PDA

View Full Version : Look at this SKS on Turners website.Is this thing now legal?


SteelPulse
06-04-2009, 1:41 AM
http://www.turners.com/shop/gundetail.php?id=6663

Far from Original Military configuration I'd say. Did something it Kalifornia law change since I purchased my cosmoline packed beauty from Turner's 2 years ago for
$ 199.00? I wouldn't pay $ 5.50 for that beast, but I'd sure love to make a few minor modifications to my own Yugo.

nick
06-04-2009, 1:43 AM
What's illegal about it?

detcord
06-04-2009, 1:45 AM
violates 922r most likely....but then all cali legal 59/66's do....so i guess it doesnt matter much.

SteelPulse
06-04-2009, 1:46 AM
What's illegal about it?


Nothing in my book, but I was under the impression that removing/changing the stock, hand guard, bayonet in Kali would cause a problem, also the Muzzle is different then any of the Cali legal's I've seen before, aren't the threads for the GL supposed to be ground down?

nick
06-04-2009, 1:49 AM
It doesn't have a grenade launcher, so the only thing that made the original CA-illegal is gone. Now, how much do you want to bet that the stock and handguard are US-made? :)

I'd imagine that the mag is fixed, too.

johnthomas
06-04-2009, 2:09 AM
Whoever put that green paint on it should be convicted of something. Asking 550.00 dollars is another big charge, lol.

383green
06-04-2009, 2:13 AM
Hmm, interesting. That looks like a 10-round fixed mag to me, and I think the original grenade launcher is gone. Looks CA-OK to me.

Now, if I understand things right (not necessarily a given!), I think that as far as BATFE is concerned, that gun has been changed enough from its original configuration to trigger the :censored: 922(r) restrictions. I've gone through the drill of making a modified SKS 922(r) compliant, and I've found that it's pretty hard to get the right US vs. foreign listed component counts without putting a US-made magazine on it... and I'm not aware of any US-made fixed metal 10-round magazines for the SKS, since non-Californians would generally prefer a detachable magazine anyway. On mine, I even ended up swapping out the danged trigger with a US-made one to end up with a fixed-mag, CA-compliant, 922(r)-compliant, folding-stock pistol-gripped SKS. I'd be pretty surprised if many people go to that much trouble, or if many LE types would even know the difference.

We can't tell whether it's 922(r)-compliant from that picture; that would take a hands-on examination of a bunch of its key innards. I'd hazard a guess that it may not be.

That being said, has any individual ever been hauled in on a 922(r) foreign parts count violation by itself (i.e., not just a throw-on with a bunch of more serious charges)? I've gotten the impression that in practice, 922(r) is used as a tool to bludgeon importers and dealers, and it hasn't really been applied to individuals.

$550 for a heavily modified Yugo SKS with a coat of ugly Krylon and a cheap red-dot seems a bit pricey to me, but I haven't been following prices too closely since before our new President was named Salesman of the Month at most gun stores.

bwiese
06-04-2009, 9:27 AM
If the rifle's changes deviate it from C&R/orig approved configuration, they should be moving towards "importable" status.

I see no bayonet, no flash hider, still has 10rd magazine. If the 'night sights'
are removed and there's no grenade flip up etc. (can't tell from my brief look)
then it's a very ordinary 10rd fixed magazine semiauto centerfire rifle with no 'military features that would be importable anyway.

AJD
06-04-2009, 9:35 AM
As mentioned above that rifle should be good to go. Many people see an SKS with a couple of mods and immediately think it's a violation of 922r. There is nothing wrong about changing the stock as long as it is not a collapsible stock. The ATF even wrote a letter in response to questions the NRA had about this issue back in the 90s. I've posted the letter before but right now I'm too busy/lazy to repost it.

bombadillo
06-04-2009, 9:41 AM
GTG. God awful tacticool rifle anyway.

DVLDOC
06-04-2009, 9:41 AM
Whoever put that GUACAMOLE green paint on it should be convicted of something.



GUACAMOLE green :(

AirflowPimp
06-04-2009, 9:41 AM
Looks legal to me. 922 applies basically only if you are changing parts FROM a sporting configuration, TO a non-sporting (takticool) configuration. That stock is MORE of a sporting style stock then what they come with. Now the red dot on the other hand, looks like an attempt to make it takticool, but a big FAIL. No law against optics.

soundwave
06-04-2009, 9:53 AM
Whoever put that green paint on it should be convicted of something. Asking 550.00 dollars is another big charge, lol.

Yeah, that's the first thing that came o my mind. Turner's is just a joke.

pdq_wizzard
06-04-2009, 10:31 AM
:puke:

that's all I have to say

TheCilician
06-04-2009, 10:34 AM
What's illegal about it?



It's too damn ugly to be considered legal. :43:

highpowermatch
06-04-2009, 10:38 AM
wow, that thing is ugly. You can get a nice Russian sks for that kind of $

johnthomas
06-04-2009, 11:52 AM
If the rifle's changes deviate it from C&R/orig approved configuration, they should be moving towards "importable" status.

I see no bayonet, no flash hider, still has 10rd magazine. If the 'night sights'
are removed and there's no grenade flip up etc. (can't tell from my brief look)
then it's a very ordinary 10rd fixed magazine semiauto centerfire rifle with no 'military features that would be importable anyway.

Are 59/66 c&r in California?

motorhead
06-04-2009, 6:56 PM
no not 50 yo (1966)
that weapon is criminally ugly!!! looking at it should be a misdemeanor.

VW*Mike
06-04-2009, 9:44 PM
That poor gun. I want to rescue it, clean its paint and install a refinished wood stock.

USMC-0321
06-04-2009, 11:38 PM
What is 922(r) anyway?

E-T
06-05-2009, 12:05 AM
I can't get past the color of that beastly looking thing! :eek:

wikidklown
06-05-2009, 1:11 AM
Putting it in that config and paint scheme is illegal

BroncoBob
06-05-2009, 7:06 AM
I have only one thing to say " what a fugly looking rifle" :ack2: :puke:

Hot Brass
06-05-2009, 9:24 AM
I saw that gun in Turners the other day. I thought it looked weird.

JDay
06-05-2009, 9:54 AM
What's illegal about it?


Nothing in my book, but I was under the impression that removing/changing the stock, hand guard, bayonet in Kali would cause a problem, also the Muzzle is different then any of the Cali legal's I've seen before, aren't the threads for the GL supposed to be ground down?

The only thing in CA that would make an SKS illegal is adding a detachable magazine or a fixed one that holds more that 10 rounds. And the Yugo technically isn't an SKS.

JSAUCE
06-05-2009, 5:09 PM
The only thing I see illegal is the hack of a paint job... LOL

383green
06-05-2009, 5:59 PM
What is 922(r) anyway?

It's a federal law related to assembling certain kinds of guns from imported parts. Here's the first thing I googled up on it just now:

http://milsurpstuff.com/922r%20Compliance%20Info.htm

A lot of folks seem to think that it's not applicable to individuals like you and me, and/or it's never enforced against us little guys. I chose to make the SKS that I mentioned previously comply with all of the 922(r) restrictions because I was considering using it as a "truck gun", and I felt like dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" in case it came under any scrutiny. The effort and expense that I went to may or may not have been necessary.

I think that the consensus here appears to be:

1) The rifle appears to be CA-legal.

2) It may or may not be 922(r)-compliant, and that may or may not be relevant, and the risk of prosecution is nearly zero at worst, so it's probably not worth worrying about.

3) OMFG, that thing's ugly!

;)

slappomatt
06-05-2009, 6:04 PM
SKS's suck. There was only 1 reason to own one and that's because they where dirt cheap. They no longer are there fore they serve no purpose. :hide:

383green
06-05-2009, 6:15 PM
SKS's suck. There was only 1 reason to own one and that's because they where dirt cheap.

I used the feel the same way, but at some point I developed an appreciation for the elegant simplicity of their design: They were designed to be manufactured cheaply on ordinary machine tools (except for the barrel drilling and rifling) out of common steel, maintained in the field by a semi-literate armorer with a file and a hammer, and used by illiterate peasant conscripts. This is in contrast to the M-16 family which was designed to be manufactured on dedicated assembly lines with custom-made machinery out of advanced (for the time) materials, supported by highly-trained armorers with an excellent logistic supply chain, and used by highly-trained professional soldiers (VN War notwithstanding). Once I figured that out, I found that I appreciated holding an AR in one hand and an SKS in the other, and reflecting on how those different mindsets affected their resulting designs.

Yeah, the SKS sucks, particularly when you compare its ergonomics to the M16's. Still, if The End Of The World As We Know It came about, I'd think that I could keep an SKS running for a long time after an AR had a fatal malfunction. Not that it would matter anyway, since I'd die of Starbucks withdrawal within a week! :rolleyes:

M198
06-05-2009, 7:07 PM
Is that spray paint?

383green
06-05-2009, 7:10 PM
Is that spray paint?

Either it is, or that SKS has been drinking Gatorade! :p

Kokopelli
06-05-2009, 9:06 PM
Didn't we seen that gun on the "Pimp my SKS" show?

Quiet
06-06-2009, 12:41 AM
What is 922(r) anyway?

US Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922
(r) It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925 (d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply toŚ
(1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.

Builder
06-06-2009, 1:10 AM
As mentioned above that rifle should be good to go. Many people see an SKS with a couple of mods and immediately think it's a violation of 922r. There is nothing wrong about changing the stock as long as it is not a collapsible stock. The ATF even wrote a letter in response to questions the NRA had about this issue back in the 90s. I've posted the letter before but right now I'm too busy/lazy to repost it.
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1923806&postcount=11

BunnySlayer
06-06-2009, 1:12 AM
The only thing I see illegal is that it's felony ugly and crimminaly overpriced.

.454
06-06-2009, 4:34 AM
Yeah, that's the first thing that came o my mind. Turner's is just a joke.

It's a consignment rifle. Translated in English, the owner in a private person who leaves the rifle in the store, names the price and the store sells it retaining a 15%-20% commission.
Why is Turners a joke for doing that?

triggerhappy
06-17-2009, 9:11 PM
This looks like something you'd find at one of those heinous "buy-back" programs. Whoever commited this atrocity should be forced look at it forever.

BHP FAN
06-18-2009, 12:00 AM
Illegal,nooo,but someone should call the ''Fashion Police'',anyways.Poor thing just crys out for a decent Guncote treatment.