PDA

View Full Version : Making a Romak 3 legal?


Pulsar
03-04-2005, 1:15 PM
I recently got to shoot one of these up in Oregon and fell in love with it. The guy who let me shoot it said he'd sell it to me, but it's not a legal weapon in the PRK as it's got a detachable mag and a dragunov style stock. But I was looking at it pretty close and it doesn't look like it would be all that hard to permanently attach the mag and modify the reciever cover to accept strippers. Don't know where I'd find a stripper in 7.62x54 but I can live with hand loading if i have to.

Anyways if I modified it in this manner before I brought it into the PRK, would it be legal?


A picture to give ya refrence.
http://www.dragunov.net/romak/milPSL-2_med.jpg

Pulsar
03-04-2005, 1:15 PM
I recently got to shoot one of these up in Oregon and fell in love with it. The guy who let me shoot it said he'd sell it to me, but it's not a legal weapon in the PRK as it's got a detachable mag and a dragunov style stock. But I was looking at it pretty close and it doesn't look like it would be all that hard to permanently attach the mag and modify the reciever cover to accept strippers. Don't know where I'd find a stripper in 7.62x54 but I can live with hand loading if i have to.

Anyways if I modified it in this manner before I brought it into the PRK, would it be legal?


A picture to give ya refrence.
http://www.dragunov.net/romak/milPSL-2_med.jpg

devo681
03-04-2005, 2:49 PM
I do not think it is legal since the config is similar to an AK receiver, according to the CA-DOJ.

Pulsar
03-04-2005, 3:12 PM
Yeah, I remember reading somewhere that it's based off of the PKM receiver. Too bad, really wanted to have that gun http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Guess I just gotta wait a couple years till I get my FFL

Steyr_223
03-04-2005, 3:27 PM
Have you looked at the SVT-40? It was the Soviet WWII semiauto.

http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/svt40/index.asp

The SVT 40 is Cali legal.

Steyr

bwiese
03-04-2005, 3:41 PM
Pulsar:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..but it's not a legal weapon in the PRK as it's got a detachable mag and a dragunov style stock. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This ROMAK would be considered a "banned by class" weapon - it's an AK, no matter what evil features it has or doesn't have. I'm pretty sure Dragunovs are considered AKs and there are a few already specifically listed on the DOJ Roster of AR and AK Weapons.

Removing/changing these evil features will not get it out of CA assault weapon category.

The August 2000 Kasler decision lumped AR & AK guns, no matter the model name, manufacturer, etc. into the original Roberti-Roos "AR15 and duplicates" and "AK-47 and duplicates" categories.

By contrast, FAL clones (but not a true FN-FAL) and most HK clones (but not a true HK-91/93 or a SAR) can be modified to be legal in CA (fixed 10rd mag w/stripper clip feed).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if I modified it in this manner before I brought it into the PRK, would it be legal? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No! Felony. Stop. Do not pass Go. At the very best, if found with this rifle, you'd lose it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Guess I just gotta wait a couple years till I get my FFL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, if you're still in CA, having just an FFL is irrelevant.

Being an FFL in CA will NOT allow you to acquire, possess, etc. this gun or other AWs. You'd also need to jump thru hoops hard-to-get "California Assault Weapons (dealer) Permit" to do that and I'd bet usage/transport restrictions are even worse than those for regular existing registered AW owners. The storage requirements alone for maintaining such an "AW Permit" are fairly extensive/expensive.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

xsquid
03-04-2005, 4:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bwiese:
This ROMAK would be considered a "banned by class" weapon - it's an AK, no matter what evil features it has or doesn't have.
Bill Wiese
San Jose </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Bill - what about the "pump" AKs?

bwiese
03-04-2005, 4:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey Bill- what about the "pump" AKs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Seeing how the AK pumps are OK... without being a semi auto rifle it would be hard for the AW ban to apply and features would be irrelevant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do note that AR pump guns (the DPMS Panther Pump, for example) are NOT legal in CA. Their lower receivers are plain AR lowers and the pump-vs.-semiauto difference is all in the upper.

There must be something significantly different enough about the CA-legal AK pump guns from regular AKs: somehow, these differences must lay in the receiver/trunnion areas, and must somehow be associated w/a serialized part - otherwise we'd still have an AK receiver that could function in semiauto mode when replacement semiauto AK parts are strapped on.

It must take a reasonable amount of effort/ time/ skill (machining, milling, drilling...) that these are regarded as sufficiently distinct from AKs. (Kinda like how a FAB10 lower is sufficiently different from an AR lower.)

Yes, I'd indeed love to see a photo/dissection of a known CA-legal AK pump gun. Or if someone has an DOJ approval letter for an AK pump gun they should post it - I'd hope it'd render details of how it's legal.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

bwiese
03-04-2005, 5:23 PM
DRH -

I don't think it's the gas port in the bbl that makes pump-action AKs legal in CA.

It HAS to be associated permanently with the receiver - that is, when the gun's stripped down to bare-bones, it's still legal.

Legally, AR and AK guns in CA are essentially banned by their (serialized) receivers and not by any features - therefore, any features not on their receiver are irrelevant. SOMETHING on an AK receiver/trunnion makes it ONLY suitable for pump use and not semiauto use, and it must take a lot of work to change or remove it.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

icormba
03-04-2005, 6:15 PM
yeah... the thing that sucks here is that the Russian SVD is NOT a AK variant & as far as I know, there has never been a mag made for them that has held more than 10 rounds. Sure the receiver looks similar, but it is NOT the same design. But I Do believe the ROMAK is a AK variant, as mentioned above.

I have actually been trying to find the Russian Dragonov mentioned by name on the CA Doj site & couldn't find it... but it is banned by features & changing a $4000 + rifle is NUTS! (no matter how bad I want one!)
Another thing that sucks is that the Russian IS ON the U.S. C & R list!

I think the Chinese SVD IS named by type in Ca, if I could remember where I saw that.
as a "NDM-86" ??

People also say that the German StG44 was the "FATHER" of the AK-47 ! which is sooo wrong!

more info on the SVD vs. ROMAK:
http://www.dragunov.net/romanian_psl.htm

gidddy169
03-04-2005, 7:16 PM
I looked over a pump action ak. It looked like all you would have to do is press out the pin & (barrel), install a normal ak front end with gas tube and you would have a semi auto ak. There is no magic with this reciever as far as I can see. It is just serialized different than the normal ak reciever because I believe it is labeled PAR (pump action rifle). Of course if you did the above in the state of CA you would have an AW. With that being said maybe you could build a rifle similar to the ROMAK from an 80% reciever with no offending features on it and "maybe" it would be legal. Anyone want to try and let me know? http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Turbinator
03-06-2005, 1:44 PM
Pretty cool Saiga hunter, who did the conversion for you?

Turby

bwiese
03-07-2005, 8:10 AM
Somehow, some way, a CA-legal serialized pump AK receiver (+ trunnion) must be different than a regular semiauto AKS receiver - besides the serial # - to be legal in CA.

I don't know that much about AKs: if the barrel trunnion were, say, welded to receiver and didn't allow std. AK gas system, that might be a sufficient key difference.

I still insist there must be SOME essential difference in this receiver that in turn somehow disallows semiauto operation with standard AK parts - and/or it requires some nontrivial machine work or nontrivial drilling to render it back to a standard AKS receiver.

The Calif. DOJ Firearms folks certifying this stuff as legal for sale in CA are actually quite bright people technically, and they know the details of the AW laws. (These are often not the people you first get on the phone when you initiallly contact Cal. DOJ Firearms).
They won't take the political, bureaucratic or even legal risk of certifying something that's too borderline. (They do get sued too by the Brady bunch!)

Now, I'd bet the CA DOJ Firearms Div. would be VERY surprised if an approved pump AK could readily be converted to semiauto w/just parts substitution. That's a roughly equivalent legal scenario to a pump-action AR being able to be converted to semiauto thru change of upper; the "AR-ness" is in the lower.

There is also a slight chance that these small AK vendors making these CA-legal pump AKs were either unclear on the law OR perhaps criminally submitted a 'laboratory queen' for testing/cert and changed to easier (but not legal) manufacturing of the pump AKs.

Really, there should be something severely different btwn AK receivers - much like a FAB10, Vulcan, or welded Bushy lower vs. standard AR lowers.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

gidddy169
03-07-2005, 9:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Somehow, some way, a CA-legal serialized pump AK receiver (+ trunnion) must be different than a regular semiauto AKS receiver - besides the serial # - to be legal in CA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I can tell the recievers are identical and you can not convert it to semi auto with only hand tools. If you were to change out the whole barrel assembly you would need a 12 ton press. Of course it has been done with a bench vise but normally a 12 ton press is the minimum.

bwiese
03-08-2005, 6:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gidddy169:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">bwiese wrote:
...somehow, some way, a CA-legal serialized pump AK receiver (+ trunnion) must be different than a regular semiauto AKS receiver - besides the serial # - to be legal in CA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I can tell the recievers are identical and you can not convert it to semi auto with only hand tools. If you were to change out the whole barrel assembly you would need a 12 ton press. Of course it has been done with a bench vise but normally a 12 ton press is the minimum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well thank you Giddy!

That's probably the answer right there....
the barreled receiver can thus be considered an indivisible complete unit, and semiauto operation with it is thus not possible.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

Ford8N
03-08-2005, 6:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Calif. DOJ Firearms folks certifying this stuff as legal for sale in CA are actually quite bright people technically, and they know the details of the AW laws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhh...They don't know their AK's. And neither does the BATFE. The DOJ techs probably followed the federal AK definition, of what is a receiver. AK receivers are separate from the trunion. But if you look at Poly Tech's, Norinco's, CUR's, WUM's, ect. the serialized part is the TRUNION! Not the receiver.

This in my opinion opens up a can of legal worms and possibilities. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

bwiese
03-08-2005, 7:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ford8N wrote:
...DOJ techs probably followed the federal AK definition, of what is a receiver. AK receivers are separate from the trunion. But if you look at Poly Tech's, Norinco's, CUR's, WUM's, ect. the serialized part is the TRUNION! Not the receiver.

This in my opinion opens up a can of legal worms and possibilities. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, true - unless there are situations where the serialized trunnion is welded/permanently affixed to the receiver so it's "all one thing"

Bill Wiese
San Jose

devo681
03-08-2005, 1:59 PM
How about a vz-58? It looks like a AK but is completlt different on the inside. You can get a new one at MARSTAR in Canada have shipped in two parts. The barreled receiver goes to a gunsmith/ffl to do the DROS (need a form 9? to import)and add a muzzle break for a 16" barrel and the all the other stuff goes to your house. Befor assembly, pin a 10 round mag on the reciever and there you go. You can top load it just like a SKS. DOJ sees the transfer as a barreled receiver (parts).

What cha think?

Turbinator
03-08-2005, 2:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DRH:
Turbinator,
I did the rework and it was not very hard. The receiver already has all the holes for moving the trigger group forward. A drill press is needed to drill for the pistol grip and a new hand guard retaining pin on the barrel. Exchange a few parts for the import parts count and thats it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice, do you have a pic of it completed and assembled?

Turby