PDA

View Full Version : Belt fed guns don't need bullet button???


munkeeboi
05-19-2009, 7:29 AM
Following 2 threads about getting a Yugo MG 42

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=184559
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=184517

What's the restriction on belt-fed devices as it clearly doesn't fall under the detachable mag portion of the AW ID chart?

Can someone please chime in (with codes if attainable) on how these can be shipped into CA?

Dr Rockso
05-19-2009, 8:01 AM
My understanding is that the 1919 is legal because the grip doesn't protrude conspicuously beneath the action, thus it doesn't have a pistol grip per CA law. The MG 42 looks like it would be considered a pistol grip.

grahlaika
05-19-2009, 8:11 AM
Interesting question. The MG 42 doesn't have a magazine either, so even with the pistol grip I'm not sure it falls under the restriction. It's also not listed, but who knows. It IS evil-looking, so someone is bound to take offense to it...

Dr Rockso
05-19-2009, 8:17 AM
Interesting question. The MG 42 doesn't have a magazine either, so even with the pistol grip I'm not sure it falls under the restriction. It's also not listed, but who knows. It IS evil-looking, so someone is bound to take offense to it...
IIRC the law doesn't say 'magazine', it says 'ammunition feeding device'. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that a belt doesn't fit that description.

wash
05-19-2009, 8:48 AM
That's a kind of grey area.

I don't know how a court would feel about this, but if you stuck with 10 round belts and locked the top plate or whatever you would open to remove a belt (with some sort of bullet button), it might fall under the non-detachable magazine part of the law.

My advice is to not do it unless you can afford to loose the rifle and $10,000+ for legal fees unless there is a suitable legal precedent.

timdps
05-19-2009, 9:10 AM
Don't have a source, but the belt is considered the "ammunition feeding device"/ magazine and is detachable, meaning you need to lose the pistol grip to bring it into CA.

TNW in Oregon builds modified grip assemblies for the semi-auto MG42s that it ships to CA. Have seen one on the gun a friend owns (in CA).

You will still be limited to 10 round belts unless you owned belts before the AWB.

Tim

timdps
05-19-2009, 9:13 AM
The belt is self removing after the last round is fired...


That's a kind of grey area.

I don't know how a court would feel about this, but if you stuck with 10 round belts and locked the top plate or whatever you would open to remove a belt (with some sort of bullet button), it might fall under the non-detachable magazine part of the law.

wash
05-19-2009, 9:22 AM
So is a garand clip...

bwiese
05-19-2009, 9:48 AM
A belt is regarded as a 'detachable magazine', and you should treat belt-fed guns as equivalent to detachable-magazine guns for determination of whether or not you can have evil features.

The tripod-mounted M1919 was approved as a non-assault weapon because supposedly the pistol grip didn't protrude enough. However, that may well be specious and the actual reason it was allowed was because it was a non-shoulder-fireable weapon.

Note also that one must use caution in assembling belts of ammo so as not to exceed the 10 round limit, and existing pre-2000 belts of ammo should not be shot down to below 11 rounds if they are to be "refilled".

See the formal regulatory definition of 'detachable magazine', and note the emphasized sections:

11 CCR 5496
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed
readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool
being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding
device includes any belted or linked ammunition but does not include clips, en bloc clips,
or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

So is a Garand clip...


Sorry, no. Please note the above definition specifically excludes true "clips".

Liberty1
05-19-2009, 10:28 AM
and existing pre-2000 belts of ammo should not be shot down to below 11 rounds if they are to be "refilled".

So put a dud in the 12 slot...:)

wash
05-19-2009, 10:58 AM
Bill, that's not my point, it ejects after the last round, just like a linked belt disintegrates and ejects after the last round is fired.

If a tool is required to remove the belt, wouldn't that be functionally identical to an SKS and possibly defendable (even if it's not the greatest idea ever)?

The code you quoted seems to read like that.

bwiese
05-19-2009, 11:01 AM
Bill, that's not my point, it ejects after the last round, just like a linked belt disintegrates and ejects after the last round is fired.

If a tool is required to remove the belt, wouldn't that be functionally identical to an SKS and possibly defendable (even if it's not the greatest idea ever)?

Yes, in theory, but I don't believe any known gun's belted ammo requires or allows a restrained belt that requires tool for removal. Also, the linked belts might be 'tearable' which would add a lot of color.

wash
05-19-2009, 11:03 AM
I really need to build up my 1919A4 kit so I can figure out how these things work better.

GSequoia
05-19-2009, 11:10 AM
Bill, that's not my point, it ejects after the last round, just like a linked belt disintegrates and ejects after the last round is fired.

But in a Garand the magazine is the feeding device itself.

timdps
05-19-2009, 11:14 AM
The tripod-mounted M1919 was approved as a non-assault weapon because supposedly the pistol grip didn't protrude enough. However, that may well be specious and the actual reason it was allowed was because it was a non-shoulder-fireable weapon.

Is there a DOJ letter or published opinion somewhere for us to use for reassuring out of state sellers regarding belt-fed non-pistol grip weapons?



Note also that one must use caution in assembling belts of ammo so as not to exceed the 10 round limit, and existing pre-2000 belts of ammo should not be shot down to below 11 rounds if they are to be "refilled".

Am assuming you are talking about disintegrating link belts for 1919, M2HB M60 etc. here. This should not apply to non-disintegrating belts. Probably a good idea to specify disintegrating or non-disintegrating when referring to belts in CA usage.

wash
05-19-2009, 11:18 AM
But in a Garand the magazine is the feeding device itself.
And what's a belt link?

AaronHorrocks
05-19-2009, 11:58 AM
Note also that one must use caution in assembling belts of ammo so as not to exceed the 10 round limit, and existing pre-2000 belts of ammo should not be shot down to below 11 rounds if they are to be "refilled".

Using this same line of thinking, I should not take apart my 15, 20, and 30 round mags for cleaning. Because similarly, once I put them back together, I will be "manufacturing a high capacity ammunition feeding device".

munkeeboi
05-19-2009, 1:40 PM
Using this same line of thinking, I should not take apart my 15, 20, and 30 round mags for cleaning. Because similarly, once I put them back together, I will be "manufacturing a high capacity ammunition feeding device".

Not necessarily...the capacity for the AR magazine to hold more than 10 is still the same before and after cleaning. you are not manufacturing a NEW device

In terms of the links...when you fire, I'm assuming the 10+ (belt is destroyed - key word). therefore you always need to make sure you leave 11+ rounds so it remains a high capacity "feeding device". Once you destroy the links and go under 10 rounds...adding on any new links past 10 would be considered manufacturing a high capacity ammunition feeding device.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...this is what I deduced from Bwiese statement.

wash
05-19-2009, 1:46 PM
You are pretty close, but the links are not destroyed, just un-linked. Used links can be reloaded many times. They "disintegrate" because after they go through the gun the individual links are separated instead of a cloth belt that remains whole after firing.

DRH
05-19-2009, 2:11 PM
The MG-42 uses non disintegrating belts (50 round increments) as oppose to individual links like the 1919A4 belts. The pistol grip would need to be removed and the flash hider cut off for the gun to be legal in California as you are not going to be able to permanently attach a belt to the weapon. Also FYI, The ATF has ruled that the MG42 is a shoulder fired weapon and is subject to 922 compliance.

hawk1
05-19-2009, 3:13 PM
...In terms of the links...when you fire, I'm assuming the 10+ (belt is destroyed - key word). therefore you always need to make sure you leave 11+ rounds so it remains a high capacity "feeding device". Once you destroy the links and go under 10 rounds...adding on any new links past 10 would be considered manufacturing a high capacity ammunition feeding device.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...this is what I deduced from Bwiese statement.

People need to separate this into 'belts' or 'links'. They are not one in the same...

Links;

http://www.wvguns.com/images/link_308.jpg

Belts;

http://www.gunsofliberty.com/gol_photos/1919%20Cloth%20Belt.jpg

DRH
05-19-2009, 4:12 PM
Once the links are assembled you have a belt. Belts can be of two types disintegrating and non-disintegrating. The non-disintegrating belts can be either metal or cloth.

munkeeboi,
Your interpretation is correct. Reassembly of a preban hi-cap disintegrating belt might be ruled manufacturing, therefore to avoid this potential mistep, owners of these belts do not shoot them below 11 rounds.

DDT
05-19-2009, 5:46 PM
Am assuming you are talking about disintegrating link belts for 1919, M2HB M60 etc. here. This should not apply to non-disintegrating belts. Probably a good idea to specify disintegrating or non-disintegrating when referring to belts in CA usage.

NO! The way the law is written the belting or links are not an ammunition feeding device. It is the ammunition already loaded into the links or belt that are an ammunition feeding device. It's a terribly written law.


"Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition"

Notice it doesn't say any ammunition belts or links but rather only ammunition that is actually belted or linked.

timdps
05-22-2009, 1:52 PM
Huh? Lost me there. You are saying that its CA legal to buy/import a MG34/42 50 round belt, but not legal to load it with ammo? That does not make much sense.

Would not want to test "buying 50 round belts is legal" in a CA court.

tim


NO! The way the law is written the belting or links are not an ammunition feeding device. It is the ammunition already loaded into the links or belt that are an ammunition feeding device. It's a terribly written law.


"Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition"

Notice it doesn't say any ammunition belts or links but rather only ammunition that is actually belted or linked.

AaronHorrocks
05-22-2009, 2:02 PM
He's saying the law only reads against belts and links once they are LOADED WITH LIVE ROUNDS.

11 CCR 5496
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

lbdrummer3
05-22-2009, 2:23 PM
Wouldn't the so called flash hider on an MG42 be considered a booster. If any of you have ever seen the muzzle flash from an MG42 that so called flash hider doesn't do it's job well. :eek:

HotRails
05-22-2009, 3:22 PM
The MG-42 uses non disintegrating belts (50 round increments) as oppose to individual links like the 1919A4 belts. The pistol grip would need to be removed and the flash hider cut off for the gun to be legal in California as you are not going to be able to permanently attach a belt to the weapon. Also FYI, The ATF has ruled that the MG42 is a shoulder fired weapon and is subject to 922 compliance.

Would it not be possible to fashion the feed cover in a way to require a tool. I've never handled the weapon personally but I have always seen operators lifting the feed cover in order to place the first round in, which leads me to believe a belt cannot be inserted without lifting it. combined with using 10 round belts would this be legal with evil features? (i asked this same thing in the gunsmithing section with no response)

lbdrummer3
05-22-2009, 3:37 PM
On both the 1919 and MG42, you can feed a belt in from the left side with the top cover closed, rack the bolt twice and you are live and ready to fire. Lifting the top cover just makes it easier and fast to load a new belt.

Would it not be possible to fashion the feed cover in a way to require a tool. I've never handled the weapon personally but I have always seen operators lifting the feed cover in order to place the first round in, which leads me to believe a belt cannot be inserted without lifting it. combined with using 10 round belts would this be legal with evil features? (i asked this same thing in the gunsmithing section with no response)

motorhead
05-22-2009, 7:59 PM
say you have preban linked ammo. aren't you allowed to "repair" this to maintain it just as you can replace any preban mag part (body incl).

timdps
05-22-2009, 9:57 PM
I see what it says, but it still does not make much sense. DDT seems to be saying that, since the belt is not an ammunition feeding device until you load ammo into it, if I have a pre-ban 50 round MG34 belt (unloaded) and I load the belt with 11 rounds, I have just manufactured a high capacity magazine/ammunition feeding device.

Conversely, if I happened to have 11 rounds in the MG34 belt on January 1, 2000 and later removed one round, reloading that one round into the belt would again be manufactured a high capacity magazine/ammunition feeding device?

This interpretation of the law would mean that importing 50 round MG34 belts into California is currently legal.

Yes, the law may be badly written, but I sure would not want to try to persuade a judge (as a lawyer or as a defendant) that a post-ban 50 round belt is not a high capacity ammunition feeding device just because it does not happen to have any ammo in it at the moment any more than I would want to try the exact same thing with a post-ban 15 round handgun magazine. Good luck with that...

tim

PS I believe that blanks are also considered ammunition. Blanks are definitely considered ammunition by the airlines - no difference to them wether ammo is live or blank. If a LEO happens to find blanks in your rifle when you get stopped while transporting, I have little doubt that you will be going downtown with that LEO...



He's saying the law only reads against belts and links once they are LOADED WITH LIVE ROUNDS.

11 CCR 5496
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

HotRails
05-23-2009, 12:37 PM
On both the 1919 and MG42, you can feed a belt in from the left side with the top cover closed, rack the bolt twice and you are live and ready to fire. Lifting the top cover just makes it easier and fast to load a new belt.

Oh. :( With the level of innovation I have seen on this board Im sure someone can come up with a way to get around this. Shooting an MG42 featureless would be kind of a bummer.

M. Sage
05-23-2009, 2:43 PM
Note also that one must use caution in assembling belts of ammo so as not to exceed the 10 round limit, and existing pre-2000 belts of ammo should not be shot down to below 11 rounds if they are to be "refilled".

I always understood that reassembly of a legally owned disintegrating belt was repair, not manufacture.

On both the 1919 and MG42, you can feed a belt in from the left side with the top cover closed, rack the bolt twice and you are live and ready to fire. Lifting the top cover just makes it easier and fast to load a new belt.

This was the preferred method on the MG42. IIRC, they had a belt threading tool to pass through the feed port and pull the belt from the other side.