PDA

View Full Version : Detach Mag?


geeyoffthehook
08-13-2006, 8:46 PM
http://www.50bmgstore.com/barrett50bmgstore_M82A1.htm

That is CA legal.

Saw this on a different forum (forum.knowcaguns.com). Don't focus on the fact that its a .50, but rather look at the fixed mag design on the M82. If were to put that on an OLL (detachable with the aid of a tool, of course), would that make it legal then?

SemiAutoSam
08-13-2006, 8:54 PM
This has been talked about about a month or so back

JP was wantin to build a device like this for a AR lower but all this thing would do is swing out of the way and then another mag could snap into place was the thought From what I remember about it.

Bill Weise was in on this thread as well lets see if he chimes in on this thread.

blkA4alb
08-13-2006, 8:55 PM
This has been discussed before, several "plans" have been drawn up but nothing has actually been made. The pivoting mag would have to not allow another mag to be inserted while it was pivoted. Breaking the gun open really isn't that hard..

JPglee1
08-13-2006, 8:55 PM
http://www.50bmgstore.com/barrett50bmgstore_M82A1.htm

That is CA legal.

Saw this on a different forum (forum.knowcaguns.com). Don't focus on the fact that its a .50, but rather look at the fixed mag design on the M82. If were to put that on an OLL (detachable with the aid of a tool, of course), would that make it legal then?

Yah, it's called an SKS haha.

This has been covered a couple times.

Under the CURRENT laws, yes its permanently attached magazine.

It would be sorta hard to do on an AR-15, you'd have to make it slotted so the mag could slide down out of the magwell, then rotate forward to load.

It could be done a LOT easier in a FAL or an AK.

J

bwiese
08-13-2006, 11:49 PM
This is a DOJ-approved design of a nondetachable magazine.

It directly contravenes their assertion that they are just 'clarifying' laws w/regards to fixed-mag semiauto rifles. The fact the M82CA exists in CA shows that they are changing standards in the middle of the stream...

... This WILL be discussed at the Sacto meeting.

The fact the M82CA is a 50BMG and must be registered as such is irrelevant: 50BMGs after Dec 31 2000 (or Jan 23 2001 for AR series) cannot also be assault weapons. [The converse is, however, true: legal, registered assault weapons can be 50BMGs.] If the DOJ is to say their new 'clarified' definition holds, they've just said they've illegally approved assault weapons.