PDA

View Full Version : Hi all, need assistance on how the semi MG42/M53's are classified/dealt with .


DisgruntledReaper
02-29-2012, 4:09 PM
Greeting fellow members,

I am in need of information on how semi auto MG42's, M53's are treated/classed in this -ugh- 'wonderful state'...

Basically I know they are classed as a 'rifle' now- changed from 'firearm' by the BATF.... I ***-u-me that they have to follow the AW flow chart which in not 'fine' BUT I could live with it...

But what I need to know is.. if a person who owns one attaches a drum/blocks off a drum (what a heretical act) so ONLY a 10 round link can be inserted and shot.... given everything else...would this be 'safe' given the 'less than intelligent' people running around enforcing the laws and the DA douches who know nothing but their political goals?

would it be fine to just run the modded belts without a drum attached? Since you have no 'evil 50 round belts' in your immediate posession there is no real way to charge or argue 'intent' ......

Given cheap ammo is gone it would not be like I would blow off 1k in rounds at a time anyway....

I KNOW there are guys who own these here , i know you can chop them up(again heretical act in my opinion) and install spade kits,cut the end of the butt off,etc and then run long belts but I would prefer original configuration.... hell enter an Appleseed or other contest with it for giggles...go hunt with it..you know,enjoy it.....wheres that ring mount..

Thank's for any and all help,leads,links,etc.... figure i have a better chance for useful info here than :eek:even ATTEMPTING to contact the DOinJ (lackof)Firearms (knowledge) Division:facepalm::facepalm:.

:)

CHS
02-29-2012, 5:31 PM
Greeting fellow members,

I am in need of information on how semi auto MG42's, M53's are treated/classed in this -ugh- 'wonderful state'...

Basically I know they are classed as a 'rifle' now- changed from 'firearm' by the BATF.... I ***-u-me that they have to follow the AW flow chart which in not 'fine' BUT I could live with it...


They have a shoulder stock and a rifled barrel. Federal law says they are rifles. Nothing has changed. Why do you think the BATFE changed their classification? They are rifles and have always been rifles according to Federal law.


But what I need to know is.. if a person who owns one attaches a drum/blocks off a drum (what a heretical act) so ONLY a 10 round link can be inserted and shot.... given everything else...would this be 'safe' given the 'less than intelligent' people running around enforcing the laws and the DA douches who know nothing but their political goals?

would it be fine to just run the modded belts without a drum attached? Since you have no 'evil 50 round belts' in your immediate posession there is no real way to charge or argue 'intent' ......

Given cheap ammo is gone it would not be like I would blow off 1k in rounds at a time anyway....

I KNOW there are guys who own these here , i know you can chop them up(again heretical act in my opinion) and install spade kits,cut the end of the butt off,etc and then run long belts but I would prefer original configuration.... hell enter an Appleseed or other contest with it for giggles...go hunt with it..you know,enjoy it.....wheres that ring mount..

Thank's for any and all help,leads,links,etc.... figure i have a better chance for useful info here than :eek:even ATTEMPTING to contact the DOinJ (lackof)Firearms (knowledge) Division:facepalm::facepalm:.

:)

You should put a lock on them so that the top-cover can only be opened using a tool. That should satisfy the "fixed-magazine" requirements.

CAL.BAR
02-29-2012, 6:01 PM
AND, unless you had belts/links made up prior to 2000, you can only link up 10 rds at a time regardless of the configuration of the weapon.

DisgruntledReaper
02-29-2012, 7:55 PM
'AND, unless you had belts/links made up prior to 2000, you can only link up 10 rds at a time regardless of the configuration of the weapon.'

Well that would be covered since all the belts are from the 40's to the 60's so that part is covered..

CHS-'They have a shoulder stock and a rifled barrel. Federal law says they are rifles. Nothing has changed. Why do you think the BATFE changed their classification? They are rifles and have always been rifles according to Federal law.

--Not so, they HAD been classified as 'Firearm ,other' or something similar, basically until Wiselite and Century started to make semi autos -- they WERE in the same category as the M1919,M2 and other beltfed crew served weapons since they were never designed as a 'single operator' firearm like a 'typical rifle' . After the Semi autos went on sale they were reclassed as 'rifle' like any other.

CHS-'You should put a lock on them so that the top-cover can only be opened using a tool. That should satisfy the "fixed-magazine" requirements'

I think if I make it so I need some kind of tool/punch/etc to open the attached drum up to load a belt it would be better...... but until I can get a good look at a drum and at least a deactivated mg42, I cant tell the fit/positioning of the drum/feedtray/etc...

Hmm.... I need to join the MG42 forum and ask away....

Well I hope a CG member who owns one will see and chime in...

ke6guj
02-29-2012, 8:01 PM
we've talked about the MG42 in the past.

I think tht not only would you need to set up the top-cover so as to need a tool to open it, but you would also need to prevent the empty belt from automatically ejecting (detaching) without the use of a tool. So, you would need to install a rod in the last belt slot so that the belt can't completely feed through the gun and become detached.

Much easier to just go featureless.

ke6guj
02-29-2012, 8:04 PM
here is the thread where we talked about maglocks and the such, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=194709&highlight=mg42

ke6guj
02-29-2012, 8:04 PM
here is the thread where we talked about maglocks and the such, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=194709&highlight=mg42

CHS
02-29-2012, 9:17 PM
Well that would be covered since all the belts are from the 40's to the 60's so that part is covered..


If *YOU* didn't possess them before Jan 1, 2000, then it doesn't matter if they are from the 40's to 60's or not.

Also, please learn how to use the quote button.


--Not so, they HAD been classified as 'Firearm ,other' or something similar, basically until Wiselite and Century started to make semi autos -- they WERE in the same category as the M1919,M2 and other beltfed crew served weapons since they were never designed as a 'single operator' firearm like a 'typical rifle' . After the Semi autos went on sale they were reclassed as 'rifle' like any other.


If they have a buttstock and a rifled barrel, then they are not, and NEVER were classified the same as a 1919. "Single operator" or not, doesn't matter. There is no such thing in Federal law as a "crew served" firearm.

It's either a pistol, rifle, shotgun, receiver/frame, or other. Again, since these have buttstocks and rifled barrels, they are rifles.

Now, if you're talking pre-semi-auto configuration, then you're talking about machineguns and that's not even title 1 to begin with. If you're talking about title 1 semi-auto versions, they are rifles and therefore subject to CA AW laws.

Chach
02-29-2012, 10:56 PM
I have an MG42 purchased from Henderson Defense a while back. As in the previous link, the latch on the top cover is cut down with a metal block placed over it so a tool is needed in order to open the top cover. With the drum attached and locked in place w/ a set-bolt it is impossible to load or unload the weapon without raising the top cover. You can not pull the belt through the right hand side if there are rounds still attached as the opening is too small let alone the fact that it'd be nearly impossible because of the sheer force required to pull it through.

Regardless if it was ever considered a crew served weapon or not doesn't matter. It is a rifle with a buttstock, pistol grip and flash hider now and that's what matters in the eyes of the law. This means you need to follow the letter of the law and be prepared to back up your assumptions in case you need to defend yourself in court. In regards to links, keep in mind that even if you did own the links before 2000 you can not run a high capacity ammunition feeding device in a bullet button rifle, that's asking for a "Go directly to jail, do not pass go" card.

The MG42 is a fun gun, but it is a lot more finicky than a 1919 to run and draws a lot of attention from people at the range. If you need more info or would like more close up pics of how my MG is setup, feel free to hit me up. In the meantime, here's my cat posing with his favorite toys.

http://images46.fotki.com/v1443/photos/2/201355/4806852/IMG_3317-vi.jpg

timdps
03-01-2012, 10:55 AM
First of all: 50 round belts. You needed to own them before January 1 2000 for them to be legal to use in CA.

The Henderson Defense option is one way to go, but, because it has a bullet button, you are limited to 10 round belts. I doubt that Henderson is doing those mods any more because Wise Lite is no longer making M53s.

Assuming you already own legal belts, the best way to import into CA is as a receiver (only) to your FFL. Have the seller send you the other parts separately, directly to your home. Then you need to make two mods to make it a featureless rifle BEFORE reassembly.

1) The trigger group/grip goes to Solar Tactical for a grip fin, making it no longer a pistol grip.

2) The other project is eliminating the flash hider as an evil feature. I had a piece machined that was welded into the flash hider (pics below). A easier solution is to weld a washer with a 10mm hole into the end of the flash hider.

Flash hider with filler part welded into place:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/Featureless/M53flashhider.jpg


Final results: a legal CA featureless rifle with grip fin and modified flash hider: http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/Featureless/M53a.jpg

Tim

raiders1
03-01-2012, 3:08 PM
I have a mg 34 being built and would love to get info on your booster cone mod.

timdps
03-01-2012, 7:22 PM
Here are a couple of photos of the cone:
http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/Featureless/?action=view&current=cone2.jpg

http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/Featureless/?action=view&current=cone1.jpg

At this point I would probably find a washer that fits just inside the flash hider cone and has a hole about 10mm in diameter and weld it in.

gibbet
03-01-2012, 8:58 PM
A few years back Tim @ TNW told me that when he submitted his MG34 for CA DOJ approval, the muzzle device was classified as a booster, not flash hider. His CA Approved MG34 did have a normal booster attached. The MG34 booster is pretty much like the MG42 booster.

Call him and ask for the DOJ approval letter.

http://www.tnwfirearms.com/faq.shtml#mg34

DisgruntledReaper
03-01-2012, 10:35 PM
Cool thank you for additional info.

I was wondering about the Booster, because the flash hider also acts as a 'gas pressure accumulator' and assists in the functioning of the gun, the fact that it MAY affect any muzzle flash is secondary..... I mean look at it, the hole is just a bit larger than the bore plus the barrel/booster bushing sits inside it and is a 'gas piston' of a sort.... the gun is quite an ingeious piecec of functionality actually,, that is why they are totally reliable in original form... semi auto with converted/non std parts,well.......

I am definitley going to hit up TNW on the Approval letter question.

Otherwise a welded in washer and gripwrap huh...hmmm......possible and running a 50 round belt in a drum is great...

Any of this stuff i own I have owned since WELL BEFORe 2000......yehaw.

DisgruntledReaper
03-01-2012, 10:46 PM
If *YOU* didn't possess them before Jan 1, 2000, then it doesn't matter if they are from the 40's to 60's or not.

Also, please learn how to use the quote button.



If they have a buttstock and a rifled barrel, then they are not, and NEVER were classified the same as a 1919. "Single operator" or not, doesn't matter. There is no such thing in Federal law as a "crew served" firearm.

It's either a pistol, rifle, shotgun, receiver/frame, or other. Again, since these have buttstocks and rifled barrels, they are rifles.

Now, if you're talking pre-semi-auto configuration, then you're talking about machineguns and that's not even title 1 to begin with. If you're talking about title 1 semi-auto versions, they are rifles and therefore subject to CA AW laws.

I KNOW how to use the "" button ,wanted to keep the posts shorter BUT here ya go....

ANY of this stuff I HAVE OWNED since WELL BEFORE 2000.....like early 80's..

ALSO, FEDERALLY the MG42 was NOT classed as a rifle...until a few years ago when they RECLASSED IT... NOW this POS state or other states CAN pass laws on what is a rifle, OAL,'features' etc... so maybe HERE it was always classed BUT far as I know they were interestingly NOT included in ANY of the OFFICIAL AW ban lists(that I have been able to find) UNTIL the POS 2000 law....... interesting huh?........

Oh well, I pretty much have my answers and info(just waiting for a couple replies) on routes,things to do,etc so I thank all the helpful members here as usual, my hats off to you gents

CHS
03-02-2012, 6:27 AM
ALSO, FEDERALLY the MG42 was NOT classed as a rifle...until a few years ago when they RECLASSED IT... NOW this POS state or other states CAN pass laws on what is a rifle, OAL,'features' etc... so maybe HERE it was always classed BUT far as I know they were interestingly NOT included in ANY of the OFFICIAL AW ban lists(that I have been able to find) UNTIL the POS 2000 law....... interesting huh?........


What on earth are you talking about? No one ever reclassified a semi-auto MG42/M53. Not the feds, not the state.

And until 2000 there WERENT any "official" AW ban lists. The feds never had a ban list at all. The federal AWB just said you couldn't have a semi-auto rifle with more than two evil features. The MG42 never would have qualified for that ban to begin with because it only had a pistol grip and no other evil features like a collapsible stock or bayonet lug.

All this talk of lists and reclassification... Can you please tell me what your actual point is?