PDA

View Full Version : Another idea for a fixed magazine !!


adamsreeftank
07-18-2006, 10:27 PM
I have been looking at both the pinned AR magazine option and the no evil-features option, and obviously, they both have their good and bad points. I have also suggested some other options such as a non-destructive weld option and a bullet tip-mag release option, both of which were largely rejected by the readers of this board.

I have been trying to figure out what would work best for a PTR-91 style of rifle, and I think I may have stumbled into another option that actually has some DOJ paperwork supporting something similar. What I am getting at builds upon the concept that Barrett uses for their CA legal semi-auto. Here is a website with some pictures:

http://www.50bmgstore.com/barrett50bmgstore_M82A1.htm

And here are the pictures for the mouse challenged:

1612

Here is the DOJ letter (resized):

1613

So I'm thinking why not use the same method for the PTR-91, and why not use it for the AR while we are at it. A simple linkage would allow the magazine to lower and rotate, while still being attached to the gun.

Here is a very crude design. There are tons of options to make this better. It is just a rough idea at this point.

1614


To all of the people that would say WHY, here are a few reasons:

1: the DOJ has approved in writing a similar system. They have not done that for any of the existing things being used.

2: it will allow you to clear a jam in the rifle and make it a bit safer. The DOJ may not care about safety, but I do.

3: I could build an AR with a nice tight fit and not have to worry about loosening the receivers prematurely.

4: opening a heavy barreled AR to load is a pain if you are not sitting at a bench.

5: I can't think of a better way to load a PTR-91, as well as many other rifles. How about a FAL with a large scope on it? Or an AK for that matter...

6: because we can.


Please let me know what you think.
Thanks.

tenpercentfirearms
07-18-2006, 10:31 PM
Buy a FAB-10.

adamsreeftank
07-18-2006, 10:50 PM
Buy a FAB-10.

Huh???

Why would I want to do that? Let's assume I alredy have a safe full of CA-legal fixed-mag and no-evil-features off-list rifles. And I am not really happy with them and want to improve them.

Did you read my post?

fun2none
07-18-2006, 11:07 PM
1: the DOJ has approved in writing a similar system. They have not done that for any of the existing things being used.

It's a nuance or semantic interpretation, but the Barrett DOJ letter said "we have determined that your receiver is a fixed magazine design". I am willing to wager that Barrett modified the receiver to
i) only accept the swing out magazine; making it difficult to modify it to use the detachable magazines AND
ii) the throw, or maximum angle at opening, will prevent a detachable magazine from being inserted.

2: it will allow you to clear a jam in the rifle and make it a bit safer. The DOJ may not care about safety, but I do.

This maybe true but moot if the DOJ says your receiver is still capable of accepting a detachable magazine, even with a magazine linkage.

3: I could build an AR with a nice tight fit and not have to worry about loosening the receivers prematurely.

Same reply to #2

4: opening a heavy barreled AR to load is a pain if you are not sitting at a bench.

It's a pain regardless of whether you are sitting on a bench or not.

5: I can't think of a better way to load a PTR-91, as well as many other rifles. How about a FAL with a large scope on it? Or an AK for that matter...

I would tend to think that a sliding hopper (imagine an enbloc clip on rails) released from the bottom of the magazine would be easier to load. DOJ regs says a clip is not an ammunition feeding device. This would require alot more engineering and design ($$) to get it right.

6: because we can.

but it does that means we should ??

tenpercentfirearms
07-18-2006, 11:10 PM
You aren't advocating using an AR15 stipped lower receiver. You are talking about altering what is currently the most accepted design and then having a gun that is fundamentally different from all other AR15s out there all pretty much for a minute California crowd. That idea is called the FAB-10. Well except your design will have a fundamentally different lower that will have a complicated tracked magazine design that will probably only have parts available from a specific manufacturer.

This idea has been covered before and it probably won't fly for the simple reason of it is not an AR15. People want AR15s. They don't want FAB-10s and they don't want complicated tracked magazine versions that will never be anything more than a complicated tracked magazine version. They want fixed magazine rifles that they can convert if they leave the state or if they get declared assault weapons. They want detachable magazine versions with MonsterMan grips or SRBs that can have a pistol grip added in a host of legal fashions. They want cheap, but quality. How much would the tracked version cost? Would it be the same price or if it costs even $20 more is worth not just buying a $7.95 extended take down pin and popping the gun in half real quick and putting it back together? When holding it in your hands do you always have to flip the gun upside down to load it?

OLLs are the closest thing we have to a real AR15. Anything else is not an AR15 and takes you further away. For that simple reason, the tracked magazine version would probably not sell very well unless it was cheaper than a AR15 OLL and by about $50. Otherwise, I will take the AR15 that can easily be used in its intended fashion when I leave the state or the law changes. A FAB-10 will always be a FAB-10 is what I tell my customers. A OLL probably will to, but it doesn't have to be.

PanzerAce
07-18-2006, 11:14 PM
.

6: because we can.

but it does that means we should ??

you know, for some reason your responce to this idea pissed me off. Thank god that you were not the one to find out about OLLs first. :mad:


That being said, I think this looks like a good idea. As long as you follow all the applicable laws, I dont see how the DOJ could stop you. and 10%, AFAICT, the modifications would just be a simple snap on system on the OUTSIDE of the reciever, and some modding of a magazine. It would still be a AR-15 rifle, would it not? also, I seem to remember that Mud designed a rifle pretty much just for us, but I dont seem to recall you being so negative about that...:rolleyes:

tenpercentfirearms
07-18-2006, 11:18 PM
Or wait, are you saying the linkage would somehow be added to an existing lower and still be fixed? Wouldn't that make the linkage have to be a bit long to clear the mag well? You would want to use the shortest mag possible as the linkage woud have to basically clear the mag well before it swings anywhere.

You will still have the problem of if the DOJ changes the definition of capable of accepting, unless it is permanent, you are still screwed.

I would think having a complicated linkage system that has to go a good 4-6 inches below my lower would be a much bigger pain in the butt than pulling a take down pin and loading. Prone or bench loading would be nearly impossible unless you put the gun on its side.

And again, a $17 Prince50 kit and $7.95 Watson Weapon's extended take down pin is a pretty nice price. Would this linkage kit be that cheap and would it attach to any body's mag? If it were cheaper than the current fixed system, sure I might buy and even sell it. Other than that, you are sort of stuck as gun owners hate to spend more money than they have to.

tenpercentfirearms
07-18-2006, 11:24 PM
AFAICT, the modifications would just be a simple snap on system on the OUTSIDE of the reciever, and some modding of a magazine. It would still be a AR-15 rifle, would it not? also, I seem to remember that Mud designed a rifle pretty much just for us, but I dont seem to recall you being so negative about that...:rolleyes:
I just realize it would be a add on system. I was thinking it would be more like a track and would require a new lower and posted new thoughts on that.

I don't recall what Mud designed. Was that the pistol gripless AR? I honestly don't remember. If it was, I am not trying to be a jerk, but this is business. How well is it selling? When you go screwing with an original design and making it more complicated, unless you can do it for cheaper than what is currently out there, I don't think you will do well with it. The other thing that appeals to AR nuts is that it is very modular and all the different makes and models interchange to a large extent. Go adding in new proprietary parts, and I don't think you will be as successful.

He asked what do we think? I am telling him as a consumer and a retailer what I think. I guess I could have just told him, "Great idea. A real seller." :rolleyes:

xenophobe
07-18-2006, 11:29 PM
The Barrett pictured above cannot accept a detachable magazine unless the rifle has been modified. With the magazine on the demo above, the mag will not swing out of the way enough for another magazine to be inserted.

If your "ar" design will allow another magazine to be used when the other one is 'swept out' then you will still be guilty of a felony.

PanzerAce
07-18-2006, 11:40 PM
I just realize it would be a add on system. I was thinking it would be more like a track and would require a new lower and posted new thoughts on that.

I don't recall what Mud designed. Was that the pistol gripless AR? I honestly don't remember. If it was, I am not trying to be a jerk, but this is business. How well is it selling? When you go screwing with an original design and making it more complicated, unless you can do it for cheaper than what is currently out there, I don't think you will do well with it. The other thing that appeals to AR nuts is that it is very modular and all the different makes and models interchange to a large extent. Go adding in new proprietary parts, and I don't think you will be as successful.

He asked what do we think? I am telling him as a consumer and a retailer what I think. I guess I could have just told him, "Great idea. A real seller." :rolleyes:

the Mud rifle was the shotgun stocked AR with a modified/built from scratch custom lower. Last I hear, he was waiting for patents to clear before it went into full production. IIRC, the intent of his rifle was to retain the AR modularity (dont even know if thats a word), but in a way that could never be called an AW in California.

As for proprietary parts, it looks to my (untrained) eye that this could be done with a couple of pieces of sheet metal and some rivets/nuts and bolts/whatever.

as for what we think, I personally would not buy it, mostly because I dont want to ever have a nuetered AR, I would rather have the recievers sit stripped in the closet, but I think it is a good idea to persue, if only to give people another option when it comes to building their rifle.

adamsreeftank
07-18-2006, 11:43 PM
Thanks for the feedback.

I'm not trying to start a business here. I already have one in another field. I am just trying to open another option for how to configure our off-list lowers.

I think it could be manufactured from stamped sheetmetal that was powdercoated and riveted together. It could be sturdy but cheap.

If it was designed properly, it would fold almost flat against the outside of the magwell when the mag was inserted. Since there are several pivot points, it would unfold as the magazine drops down. There is no track. I'm sorry the picture doesn't really express what I have in mind. Think of something that would work more like an UZI folding stock and you will get the idea.

PanzerAce
07-18-2006, 11:45 PM
You might want to consider re-drawing/designing it so that the arms actually go backward first (assuming that would work), to allow a slightly more traditional look/feel to the rifle. I would do it, but I cant do MS paint any way, let alone on a touchpad :cool:

adamsreeftank
07-18-2006, 11:46 PM
The Barrett pictured above cannot accept a detachable magazine unless the rifle has been modified. With the magazine on the demo above, the mag will not swing out of the way enough for another magazine to be inserted.

If your "ar" design will allow another magazine to be used when the other one is 'swept out' then you will still be guilty of a felony.

Thanks for this observation. Maybe it would be possible to deal with this. I'll give it some thought.

bwiese
07-18-2006, 11:48 PM
I will echo xenophobe's comment(s) above, slightly rephrased:

YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE MAG. YOU'RE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE. And you don't want an AR w/open magwell unless you have an elaborate guaranteed system that allows existing mag tilt-out yet blocks new mag from being inserted. If you've achieved this, you've just invented a more complex system of doing the same thing that a screwed-down 10rd mag does, with more complexity.

Fuhgeddaboudit. If you want a detachable mag, go gripless (SRB) or with the MonsterMan tumor grip that is not legally definable as a pistol grip. Otherwise, the screwed-down 10rd mag is perfectly satisfactory.

Most importantly, I will also note the fact that the DOJ approved the Barrett M82-CA's fixed mag system, which is not in any way 'permanently' affixed. The tilt-out mechanism is held in place with a double screw (some production may use some kind of pin). But there is no welding, etc. The gun is disassembleable with simple tools, and could readily be reconstituted into a non-Californicated version fairly quickly.

This gives the lie to the DOJ utterances that they are merely 'clarifying' law, and readily demonstrates the legal equivalence of screwed-down 10rd mags in off-list lowers, FAL clones, etc. to the DOJ-approved Barrett system. Neither requires welds, ThreadLok, etc. - just 'tools and time'. The fact that the M82-CA is a 50BMG and is covered under separate law now, is moot: at the time it was approved it was using the current 978.20 definitions in relation to 12276.1.

Hunter
07-19-2006, 12:28 AM
........The fact that the M82-CA is a 50BMG and is covered under separate law now, is moot: at the time it was approved it was using the current 978.20 definitions in relation to 12276.1.


Actually the current 50 ban has nothing to add or to subtract from this legal issue with mags. The 82A1Cal Barrett is ONLY legal here in CA because of the DOJ's acceptance of the swing down mag. Just because the rifle is now registered as a ".50 BMG Rifle" does not change a thing. It still has to have the swing-down mag if the PG is present. Barrett can use that same approval letter today to make a 82A1cal in .510DTC for sale in CA without any further dealings with DOJ. The design is approved and accepted to meet the current definitions.

bwiese
07-19-2006, 12:49 AM
Actually the current 50 ban has nothing to add or to subtract from this legal issue with mags. The 82A1Cal Barrett is ONLY legal here in CA because of the DOJ's acceptance of the swing down mag.

Yes, I didn't make myself clear. 50BMG status does not give any AW status.

kantstudien
07-19-2006, 2:48 AM
The most useful info in this thread is the DOJ letter stating that Barrett's magazine is indeed "fixed" without being permanently welded.

Skammy
07-19-2006, 3:33 AM
I was thinking about this a while ago, just use a flat piece of metal that attaches via the front take down and have a slot down the middle of it for a pin then slide a screw or bolt in the slot and weld it to the magazine so the head of the screw/bolt retains the magazine yet allows it to pivot so you can swing it sideways to reload once you drop it..

Mudvayne540ld
07-19-2006, 3:54 AM
The most useful info in this thread is the DOJ letter stating that Barrett's magazine is indeed "fixed" without being permanently welded.
Thats what I was looking at when I posted it in the Riflemans Forum. Maybe we can use this against the DOJ. Saying that if this Barret "pin" is ok, why isnt the Prince AR mag lock ok?
The real reason I think is because they just hate the AR series for the look. IMO

bwiese
07-19-2006, 4:18 AM
Thats what I was looking at when I posted it in the Riflemans Forum. Maybe we can use this against the DOJ. Saying that if this Barret "pin" is ok, why isnt the Prince AR mag lock ok?

Ding! Buy that man a beer ;)

PanzerAce
07-19-2006, 8:25 AM
Actually the current 50 ban has nothing to add or to subtract from this legal issue with mags. The 82A1Cal Barrett is ONLY legal here in CA because of the DOJ's acceptance of the swing down mag. Just because the rifle is now registered as a ".50 BMG Rifle" does not change a thing. It still has to have the swing-down mag if the PG is present. Barrett can use that same approval letter today to make a 82A1cal in .510DTC for sale in CA without any further dealings with DOJ. The design is approved and accepted to meet the current definitions.

Actually, I think that they would chamber it in .416 rather than .510DTC

xenophobe
07-19-2006, 9:07 AM
Thats what I was looking at when I posted it in the Riflemans Forum. Maybe we can use this against the DOJ. Saying that if this Barret "pin" is ok, why isnt the Prince AR mag lock ok?
The real reason I think is because they just hate the AR series for the look. IMO


The CA Barrett M82A1 has a physically altered receiver that requires machining to remove the swing down magazine.

If you permanently alter an off-list lower, like blind pin the magazine, then you might have an arguement.

bwiese
07-19-2006, 11:56 AM
The CA Barrett M82A1 has a physically altered receiver that requires machining to remove the swing down magazine.


Mike -

I briefly looked at the M82CA's swing down magazine at you-know-where.

The swing-down mag pivot looks like it can be removed with a screw or two, and or the swing bars/rods cut with snippers - and then a regular mag inserted. Maybe one or two other parts differ. But to me nothing appeared any more permanent.

Fjold
07-19-2006, 12:13 PM
Forgive the crudity of the drawing and blatantly stealing it from the earlier poster.

Why not just attach a slide piece (like a drawer glide) on the front of the magwell that is also attached to the magazine? Something that would allow the magazine to lower straight down enough to clear a jam and reload the magazine without allowing another magazine to fit in the mag well?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/Fjold/OLLWithslide.jpg

JPN6336
07-19-2006, 12:38 PM
If it slid down just enough to allow the magazine to pivot so that the follower faces to the rear for reloading, that would prevent another detatchable magazine from being inserted while still being able to reload the magazine and clear jams without seperating the recievers. The problem would be the "permanent" attatchment of the sliding mechanism.

mailman
07-19-2006, 12:38 PM
the sliding action wouldn't be similar enough to the barrett design, i do think that the original idea is a good one, BUT nothing is good enough unless u have that letter u posted with your name and design on it.


.

Fjold
07-19-2006, 12:53 PM
If it slid down just enough to allow the magazine to pivot so that the follower faces to the rear for reloading, that would prevent another detatchable magazine from being inserted while still being able to reload the magazine and clear jams without seperating the recievers. The problem would be the "permanent" attatchment of the sliding mechanism.

Build it with no pivot at all, just have the magazine lower straight down so that it blocks the magwell all the time. You can always Tig the slide on the front of the magwell and on the magazine.

This isn't to make it exactly like the Barret, just another idea.

I think that the real benefit of the Barret letter is that the DOJ established precedent for the conversion of a detachable magazine gun to a fixed magazine rifle without welding the magwell closed or gluing in the magazine.

Hunter
07-19-2006, 1:21 PM
The CA Barrett M82A1 has a physically altered receiver that requires machining to remove the swing down magazine.

If you permanently alter an off-list lower, like blind pin the magazine, then you might have an arguement.


The swing down mag is attached to the receiver using two "anti tamper" machine screws (same type you would find holding up the partitions in the bathroom stalls), that you can simply unscrew them to remove the whole assembly. The "special screw driver" that is need can be bought from McMaster for <$15. Nothing more is needed.

bwiese
07-19-2006, 1:27 PM
The swing down mag is attached to the receiver using two "anti tamper" machine screws (same type you would find holding up the partitions in the bathroom stalls), that you can simply unscrew them to remove the whole assembly. The "special screw driver" that is need can be bought from McMaster for <$15. Nothing more is needed.

I believe there may have been a few with a roll pin there instead - but not too sure (lame photo).

These screwdrivers are readily available. I had antitamper screwdrivers when I was a kid (I was taking apart all sortsa electronic stuff). I even had the triangular-bit drivers - instead of a hex opening (Allen) or star opening (Torx), the screws on some stuff had triangluar holes.

And 978.20 doesn't specify availability of the tool ;)

It's not that relevant, but do we know for sure that once the swingaway mag assembly is removed, the M82CA accepts a regular 49-state magazine for that gun? Any other parts required to be added in the magwell area?

dbol
07-19-2006, 3:20 PM
It's not that relevant, but do we know for sure that once the swingaway mag assembly is removed, the M82CA accepts a regular 49-state magazine for that gun? Any other parts required to be added in the magwell area?

Come on, it's completely irrelevant. Even if it could only accept some special CA magazine, nothing would stop someone from buying multiple M82CAs and detaching the magazines just to create a supply. Further, even if the M82CA used a system where each magazine was unique and non-duplicable and each M82CA would function only with its mated magazine, that magazine would still be required to be "fixed" to pass the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" test.

On another issue, concerns have been raised in previous discussions of tool-detachable "fixed" magazine designs that the ability to insert a magazine of a different caliber into the open magwell of a so-configured "fixed" magazine rifle (such that the second magazine would not lock into place so as to be "fixed," e.g., inserting a .22LR magazine into the standard .223 magwell) would cause such a design to fail the "capacity to accept" test, notwithstanding the fact that the inserted magazine would not function. It can be inferred from the DOJ's approval of the M82CA design that these concerns are invalid, as it appears from the drawings that there would be ample space to insert a smaller magazine when the fixed magazine is swung away.

bwiese
07-19-2006, 3:59 PM
Come on, it's completely irrelevant. Even if it could only accept some special CA magazine, nothing would stop someone from buying multiple M82CAs and detaching the magazines just to create a supply. Further, even if the M82CA used a system where each magazine was unique and non-duplicable and each M82CA would function only with its mated magazine, that magazine would still be required to be "fixed" to pass the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" test.

Yes, I was just thining of 'speed' of change issue in the context of 'tools + time' mantra. Just wondering overall the total difference between an M82CA and a free-state version.

... would cause such a design to fail the "capacity to accept" test, notwithstanding the fact that the inserted magazine would not function. It can be inferred from the DOJ's approval of the M82CA design that these concerns are invalid, as it appears from the drawings that there would be ample space to insert a smaller magazine when the fixed magazine is swung away.

Yes, the M82CA appears to possibly have 'capacity to accept' a smaller (shorter) mag of same caliber - i.e., a 2-4 round magazine.

adamsreeftank
07-20-2006, 3:05 PM
Yes, I was just thining of 'speed' of change issue in the context of 'tools + time' mantra. Just wondering overall the total difference between an M82CA and a free-state version.



Yes, the M82CA appears to possibly have 'capacity to accept' a smaller (shorter) mag of same caliber - i.e., a 2-4 round magazine.


I bet I could shove one of my M95 5 round mags in there.

Guns R Tools
07-20-2006, 3:26 PM
How about two sliders (much like Fjord's idea) one in the front and one in the back of magwell so the mag can come down from magwell.

And add some pivot points on the mag (one front, one back) so the mag can be tilted sideways once it is out of the magwell or rotate 360 degrees freely.

People can load 10 rounds mag by stripper clips that way and there is no way another mag can be inserted.

The SoCal Gunner
07-20-2006, 7:45 PM
Aren't .50 bmgs prohibited from sales in CA whether or not there is a fixed mag?

Guns R Tools
07-20-2006, 7:53 PM
They are refering to Barrett 50BMG semiauto's CA version mag design that were aprroved by CA DOJ for sale. We are not discussing the possibilities of getting 50BMG rather similar mag mechanism that can be used in OLL.
Ten rounds mag that can be detached to clear jam, load yet still be considered as fixed mag.

bwiese
07-20-2006, 8:47 PM
Aren't .50 bmgs prohibited from sales in CA whether or not there is a fixed mag?

Yes, but 50BMGs cannot be assault weapons. [Legal, reg'd AWs can be 50BMGs, however.] Thus the M82CA has to be not considered an AW to be legally sold in CA, and the DOJ gave it its blessing. The fact that it transitioned into a controlled 50BMG after it was sold is irreleveant, as Hunter clarified above.

artherd
07-21-2006, 12:16 AM
The CA Barrett M82A1 has a physically altered receiver that requires machining to remove the swing down magazine.
I've got one, it looks to me to have two anti-tamper screws. I will remove mine from the state, and then see if I can't use a $10 tool to remove the fixed magazine form this DOJ approved design. I would never ever think of creating a weapon with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine while within the state of California, that would be illegal.

PS: The standard Barrett mag catch is most certinly present.

xenophobe
07-21-2006, 12:44 AM
PS: The standard Barrett mag catch is most certinly present.

As is the ledge for the front magazine catch...

JPglee1
12-24-2006, 2:37 PM
Why not just attach a slide piece (like a drawer glide) on the front of the magwell that is also attached to the magazine? Something that would allow the magazine to lower straight down enough to clear a jam and reload the magazine without allowing another magazine to fit in the mag well?



Dude, that is a KICK ARSE idea...

I wanna take it a step further.. forgo the drawer slide. Too many parts and a roller isn't needed for a gun, its not gonna go thru 4 million cycles.

Take the front of the gun, cut a 3/8" slot vertically in the magazine well approx 2-2.5" long.

Remove all of the RIGHT side panel of the magazine well about 1/2" below the mag catch using a milling machine (or grinding wheel, whatever)

On the LEFT side of the gun remove about 1.5" from the BOTTOM part of the LEFT side panel of the magazine well. (leave the front panels in tact)

Remove about 1.5" from the BACK panel of the magazine well (enough to allow the nut on the magazine to get into its slot, see below)

Use a STEEL magazine (10/20 or whatever works and sticks out) with a nut welded on the front and a cap screw with a washer going thru the slot on the front of the magazine well. Use red loctite on the cap screw.

Order of operation:

1) When you hit the magazine release button, the magazine follows the vertical track DOWN to the bottom of its travel.

2)At this point the magazine is tilted (rotated about axis of the cap screw) to the shooters RIGHT (hence the cut in the bottom of the LEFT of the mag well to clear the bottom of the mag rocking over and the removal of the right side to clear the top of the mag rocking over)

3) Ammunition is stacked into the magazine while it is laying on its side. No other magazine can be inserted into the magazine well at this time as it is blocked by the sideways body of the inserted magazine.

4) Loaded magazine is rotated back toward the shooters left so the feed lips are facing up once again.

5) Loaded magazine is slid up slot into magazine well until standard magazine catch retains it in "ready to fire" position

6) Bolt relase or charging handle is utilized to charge weapon and shooting commences until magazine is empty

7) Upon last shot bolt hold open, magazine release is pressed and empty magazine follows slot down to rotate and be refilled, continuing the process outlined above.



This idea would result in an AR-15 with an odd looking magazine well, but the mag well should still support normal magazines should the rifle be taken out of state. The attached 10rd magazine would be removed with a 6x1.0mm or similar screw at the front allowing a standard mag to slide up inside the magazine well, as originally designed. In the mean time the magazine is 100% permanently attached and can be loaded without tilting the upper open (altho that WOULD also work as a 2nd option)


Does that idea make sense? I might make some drawings of it later.



J

hoffmang
12-24-2006, 2:59 PM
J,

Wait for 1/1/2007...

-Gene

JPglee1
12-24-2006, 3:06 PM
J,

Wait for 1/1/2007...

-Gene

You mean before I do it, or because y'all got some super secret shizz coming out? LOL


J

hoffmang
12-24-2006, 3:07 PM
All of the above?

-Gene

762cavalier
12-24-2006, 3:07 PM
Wait for 1/1/2007...


might as well be TWO WEEKS:D

the suspense is Killing me.(although if its killing me it might also be killing the DOJ):p