1927 Receiver On 1928 Frame, Why?

[Stainless]

Hello, new guy here. I have noticed on Tommygunner.com that they offer a service to fit a 1927 receiver to a 1928 frame. I am wondering what is involoved, what are the differences between the the two, and most of all why would I want to do this? Is there some big advantage to having the 1928 lower? is it stronger, or is it just for looks?

Thanks

[Grey Crow]

Looks basically, seeing that the original 21, 28, & 27 were all built on the same style frame. The AO and Kahr frames utilize the M1 style frame.

[Zamm]

Stainless,

I guess the main reason folks do this is to have the option of the 21/28 removable buttstock.

If you look closely at the 27's buttstock, it is a military screw-on as is the frame. The shape of the stock is different

and also the rear grip is different. To remove the stock you have to remove 2 srews. With a 21/28 you press a release button and it slides off.

In order to fit a 28 frame to a 27 receiver I believe there is a shim involved. The 27's lower frame was made a bit smaller so one could not just "drop-in" sub-machine gun components.

 

Another route to a removable buttstock is one of Damon's or PK's buttstock adapters fitted to your original 27 frame. These are works of art, and you have a hard time telling that they where not machine out of the frame stock!

 

Downside is the M1 rear grip and no hole for the select-fire pivot ( which most people have installed as a bolt-hold open lock).

With the 28 frame you get the 28 grip style, and the frame allready drilled for the pivot.

 

If you want to dress up that 27 one of these forms is the way to go. Have a look at photo's from previous posts, and you will agree!

 

Here's a photo of my 27 with PK's adaptor in place.

Best Zamm

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v727/zamm/CZ7.jpg

[Stainless]

Thanks Zamm, I'll probably get a setup from Tommygunner to allow the removable buttstock because I want to get an FBI case as well

Thanks again

[Zamm]

You will be very, very pleased!

Z

[Stainless]

By the way, on the FBI cases, do you know how much the ones by Greg Fox cost? I am presently planning to get one from Tommygunner which I assume are made by Kahr and look very nice, but everyone raves about the Fox ones so much I thought maybe I should get one of his if they are reasonably priced

Thanks

[Merry Ploughboy]

Anyone ever get a letter from the ATF as to the legality of putting a 28 frame on a 27A1?

 

From what I've read George Numrich had to jump thorough all kinds of hoops to get the 27A1 approved. If this modification is a reversal of what was mandated, there may be some ATF issues.

 

If having an AR-15 and "some" M-16 components (you guess whch components cause the ATF ain't telling) is a problem, and if having certain semi-auto rifles and a 16" string with a loop one both ends is a problem, I'd wonder.

 

Thanks to all for your thoughts.

 

MP

[Bill in VA]

I'll add my .02 here...

I see no reason or need to ask permission about mounting a '28 grip frame to a '27 semi-auto upper. The first reason being, in general, US law is what's known as "prohibitive" in nature. In other words, the law tells us what is prohibited/illegal, and not what is permitted/legal. In other words, unless the law states "xyz" is illegal, the presumption is that "xyz" is legal. Thus, if the law is silent on a subject, the presumption is that such subject is, in fact, legal.

Secondly, the whole thing about asking permission allows mission creep for the BATF. Whether or not they rule in your favor is immaterial. What would matter is that they have just set precedent by their decision. Couldn't you challenge it? Sure. But they have deeper pockets than you. Moreover, they are presumed to be firearms' "experts" in the eyes of the court. You are not so presumed. (Always remember the old saying, "don't poke the bear.")

Third, regardless of their decision in/against your favor, a BATF opinion letter is only binding for the person to whom it was addressed.

That said, there is precedent for allowing a '28 lower to be fitted to a '27 upper. Consider FAL home-builds. BATF has said that using an unmodified FAL lower on a semi-auto FAL receiver is permissible since it still does not allow for full-auto function. Would simply putting a '28 lower on your '27 make it full-auto? No. An MG is defined by both 18USC CH44 921(a)(23) and 26USC CH53 5845(http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif. Without further functional modifications, the Franken-Thom ('28 lower mated to '27 receiver) would not fall within the definition of an MG. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[giantpanda4]

My only questions - and I think we discussed it here a lot - is what does the OAL become with the stock off. Is that not legal in your state?

[kilroyjones]

I am not going to pretend to understand ATF logic, however there is one major difference between the AR and the Thompson. The lower trigger frame of the AR-15 is considered the registered receiver, where the trigger frame on the Thompson is just another part.

 

By adding M-16 (FA parts) to the AR lower then it could be said that you are modifying the registered semi receiver. Not trying to defend the ATF position, just making a commment on thier (un)logic. KJ

 

[Grey Crow]

Good point Zamm, and a very handsome piece you have there.

 

I consider it all aesthetics, but the removable stock is a great option as well as the bolt hold open. It all brings the SA just a little closer in appearance to the 28.

 

I also might add, that once Damon or PK have given the 27 a thorough going over that not only form, but function are greatly improved. I used the Numrich stock adapter, no where as clean as it should be, but still allows function.