Gas on the fire - bullet tip mag release

[adamsreeftank]

After the somewhat negative response to my thread about welding a nut to the mag catch to permanently attach a magazine without damaging the receiver, I thought I'd throw out another idea from the other end of the spectrum.

Yes, its the ultimate evil. A bullet tip mag release. If installed in a rifle, it would allow you to commit a felony, but if you never actually use it to release the mag, I believe it would follow the letter of the law.

So what would be the point? Let's say you are at the range and can't clear a jam. Just remove any pistol grip, collapsing stock, and flash supressor, and you can now easily remove the magazine.

Seriously, I will never make one of these, and I don't think you should either. The idea has already been extensivly panned in many threads. However, if the DOJ is going to take an extremely narrow view of what is legal, I think it merits discussion of what would be at the other end of the spectrum.

The pink part below is the only thing that would need to be manufactured. The green part would be a standard nut. The mag release and spring would need to be shortened.

1252

PLEASE DO NOT ACTUALLY BUILD THIS!!!

[Ford8N]

Submit the design to the DOJ and see what they say.

[ohsmily]

People came up with this idea back in December and January.

I have to ask the same question that I and others did back then: what is the point? Why have quick release? If you remove the magazine and the pistol grip is on, you are in an illegal configuration. If the pistol grip is off and you are firing in a no "evil feature" config, then you can have a detachable magazine anyway...

Here is one of many threads addressing this. http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28442&highlight=bullet+tip+release

[wangankin]

I say its better than the current locks out there... one reason, the law clearly states bullet tip IS a tool.... the set screw deal is not clearly written but is still covered... How could they argue with a bullet tip when its clearly written.

[artherd]

I realize you probally mean well but:
1) Your post gives extremely poor advice on how to avoid a constructive possession issue pertaining to a type of crime where constructive possession is not a factor.

2) Lack of punctuation makes my head hurt!

If you make this device and have it installed on your offlist Lower with a pistol grip

Hypothetical situation your at the range with this device installed on your OLL and what do you have all around YOU cartridges maybe a whole battle pack

with my kit or Darins Kit you might have an allen wrench in your truck or car glove box but you really shouldn't have one in your posession as if you have the kit that needs a tool and you have the tool right there they (LEO) could say he could have removed it (the magazine) with the tool ok are you following me but why make the tool a cartridge this tool is too available if you have this design on your OLL The tool is everywhere everyone at the range has a tool to your OLL.

This design although interesting is just way too easy to get the mag out. Its not everyone that carries a 3/16 allen wrench in their range bag and anyone
using the kit shouldn't either. Have it in your truck or car but not on your person or in anything you take to the range or in close proximity to your Rifle.


PLEASE NO SPELLING CORRECTIONS

THIS MEANS YOU OHSMILY

[Blackwater OPS]

How Is That

Unlike the Feds, CA does NOT have a constructive possession law. Your grammar is painful because it is so so very wrong.

[double_action]

Punctuation was developed for a reason, to make communication clear. Please use it.

Throwing away established rules because you're too lazy to use them is not a good enough reason.

[EBWhite]

The reason someone would want this is a way to release this in an area where you would not get caught for having fun. Sorry guys but that is the only reason i can see.

[Fate]

If the tool/bullet tip was required to push in the "release" button in order for it to actually accept another magazine, I don't see such a configuration being against the law. You would need a tool to attach AND detach the mag. That's legal according to my reading of the law. All the worrying about creating an open magwell would be moot as it would not accept a mag without the use of the tool.

[adamsreeftank]

If the tool/bullet tip was required to push in the "release" button in order for it to actually accept another magazine, I don't see such a configuration being against the law. You would need a tool to attach AND detach the mag. That's legal according to my reading of the law. All the worrying about creating an open magwell would be moot as it would not accept a mag without the use of the tool.

Actually, you would need a tool (in this case a bullet) to remove the mag, but you wouldn't need one to put the mag back in. With the spring, it would act just like a standard mag release.

I know this topic was covered, but I don't remember seeing any actual designs posted. I think my design would be easy to manufacture and would follow the letter of the law.

BUT SERIOUSLY, I'm not advocating this. I'm just trying to broaden the discussion. If the DOJ feels they can narrow our legal rights by taking a very limited interpretation of the law, then it can only help to consider the whole spectrum of possibilities that would reasonably fall within the scope of the written law.

[James R.]

The DOJ will just produce a midget with tiny fingers to push in your release or maybe a particular agent with a pencil for a d!ck who can manipulate it with a, "tool" of very different kind ;-)

I like the idea, had thought of it myself as well, but it begs the question. What practical use could it possibly serve?

Regards,

James R.

[adamsreeftank]

The DOJ will just produce a midget with tiny fingers to push in your release or maybe a particular agent with a pencil for a d!ck who can manipulate it with a, "tool" of very different kind ;-)

I like the idea, had thought of it myself as well, but it begs the question. What practical use could it possibly serve?

Regards,

James R.

Some have stated their interpretation of the law that : if a tool (bullet) is required to REMOVE the mag, then it is not illegally configured as having a detachable mag, whether or not there is an open mag well. Thus, with a liberal interpretation of the law, it COULD be legal to use a rifle with all the evil features, drop the mag with a bullet, load it, pop it back in, and keep going.

Yes, it is a VERY GREY AREA, but better legal minds than mine have put forward this possibility. I don't want to be a test case, so I WILL NOT attempt this. But it is interesting to think about. It would be amazing if the DOJ told us that it is illegal to pin/glue/bolt the mag in, and then the courts slapped them down and said actually you can have the evil features and drop mags as long as it takes a bullet to drop them... Just day dreaming.

Semi-auto Sam: I think you are mistaken. The feed lips of the magazine should provide enough of a bevel to insert the mag even if there is no bevel on the mag release.

[adamsreeftank]

After giving more thought to this idea, one thing kept bothering me. The DOJ memo talks about the "capacity to accept". So if the rifle could be easily modified to an illegal configuration, they would consider it illegal.

So now here is version 2. The PERMANENT bullet tip mag release.

1257

I think this version would satisfy the written law AND THE MEMO!!!:eek:

[Ten Rounder]

Some have stated their interpretation of the law that : if a tool (bullet) is required to REMOVE the mag, then it is not illegally configured as having a detachable mag, whether or not there is an open mag well. Thus, with a liberal interpretation of the law, it COULD be legal to use a rifle with all the evil features, drop the mag with a bullet, load it, pop it back in, and keep going.

I was told this is how it has been done for years here in Cali at 3-gun matches, and the concept is not new. I have not been to any match to verify it first hand.

[snobordr]

For all the talk about complying with the law, on both sides, ours and the DOJ, I am surprised at the reaction to the topic of the bullet-tip removable magazine. The law clearly states that if a magazine release requires the use of a tool, or bullet tip, the magazine is not detachable. The arguement is made that the rifle still has the capacity to accept a removable magazine when by definition, the magazine is non-removable. It seems that if we are complying with the law with regards to features and the Kasler list, then we should be able to comply with the law on this subject as well.


Or am I wrong? And no, I have no desire to be a "test case".

[xenophobe]

Legal. However, you will go to court. And pay lots and lots of money. And you still might lose. And your right to own firearms and vote, and pay many thousands of dollars, and maybe some jail time...

I'll chip in a hundred or two for your defense. You WILL need it.

[Crazed_SS]

Dumb idea IMO.

[James R.]

For all the talk about complying with the law, on both sides, ours and the DOJ, I am surprised at the reaction to the topic of the bullet-tip removable magazine. The law clearly states that if a magazine release requires the use of a tool, or bullet tip, the magazine is not detachable. The arguement is made that the rifle still has the capacity to accept a removable magazine when by definition, the magazine is non-removable. It seems that if we are complying with the law with regards to features and the Kasler list, then we should be able to comply with the law on this subject as well.


Or am I wrong? And no, I have no desire to be a "test case".

It's legal, but the point is the minute you use that bullet tip to remove the mag you have just manufactured an assault weapon per SB23 if you've got a pistol grip on the gun. So it serves no real purpose other than to make taking the mag out easier. Cause you'd have to be nuts to pull the mag at the range in clear sight of possible LEO lurkers.

If you build up a uber evil rifle you'll damn near have to pull every part off the thing in order to clear a jam at the range. I'd probably just pull the whole upper receiver off at that point.

Regards,

James R.

[adamsreeftank]

As I understand it the problem with this line of thought is once the mag is removed in using an allen wrench or a cartrige or any tool it can accept a detachable mag. Unless the mechanism is such that once the mag is pulled out another mag cannot be inserted.

There actually is a question as to whether this is correct. I have agreed with you in the past, but if you read the law carefully, it might actually be legal to use the bullet to drop the mag, reload, and re-insert without removing other AW features.

This page details the comment/review process:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.htm
978.20(a) Detachable Magazine
...
Comments also claimed that a bullet or ammunition cartridge should be considered a tool because the type of firearm that utilizes a bullet or ammunition cartridge to release the magazine is a firearm with a fixed magazine, clearly not intended by the Legislature to be categorized as an assault weapon . The Department further researched the claims and confirmed that it is necessary to identify a bullet or ammunition cartridge as a tool to allow certain firearms with fixed magazines to remain fixed by definition. The definition was again revised to read "detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor the 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."
...

Here's the Roberti-Roos act:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.htm
....
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
...

Sooooo, Roberti-Roos does NOT say that an AR type rifle with a FIXED mag is NOT an AW. It says that a rifle with a "detachable magazine" and any other features IS and AW. Thus, it should follow that by not being "detachable" under their definition, no other Roberti-Roos feature limits apply. When the magazine has been removed with the tool, the rifle has not substantivly changed in it's ability to accept a "detachable magazine" as defined by the law. As others have stated, a bullet is in fact the ONLY tool specifically identified as being able to REMOVE a magazine and not alter the weapons status as NOT HAVING a detachable magazine.

Here's the memo:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf
...
Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic 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).
...

NOTE, it does not say modified to temporarily have a fixed magazine. It says modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting a detachable magazine. Whether or not you agree with the memo, my version 2 diagram with the welded components should satisfy the intent of the above passage.

So, in summation, while I first thought I'd start this thread to push the legal limits and cross into the NO WAY - NO HOW territory, I'm now thinking this may be more legit that the methods currently being used. But I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my opinions as having any weight whatsoever, ....

[dbol]

As I understand it the problem with this line of thought is once the mag is removed in using an allen wrench or a cartrige or any tool it can accept a detachable mag. Unless the mechanism is such that once the mag is pulled out another mag cannot be inserted.

Adamsreeftank is right to doubt this construction. The issue is not whether any other mag can be attached, but instead whether a detachable mag can be attached.

Once a magazine is removed using the mechanism adamsreeftank describes, the rifle can accept a magazine, but not a detachable magazine (the mag catch locks the magazine in place until the mag release is depressed with a tool). Since every magazine that a rifle using this mechanism accepts would be "fixed" (under the DOJ's definition of detachable magazine - see below), such a rifle could never be a by-features AW.

This isn't a grey area; rifles whose mags can only be removed with the use of a tool lack a threshold characteristic of a by-features AW. Sure, some uninformed cop might still arrest you and there would probably be some hassle with getting your rifle back, but I think a DA would be unlikely to charge you after reading the statute and regulations.

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.

[NoTime2Shoot]

After reading through the laws this weekend, I totally agree with adamsreeftank. I would probably be willing to put it on my rifle. I would DEFINATELY carry copies of the laws, highlighted, just in case. I really don't see how this has any more, (or less, for that matter), risk than any other methods.
About all I could see is the DOJ saying that the laws, as written, do not apply to THESE rifles. I dunno. An actual lawyer's opinion would probably be nice. Than again, who has gotten an opinion on their particular locking mechanism?
Of course you could write Allison and see what she says, lol!

[snobordr]

It's legal, but the point is the minute you use that bullet tip to remove the mag you have just manufactured an assault weapon per SB23 if you've got a pistol grip on the gun. So it serves no real purpose other than to make taking the mag out easier. Cause you'd have to be nuts to pull the mag at the range in clear sight of possible LEO lurkers.

If you build up a uber evil rifle you'll damn near have to pull every part off the thing in order to clear a jam at the range. I'd probably just pull the whole upper receiver off at that point.

Regards,

James R.

Please explain to me how I manufacture an assault weapon? As per the current law and definition, if the magazine requires a tool to remove, it is non-removable and therefore, can have all the evil features you want.

[snobordr]

I was full of energy last night so I took my blueprints and a print out of the multi color diagrams within this thread, Drove down to the shop and made what you all have been talking about here this time I used a interesting space age material called Ultum1000.

In using the mag release catch just the way it is sent from Colt. When this unit is installed on the receiver It will accept another mag without the button being pushed. The magazine just snaps into place just as I suspected it would.

I hope this answers anyones thoughts of building this design and expecting it to work.


Your point?

ETA: Were you able to remove said magazine without the tool? If so, you didn't do it right. If not, then now you see the point.

[JPglee1]

How is this any different than an SKS?

I can remove my SKS magazine with a bullet, once the mag is out, its still capable of accepting another magazine, and if I put a high cap or detachable mag in it, its a felony... BUT when the original mag is out, say for cleaning its NOT in illegal-form.

I guess every FAL w/a setscrew in the release is illegal too because you can jsut take the set screw out?? Thats why I made my mag-wedge lock doohickey so you have to take the mag release screw OUT and drop the whole assembly and BHO so theres no doubt a mag won't go back in.

JP

[dbol]

After reading through the laws this weekend, I totally agree with adamsreeftank. I would probably be willing to put it on my rifle. I would DEFINATELY carry copies of the laws, highlighted, just in case. I really don't see how this has any more, (or less, for that matter), risk than any other methods.
About all I could see is the DOJ saying that the laws, as written, do not apply to THESE rifles. I dunno. An actual lawyer's opinion would probably be nice. Than again, who has gotten an opinion on their particular locking mechanism?
Of course you could write Allison and see what she says, lol!

I am a lawyer (but not your lawyer nor the lawyer of anyone else on this board) and you can find my take on this issue above. While getting a written opinion from an attorney offers some psychological comfort, it doesn't offer substantial protection from criminal prosecution.

[dbol]

I was full of energy last night so I took my blueprints and a print out of the multi color diagrams within this thread, Drove down to the shop and made what you all have been talking about here this time I used a interesting space age material called Ultum1000.

In using the mag release catch just the way it is sent from Colt. When this unit is installed on the receiver It will accept another mag without the button being pushed. The magazine just snaps into place just as I suspected it would.

I hope this answers anyones thoughts of building this design and expecting it to work.

As snobordr implies above, the issue isn't whether a mag will snap into place without depressing the buttton, but whether that same mag can be removed without using a tool to depress the button. If a tool is required to detach the mag, then it isn't a detachable mag and the rifle does not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine."

[jmlivingston]

Adamsreeftank is right to doubt this construction. The issue is not whether any other mag can be attached, but instead whether a detachable mag can be attached.


Yup, I get it.... law prohibits DE-tachable magazines, not A-ttachable! But whew, it's a fine line I think. Though one that falls ever-so-slightly on our side I believe! Definately we should continue discussion on this, we might be on to something here. Would like to hear thoughts from several of the other attorneys we have on the boards, as well as our resident should-take-the-bar-anyways guy (That's you Bill!).

John

[blacklisted]

As snobordr implies above, the issue isn't whether a mag will snap into place without depressing the buttton, but whether that same mag can be removed without using a tool to depress the button. If a tool is required to detach the mag, then it isn't a detachable mag and the rifle does not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine."

But wouldn't it complicate things if people had dozens of loaded mags with them in addition to this "non-detachable mag" that did not differ in appearance or function from the others?

This would likely FORCE them to change the definition of detachable magazine, something we DON'T want.

[JPglee1]

But wouldn't it complicate things if people had dozens of loaded mags with them in addition to this "non-detachable mag" that did not differ in appearance or function from the others?



Simple solution, load them as you shoot them, don't leave a ton of hi-cap mags around anyway.

My personal rule: Don't take all my stuff out at once, I only take 1-2 guns and 1-2 mags for each, then if I get my stuff taken, its not ALL of it gone...


JP

[NoTime2Shoot]

Yup, I get it.... law prohibits DE-tachable magazines, not A-ttachable! But whew, it's a fine line I think. Though one that falls ever-so-slightly on our side I believe! Definately we should continue discussion on this, we might be on to something here. Would like to hear thoughts from several of the other attorneys we have on the boards, as well as our resident should-take-the-bar-anyways guy (That's you Bill!).

John


Just to be safe, do what someone said earlier. Make it so you have to use the tool to put the mag back in.

[jmlivingston]

Maybe some moderator needs to delete this thread and we take this discussion offline?

John

[adamsreeftank]

Maybe some moderator needs to delete this thread and we take this discussion offline?

John

Why would we do that.
Did someone forget to send me the password to the SECRET FORUM???
:D

[NoTime2Shoot]

Maybe some moderator needs to delete this thread and we take this discussion offline?

John

It's probably already made it into the next memo. :D

Your sig. is hillarious, by the way.

[dbol]

But wouldn't it complicate things if people had dozens of loaded mags with them in addition to this "non-detachable mag" that did not differ in appearance or function from the others?

This would likely FORCE them to change the definition of detachable magazine, something we DON'T want.

That might very well increase the likelihood that some uninformed LEO will think you have an illegal rifle, but it doesn't change the law. The "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is a characteristic of the rifle itself, independent of the magazine and regardless of how many times one removes a "fixed" magazine to replace it with a loaded one. (The ten round mag I have pinned in an off-list rifle is no different than one that could be used on a detachable mag rifle.)

I'm not sure I agree that this makes a change to the regs more likely and even if it did, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. A change to the definition of detachable magazine would cause currently legally-configured rifles to become AWs and that could trigger the registration period for which so many around here hunger.

[NoTime2Shoot]

Here, when they say a bullet tip doesn't count......
The allen wrench model.....

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/hazy420/bullet_tip_mag_release_allen.jpg

[jmlivingston]

Your sig. is hillarious, by the way.

Thanks! I stole it off some guy on a Harley list...... :D

John

[Fate]

If a Magazine can be detached from a rifle make sense would it not that the magazine would be considered detachable?

Sorry temporary burst of logic.
Logic has nothing to do with gun laws. Reread the official definition of "detachable magazine." Regardless of what one might "think" the phrase means, what is written in the law is the definition we must use.

[adamsreeftank]

Logic has nothing to do with gun laws. Reread the official definition of "detachable magazine." Regardless of what one might "think" the phrase means, what is written in the law is the definition we must use.

Quite right. If the gun laws were written based on logic, I think they would look very different. But they were written to get the most political payback and to please the most people, while still leaving a few sportsmen and competitors happy.

It is the lack of logic that creates the gray area the DOJ uses to reshape the law according to their political goals. This gray area can also work for us if we can put the pieces together and get some kind of official recognition that what we want to do falls within the convoluted scope of the written law.

[adamsreeftank]

Here, when they say a bullet tip doesn't count......
The allen wrench model.....


I think that would NOT satisfy the DOJ Memo, as it could be removed with a wrench. It would also bypass the function of the spring and be esentially the same as the Sporting Conversion kit.

My intention was to design something that would be legally considered PERMANENT (to satisfy the DOJ Memo writers), and allow allow the rifle to opperate and be reloaded without having to break-open the action. Not an easy task.


If the DOJ wants to revise the idea of a bullet being a tool that can legally remove a non-detachable magazine, I wonder if they would have to get the law ammended, as it is clearly stated in the code.

[NoTime2Shoot]

I think that would NOT satisfy the DOJ Memo, as it could be removed with a wrench. It would also bypass the function of the spring and be esentially the same as the Sporting Conversion kit.

My intention was to design something that would be legally considered PERMANENT (to satisfy the DOJ Memo writers), and allow allow the rifle to opperate and be reloaded without having to break-open the action. Not an easy task.



Actually, the "release button" is just turned in with an allen wrench. The lines I added denote threads. when it is turned in, the magazine drops out. Here is the good part, if you stick a magazine in there, it will fall right out. You would have to hold the magazine in and turn the allen back out to lock in the mag. I'm not sure how the sport conv. kit is. This is just an added thought.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/bullet_tip_mag_release_allen.jpg

<EDIT>

Now, If you could shoulder in an allen that turned to push the release with cams - that would be cool.

[adamsreeftank]

Actually, the "release button" is just turned in with an allen wrench. The lines I added denote threads. when it is turned in, the magazine drops out. Here is the good part, if you stick a magazine in there, it will fall right out. You would have to hold the magazine in and turn the allen back out to lock in the mag. I'm not sure how the sport conv. kit is. This is just an added thought.

<EDIT>

Now, If you could shoulder in an allen that turned to push the release with cams - that would be cool.

I think even if the gun won't hold the magazine, it would still be considered detachable, as you could freely put the mag in and out before you screw it back on. Also, the law specifies a bullet tip as a legal tool, but does not mention an allen wrench (although I would consider it a "tool").

I really don't think your changes would help, as the gun would be illegal when the mag was removed. Also it is not permanent. My design is permanently welded, and it makes the magazine non-detachable, even when it is not in the rifle. That is the whole point. It would also be much faster and easier to use, which is an added bonus.

[NoTime2Shoot]

I think even if the gun won't hold the magazine, it would still be considered detachable, as you could freely put the mag in and out before you screw it back on. Also, the law specifies a bullet tip as a legal tool, but does not mention an allen wrench (although I would consider it a "tool").

I really don't think your changes would help, as the gun would be illegal when the mag was removed. Also it is not permanent. My design is permanently welded, and it makes the magazine non-detachable, even when it is not in the rifle. That is the whole point. It would also be much faster and easier to use, which is an added bonus.

I don't think I am explaining the idea very clearly. It is the same non removable idea as yours, but the function is changed to release a little differently. It is not as fast, but I believe that is what the DOJ wants. As for being illegal when the mag is out, that would be the same argument that could be made on the bullet tip release, IMO.

I see your point as to a tool. Yes the allen wrench is a tool, but the law does specifically say cartridge or bullet tip. Probably safer, but I would love to see the DOJ trying to convince a judge that an allen wrench is not a tool.

All just food for thought. I look forward to seeing your prototype!

[dbol]

I don't think I am explaining the idea very clearly. It is the same non removable idea as yours, but the function is changed to release a little differently. It is not as fast, but I believe that is what the DOJ wants. As for being illegal when the mag is out, that would be the same argument that could be made on the bullet tip release, IMO.

I see your point as to a tool. Yes the allen wrench is a tool, but the law does specifically say cartridge or bullet tip. Probably safer, but I would love to see the DOJ trying to convince a judge that an allen wrench is not a tool.

All just food for thought. I look forward to seeing your prototype!
I think adamsreeftank is right. When the mag release is depressed on your allen wrench model, the mag release stays depressed until it is unscrewed. While depressed, a magazine could be inserted (I suppose it would need to be held in place in order to operate) and detached without the use of a tool. On adamsreeftank's design, there is no way to disable (more than momentarily) the locking mechanism that prevents a magazine from being detached.

[NoTime2Shoot]

I think adamsreeftank is right. When the mag release is depressed on your allen wrench model, the mag release stays depressed until it is unscrewed. While depressed, a magazine could be inserted (I suppose it would need to be held in place in order to operate) and detached without the use of a tool. On adamsreeftank's design, there is no way to disable (more than momentarily) the locking mechanism that prevents a magazine from being detached.


I see what you are saying.

[Tzvia]

and came up with an idea. What if I just shorten the mag catch and spring, drop in a metal washer for the spring to push against and use a small nut screwed into the lower enough to be impossible to remove or press without a tool? I could use my car keys to press the mag release, or a bullet, and it would at no time be possible to put in another mag that would be removable without using a tool again to press the recessed nut. Or do you all think someone with dinky fingers would show up and be able to press it?

Just thinking...

[aklover_91]

This is turning into a nice, productive thread. Now, if only I could get an OLL to build up with this crazy new mag fix...

[adamsreeftank]

and came up with an idea. What if I just shorten the mag catch and spring, drop in a metal washer for the spring to push against and use a small nut screwed into the lower enough to be impossible to remove or press without a tool? I could use my car keys to press the mag release, or a bullet, and it would at no time be possible to put in another mag that would be removable without using a tool again to press the recessed nut. Or do you all think someone with dinky fingers would show up and be able to press it?

Just thinking...

Lois

Two issues. First, I think the hole that the mag release fits in is large enough for someone with small fingers to stick their pinky in. That would be a definite no-go. Second, If it was just screwed in, then it wouldn't be permanent, and the DOJ would still have an issue with it.

By fabricating the piece of metal that goes in the mag-catch hole, my design would allow you to control the size and depth of the hole that you would have to stick the bullet in. A 223 bullet is very small, so it would be easy to make it too small for even a very small finger to opperate. I also think it is important that it can be welded permanently, as the DOJ already stated they would have a problem with a screw on method.

If a police officer confiscates a rifle for inspection, they may wind up asking the DOJ for a determination of whether they should prosecute. You may think you are legal and can win in court, but I would rather not be using a method that they have already stated they view as a felony.

[Jicko]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=301521&postcount=36

I agreed with you guys... i think there is some future in construction such a mag button.... is someone taking this on? (I'm willing to use such a "non-detachable magazine design on my rifles.)

Here are some dimensions we can work on:

The neck of a .223/5.56 cartridge is 0.255in(6.48mm)
The tip to neck of a M193/M855/.223/5.56 cartridge is 0.748in(19mm)
The diameter of the standard magazine catch is 0.3125in

So, the outside hole need to be just slightly larger than 0.255in(just little larger than our fav .223 bullet), and I doubt ANYONE will have a body part that is thinner than 0.255in.

It takes about 0.2in of pushing in for the magazine to be able to detach, ie. we can set the pressing surface to be almost 0.5in into the button. (So someone need a body part that is 0.25in(dia.) x 0.5+in(length) to be able to push that surface.... without the use of a TOOL)

I think I have manufacturable design utilizing sport conv kit's plastic spacer, cutting down a regular LPK's magazine release(tap'ing a screw hole on it), adding a spring and a screw....

Please contact me on the side, if you would like to participate in this project. I'm down south in San Diego.

[Jicko]

Cool!

The parts needed will be VERY similar to your kit.... and I think the production cost will be very similar too!!

I'll publish some designs later today.


If someone really wants to do this I have the machine shop all set up to do this allready.

Just need some capital

fedex me about 1K and a print and ill get going on a run of 100 pieces

I already have the material 303 stainless and have the source for the allen nut.

[Jicko]

Here is the design and how it can be used. (I'll refine some dimension later)

http://images1.fotki.com/v317/photos/2/26966/3318337/MagSpacer-vi.jpg

What do you guys think?

Should be fairly easy to make..... SemiAutoSam, rite? ($1k for 100, kinda steep tho...)

Actually, the preferred material would be "plastic".... easier to mill, and cheaper.... (please PM me if you have the capability to make this "plastic" piece for me)

Without a "tool"(eg. a round).... this design is AS FIXED AS any of our previous designs....

[Jicko]

Yes it should be easy to make. However if it can be made with the stock mag release catch/stud it will be alot less expencive to produce.

We'll be using the "stock mag release catch" (Regular Magazine Catch)... just trim one down, and tap a screwhole in the middle of the stud.


Plastic ? wouldn't require a machine shop a injection mold somewhat like the machine that you put a quarter in (at travel town in LA) and out pops a little plastic train.

Have you seen the original "sport conversion" kit? I am just looking for something similar to that "plastic spacer".

Maybe we should start a new thread on this.....

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=34664

[adamsreeftank]

Cool!

The parts needed will be VERY similar to your kit.... and I think the production cost will be very similar too!!

I'll publish some designs later today.

Jico Rico,

I am currently working with another board member who is going to fabricate a dummy receiver and some parts to submit to the DOJ. As of now, I think I will be writing the letter and submitting it to the DOJ, but I will be looking for input from the legal thinkers (especially those who have aready hired attorneys) for input before submitting anything.

I see one major problem with your drawing due to the changes you made from my second design. You are relying on a screw-in method that has two complications. First, the mag catch is very hard and I dont think it would be easy to trim, drill and tap it. The post would also be very thin where it was drilled.

More importantly, the DOJ has already stated that any modification needs to be PERMANENT. This means welded. The reason I use a square cutout in the insert is that it would be farly easy to mill with a small diamiter end mill (it doesn't need to have sharp inner corners since the lag screw is an octagon). That would make it prevent the lag screw from turning as you screw the mag catch on the end. Since the lag screw is exposed throught the mag catch, it would be easy to tig weld over them and make it PERMANENT. I can guarantee that the DOJ would reject a screw on method. With a welded method it would satisfy the law AND THE MEMO.

I appreciate the work you did to ascertain the dimensions of the bullet and the neccessary depth; however, I think there is enough leeway to accomodate 308 bullet or a 6.5 Grendel bullet. Both of which I plan on building and would like to use this mag catch for.

I know my diagram is not very professional and there are no dimensions, but I gave a lot of thought to the legalities, as well as the ease of manufacturing, so please don't dismiss it so quickly.

1301

I am not really interested in mass producing this item or making money off of it, so I have no problem with someone else going into production, but I think we need to be very careful with what we submit to the DOJ.

[Jicko]

At this point, I am(and I think we all should), base our designs according to EXISTING LAWS..... ie. that memo is just like the Feb memo.... it is just an *intent*.. and without ANY legal application.....

I do recognize all your concerns.

And neither am I in the position of wanting to make money. (that's why I post detailed schematic as to how to make it....)

I am just soliciting comments from everyone here. :-)

[adamsreeftank]

At this point, I am(and I think we all should), base our designs according to EXISTING LAWS..... ie. that memo is just like the Feb memo.... it is just an *intent*.. and without ANY legal application.....

I do recognize all your concerns.

And neither am I in the position of wanting to make money. (that's why I post detailed schematic as to how to make it....)

I am just soliciting comments from everyone here. :-)

I understand the law is the law, and a memo is a memo, but many DAs defer to the DOJ to see if they should prosecute. I think my design will work well, restore %99 of the functionality of the rifle, and ALSO meet the DOJs demands.

[NoTime2Shoot]

I'm thinking it is something that would need to be put on a lower and made "permanent". It can be reversed, (if you move to a free state), but it is not so easy as to be "temporary".

Since the cat is out of the bag, I may have the "receiver" part ready this weekend. All I need is to find a 10rd mag and the stock release parts. This could get sent in the next week or so. I could bust out a couple of pieces and both types [with weld and without] could get sent, what the hell. The worse we get is a no.

:D

[adamsreeftank]

I'm thinking it is something that would need to be put on a lower and made "permanent". It can be reversed, (if you move to a free state), but it is not so easy as to be "temporary".

Since the cat is out of the bag, I may have the "receiver" part ready this weekend. All I need is to find a 10rd mag and the stock release parts. This could get sent in the next week or so. I could bust out a couple of pieces and both types [with weld and without] could get sent, what the hell. The worse we get is a no.

:D

PM Sent ........

[MsJamie]

Guys, one thing to keep in mind...

Can you (or anyone else) get a fingernail under the mag release arm (opposite side from the push button) and pull it up that way? I could easily do that with my issue M-16

Regardless of what kind of tool you need on the pushbutton side, you're going to have a hard time convincing the judge that a fingernail is a tool. (Even if you don't have fingernails, it would still be a hard sell.)

You may have to epoxy some kind of shroud over the arm.

[adamsreeftank]

Guys, one thing to keep in mind...

Can you (or anyone else) get a fingernail under the mag release arm (opposite side from the push button) and pull it up that way? I could easily do that with my issue M-16

Regardless of what kind of tool you need on the pushbutton side, you're going to have a hard time convincing the judge that a fingernail is a tool. (Even if you don't have fingernails, it would still be a hard sell.)

You may have to epoxy some kind of shroud over the arm.

Interesting point.
I think if the spring was strong enough, it could prevent that. At some point the spring could require enough force to break a human nail.

[adamsreeftank]

I still don't really think the DOJ will approve this, and I DO NOT THINK ANYONE SHOULD ACTUALLY BUILD THIS TO USE ON THEIR GUN.

That being said, I have a design revision that should work well with a .223 bullet. I am working with another board member to build some parts and a receiver mock-up to submit to the DOJ. I figure there is really nothing to lose except for our time.

I would NEVER use this device on a gun without a rock solid blessing from the DOJ and maybe the local DA as well.

So here is version 3. DO NOT BUILD THIS OR YOU MIGHT WIND UP IN JAIL !!!!

1306

[bwiese]

If you even remotely expect any 'blessing' from DOJ on such AR related products you are smoking some wacky tobaccy.

DOJ 'blessings' often hold mfgrs to higher standards than what the law requires.

And with all this off-list activity and DOJ panic, etc expect _nothing_ favorable.

[NoTime2Shoot]

If you don't try, you will never know.

[adamsreeftank]

If you even remotely expect any 'blessing' from DOJ on such AR related products you are smoking some wacky tobaccy.

DOJ 'blessings' often hold mfgrs to higher standards than what the law requires.

And with all this off-list activity and DOJ panic, etc expect _nothing_ favorable.

Bill,

I couldn't agree with you more. This is really just an exercise in testing the limits of what is possible. (And isn't that what got us where we are now?) Maybe I'm just looking forward to receiving a letter that says that even though it is legal and follows the letter of the law, they would prosecute anyways for building an AW.

But then, who knows. I really do think this would totally conform to the written laws. I'm sure they didn't enjoy writing all of those letters saying it was legal to purchase lowers, but they really didn't have a choice. As long as no one starts running around with these on their guns, I don't think there is any harm done.

[snobordr]

Ok, after reading this thread some more, I have a suggestion. A friend and I have a design for a non-detachable, mag release button that could in no way be reversed. This requires modification to the receiver itself (modified pocket for mag release button, removal of fence around release). I would not suggest making these changes to a complete receiver, rather use this on a 0-80% receiver that one wants to complete for themselves. I know this subject has been somewhat taboo, but with current developments with the DOJ, the arguments for not using a 80% receiver are pretty much moot.

I beleive this design would satisfy the "permanence" requirement that the DOJ has put forth as original parts would no longer fit or be functional with this design. It also satisifies the "tool" requirement as currently defined by law.

So, the question is, who would buy such a receiver?

Who would buy a 0% receiver with this modification alone? Another possibility would be providing a receiver with the magwell cut, the front takedown hole machined and this modification.


80% receivers with this modifcation are not possible.


I cannot divulge the secret without consulting with the other party so please do not ask.

[xenophobe]

If you have to use the allen wrench to detach the mag, and again to fix it, I think this idea would be relatively safe to use.


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/hazy420/bullet_tip_mag_release_allen.jpg

[adamsreeftank]

If you have to use the allen wrench to detach the mag, and again to fix it, I think this idea would be relatively safe to use.

If you did it this way, then it is functionally the same as all of the other mag-locs currently being used. In other words, the DOJ will argue that it is not permanent. I don't see any advantage over your idea and the kits avialable, or just a nut and a washer.

If you look at my last drawing, you will see that the screw can be welded to the mag loc on the outside. This means that it should be considered permanent in that you can not use a tool to remove the device from the receiver. The receiver has esentially been permanently altered to not have a detachable magazine. This is completely aside from the issue of whether a bullet or any tool can be used to drop the mag. The fact is the gun can no longer be easily converted back to its original configuration.

I have proposed two ideas for securing the magazine: 1) using a spacer and welding a nut to the spacer or the mag loc post, or 2) building a bullet tip release mechanism that would be installed and then welded. Both of these methods would involve a permanent weld, and would not alter the receiver or the magazine, so no real harm would be done. If you are not comfortable with the bullet-drop mechanism, then plan 1 is another option that (should) satisfy the DOJ's demand for permanence.

If you are not worried about satsifying the DOJ's demand for permanence, then you should consider yourself a candidate for being a test case. Good luck, and if it comes down to that, let me know where I can donate to your legal defense fund.

[Comstock Lode]

The law clearly states that if a magazine release requires the use of a tool, or bullet tip, the magazine is not detachable. The arguement is made that the rifle still has the capacity to accept a removable magazine when by definition, the magazine is non-removable. It seems that if we are complying with the law with regards to features and the Kasler list, then we should be able to comply with the law on this subject as well.
".

This concept keeps coming up because some of us are new to the game and independently come to this same conclusion, that some sort of "permanent" non-detachable design alteration involving the mag release button (e.g. extending the threads, shortening the threaded pin, so that the button is within the receiver, etc.) Clearly there is a logical basis behind this line of thinking and certainly seems within the law, even as amended per the DOJ proposal.

As far as why you would want a "non-detachable" design that enables ready, albeit not instant, magazine remove/install: to compete in high power service rifle competition with all the folks who own pre-ban registered ARs...

[bwiese]

As far as why you would want a "non-detachable" design that enables ready, albeit not instant, magazine remove/install: to compete in high power service rifle competition with all the folks who own pre-ban registered ARs...


So you want to commit felonies on a public firing line?

The intent of this law could well be argued that it was to THWART ready changes and reloading. You don't want to give the appearance it is easy.

Bottom line: when that mag is out you + your rifle = felony (open magwell + pistol grip, etc.) - regardless of tools required.

Furthermore, an AR can cycle/ fire even if the mag is not locked in (i.e, mag just set in magwell without mag catch present).


If you need a detachable mag, go gripless.

[Comstock Lode]

OK. I think this is where your legal understanding trumps our (my) layman understanding of how "intent" of the law can come into play with severe implication.

[xenophobe]

After some introspective reflection, I'm changing my stance on this issue. It is not legal as far as I can assure.

DOJ will say the same thing as well.

[bwiese]

OK. I think this is where your legal understanding trumps our (my) layman understanding of how "intent" of the law can come into play with severe implication.

Aside from possible issues with 'intent' (i.e., avoiding "smelling bad") it's just irrational since there is no legal reason to drop the mag. The only time the 'fixed' mag can be removed is AFTER a lot of other parts have been disassembled from the rifle - and removing pistol grips and telestocks are not really something done at the range.

[adamsreeftank]

So you want to commit felonies on a public firing line?

The intent of this law could well be argued that it was to THWART ready changes and reloading. You don't want to give the appearance it is easy.

Bottom line: when that mag is out you + your rifle = felony (open magwell + pistol grip, etc.) - regardless of tools required.

Furthermore, an AR can cycle/ fire even if the mag is not locked in (i.e, mag just set in magwell without mag catch present).


If you need a detachable mag, go gripless.

Hey Bill,

You know I have the utmost respect for you and what you have done for the gun enthusiast in CA. You also know a lot more about the laws than I do, so maybe you can clear this up for me.

When the original law was passed, they discussed rifles with fixed mags that could be removed with a bullet. I'm not sure what rifles they were referring to, maybe SKS's or Garands. (Do you know?) When these "fixed magazine" rifles have their "fixed" magazines removed with a bullet, does it change them into non-fixed magazine rifles? I think the SKS requires a different stock, so if you take off the "fixed magazine" stock and put on a "detachable magazine" stock, it is an AW, but what about if you just remove the stock or the fixed mag. Have you altered the rifle ilegally?

My suggestion (that is all it was) in this thread was to see if there was any way to Permanently change an AR into a "fixed magazine" rifle as defined by the law. IF that were possible, it raises the question of whether removing the magazine with a tool would change the nature of the rifle into a detachable mag rifle if it still had the permanent change that rendered it a "fixed magazine" rifle under the law.

I know your harsh words are largely meant for the many readers who might jump on the idea without understanding the legal risks, but I still have a very faint glimmer of hope that this might be possible.

[five.five-six]

After the somewhat negative response to my thread about welding a nut to the mag catch to permanently attach a magazine without damaging the receiver, I thought I'd throw out another idea from the other end of the spectrum.

Yes, its the ultimate evil. A bullet tip mag release. If installed in a rifle, it would allow you to commit a felony, but if you never actually use it to release the mag, I believe it would follow the letter of the law.

So what would be the point? Let's say you are at the range and can't clear a jam. Just remove any pistol grip, collapsing stock, and flash supressor, and you can now easily remove the magazine.

Seriously, I will never make one of these, and I don't think you should either. The idea has already been extensivly panned in many threads. However, if the DOJ is going to take an extremely narrow view of what is legal, I think it merits discussion of what would be at the other end of the spectrum.

The pink part below is the only thing that would need to be manufactured. The green part would be a standard nut. The mag release and spring would need to be shortened.

1252

PLEASE DO NOT ACTUALLY BUILD THIS!!!

what a great idea i am going to build one today...why didn't i think of it

[adamsreeftank]

what a great idea i am going to build one today...why didn't i think of it
__________________
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


The contrast between the sarcasm in your post and your sig line is pretty funny.

[five.five-six]

The contrast between the sarcasm in your post and your sig line is pretty funny.

I am trying to commit my sig line to memory,, I think it would serve us all well to do in kind