PDA

View Full Version : Options for a .50 BMG


ts
01-05-2007, 3:56 AM
Now as we all know .50 BMG rifles are now outlawed in CA. But as other members brought up we can still have other .50 BMG guns. Such as an AR with Spade Grip Kit (link here (http://www.dsarms.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=KNSARSG&storeid=1&image=spadegrip.gif)) with a .50 BMG upper. I believe that would only be single shot though. Are there any other .50 BMG options we have? Anyone planning on doing anything like this?

To give credit where credit is due, the post that gave me this idea can be found here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45407).

randy
01-05-2007, 5:27 AM
What part of NO 50 BMG don't you understand? If there were a way to do it I bet Ronny Barrett wouldn't have made a .460 or .416 whatever it is if there were a way to get 50's into the state.

paradox
01-05-2007, 5:59 AM
What part of NO 50 BMG don't you understand? If there were a way to do it I bet Ronny Barrett wouldn't have made a .460 or .416 whatever it is if there were a way to get 50's into the state.

What part of "As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG rifle" means a center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge" don't you understand?

chiefcrash
01-05-2007, 6:47 AM
What part of NO 50 BMG don't you understand? If there were a way to do it I bet Ronny Barrett wouldn't have made a .460 or .416 whatever it is if there were a way to get 50's into the state.

then why is it perfectly legal to buy and own a semi-auto M2?

and why is it perfectly legal to put a .50 BMG upper on a registered AW lower?

verify your facts before you get on that high horse. When you make degrading comments like that with incorrect information, you're gonna sound like a HUGE tool.....







BTW: .50 BMG rifles will start becoming legal again in 25 years... (unless the .50 BMG ban gets repealed before that)

CSACANNONEER
01-05-2007, 8:16 AM
BTW: .50 BMG rifles will start becoming legal again in 25 years... (unless the .50 BMG ban gets repealed before that)

Huh? I've never seen this. Would you please post the source of your info.

cornholio1
01-05-2007, 8:54 AM
Just get a DTC

paradox
01-05-2007, 9:11 AM
BTW: .50 BMG rifles will start becoming legal again in 25 years... (unless the .50 BMG ban gets repealed before that)

Huh? I've never seen this. Would you please post the source of your info.

(c) A ".50 BMG rifle" does not include any "antique firearm," nor
any curio or relic as defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.

ARRRR-15
01-05-2007, 9:22 AM
But........would it be a problem to have it on a .223 lower? Could you build one out a 80% build without any markings?

taquito971
01-05-2007, 9:27 AM
(c) A ".50 BMG rifle" does not include any "antique firearm," nor
any curio or relic as defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.

But you'll notice that not all Federal C&Rs are State C&Rs...

Brian

CSACANNONEER
01-05-2007, 9:28 AM
If your lower is a registered AW, it's fine. If you build one now with an OLL or 80%, you are violating the law!

ARRRR-15
01-05-2007, 9:48 AM
If your lower is a registered AW, it's fine. If you build one now with an OLL or 80%, you are violating the law!

I know that, I meant with the spade grips. :p Seems kinda gray to use spade grips on a OLL marked .223 or anything other that .50. I was wondering if an 80% build with no markings would be a little more on the safe side.

On a side note. Do you need to mark a 80% build with a caliber? How about building a .22 lower this way? Safe?

hoffmang
01-05-2007, 9:58 AM
Now that's interesting.


(c) A ".50 BMG rifle" does not include any "antique firearm," nor
any curio or relic as defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.


A .50BMG is certainly going to be a curio soon. Once its a curio, its not a banned .50BMG in California. Granted you will still have to DROS it because the "not a C&R in California" comment really only applies to transferability - not a rifles status as being a .50 BMG rifle.

All we need is a collector in a free state to petition the ATF to make a .50 a Curio. That could happen sooner than 25 years.

-Gene

paradox
01-05-2007, 10:01 AM
But you'll notice that not all Federal C&Rs are State C&Rs...

Brian

Re-read the posted section of state law:


...curio or relic as defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.


As far as this section is concerned, state C&Rs are by definition the same as federal C&Rs.

jaymz
01-05-2007, 10:11 AM
then why is it perfectly legal to buy and own a semi-auto M2?

and why is it perfectly legal to put a .50 BMG upper on a registered AW lower?

verify your facts before you get on that high horse. When you make degrading comments like that with incorrect information, you're gonna sound like a HUGE tool.....







BTW: .50 BMG rifles will start becoming legal again in 25 years... (unless the .50 BMG ban gets repealed before that)


M2's may be legal as they don't fit the definition of a "rifle", they are technically "firearms". CA banned rifles that chamber the 50BMG.
Bill explains it much better than I - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45332

chiefcrash
01-05-2007, 10:16 AM
Firstly, there is no such thing as a "California C&R". What you're thinking of is the fact that California requires anything younger than 50 years old to go through a 01 FFL. Think of it like this: just because california make you ship C&R handguns through a 01 FFL doesn't make a CZ-52 not a C&R gun...

I've brought up the whole "antique and C&R" loophole to the .50 BMG ban before, but i guess no one caught on. Imagine this:

We get Ronnie Barrett to make some sort of Special Edition M82A1. Engraving and what have you, like those gold plated "Elvis Presley edition" 1911s. Fixed mag so it gets around the AWB. send a sample to the ATF, and ask that it be catogorized as C&R because it's "Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event."

Imagine the Barret "Governator Special Edition" M82A1 with engraved images of Arnie and the phrase "I told you i'd be back!"

CALI-gula
01-05-2007, 10:26 AM
Now that's interesting.A .50BMG is certainly going to be a curio soon. Once its a curio, its not a banned .50BMG in California. Granted you will still have to DROS it because the "not a C&R in California" comment really only applies to transferability - not a rifles status as being a .50 BMG rifle. All we need is a collector in a free state to petition the ATF to make a .50 a Curio. That could happen sooner than 25 years.-Gene

As said earlier, the state's C&R list can differ from the Federal C&R list, and a C&R can still be classified as an AW in "listed" as such in the CA AW laws. AB2728 will prevent them from adding it easily, but they could get legislature to add them going forward. I could see a special bill coming out in the next 10 years to block all demilitarized C&R early Stoner/Armalite/Colt ARs, Stone 63s, other early Stoner designs, AKs, CETMEs, etc.

There was another thread on this, and I relayed my thoughts - and the one in limbo does seem to be determination of a spade-grip operated 80% receiver. However, before getting hyped to build it, I would try to draw up a FUTURE plan showing it with a spade-grip and tripod mount, stressing it IS TO BE home built (and not already made) and submit it to the DOJ for their nod, and in the very least a "58 DA" letter. That would be frugal - to debate it first with correspondance to DOJ before putting the pot on the burner.

In any case, we are all on the cusp and threshold of a major shift in small-arms technology, likely to occur within the next 10 years. Soon, you will be able to get online blue-prints to disassemble your microwave, vehicle airbag, and digital camera, to reassemble them into a viable EMP or RMP gun with a range of 5400 yards. It won't be centerfire, it won't be rimfire, it won't be black-powder, and it won't even be Metal-storm - and ATF won't know what to do with those made at home.

By that time, .50BMG and anything else using archaic pagan formulas of powder in brass WILL be derided as C&R by a new generation, whether it meets the 50 year old designation or not.


.

chiefcrash
01-05-2007, 10:39 AM
As said earlier, the state's C&R list can differ from the Federal C&R list, and a C&R can still be classified as an AW in "listed" as such in the CA AW laws. AB2728 will prevent them from adding it easily, but they could get legislature to add them going forward. I could see a special bill coming out in the next 10 years to block all demilitarized C&R early Stoner/Armalite/Colt ARs, Stone 63s, other early Stoner designs, AKs, CETMEs, etc..

First off: there is no such thing as "the state's C&R" list. get that out of your head. do it...

Yes, C&R guns can be classified as assault weapons. But we aren't talking about assault weapons. We are talking about .50 BMG rifles. so all your talk about early AR-15s and CETMEs doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. .50 BMG rifles and assault weapons are not the same thing in California law.

The penal code section dealing with .50 BMG specifically states that antique and C&R firearms as defined by federal law are not restricted because of their .50 BMG caliber. Now a C&R M82A1 pobably wouldn't work because it's still an assault weapon due to the evil features (unless we get the swing-down fixed mag version C&R status), but any bolt action .50 BMG rifle that's on the Federal C&R list is legal in california.

There are no such C&R exemptions for assault weapons in california law, so they wouldn't need to "block" those C&R AR-15s and CETMEs. They have evil features, so they're assault weapons. If you remove the evil feautures, they'd lose they're C&R status (not that it'd matter anyway). So i'm not really sure where you were going with this one.

As for the rest of your post, a little less tin foil, eh?

taquito971
01-05-2007, 11:36 AM
Firstly, there is no such thing as a "California C&R". What you're thinking of is the fact that California requires anything younger than 50 years old to go through a 01 FFL.

That is exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks for the clarification.

Brian

taquito971
01-05-2007, 11:43 AM
.50 BMG rifles and assault weapons are not the same thing in California law.

That's odd, because they are listed like this:
12275 thru 12290 Assault Weapons

Brian

ts
01-05-2007, 1:20 PM
I just want a .50 BMG guys, come on now.

arguy15
01-05-2007, 1:29 PM
What part of NO 50 BMG don't you understand? If there were a way to do it I bet Ronny Barrett wouldn't have made a .460 or .416 whatever it is if there were a way to get 50's into the state.

If OLL receivers were legal is California don't you think they would be selling them?

Or

If AW parts were legal here don’t you think Cheaper than Dirt would sell them?
j/k

Ok, all things aside, building a .50 BMG crew served weapon should be legal under the same logic as a M2 is not a rifle.

chiefcrash
01-05-2007, 1:36 PM
That's odd, because they are listed like this:
12275 thru 12290 Assault Weapons

Brian

yes, it's odd. but it's true.

In the penal codes, 12276 says: As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms: [roberti-roos list] and [ar15/ak47 series list].

12276.1 says Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: [feature list]

12278 says As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG rifle" means a center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or 12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.

now, not only do they define the term ".50 BMG rifle", it seems that part of the definition of ".50 BMG rifle" is a rifle that is not already an assault weapon. Why would they need to say that if they're making .50 BMG rifles assault weapons?

further proof that ".50 BMG rifle" does not equal assault weapon:

12280. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for four, six, or eight years.

why would they need to say "or any .50 BMG rifle" if .50 BMG rifles are assault weapons?

hmm....

CSACANNONEER
01-05-2007, 1:36 PM
If you really want a 50 and don't have the legal capability of having a 50BMG, you just need to go 50 ALS, .510 DTC (Europe) or 50 EDM (US version of .510 DTC). They all use the same components, the same starting loads/load data and produce the same results as 50BMG. Before you buy a 50, you should join the FCSA and get on the member's forum. You will be overwelmed by the wealth of knowledge there and after learning more about 50s, you can make an informed decision as to which one will best fill your needs.

taquito971
01-05-2007, 1:37 PM
If OLL receivers were legal is California don't you think they would be selling them?

Or

If AW parts were legal here donít you think Cheaper than Dirt would sell them?


Ok, all things aside, building a .50 BMG crew served weapon should be legal under the same logic as a M2 is not a rifle.
I'm confused by the above statements. Are you speaking about Mr. Barrett? He doesn't sell lowers, only complete rifles IIRC... CTD will sell AW parts here, and I have purchased OLLs locally...

ts
01-05-2007, 1:41 PM
If you really want a 50 and don't have the legal capability of having a 50BMG, you just need to go 50 ALS, .510 DTC (Europe) or 50 EDM (US version of .510 DTC). They all use the same components, the same starting loads/load data and produce the same results as 50BMG. Before you buy a 50, you should join the FCSA and get on the member's forum. You will be overwelmed by the wealth of knowledge there and after learning more about 50s, you can make an informed decision as to which one will best fill your needs.

Because I want a .50 BMG.

taquito971
01-05-2007, 1:42 PM
yes, it's odd. but it's true.

I had looked up the laws you mentioned when I posted my statement, though I appreciate it immesely when somebody goes through the trouble to back up their statements. I hate it when people post opinion as fact.

I thought I had read somewhere that .50s were being listed as a cat something AW, but I couldn't find the reference. The CA Doj can't keep up with itself, so it's probably contradictory somewhere. I think the end result is the same though. I don't think you can legally create a .50bmg in CA at this point. Maybe the M2HB, but I can't see creating one any other way, (and the M2 is a gray area).

Brian

arguy15
01-05-2007, 1:47 PM
If you really want a 50 and don't have the legal capability of having a 50BMG, you just need to go 50 ALS, .510 DTC (Europe) or 50 EDM (US version of .510 DTC). They all use the same components, the same starting loads/load data and produce the same results as 50BMG. Before you buy a 50, you should join the FCSA and get on the member's forum. You will be overwelmed by the wealth of knowledge there and after learning more about 50s, you can make an informed decision as to which one will best fill your needs.
I keep hearing that the ammo is out there, can you please provide a link that at least sells cases?



If you build and design a single shot .50 BMG to be a crew served weapon and not a rifle what would the differance between that and a
M2? They would both have no butt stock. Both can not be fired from the shoulder. Both would be tripod mounted. Both use a spade trigger.

Hunter
01-05-2007, 1:56 PM
I keep hearing that the ammo is out there, can you please provide a link that at least sells cases?

....

For .510 DTC / .510 EDM ammo and cases see

Jerry Hazlett
Amer-I-CAN Enterprises
Class 06 Ammunition Manufacturer
PH 405-284-6869

Also you can buy directly from EDM ARMs http://www.edmarms.com/

http://www.daplane.com/50bmg/50dtc/EDMDTC_BFG_01.jpg

CSACANNONEER
01-05-2007, 2:03 PM
Or, you can make your own from BMG cases. It's not hard to do and either way you will want to fireform them to your chamber.

chiefcrash
01-05-2007, 2:26 PM
I had looked up the laws you mentioned when I posted my statement, though I appreciate it immesely when somebody goes through the trouble to back up their statements. I hate it when people post opinion as fact.

I thought I had read somewhere that .50s were being listed as a cat something AW, but I couldn't find the reference. The CA Doj can't keep up with itself, so it's probably contradictory somewhere. I think the end result is the same though. I don't think you can legally create a .50bmg in CA at this point. Maybe the M2HB, but I can't see creating one any other way, (and the M2 is a gray area).

Brian

yea, i hate that too. If i'm not sure of something, think something's true, etc, i will flat out say "i think" or "i'm not sure, but"

As for the whole cat something AW, i'm not sure. I know there was a DOJ memo about a Catagory 4 assault weapon (not sure the details). i thought it had more to do with the OLL situation, but maybe that's what you're thinking of?

Nefarious
01-05-2007, 2:47 PM
I just want a .50 BMG guys, come on now.

im with you on that one

510DTC :D
no if's and's or but's

I tried to get a group buy going on the Serbu DTC ... maybe after tax time ill search out the old thread and bump it back to the top

rorschach
01-05-2007, 2:48 PM
Because I want a .50 BMG.

+1 Thats as good as any reason.

DRH
01-05-2007, 3:32 PM
If you build and design a single shot .50 BMG to be a crew served weapon and not a rifle what would the differance between that and a
M2? They would both have no butt stock. Both can not be fired from the shoulder. Both would be tripod mounted. Both use a spade trigger.

The M2HB was never a rifle and was not designed from a rifle. If you made your own crew served action (semi auto or single shot) you would most likely be ok. If you take an existing AR rifle and put a spade grip on it and call it a non-rifle, you are treading on thin ice. It would be prudent to get approval in writing before assembling such a weapon.

taquito971
01-05-2007, 4:14 PM
yea, i hate that too. If i'm not sure of something, think something's true, etc, i will flat out say "i think" or "i'm not sure, but"

As for the whole cat something AW, i'm not sure. I know there was a DOJ memo about a Catagory 4 assault weapon (not sure the details). i thought it had more to do with the OLL situation, but maybe that's what you're thinking of?
Maybe, but I thought it related directly to the .50bmg in regards to registering it. I can't find it though.

Brian

SI-guru
01-05-2007, 4:21 PM
Did anyone successfully DROS an M2HB since the ban ? Will TNW even consider shipping to PRK ? Or this M2HB is just an idea people talk about but no one willing to be the test case.

DRH
01-05-2007, 4:35 PM
Maybe, but I thought it related directly to the .50bmg in regards to registering it. I can't find it though.

Brian

The 50 BMG "rifles" are regulated by the same restrictions and penal codes as the assault weapons (they simply added the new text to the old code), however they are not assault weapons in and by themselves (they are classified seperately). However you could have a previously registered assault weapon which also happens to be .50 BMG weapon (this exception only is a .50 BMG assault weapon, example registered AR-15 AW lower with .50BMG upper added). Therefore typically 50 BMG rifles are not AWs and would not fall into any of the catagories which only apply to assault weapons (cat 1, 2 or 3). It so confusing that the DOJ is being sued to have the confusion stop.

ts
01-05-2007, 4:54 PM
The only problem I see with the AR Spade .50 BMG idea is the receiver would be registered as a rifle. Is there any way to get the receiver registered as a non-rifle?

chiefcrash
01-05-2007, 5:32 PM
The only problem I see with the AR Spade .50 BMG idea is the receiver would be registered as a rifle. Is there any way to get the receiver registered as a non-rifle?

does it get DROS'd as "rifle", or "long gun"?

hell, what does a M2 get DROS'd as?

diddler
01-05-2007, 5:48 PM
The M2HB was never a rifle and was not designed from a rifle. If you made your own crew served action (semi auto or single shot) you would most likely be ok. If you take an existing AR rifle and put a spade grip on it and call it a non-rifle, you are treading on thin ice. It would be prudent to get approval in writing before assembling such a weapon.

Seems to me that the AK's, AR's and FAL's that we all have fun with used to be naughty assault weapons, and worse, fully automatic weapons. The simple act of removing or substituting parts make these weapons fully legal. Why can't that same logic apply to the AR lower receiver being built into a non-rifle? We may need to clarify what you are referring to when you talk about "an existing AR rifle". A specific weapon in your hand that has already been registered as a rifle, or the AR platform in general? What we have been discussing here is a new OLL, never built as a rifle, and not registered as a rifle. I saw someone use the term "long gun", and showed that class includes shotguns, which are of course not "rifles".

I don't see why it should matter that you CAN turn it into a rifle or even if most of these receivers are built into rifles, if you never build a "rifle" by the definition of the law then I can't see how it could be illegal. I could also build that same OLL into a fully automatic weapon with evil features spouting from all ends. This would be in keeping with how the weapon was "designed and intended". Unless I actually build a fully automatic weapon, I can't be charged with a crime just because I could have done it. By the same token, I don't see how you could be charged with building a 50BMG rifle if you never make a rifle, regardless of what parts make the firearm.

I don't see how the original design, intent or how anyone else has built their personal weapon has any bearing on how yours is built.

Hunter
01-05-2007, 6:21 PM
....I don't see why it should matter that you CAN turn it into a rifle or even if most of these receivers are built into rifles, if you never build a "rifle" by the definition of the law then I can't see how it could be illegal. ......


There is some merit to what you are saying here. That just because a firearm can be made into a "rifle" it doesn't mean ALL models are therefore also "rifles".

For example just look at the Browning 1919A4 and 1919A6 weapons. The A4 is only considered a firearm where the A6 is considered a rifle, eventhough both are crew served weapons. Now the only real difference between the two is the buttstock that is clamped on the grip. If one was to remove that buttstock, it would essentially become an A4.

On a little bit of a tangent to this discussion of "rifles", here is an interesting read on ATF's classification of the A6 & A4 as "portable" firearms.

http://www.atf.gov/alcohol/info/revrule/rules/97-2.htm

In that discussion, the ATF first claims the A6 is a "rifle" since it can be shoulder fired and carried by a man and therefore it is also "portable". Now when they go to justify the A4 as being "portable", there is NO mention that it is a "rifle" or that it can be fired from the shoulder (which it could if one quickly clamped on the same A6 buttstock).

So otherwords, the determination of the firearm being a "rifle" seems to apply only to the current state the firearm is presently in and not what it could be.

CALI-gula
01-05-2007, 8:03 PM
First off: there is no such thing as "the state's C&R" list. get that out of your head. do it...

The fact that the state of California designates that you can NOT obtain certain items that are considered elsewhere as fully transferable items as C&R, clearly designates a difference between what is OK on the Federal list as allowable C&R, and what the state of CA will allow. It remains in my head, and on the CA lawbooks as well, unfortunately. To me, C&R AW items should be treated no different than an 1898 Krag, SB23 features or not. SO... there are differences after all, correct?

Yes, C&R guns can be classified as assault weapons. But we aren't talking about assault weapons. We are talking about .50 BMG rifles.

My topics on this matter are intertwined, agreed. However, what we ARE discussing was using an AR receiver to establish making a .50BMG by use of the original poster stating "Such as an AR with Spade Grip Kit (link here) with a .50 BMG upper."

Well, since AB50 bans by cartridge chambering and "rifle" designation, it goes back to the original poster's question of how do you use a manufacturer's established AR receiver to push through a spade-grip/tripod mounted .50BMG unit?

Then even as a C&R, such as a receiver from an early or eventual C&R Colt will STILL be considered having originally been a rifle, and constructing it into a .50BMG rifle would take it out of it's original configuration removing it as a C&R item, so the idea was that the 80% build could be logical, and I propose putting blueprints before the DOJ first to get a validation.

Where or what is your contributing suggestion to accomplish such a goal, hypothetical or otherwise, except as to repeat everyone elses' ideas from other threads?

so all your talk about early AR-15s and CETMEs doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. .50 BMG rifles and assault weapons are not the same thing in California law.

Well, no, you are wrong, and they ARE comparative. As I mentioned, unless you find a truly C&R bolt action .50BMG, you will not be able to take a C&R AR receiver and make it .50BMG now or 50 years from now.

And it seems to me the guy wants a .50BMG rifle NOW... not 25 years from now.

Might an EDM Bolt-action be a C&R one day? Yes, and THAT was my reason for subtly noting that the DOJ has already thought of this, just as current considerations are being made by Koretz's replacement in his district. You cam bet Mike Feuer is already on it, already putting it on paper. And... he has about about 10 years or so to figure it out for the FEW bolt action .50BMG rifles to eventually be C&R.

My Barret 82-A1 was banned long before AB50 was a tickle in Paul Koretz's left testicle. While AB50 designated cartridge, the combinatory discussion concerning eventual C&R items DID require unfortunate acknowledgment that we will never see items removed from Roberti-Roos, which were long designated as rifles, so even sealing up the mag-wells will not declassify them to fit them with .50BMG uppers, due to AB50. You would be making a .50BMG rifle out of an established C&R item that was long known to be a rifle (not a crew-operated unit).

The penal code section dealing with .50 BMG specifically states that antique and C&R firearms as defined by federal law are not restricted because of their .50 BMG caliber. Now a C&R M82A1 probably wouldn't work because it's still an assault weapon due to the evil features (unless we get the swing-down fixed mag version C&R status), but any bolt action .50 BMG rifle that's on the Federal C&R list is legal in california.

True, but you will not be able to take an AR C&R receiver and turn it into a .50BMG rifle now or in the future, the whole point of figuring out how the 80% receiver might work depending on how it is built as a crew-operated item. My argument never denies a C&R .50BMG being legal one day or if you can find one now - BUT, you find me a .50 BMG rifle that's on the Federal C&R list and I'll be the first to add it to my collection of .50BMG rifles - I'll put it alongside my Boyes.

And if you tell me you'll get Ronnie Barrett to make a $19,000 specialty M95 with gold trim and engraving, just to be a C&R, well then, I'll save about $15,800 and buy another Viper chambered in .50DTC.

And hey, I can only hope that one day my McBros, Barrett M95, Bluegrass Armory Viper, and EDM Windrunner M96 WILL be considered C&R rifles in CA, but as I was noting, by that time, there will likely be better weapons to be had. (And I hope to live that long to even SEE my EDM as a C&R).

As for the rest of your post, a little less tin foil, eh?

HUGE difference between tin-foil and plain science fiction fun and ingenuity, for entertainment purposes - relax chief. My fun was to stress that WE are those that will advance firearm technology, through pure optimism - there was no fear or paranoia harbored as to how such firearms might be used, and no fear of a totalitarian rule using them against us. Sorry, but we ARE on the edge of a radical leap in the technology of small arms - it's inevitable advance and no tin-foil required. If John Moses Browning were alive today, he would be experimenting with whole other mediums other than steel and lead.

And yes, when that happens, old-style lead slingers will be obsolete.

.

hoffmang
01-05-2007, 8:34 PM
CALI-gula,

Though I agree widely with your thoughts, I think you may be focusing on Relic when instead you should be focus on Curio.

All it takes to get a .50 BMG that is SB-23 Compliant (aka bolt, or fixed mag semi auto) is for a collector or museum to apply for Curio status for a .50 BMG. Simply the public outcry about banning these relatively rare rifles helps easily qualify them for Federal Curio status.

I don't think it would be all that hard to get Ronnie Barrett to create a CA commemorative .50 BMG rifle and have a firearms museum apply for Curio status for that rifle. That could be done in as little as 36 months.

-Gene

Hunter
01-05-2007, 10:23 PM
....I don't think it would be all that hard to get Ronnie Barrett to create a CA commemorative .50 BMG rifle ....


He has already done that, it is called the 82A1-Cal :p

diddler
01-05-2007, 10:45 PM
All,

I keep noticing people mention the spade grip kit you can put on the AR lower. I'm wondering, if everything else pans out on the 50BMG upper on an AR OLL (possibly 80%) built as a non-rifle is there any legal need for the spade grips?

I've just been imagining it as a bolt action single shot upper, no stock, mounted on a tripod. Possibly having the original threaded hole filled permanently so no rifle stock can screw into the lower receiver. Is there a nuance of the law I'm missing past the normal AW laws? Its not semi-auto, its not a rifle, whats wrong with just leaving the normal pistol grip and trigger group in place?

In other words, are the spade grips just for the cool factor? ($500 of cool?)

hoffmang
01-05-2007, 10:51 PM
You said that to be funny, but if he applied for Curio status on that rifle (and re-opened production so those of us who don't currently own it can buy it) it wouldn't be a .50 BMG and wouldn't be subject to import and sale restrictions.

-Gene

ke6guj
01-05-2007, 11:03 PM
Regarding C&R status for .50BMG rifles. I know that the Boys rifle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Anti-tank_Rifle , is C&R. Originally it shoots .55 ammo so it's a DD. However, many of them have been converted to .50BMG. I wonder if it lost its C&R status by being converted. Something to look into.

Hunter
01-06-2007, 8:36 AM
You said that to be funny, but if he applied for Curio status on that rifle (and re-opened production so those of us who don't currently own it can buy it) it wouldn't be a .50 BMG and wouldn't be subject to import and sale restrictions.

-Gene


That is EXACTLY what I'm saying!:D

chiefcrash
01-06-2007, 8:36 AM
The fact that the state of California designates that you can NOT obtain certain items that are considered elsewhere as fully transferable items as C&R, clearly designates a difference between what is OK on the Federal list as allowable C&R, and what the state of CA will allow. It remains in my head, and on the CA lawbooks as well, unfortunately. To me, C&R AW items should be treated no different than an 1898 Krag, SB23 features or not. SO... there are differences after all, correct?

this is more an arguement of semantics. A yugo M59 (the one without the grenade launcher) is a C&R rifle. You can't have one shipped straight to your door, but it's still C&R. If you go to your local gun shop and buy one, you still have to log it into you C&R bound book. There is a reason i'm being picky about what you call C&R....

Then even as a C&R, such as a receiver from an early or eventual C&R Colt will STILL be considered having originally been a rifle, and constructing it into a .50BMG rifle would take it out of it's original configuration removing it as a C&R item, so the idea was that the 80% build could be logical, and I propose putting blueprints before the DOJ first to get a validation.

I'm not suggesting building a .50 BMG out of a C&R AR-15 lower. You are correct, making a .50 BMG out of it would remove it's C&R status. I AM suggesting that you can make a .50 BMG with a CA-registered AW lower.


Well, no, you are wrong, and they ARE comparative. As I mentioned, unless you find a truly C&R bolt action .50BMG, you will not be able to take a C&R AR receiver and make it .50BMG now or 50 years from now.

And it seems to me the guy wants a .50BMG rifle NOW... not 25 years from now.
Again, not talking about using a C&R AR reciever. I'm talking about making a .50 BMG rifle C&R. Rifles can become C&R through age (the relic) or through being bizaare and special (curio). Having Barrett make a collectible .50 BMG is feasable. And if nothing else, in 25 years or so .50 BMG rifles will become old enough to be C&R anyway

And if you tell me you'll get Ronnie Barrett to make a $19,000 specialty M95 with gold trim and engraving, just to be a C&R, well then, I'll save about $15,800 and buy another Viper chambered in .50DTC.
who says it has to be $19,000? I few engravings, a little fake gold trim, it'd add $200-300 to the original price tag.


HUGE difference between tin-foil and plain science fiction fun and ingenuity, for entertainment purposes - relax chief. My fun was to stress that WE are those that will advance firearm technology, through pure optimism - there was no fear or paranoia harbored as to how such firearms might be used, and no fear of a totalitarian rule using them against us. Sorry, but we ARE on the edge of a radical leap in the technology of small arms - it's inevitable advance and no tin-foil required. If John Moses Browning were alive today, he would be experimenting with whole other mediums other than steel and lead.

And yes, when that happens, old-style lead slingers will be obsolete.

.
this one was more of a poke in the ribs, though i doubt that old-style lead slingers will become obsolete for a LONG time. not to say that there won't be things better, but good old fashioned guns will still be around

Hunter
01-06-2007, 8:49 AM
Regarding C&R status for .50BMG rifles. I know that the Boys rifle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Anti-tank_Rifle , is C&R. Originally it shoots .55 ammo so it's a DD. However, many of them have been converted to .50BMG. I wonder if it lost its C&R status by being converted. Something to look into.


I don't believe the Boyes ATR was ever listed as a C&R firearm. As you noted, it is a DD in its original .55 cal configuration and is considered a title 1 firearm in .50 cal.

Also, even if the original .55cal was a C&R (which I cannot find any record of that) the simple act of converting from its original configuration would exempt it from C&R status.

Franksremote
01-06-2007, 9:20 AM
He has already done that, it is called the 82A1-Cal :p

So is this link outdated? The folks at ARM USA in Anaheim still have a "CA legal Barrett" on their site.

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

I got all excited when I saw it... :confused:

There's also the DOJ letter link for the "fixed mag"

http://www.50bmgstore.com/barrett50bmgstore_M82A1_CAletter.htm

Hunter
01-06-2007, 9:29 AM
So is this link outdated? The folks at ARM USA in Anaheim still have a "CA legal Barrett" on their site.

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

I got all excited when I saw it... :confused:

There's also the DOJ letter link for the "fixed mag"

http://www.50bmgstore.com/barrett50bmgstore_M82A1_CAletter.htm

The link at ARM is out of date to say the least. The link to the DOJ letter is the approval letter that let Barrett sell a semi-auto version in CA after Jan 2001.

Basically, these rifles were built intially in response to SB23 regulations. Then when AB-50 came along and banned further sale of .50 bmg rifles here in CA, the sale of these ended. I believe there where only 100-125 original rifles built by Barrett in the last 6-9 months of 2004. When they quickly sold out by Sept/Oct 04, Barrett then started to sell the serialized receivers to get more into CA owners. It is my understanding, that the total number of these guns in CA could be as high as 200 +/-25.

M. Sage
01-06-2007, 9:30 AM
All,

I keep noticing people mention the spade grip kit you can put on the AR lower. I'm wondering, if everything else pans out on the 50BMG upper on an AR OLL (possibly 80%) built as a non-rifle is there any legal need for the spade grips?

I've just been imagining it as a bolt action single shot upper, no stock, mounted on a tripod. Possibly having the original threaded hole filled permanently so no rifle stock can screw into the lower receiver. Is there a nuance of the law I'm missing past the normal AW laws? Its not semi-auto, its not a rifle, whats wrong with just leaving the normal pistol grip and trigger group in place?

In other words, are the spade grips just for the cool factor? ($500 of cool?)

The spade grips are to make DAMN sure they can't have any wiggle room saying it "could be" fired off-hand. IMO, it'd be a good idea to use spade grips if anybody does this.

ke6guj
01-06-2007, 11:10 AM
I don't believe the Boyes ATR was ever listed as a C&R firearm. As you noted, it is a DD in its original .55 cal configuration and is considered a title 1 firearm in .50 cal.

Also, even if the original .55cal was a C&R (which I cannot find any record of that) the simple act of converting from its original configuration would exempt it from C&R status.

The original Boys .55 was made from 1937 to somewhere around 1943. So, they would all be over 50 years old, and automatically C&R, doesn't need to be listed.

The main question is, does converting to .50BMG make it lose C&R status? I saw an add for one in .50BMG that the owner will sell on a C&R, but not to CA residents. If it is C&R, it should be CA legal, the owner may not be aware of that fact.
Make:Boyes
Model:Anti-tank
Type:Rifle
Caliber:50 BMG
Description:What I have here is a early WWII British Boyes anti-tank rifle in 50 BMG. It has a top fed 5 round magazine, factory bi-pod, flat muzzle brake with cover. Also have scope mount for this rifle as well. The rifle is in good condition, rifle bore does have some pitting due to shooting corrosive ammo from WWII, but the pitting does not have any affect in its shooting ability or in its fun!!
Price:$5000.00 + $100.00 crating charge + actual shipping charge to your dealer of choice. FFL or C&R license is also required for purchase. NOT for sale to California residents. Dated:12/14/06.

artherd
08-22-2007, 11:18 PM
You said that to be funny, but if he applied for Curio status on that rifle (and re-opened production so those of us who don't currently own it can buy it) it wouldn't be a .50 BMG and wouldn't be subject to import and sale restrictions.

-Gene

Yep, I was thinking the same as well. Something like 100 were made, low production, and definately valueable!

Hell I could de-register mine, I'm for it.