Norrell 10/22 FA Trigger Pack and Bolt

[10/22Hunter]

Sorry can't get the video to post.

[10/22Hunter]

Let's see if a pic will at least post...

[geefal]

Seen a couple already advertised around the $20,000 mark. Guess that came sooner than I thought it would.

 

Congrats on the purchase, they are a hoot aren't they :-)

[motorcycling951]

Geefal I hear ya there about the rediculous prices these days for MG. Back when I ran my shop I mostly sold the NFA stuff to LE swat teams all post ban MG'S of course. The transferable were mostly purchased by me for me. Prices were high but not quite as high as today.

[motorcycling951]

These days I'm priced out of the MG's market.

[Robert Henley]

These days I'm priced out of the MG's market.

 

This is off topic, but what should be done is (1) lobby to remove the 1986 restriction on purchase of new machine guns (so you don't have to be rich to own a machine gun) and (2) (to achieve #1--link it) include in the NFA registry new semi-auto AR15s and M4s with the same kinds of controls now for the sale of full auto transferable machine guns. The latter would make it much more difficult to obtain what are now easy to obtain (and just as lethal) in return for opening back up the purchase of new (affordable) machine guns to law abiding citizens.

 

As it is now, any 18 year old with no criminal record or other disqualifying offenses can walk in to a gun store in Florida and buy a semi auto M4 which is every bit as lethal as a full auto M16 (maybe even more so because you can control the fire better in semi-auto mode). I raise this only in the context of addressing the current prohibition on purchasing new machine guns and the insane prices pre-1986 guns now command.

 

At the same time, and is now being sought, remove silencers from the NFA registry which is bogging down the approval process.

 

Robert

[geefal]

Sorry Robert, I completely disagree with you about including ar15's in the NFA. There is absolutely no way we should do that, even if it were to open the registry again for new machineguns (which it wouldn't, they might add semi auto's to the nfa but if anyone thinks we will see the registry open up any time soon they are delusional).

 

Your entitled to your opinion, but that is honestly in the top ten of the worst ideas I have ever seen on the internet (in my opinion).

 

 

These days I'm priced out of the MG's market.

 

This is off topic, but what should be done is (1) lobby to remove the 1986 restriction on purchase of new machine guns (so you don't have to be rich to own a machine gun) and (2) (to achieve #1--link it) include in the NFA registry new semi-auto AR15s and M4s with the same kinds of controls now for the sale of full auto transferable machine guns. The latter would make it much more difficult to obtain what are now easy to obtain (and just as lethal) in return for opening back up the purchase of new (affordable) machine guns to law abiding citizens.

 

As it is now, any 18 year old with no criminal record or other disqualifying offenses can walk in to a gun store in Florida and buy a semi auto M4 which is every bit as lethal as a full auto M16 (maybe even more so because you can control the fire better in semi-auto mode). I raise this only in the context of addressing the current prohibition on purchasing new machine guns and the insane prices pre-1986 guns now command.

 

At the same time, and is now being sought, remove silencers from the NFA registry which is bogging down the approval process.

 

Robert

[motorcycling951]

Robert why is opening up the machinegun registry such a bad idea to you? With the machineguns that are listed in the current registry yes the pre-86 transferables. The BATF has stated several times that since 1934 the number of LEGALLY REGISTERED MACHINEGUNS that have been used in crimes is so low that the amount doesn't even amount to a handful. So why would you think opening up the registry and allowing new machineguns. To be owned what makes you think that people will start using them any different than the transferables are today? Seriously don't just presume every owner guilty when most people have already proven themselves responsible.

[motorcycling951]

Robert why is opening up the machinegun registry such a bad idea to you? With the machineguns that are listed in the current registry yes the pre-86 transferables. The BATF has stated several times that since 1934 the number of LEGALLY REGISTERED MACHINEGUNS that have been used in crimes is so low that the amount doesn't even amount to a handful. So why would you think opening up the registry and allowing new machineguns. To be owned what makes you think that people will start using them any different than the transferables are today? Seriously don't just presume every owner guilty when most people have already proven themselves responsible.

[Robert Henley]

First, I'm for opening up the machinegun registry for newly manufactured machineguns. That is the stated intent of my suggestion. I agree that's unlikely to happen in the current political environment, although that is why I offered the suggestion I did as an alternative to consider.

 

Second, geefal may well be correct. However, I don't see how the current industry for AR15 type rifles is going to survive the current political climate which is quickly getting much worse. There's really not much difference between a full auto M16 and a semi-auto AR15 in terms of destructive capability. In fact, the semi-auto is probably more effective in most instances. So my thought is nothing more that a realization of the current political environment, which keeps shifting to the left as evidenced by Bernie Sanders popularity, and an attempt to undo what was done in 1986 which has been a disaster for sportsman without the wealth to enjoy owing and shooting machineguns today. It has basically evolved into a rich man's hobby. I agree, and it is well established, that there has been almost no illegal use of legally registered machineguns, so there's no reason for newly manufactured ones to be banned.

 

On the other hand, if things keep going the way they are going the anti 2nd amendment gun banners are going to go after everything and with Hillary and the USSC justices she likely puts in place the future doesn't look good to me. Even some of the Republicans are moving in their direction as we've recently seen. I also agree with the premise not to give in based on appearance of the firearm, which makes no sense. However, the current political trends and direction don't look good. It's certainly deserving of a good debate while we still have some control.

[Robert Henley]

What is the lever type selector?:

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4319-norrell-1022-trigger-pack-host-gun-suppressor/

 

Is that where you can switch from semi to full auto? Is that the nickel colored lever in the picture next to the trigger?

 

Robert

[johnsonlmg41]

that is correct. Norrell gave you the choice of the button in the trigger or the lever next to it. I prefer the button myself mostly because it's more covert and it's easier for left handers. The majority you see for sale have the button selector.

[Robert Henley]

that is correct. Norrell gave you the choice of the button in the trigger or the lever next to it. I prefer the button myself mostly because it's more covert and it's easier for left handers. The majority you see for sale have the button selector.

 

Thanks, being left handed, that lever would be awkward. It looks like that particular gun sold quick.

[geefal]

The only down side to me of the button selector, is "to me" it is a bit awkward to use. But if your left handed, the lever would be even worse. My first one I had was button, the one I have now is lever.

 

I also see there is one on Gbroker for a starting bid of over $23,000 with a buy it now of $26 and change. I think he is fishing. But give it a bit of time, and that price will be normal, then cheap (shakes head and slowly walks away muttering to self "should have bought more of these years ago")

Edited September 26, 2016 by geefal

[Robert Henley]

There was what looked like a nice one on Sturm that recently sold for $16.5K (assuming it sold for asking):

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4319-norrell-1022-trigger-pack-host-gun-suppressor/#comment-12368

 

There have been others recently. You just have to keep an open eye, and move quickly if you want one at a good price.

 

Like all other transferable MG's they can only go up in price (govt. regulated supply/increasing demand) unless the gun laws change, although you have to believe there is some kind of ceiling (only worth so much). An example being the H&K MP5 guns and registered conversion parts. A registered sear is $35,000?

[10/22Hunter]

Sorry, this update is long overdue. I finally found a Norrell trigger pack and bolt. Then I built the gun for it. It's an aftermarket stock with Magpul rear buttstock, Charger barrel cut down to 5.5" and threaded. Standard 10/22 receiver. Bought the can directly from John Norrell as I wanted the beefier look and his cans are rated full auto with very little cleaning unlike most other .22 cans. Inexpensive red dot site sits on top. Months and months of waiting on the NFA branch to approve th receiver as SBR, the can from John, and the trigger pack from a private purchase. Finally received all my stamps, built it and have been shooting for a few months. AND wow, what a gas!!!!!!! No recoil, fairly quiet and accurate! My wife and kids shoot it too. Everyone who shoots it "giggles." Well worth it and very glad I did it. FYI: a friend pointed out that with the mg trigger pack, I didn't have to technically SBR the receiver, BUT, I thought what if I pull the pack out and put it in one of the other 10/22 configured guns I have... Does this then become an unlicensed SBR? Hell, I don't know so I did it anyway. Besides, what if I later changed my mind and wanted to break this set up? At least this way I am legit and covered. Anyway, turns out it's a perfect setup and is super reliable with cci min mags, cci standard, Aguilar standard, and federal standard. No good with Remington or Winchester bulk ammo but nothing is!!! They are crap ammo. But everything else feeds well and very reliable. Oh, my pack has the little lever, not button and it is very easy to use without thinking. Highly recommend. Thanks!!!

[10/22Hunter]

[10/22Hunter]

 

 

If there is interest, I have a couple of short videos of it shooting but cannot get it to post. Don't know if the website allows or its just user error.

Edited December 15, 2016 by 10/22Hunter

[johnsonlmg41]

Nice package. I have one as well and they are fun. Norrell used to make an integrally suppressed barrel (not sure if he still does) and that would go on the gun. I don't recall what the internal barrel length was, but I don't think it made 16", so you ended up with a "three stamp" gun. MG, suppressor, SBR. The packs are "tunable", but I'd recommend running the ammo he suggests with his instruction packet and CCI is the highest quality rimfire for that application. I've run mine with a variety of ammo and gotten it to work well on budget stuff. Always trial and error. That is a gun I used to take to shoots and start people off with before I moved them on to other MG's. It's often the first time kids ever hear what hitting steel sounds like and it becomes addicting pretty fast. Talking people through things without hearing protection is a huge bonus as well. I have a lousy can on mine, but it runs Remington subsonic very quiet and well.

[geefal]

It would be a two stamp gun as long as you always have the pack in there when the short barrel is on. As long as you remove the barrel before you remove the pack it is good to go. No different than putting a 10.5 barrel on an M16. No need to file SBR papers on that either.

[HB of CJ]

Interesting. No dog in this. Respectfully. I THINK, (not sure) you would need a SBR stamp to hang a short barrel on your "trigger pak/bolt" Ruger 10-22. You do not have a registered receiver. You have a registered trigger pak/bolt. And of course you would need another stamp for the can. Three stamps? Yep. Yikes! Respectfully.

 

Also wondering about the various short barrels in possession and control without a registered receiver. Just me. Respectfully. This is similar to my situation with a registered rare Flemming M2 trigger housing "trigger pak" inside my donor Inland M1 Carbine. Not a registered M2 receiver. Just a trigger pak. I do not have short barrels.

 

All Oregon State, US Code Laws And NFA Rules Apply.

Edited April 3, 2017 by HB of CJ

[geefal]

Interesting. No dog in this. Respectfully. I THINK, (not sure) you would need a SBR stamp to hang a short barrel on your "trigger pak/bolt" Ruger 10-22. You do not have a registered receiver. You have a registered trigger pak/bolt. And of course you would need another stamp for the can. Three stamps? Yep. Yikes! Respectfully.

 

Also wondering about the various short barrels in possession and control without a registered receiver. Just me. Respectfully. This is similar to my situation with a registered rare Flemming M2 trigger housing "trigger pak" inside my donor Inland M1 Carbine. Not a registered M2 receiver. Just a trigger pak. I do not have short barrels.

 

All Oregon State, US Code Laws And NFA Rules Apply.

I appreciate the respectful part. But you are incorrect.

 

Machinegun trumps all. Every single sear gun in a HK would require a SBR stamp in your view and that is incorrect.

 

If you purchase a sear conversion MP5, it is a HK94 that has a short barrel installed (or original cut down).

 

You can NOT remove said trigger pack from rifle while barrel is in your possession. You must remove the barrel first if you are going to use the pack in something else or you must SBR it. BUT. If pack is retained at all times with the weapon, one stamp is good to go.

 

Same as a RDIAS on an M16. Same as a B&G bolt in an UZI. Same as flemming sear in HK. Same as Norrel pack in 10/22.

 

I appreciate your method of conveying your concern, but again, you are incorrect.

Edited April 5, 2017 by geefal

[HB of CJ]

Respectfully. So in my case with my registered M2 Carbine "trigger pak" trigger housing inside the M1 Carbine Inland donor gun I would be legal to also install the eventual project short 14" threaded USGI M1 Carbine barrel? Do I understand this correctly? Again the receiver would not be registered as a SBR. I am not so sure. It is my understanding that for to have a SB on a rifle, the receiver must have a SBR tax stamp. Registered sears or trigger paks do not enter into it. Respectfully.

Edited April 5, 2017 by HB of CJ

[johnsonlmg41]

As long as the registered MG part (in your case the registered trigger parts combination) you can modify the host gun into any configuration you like including shortening the barrel. If you decide to remove the registered MG part from the host, the short barrel must come off first, before the registered MG parts are removed.

 

This has led to the popularity of so many pistol configurations of so many guns since the barrels are short, add in your registered MG sear/parts and then you can add a buttstock. Change your mind, switch it all back out again, starting with removing the buttstock first. It's a big money saver for those that don't want to pay $200 to make an SBR, however if the parts technically are removed in the wrong order, you may have an unregistered SBR until you either remove the barrel or buttstock depending on how the host gun started off life as either a pistol or a rifle. It happens on occasion on a temporary basis during disassembly to some guys.

 

 

I have a flipped situation where I have a registered receiver 10/22 with what would technically be a stand alone post sample Norrell trigger pack if it were separated from the gun (which is really a registered sear but comes neatly as a custom trigger pack). I can mod the gun any way I want, but removing the trigger pack and getting it near any other regular 10/22's would create a constructive possession issue. Let common sense be your guide. HTH

Edited April 6, 2017 by johnsonlmg41

[HB of CJ]

Thank you all. I just learned something new. It is about possession and control. As long as I have possession and control of the registered trigger pak/bolt/sear, then the host gun is good to go with a short barrel. But ... if the trigger pak/bolt/sear is removed from my possession and or control, then the short barrel must be removed first from my possession and control.

 

This would explain all the short barrel whatevers papered by just a registered sear, bolt or trigger pak. Sosss, as I now understand it all, my long wanted but ill afforded plan to put a 14" barrel on my Inland M1 Carbine would be perfectly legal as long as I retain possession and control of the registered Flemming M2 Trigger Housing. Like on the same hobby bench. Thank you.