PDA

View Full Version : Idea for minimally invasive welded mag


adamsreeftank
05-10-2006, 12:40 AM
Aside from the lengthy discussion of whether the new memo holds water or not, it is always a good idea to keep all of our options open. Thus I'd like to propose a method for attaching a mag that would not do too much harm and "should" satisfy the DOJ's "requirements". Or whatever.

Ok, here goes. I think it would be a bad idea to try and weld a forged receiver. Likewise, the mags are too thin to weld directly. You also can't really weld a steel mag to an aluminum receiver. A better route would be to weld the mag catch in place.

Step 1. place 10 round mag into stripped lower receiver.

Step 2. insert mag catch so that it engages the hole in the mag and secures it in place.

Step 3. Insert some type of steel tube or short length of narrow pipe into the hole where the mag release spring and button would normally go. It would probably be best if the inner diameter of the tube were not much bigger than the width of the mag catch threaded post. Also, it should probably wind up about flush with the end of the post.

Step 4. This is the hard one. Carefully weld over the mag catch and the tube. A TIG would be best, but a MIG would probably due in a pinch if you were really careful and covered the receiver to prevent the splatter ruining the finish. You would want to keep the heat low, but I think the receiver would act like a heat sink and would PROBABLY not get damaged. You should probably attach the ground to the back of the mag catch.

You now have an unmodified lower receiver and an unmodified magazine that are “permanently” attached to each other. If you ever need to replace the mag, you could strip the lower and then carefully grind off the weld without touching the receiver.

Now I know a grinder is a “tool” in the literal sense of the word, but if grinding metal off of a firearm to remove the mag is not allowed, then that opens a bigger can of worms (re CA legal “approved” Ars) than the whole SKS question.

Please note, I am not a lawyer and I am not suggesting that the above information is correct or that you should actually do this, yada yada yada.

bwiese
05-10-2006, 12:45 AM
Please do not mutilate valuable lower receivers. There is no need.

IT WAS JUST A MEMO. IT'S NOT LAW.

If you don't have a fixed mag in your lower, it might be a good idea to get one in place before the regulations are changed ;) so that if you end up with an AW it will have to be registered.

shopkeep
05-10-2006, 12:57 AM
Bill is right. Even in the worst case scenario they will have to open some sort of registration for rifles that are already built. The simple fact is that there is the possibility that some rifles were purchased or aquired by people without garage gunsmithing skills. People who don't know how to reconfigure their rifle and will be deprived of their otherwise lawfully possessed property in the even the regulations change.

Personally, I am confident that this is another attempt to quill the rebellion. They will explore this position further and discover that after having their phones ring off the hooks and being flooded with well written letters from attorneys and members of the firearms industy, this position is no better than the previous one.

In any event, registration is inevitable regardless of what path the DOJ decides to take. They cannot deprive us of our property.

adamsreeftank
05-10-2006, 1:18 AM
Please do not mutilate valuable lower receivers. There is no need.

IT WAS JUST A MEMO. IT'S NOT LAW.
...

I agree with you totally. I was just trying to suggest one option that would comply with the DOJ's wishes (and perhaps eventual regulations) and would not "mutilate" the lower receiver, like most of the other "permanent" fixes do.

FinweElensar
05-10-2006, 1:30 AM
If you don't have a fixed mag in your lower, it might be a good idea to get one in place before the regulations are changed ;) so that if you end up with an AW it will have to be registered.

Can I attached a fixed mag without assembling the the rest of the lower receiver? Would that be enough to be considered an AW with an unfinished lower?

the_quark
05-10-2006, 1:49 AM
Can I attached a fixed mag without assembling the the rest of the lower receiver? Would that be enough to be considered an AW with an unfinished lower?

Even if you believe the memo has force of law (and, I don't), a stripped bare receiver with no pistol grip or telescoping stock is perfectly legal, whether the magazine is pinned, or not. "[S]emiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1)." So, even if you think they're right in their implication that an AR with a pinned mag is "modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines," if you don't have any of the features of §12276.1(a)(1) (e.g., pistol grip, flash hider, telescoping stock) on the same gun, you're still in the clear.

Even if you think this memo has any legal effect (and, again, I don't), no one can claim this memo has any effect at all on stripped lowers. Stripped lowers are still legal to import, manufacture, sell, offer to sell, own, etc., etc., etc. The only news in the memo that affects stripped lowers in any way is "The Department believes that the public and law enforcement are best served by reference to the generic definition of assault weapons set forth in SB 23, rather than reliance upon a scheme of identifying assault weapons by name." In other words, they won't be adding STAG-15s to The List anytime soon, if you can believe what they say, and if they don't change their minds back in another two months.

Jicko
05-10-2006, 7:31 AM
WHO said welding is OK!?

Without a "definition" of what is "temporarily" and what is "permanently alter"... there is NO WAY we can know what to do.....

If welding is OK, how about epoxy? Or soldering? One can easily epoxy(or fill with solder) the hole where the allen-key goes to remove the "sport conv kit" or the "set-screw in the mag catch button" or the "auto sem machine kit".

For now, I said.... don't do anything yet.... for those who have what they called "are AW" rifles.... just don't bring them to the range.... and if you are super scared (by this scare tactic).... just disassembly your rifle....

383green
05-10-2006, 7:48 AM
I believe that we should all be focusing all of our efforts and attention on fighting the AW laws themselves based on their blatant unconstitutionality, rather than piddling around figuring out ways to comply with the latest capricious proclamation handed down from the DOJ like good little sheep. Which part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to understand? :mad:

Satex
05-10-2006, 10:09 AM
I respectfully beg to differ. While trying to reverse AW laws is a formidable and worthy goal - it is a long term one. Making sure law abiding gun owners stay out of jail, is a high priority short term goal we have to address at present.
As a gun owner, I may not like the law, and the way the DOJ chooses to interpret it, but I do have to keep in mind that I want to enjoy this family hobby legally, and I don’t want to get into trouble with they law. Keep in mind that your local DA and the CADOJ have an unlimited supply of taxpayer money and time to drag each and every one of us in court. I think there are only a few people in CA that have enough money to put up an effective defense without a problem.

James R.
05-10-2006, 10:37 AM
"Bill is right. Even in the worst case scenario they will have to open some sort of registration for rifles that are already built."

How are they supposed to verify that? We have to walk our rifles down to some field office and prove that the lower has been built up into a working rifle to register it? What does that mean for people who bought up a bunch of receivers and don't want to put out the $$$ now to build them up? I can understand the law saying that the rifle has to be finished to register it, but w/o verification it's meaningless. The receiver is, "the gun" it shouldn't need to be built up to be verified.

I registered my 50 BMG when it was just a receiver...and while it was complete before the reg period closed I always wondered about that whole must be built by such and such date clause, IIRC there was some wording to that effect. The only worry there was shipping it across state lines after the ban was closed to be completed is a little sketchy. But with an AR that you can build on your living room coffee table there's no need to ship anything anywhere.

Regards,

James R.

hoffmang
05-10-2006, 11:13 AM
James,

I doubt you'd ever need it, but the way you can easily prove it is to have receipts for all the parts you need to have a pinned mag AR. I would have a receipt for the lower, the lower parts kit unless you just buy the mag release, a 10 round magazine, and a pinning kit.

If the dates on the receipts from third parties are before the opening of a registration period, you would have solid evidence of your ownership of a pinned mag AR like rifle.

383green
05-10-2006, 11:20 AM
I respectfully beg to differ. While trying to reverse AW laws is a formidable and worthy goal - it is a long term one. Making sure law abiding gun owners stay out of jail, is a high priority short term goal we have to address at present.
As a gun owner, I may not like the law, and the way the DOJ chooses to interpret it, but I do have to keep in mind that I want to enjoy this family hobby legally, and I don’t want to get into trouble with they law. Keep in mind that your local DA and the CADOJ have an unlimited supply of taxpayer money and time to drag each and every one of us in court. I think there are only a few people in CA that have enough money to put up an effective defense without a problem.
While my opinion is different, I will respectfully respect your right to respectfully differ. ;) There are some folks on the board who differ a lot less respectfully than you do. :(

adamsreeftank
05-10-2006, 12:50 PM
I respectfully beg to differ. While trying to reverse AW laws is a formidable and worthy goal - it is a long term one. Making sure law abiding gun owners stay out of jail, is a high priority short term goal we have to address at present.
As a gun owner, I may not like the law, and the way the DOJ chooses to interpret it, but I do have to keep in mind that I want to enjoy this family hobby legally, and I don’t want to get into trouble with they law. Keep in mind that your local DA and the CADOJ have an unlimited supply of taxpayer money and time to drag each and every one of us in court. I think there are only a few people in CA that have enough money to put up an effective defense without a problem.

Thanks for the input Satex.

In starting this thread, I wasn't saying I like or agree with the DOJ's memo, or that I think it holds water or means ANYTHING. I'm just trying to discuss an option that I THINK would make them happy and not ruin your receiver or magazine, in the event they ever do list.

Sure, I would hate to weld my mag catch, but I also hate to bolt it on. But what if this all takes a year or two to play out, and they start picking up "test cases" at the range. It might be nice to have an option that you KNOW the DOJ can't dissassemble if they start cruising the ranges with wrenches doing inspections. (Not that I think they would EVER do this, but who knows...)

MsJamie
05-10-2006, 4:04 PM
A drop of red Permatex on the threads before installing the nut on the mag release will make it permanent. You are going to destroy the mag catch before the nut comes off.

Actually, not a bad way to do it; mag catches are cheap enough that you aren't going to lose sleep if you have to remove the magazine for repair, or to clear a serious jam.

jmgray
05-10-2006, 5:14 PM
I welded mine, it has not changed the lower at all. I was not comfortable with the mag locks that others were using. Some may not be comfortable with my approach either...
If anyone else want to go a step beyond threadlocker check the link on how mine turned out;
http://img361.imageshack.us/my.php?image=weldmagcatch1to.jpg

blacklisted
05-10-2006, 5:16 PM
I welded mine, it has not changed the lower at all. I was not comfortable with the mag locks that others were using. Some may not be comfortable with my approach either...
If anyone else want to go a step beyond threadlocker check the link on how mine turned out;
http://img361.imageshack.us/my.php?image=weldmagcatch1to.jpg

That doesn't look bad.

shopkeep
05-10-2006, 6:55 PM
I've actually been playing around with the other half of the regulation, namely that it's not a detachble magazine if it can't be removed without "disassembly of the firearm action". Just lock the magazine from inside the reciever and that way you cannot remove it without first opening up the action by dropping the takedown pin, and THEN you STILL have to use a tool. Hence the action was required to be disassembled :)!

thmpr
05-10-2006, 7:05 PM
I dont understand why we are heading towards coverting our rifles in accordance to the memo. A memo is a memo! Thats it, a memo. Lets not bury ourselves with the welded fix mag idea which we all know will not fly in the court of law. We should be focusing our time, energy and resources on how we should challenge the DOJ if they do go to legislation. I will be at the Metcalf range this Saturday between 10 and 11 a.m. with my sport conversion kit rifle enjoying my day off. :D

five.five-six
05-10-2006, 8:47 PM
I respectfully beg to differ. While trying to reverse AW laws is a formidable and worthy goal - it is a long term one. Making sure law abiding gun owners stay out of jail, is a high priority short term goal we have to address at present.
As a gun owner, I may not like the law, and the way the DOJ chooses to interpret it, but I do have to keep in mind that I want to enjoy this family hobby legally, and I don’t want to get into trouble with they law. Keep in mind that your local DA and the CADOJ have an unlimited supply of taxpayer money and time to drag each and every one of us in court. I think there are only a few people in CA that have enough money to put up an effective defense without a problem.

+1 we need to get on the nra or start our own organisation to fight the un grabbers


remember guns kill people like spoons made rosie o'donald fat

jmgray
05-10-2006, 10:03 PM
I dont understand why we are heading towards coverting our rifles in accordance to the memo. A memo is a memo! Thats it, a memo. Lets not bury ourselves with the welded fix mag idea which we all know will not fly in the court of law. We should be focusing our time, energy and resources on how we should challenge the DOJ if they do go to legislation. I will be at the Metcalf range this Saturday between 10 and 11 a.m. with my sport conversion kit rifle enjoying my day off. :D

Hey I agree that we should try to influence/challenge the DOJ and legislators to create create laws the prevent and reduce violence rather than ones that appear to be tough on violence. After all thats what this is about- civilian possession of black rifles scares the **** out of some people.

However in the mean time I like to cover my ***. I didnt weld my mag because of this memo, I did it befor the 1st on came out. I did it for the same reason that when I speed I try not to be the fastest car on the freeway. As long as someone else is out there being more reckless, they will getting the attention of the long arm of the law.

I dont say this hoping someone else will get busted with a maglock- but the harder we all try to be not the guy to get busted, the harder it will be for the DOJ to limit our firearms possession. there are people runing around with offlists, AW configuered and detach mags. These guys are not helping our cause.

adamsreeftank
05-11-2006, 2:55 PM
So I was thinking about possibly welding the mag catch on a HAR-25, but why ruin a perfectly good mag catch. So I have a modification that would not alter the mag catch.

Step 1. Start with a tube and squeeze it a bit in a vise or with a hammer so it is more of an oval shape. Now it should fit in the mag-catch hole, but not be able to rotate.

Step 2. Cut it just long enough that it will fit but leave 1/8 inch of threads sticking out the top.

Step 3. Screw on a nut. The stainless ones are thin and strong.

Step 4. Tack weld the nut to the tube.

Now you have an unmodified lower receiver, an unmodified magazine, and an unmodified mag catch. The only thing you have altered is a nut and a piece of tube. There is no way to remove the mag with a wrench, but go at it with a dremel and a grinding bit, and you have your untouched original parts in about 30 seconds.

And yes, it's only a memo... it's only a memo... it's only a memo...

Satex
05-11-2006, 3:35 PM
Yes, it is "just a memo". But a memo states a position. A position is used establish the action of the famous 58 DAs. The action of the 58 DAs can drag us to court. Once we are in court, we lose either way. Some of us more, some of us less.

This memo introduced concepts which have never before been defined or used, and can put individuals enjoying their hobby at risk. I really hope the NRA takes action!

I dont understand why we are heading towards coverting our rifles in accordance to the memo. A memo is a memo! Thats it, a memo.

blackrifle
05-15-2006, 5:29 AM
I really hope the NRA takes action!

You are joking, right? :rolleyes:

Cold Iron
05-15-2006, 1:25 PM
Here are pix of a PERMANENT mag attachment. The part is 304 stainless (weldable) Shorten the mag catch stud flush with sex bolt (that's its proper technical name!) Install mag and mag catch (no spring) tighten sex bolt. Heli-arc (TIG) fuse (no rod) the sex bolt to the mag catch stud. This requires very little heat and should not harm the receiver. There will be some discoloration of the stainless piece which can be polished off. This part could also be epoxied in place. Removal for mag repair requires destruction of the mag catch ($3.50) and the sex bolt (cheaper than a lawyer!) I would certainly call this a permanent alteration as per CalDOJ. Just another take on someone else's idea. Cold Iron