sold and thats part of its intrinsic value as well as history (good or bad).
The wrong changes and you can't go back and then its a modified MAK and for whatever that sells for.
I do think for something historic, be it an old car of gun you should always think seriously about what you do to them. Some are never going to be worth much, others like the MAK appear to have a value in and of themselves. Once something is changed and you can't go back its lost and that can be a shame. I think the MAK is in that transition period.
Cutting the ears off a Model of 1917 receiver is not in that place, though it was a very reasonable thing to do when there were millions of them around. I don't think anyone should do it now, but again thats me and my take
Nittespanker
Moderator
Plenty of these MAK 90 guns were imported before the 1993 Clinton crime bill.
If so wouldn't the be considered pre-ban?
If so wouldn't the be considered pre-ban?
Not if it had a Thumb-hole (the most immediate visible signature).
Also the bayonet lug was removed and the flash suppressor threads (what left looks like threads but is the milling marks that removed them)
So if he did it to "fix" the MKA90 its obvious that it was ban era.
Don't get me wrong, it you like plastic its a nice looking piece (not my cup of tea but again thats me).
While I think its very unlikely to get caught, the penalties if you do are severe (and that can include your job).
Also the bayonet lug was removed and the flash suppressor threads (what left looks like threads but is the milling marks that removed them)
So if he did it to "fix" the MKA90 its obvious that it was ban era.
Don't get me wrong, it you like plastic its a nice looking piece (not my cup of tea but again thats me).
While I think its very unlikely to get caught, the penalties if you do are severe (and that can include your job).
Last edited:
Just read 18 USC 922r and it should answer your questions.
that was why I insisted that my riifle be compliant, regardless of the opinion of the gunsmith.
I don't know if posting links to ther forums is allowed, (so I will not) but some of the AK-47 forums have long threads devoted to 922r compliance.
that was why I insisted that my riifle be compliant, regardless of the opinion of the gunsmith.
I don't know if posting links to ther forums is allowed, (so I will not) but some of the AK-47 forums have long threads devoted to 922r compliance.