PDA

View Full Version : AR-47...Do They Actually Work???


10TH AMENDMENT
08-10-2006, 12:23 PM
Anyone have any experience with these?

Do they actually feed, fire and extract reliably???

I know they are made by Vulcan but really couldn't care less if they actually work.

I also am fully aware of the need to fix a 10 round mag or remove all SB-23/12276.1 features to stay legal.

dhl
08-10-2006, 12:39 PM
What?

>>>Do they actually feed, fire and extract reliably???

>>>I know they are made by Vulcan but really couldn't care less if they actually work.

Joe
08-10-2006, 12:41 PM
What?

>>>Do they actually feed, fire and extract reliably???

>>>I know they are made by Vulcan but really couldn't care less if they actually work.

i think he means vulcan could care less if they actually work

PanzerAce
08-10-2006, 1:04 PM
he is asking if anybody can say for sure that they are reliable, if they are then he doesnt care who makes them.

grammaton76
08-10-2006, 2:13 PM
I know they are made by Vulcan but really couldn't care less if they actually work.

This is one of the clearest examples I've seen, of where a comma can change the meaning of the sentence. I'm pretty sure what he meant was this below:

I know they are made by Vulcan but really couldn't care less, if they actually work.

five.five-six
08-10-2006, 2:20 PM
Osmily I was wrong, I appoligize we need you!

ohsmily
08-10-2006, 2:38 PM
Osmily, I was wrong. I apologize; we need you!
OR
Osmily, I was wrong. I apologize. We need you!


;) ................

dhl
08-10-2006, 2:43 PM
We, all, were, wrong.

10TH AMENDMENT
08-10-2006, 3:44 PM
I just don't know what you guys are talking about when you rip the syntax of my sentence apart that says I couldn’t care less if they actually work because I know they are made by Vulcan who usually can't forge a milspec receiver because they don't work since they couldn't care less.

Incidentally, do they work? (The rifles that is, not Vulcan.):D

GTKrockeTT
08-10-2006, 3:44 PM
very, very, wrong.

bwiese
08-10-2006, 4:15 PM
{Edited out because I supplied incorrect information.}

JPglee1
08-10-2006, 4:29 PM
BTW, you could have pistol grip and detachable mag if you remove gas piston and close up the gas port - that way it's no longer subject to control by 12276.1 since it's not semiautomatic.
I always love that suggestion, LOL

What a waste of time. Pinned mags I could tolerate, but "bolt action" would suck.


J

TKo_Productions
08-10-2006, 4:50 PM
I always love that suggestion, LOL

What a waste of time. Pinned mags I could tolerate, but "bolt action" would suck.


J

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=346960&postcount=19

bwiese
08-10-2006, 5:12 PM
I retract my former post about about using an "AR47" receiver in manual cycle mode (as opposed to semiauto mode) and with pistol grip and detachable mag.

I was not thinking when I posted, apologies: I just realized the AR47 is like an AR15 and the action style is separable from the serialized receiver, just like an AR - and thus this should not be relied upon for legal compliance...

I broke my own dictum, which is to not have semauto OLL ARs w/pistol grips and detachable mags along w/the upper being a rimfire and/or manual-cycled action.

The only time you should rely on rimfire and/or manual cycle exemption is if the serialized receiver is directly associated w/the action type and not separable. (Or if you have an AR-type OLL lower that is specifically marked as cal 22LR.)

Sorry, I spoke from my arse without thinking.

ohsmily
08-10-2006, 5:18 PM
Don't ever let it happen again, Bill.... j/k :D

CWM4A1
08-10-2006, 5:40 PM
Bill, I have seen a built and would like your comment on this.

The built is based on a 80% receiver. The person who built the weapon put a completely solid wood stock on the receiver (so there are no recoil spring/buffer for center fire caliber semi-auto fire capability), and put a AR upper with Ceiner's .22 conversion kit so the gun shoots .22 and .22 only. The weapon still have pistol grip. Wondering can this type of configuration be legal or still shady. Assuming the receiver is built with the rear of the receiver modified so it will not take AR buffer tube.

ohsmily
08-10-2006, 6:33 PM
Bill, I have seen a built and would like your comment on this.

The built is based on a 80% receiver. The person who built the weapon put a completely solid wood stock on the receiver (so there are no recoil spring/buffer for center fire caliber semi-auto fire capability), and put a AR upper with Ceiner's .22 conversion kit so the gun shoots .22 and .22 only. The weapon still have pistol grip. Wondering can this type of configuration be legal or still shady. Assuming the receiver is built with the rear of the receiver modified so it will not take AR buffer tube.

uh, build?...?

dhl
08-10-2006, 7:12 PM
I think sfv_dealer or something like that was selling the AR47 lowers; and last I heard he was waiting for the uppers to come in so someone could do an actual range report on one. I don't think they were Vulcans. The lowers looked like the rear part of an AR lower with a funny looking new magwell doohickey (smiley? SP?) screwed on with hexhead screws to fit a standard AK magazine. I haven't heard anything about them in a month or so.


This was in sfv_dealer post on 7-9-06.
>>>AR47 7.62x39mm (AK47 magazine lower w/ AR15 receiver hybrid) $125 stripped<<<

Charliegone
08-10-2006, 7:39 PM
LOL. Oh man this thread made my day.:D (yes I have a wierd sense of humor)

bwiese
08-10-2006, 10:02 PM
Bill, I have seen a built and would like your comment on this.

The built is based on a 80% receiver.

That's irrelevant. It's a 100% receiver now if it works.

For the past 7-8 months I have been adamant about NOT making any homebuilt AR receiver (other than a closed magwell one like a FAB10) - from 80% blanks, from CNC'd 0% forgings, what-have-you. I've posted this dozens of times, and will continue to do so...

We know Harrott protects you if you have an OLL that's unlisted and in general trade circulation. Harrott may not protect you if the lower is homebrew as there's no practicable way the DOJ could ever list homebuilts by make/model ("BillyBob #1", etc.) - thus these could possibly fall out of Harrott protection and perhaps back under Kasler control. It's not sure one way or the other and could take a big court fight to resolve. I may well be wrong - but I know that this is effectively unaddressed and could be room for concern (and, therefore, avoidance).

No sane person in CA should make or retain a homebuilt lower (unless it was back before 2000 and was reg'd as an AW) in my opinion - and it's senseless when OLLs can be had for $175-$200 incl fees.


The person who built the weapon put a completely solid wood stock on the receiver (so there are no recoil spring/buffer for center fire caliber semi-auto fire capability), and put a AR upper with Ceiner's .22 conversion kit so the gun shoots .22 and .22 only. The weapon still have pistol grip. Wondering can this type of configuration be legal or still shady. Assuming the receiver is built with the rear of the receiver modified so it will not take AR buffer tube.

As I covered in one of my memos on the title bar (the one next to the FAQ), I would not rely on rimfire or manual-operation (i.e., nonsemiauto) exemption on a gun whose action type is separable from the serialized receiver. If that upper comes off you have a lower w/pistol grip and open magwell, unless there were a mag block that only took 22lR magazines.

We do have some info (others, incl a well-known gunsmith here) that DOJ will tolerate a lower marked 22LR.

We're getting pretty far from the mark, and some sucker's gonna get in trouble perhaps, testing the limit of constructive possession matters, etc. - though if he marked his receiver with "cal .22LR" he'd stand a chance.

And I fail to see the desire for a 22 AR pattern when you can get a 10/22 or Rem 597 for $200ish.