PDA

View Full Version : Would a M240 SEMI-AUTO be legal in California?


Quake0
12-16-2008, 6:11 PM
Would a M240 SEMI-AUTO be legal in California?

capo
12-16-2008, 6:12 PM
M240B(oner)

CalNRA
12-16-2008, 6:25 PM
you got the belt to worry about, i.e. a detachable magazine in a semi-auto with a pistol grip.

a bullet-buttoned 240 semi would just be so.....single shot.

dirtyJ
12-16-2008, 6:42 PM
Wouldn't it fall under the same guidelines as a 1919A4 semi-auto reproduction though? Unless there's something special about the M240.

M. Sage
12-16-2008, 6:45 PM
Wouldn't it fall under the same guidelines as a 1919A4 semi-auto reproduction though? Unless there's something special about the M240.

The 240B/G is meant to be used from the shoulder.. sort of.. if you're strong enough.

You could go with a MMG-style grip, though.

CHS
12-16-2008, 6:49 PM
Would a M240 SEMI-AUTO be legal in California?

No.

Unlike an M2 or 1919, the pistol grip "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action", which means we're stuck with either coming up with some kind of monsterman or U15 style stock/grip. Or bullet-button'ing it.

Since it's belt-fed, I don't see how that would work outside single-shot.

You might be able to do it with an M249 by disabling the belt-feed mechanism and bullet-buttoning the mag-feed portion. But that would be all kinds of weird.

You could also have one imported in pieces, and keep it apart until the laws change, and only use it outside the state. Without a lot of work, that's probably the only legal way to do it.

CHS
12-16-2008, 6:52 PM
Wouldn't it fall under the same guidelines as a 1919A4 semi-auto reproduction though? Unless there's something special about the M240.

No, the M60, M240 and M249 are all designed to be fired from the shoulder (even if only on a pintle) and have pistol grips that fall under the CA AW guidelines.

It's a very different gun than the 1919's and M2's which have pistol grips BEHIND the action, rather than beneath, and generally don't have shoulder stocks. The 1919A6 is still exempted because even though it has a shoulder stock, the pistol grip is still far behind the action.

ptoguy2002
12-16-2008, 6:52 PM
If you had the spade grips and took the flash hider off the barrel - yes.
You could MMG/batwing (of sorts) it and take the flash hider off, and yes it would be legal.
Featureless in both cases.
You can't get around the fact that it takes a detachable mag, so you have to go featureless.

The only mfg of a semi M240 is ohio ordnance works, that I know of at least.
Who else makes one?

I can tell you though from personal experience, a semi auto belt fed is totally anti-climactic. A cheap 1919 is one thing, but to drop major cash, ~$10K, on a semi belt fed needs some serious thought.

soopafly
12-16-2008, 6:53 PM
A semi-auto version of this should be legal as long as it meets the OAL requirements and the muzzle device is not a flash hider/flash suppressor:
http://www.fnmfg.com/products/m240fam/m240d.jpg
anyone got a $13,500 to spare?
http://sgcusa.com/product_info.php?cPath=119_116_124&products_id=1355

ptoguy2002
12-16-2008, 7:05 PM
Legal (minus flash hider):
http://www.fnmfg.com/products/m240fam/m240d.gif

Not legal, has pistol grip+detachable mag:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m240.jpg

ptoguy2002
12-16-2008, 7:07 PM
No, the M60, M240 and M249 are all designed to be fired from the shoulder (even if only on a pintle) and have pistol grips that fall under the CA AW guidelines.

It's a very different gun than the 1919's and M2's which have pistol grips BEHIND the action, rather than beneath, and generally don't have shoulder stocks. The 1919A6 is still exempted because even though it has a shoulder stock, the pistol grip is still far behind the action.

M60s and M240s can be had with spade grips = non pistol grip
You could also batwing it if you really wanted to.

CalNRA
12-16-2008, 7:08 PM
M240B(oner)

isn't a 240b also a full-auto version?:confused:

ptoguy2002
12-16-2008, 7:12 PM
If you are seriously considering a high dollar semi belt fed, think about a Michaels Machines built HK21 or 23E.
They have a lot of practical advantages over a semi M240

M. Sage
12-16-2008, 8:52 PM
isn't a 240b also a full-auto version?:confused:

All 240s are. The B and G (which are identical IIRC) are infantry versions with buttstocks and pistol grips...

PIRATE14
12-16-2008, 9:43 PM
There might be a few of these already in CALI......but you need $$$$ to walk the walk.....

redcliff
12-16-2008, 9:51 PM
Since a M60 D has no buttstock (not a rifle) does it really need to have the flash hider removed?

Quake0
01-13-2009, 5:09 PM
Legal (minus flash hider):
http://www.fnmfg.com/products/m240fam/m240d.gif

Not legal, has pistol grip+detachable mag:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m240.jpg


That does not look half bad.

CSACANNONEER
01-13-2009, 5:27 PM
I know of a couple M60s that are legally in private hands in this state. But, they are registered AWs. So, to answer your question, yes, they are legal if...........

haodoken
02-19-2009, 10:13 AM
What about 1919_4_ME's RPD? He has a custom grip that covers the gap between the pistol grip and stock, then just use 10rd belts only. Not sure what type belt RPDs use...non-disintegrating or disintegrating :D

See the post:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=150459&highlight=1919_4_ME&page=2

AaronHorrocks
02-19-2009, 10:23 AM
The M1917, M1919A4, and M2HB all have handles, not pistol grips.

The M240 is a no go for the same reason an M60 is a no go.