PDA

View Full Version : 50 bmg


crazychinaman
11-16-2013, 1:55 PM
I know 50 bmg rifles(shoulder fire)are illegal.They had to registered a couple of years ago.I think I want one now.How about a new 2013 50 bmg upper on a RAW AR-15 lower.Is that legal,?Since the upper has no serial number or too close to chance.

WWHD116
11-16-2013, 2:01 PM
Like a ferret .50 cal upper?

From what I understand in order to do that the AR lower must have been registered as a .50 cal before they were banned.

I am not an FFL but this is what I was told by someone who is.

SonofWWIIDI
11-16-2013, 2:16 PM
You are a no-go with a shoulder fired .50 BMG. I do believe that if you have the $$$, a semi auto version of some of the tri-pod mounted weapons in .50 BMG are still good to go. Or, you could try one of the other offerings in .50, such as the .50 DTC, or the .50 Beowolf.

But something like a barret .50 BMG are definitely verboten in kommiefornia, unless you already owned it prior to the registration period, and registered it at that time.

WWHD116
11-16-2013, 2:22 PM
You are a no-go with a shoulder fired .50 BMG. I do believe that if you have the $$$, a semi auto version of some of the tri-pod mounted weapons in .50 BMG are still good to go. Or, you could try one of the other offerings in .50, such as the .50 DTC, or the .50 Beowolf.

But something like a barret .50 BMG are definitely verboten in kommiefornia, unless you already owned it prior to the registration period, and registered it at that time.

He is asking about mounting a .50 cal upper on a RAW AR receiver.

Something like this:

http://www.ferret50.com/

The Gleam
11-16-2013, 2:28 PM
You are a no-go with a shoulder fired .50 BMG. I do believe that if you have the $$$, a semi auto version of some of the tri-pod mounted weapons in .50 BMG are still good to go. Or, you could try one of the other offerings in .50, such as the .50 DTC, or the .50 Beowolf.

But something like a barret .50 BMG are definitely verboten in kommiefornia, unless you already owned it prior to the registration period, and registered it at that time.

.50DTC - Yes, essentially identical to .500BMG - enjoy. Paul Koretz was too stupid to realize that nearly the very day he got AB50 passed, this cartridge was already in use. Shows what happens when morons that know nothing about firearms are put in charge of creating bans about firearms, besides the fact their bans do NOTHING to stop illegal use of firearms or preventing crime.

.408 CheyTac / .416 Barret - Very close, and available in most rifles that come chambered in .50BMG. And you can get a semi-auto 82A1/XM107 chambered in .416Barret in CA, with a Bullet Button, and be good to go (if you have the $9000 cash ready-to-go).

.50 Beowulf - not even close to .50BMG or any of the above. Fun, but not even within the same league.

hermosabeach
11-16-2013, 2:42 PM
From other posts it was cited as legal to add a different upper onto a RAW.

You should be fine as the AR lower is a registered assault weapon.

The Gleam
11-16-2013, 3:04 PM
From other posts it was cited as legal to add a different upper onto a RAW.

You should be fine as the AR lower is a registered assault weapon.

Maybe? The registration cards under 2000's SB23 AW "features" ban, asked for caliber. The subsequent "registration confirmation letter" from the CA DOJ/Bill Lockyer then showed that caliber as well. If you had put down only .223 Remington and/or 5.56mm NATO (or specified otherwise) that might not work or be legal to NOW (post-2005) make it a .50BMG rifle. You would be manufacturing a "new" .50BMG rifle now.

However, I do recall a lot of people writing in "Multi" because all they owned at the time was an AR receiver in which they were registering, and had no idea whether they would build it into .223, 7.62X39, 9mm, or .458-SOCOM - whatever, so had put "Multi" for the caliber, which in theory, could have then included .50BMG if the state accepted "multi" on the registration card (which I believe they did).

So my take on this would be that if you indeed did specify a cartridge for your registered receiver for SB23 AW registration in 2000 as anything other than .50BMG or "Multi" as that and that alone, you could not now (post-2005 that is) turn it into a .50BMG chambered rifle because AB50 then specified caliber as part of the ban in 2005 - meaning you could not add a .50BMG ALS upper to your .223 SPECIFIED as registered in 2000 lower. But you could have legally done that up until 2005.

Important to note that caliber, under SB23, was not a "feature" other than designating for center-fire. So even writing in the caliber, or leaving blank should not have mattered. But by doing so, did you then designate/telegraph that receiver/rifle as anything OTHER THAN .50BMG?

Such as, under 2000's SB23 AW "features" ban if you had registered a Barret 82A1 under SB23 due to being semi-auto/detachable mag, there was no requirement to register it under AB50 in 2005. So the same could be said for an AR receiver registered with the caliber as "Multi" if the state accepted it that way - no?

It appears that by specifying a caliber to a receiver for 2000 appears to slate it as anything other than .50BMG (or "Multi") therefore for AB50 in 2005 you would be SOL unless you then later specified it as also .50BMG. Check what your letter of "Assault Weapon Registration Confirmation Notice" from Bill Lockyer at some time in 2001 has listed for "Caliber" - if anything there is other than "Multi" or ".50BMG" I don't think you can change that to meet requirements of AB50 for 2005.

Now some might say "but only the receiver is registered" - true, under SB23 and registering it under .223, you could not make your SB23 registered rifle a 9mm, .458 SOCOM, or .50 Beowulf, but ONLY because those calibers are not STRICTLY banned by caliber - whereas, as of 2005 it was. So while you can make that receiver/rifle designated as .223 any other caliber, you could not NOW make it a rifle chambered in .50BMG because it was logged as something other than "Multi" (which could mean .50BMG) or actually as .50BMG.

HOWEVER... at some time between 2000 and 2005, when .50BMG was still legal, did you then legally turn that registered AW .223 rifle into a .50BMG rifle, which during that time period would have been no different than turning it into a .458 SOCOM rifle? And then it became .50BMG, wherein, a rifle, already as a .50BMG registered under SB23 in 2000 did NOT require re-registration under AB50 - and an upper is not a registered receiver/part?

Perplexing conundrum... but you may just be OK to do so, from the above.

Ajaxx
11-16-2013, 4:02 PM
You can also have a legal 50BMG upper on a non RAW AR15 lower IF you add this
http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS.html

mrkubota
11-16-2013, 7:53 PM
I know 50 bmg rifles(shoulder fire)are illegal.They had to registered a couple of years ago.I think I want one now.How about a new 2013 50 bmg upper on a RAW AR-15 lower.Is that legal,?Since the upper has no serial number or too close to chance.

Yes, that's perfectly legal.... a RAW lower doesn't become any MORE an 'assault weapon' by adding a BMG upper to it.

However, if you wish to switch back an forth, that can be an issue as generally you must remove the buffer and spring, disconnector and bolt hold back. Then replace the hammer with a heavier one and probably the hammer spring with a stronger version as well.

All in all, it's just easier to build a new lower with only the necessary parts and buy an upper chambered for .50DTC instead. .50DTC is ballistically identical to .50BMG and is made from all the same components as .50BMG, so cost is the same too.

//Ben
06FFL - Custom Ammunition

ChrisC
11-18-2013, 8:04 AM
Just another headache brought on from recalling a democrat and putting a republican in office. Thanks Arnold!

ke6guj
11-18-2013, 11:14 AM
Maybe? The registration cards under 2000's SB23 AW "features" ban, asked for caliber. The subsequent "registration confirmation letter" from the CA DOJ/Bill Lockyer then showed that caliber as well. If you had put down only .223 Remington and/or 5.56mm NATO (or specified otherwise) that might not work or be legal to NOW (post-2005) make it a .50BMG rifle. You would be manufacturing a "new" .50BMG rifle now.

However, I do recall a lot of people writing in "Multi" because all they owned at the time was an AR receiver in which they were registering, and had no idea whether they would build it into .223, 7.62X39, 9mm, or .458-SOCOM - whatever, so had put "Multi" for the caliber, which in theory, could have then included .50BMG if the state accepted "multi" on the registration card (which I believe they did).

So my take on this would be that if you indeed did specify a cartridge for your registered receiver for SB23 AW registration in 2000 as anything other than .50BMG or "Multi" as that and that alone, you could not now (post-2005 that is) turn it into a .50BMG chambered rifle because AB50 then specified caliber as part of the ban in 2005 - meaning you could not add a .50BMG ALS upper to your .223 SPECIFIED as registered in 2000 lower. But you could have legally done that up until 2005.

Important to note that caliber, under SB23, was not a "feature" other than designating for center-fire. So even writing in the caliber, or leaving blank should not have mattered. But by doing so, did you then designate/telegraph that receiver/rifle as anything OTHER THAN .50BMG?

Such as, under 2000's SB23 AW "features" ban if you had registered a Barret 82A1 under SB23 due to being semi-auto/detachable mag, there was no requirement to register it under AB50 in 2005. So the same could be said for an AR receiver registered with the caliber as "Multi" if the state accepted it that way - no?

It appears that by specifying a caliber to a receiver for 2000 appears to slate it as anything other than .50BMG (or "Multi") therefore for AB50 in 2005 you would be SOL unless you then later specified it as also .50BMG. Check what your letter of "Assault Weapon Registration Confirmation Notice" from Bill Lockyer at some time in 2001 has listed for "Caliber" - if anything there is other than "Multi" or ".50BMG" I don't think you can change that to meet requirements of AB50 for 2005.

Now some might say "but only the receiver is registered" - true, under SB23 and registering it under .223, you could not make your SB23 registered rifle a 9mm, .458 SOCOM, or .50 Beowulf, but ONLY because those calibers are not STRICTLY banned by caliber - whereas, as of 2005 it was. So while you can make that receiver/rifle designated as .223 any other caliber, you could not NOW make it a rifle chambered in .50BMG because it was logged as something other than "Multi" (which could mean .50BMG) or actually as .50BMG.

HOWEVER... at some time between 2000 and 2005, when .50BMG was still legal, did you then legally turn that registered AW .223 rifle into a .50BMG rifle, which during that time period would have been no different than turning it into a .458 SOCOM rifle? And then it became .50BMG, wherein, a rifle, already as a .50BMG registered under SB23 in 2000 did NOT require re-registration under AB50 - and an upper is not a registered receiver/part?

Perplexing conundrum... but you may just be OK to do so, from the above.


there is no law that says that the RAW must stay in the "registered" configuration. It is legal for me to swap uppers from 5.56 to 9mm to .50Beauwulf with no issues. It is also not an issue to put a .50BMG upper on it either. reason being. The definition of a .50BMG rifle excludes those that are registered as Assault Weapons. If it is an RAW, it wouldn't legally fit the definition of a .50BMG rifle even if it has a .50BMG upper on it.

IVC
11-18-2013, 2:00 PM
Just another headache brought on from recalling a democrat and putting a republican in office. Thanks Arnold!

Well, we have all Democrats now. When can we expect them to restore our gun rights?

ChrisC
11-18-2013, 2:43 PM
Well, we have all Democrats now. When can we expect them to restore our gun rights?

The same time a republican restores our gun rights, never. Both parties have screwed us, but everyone keeps blaming the democrats.

When was the last time in California that a republican restored our gun rights? I bet you can't answer that one, but you can answer when was the last time a republican took away our gun rights in California.

IVC
11-18-2013, 3:16 PM
When was the last time in California that a republican restored our gun rights? I bet you can't answer that one, but you can answer when was the last time a republican took away our gun rights in California.

It was approximately the last time we had Republican majority in the assembly and senate. Those legislative bodies actually write and pass laws.

If Democrats are in charge and they have full control, then they deserve credit for all the good they are doing (driving business out of state and bringing welfare population into the state), as well as all the blame for all the bad they are doing (writing, introducing, supporting and passing gun control bills.)

How can you defend Democrats for doing something that is factually and objectively undisputable, something that is supported by the official platform and something which Democrats are both vocal about and proud of? The very politicians you're defending are the ones who are telling you that you're wrong and that they indeed WANT gun control.

CSACANNONEER
11-18-2013, 4:06 PM
I know 50 bmg rifles(shoulder fire)are illegal.They had to registered a couple of years ago.I think I want one now.How about a new 2013 50 bmg upper on a RAW AR-15 lower.Is that legal,?Since the upper has no serial number or too close to chance.

As others have already mentioned, it is perfectly legal to put a 50BMG upper on a RAW AR15 lower. Of course, there are a lot of 50 cal uppers out there but only two I would ever consider owning. Go for an ALS upper (mine is well used and the last group record group through it was a 4 1/2" 5 shot group at 1000 yards shot by a friend at the FCSA World Championships this year. My last 5 shot record group was just under 5" with the 5th shot doubling my group size. Yea, I had a flyer (my fault) that kept me from setting a new world record in that class. If you don't want an ALS, get a Ferret. They're good guns too. Everything else is second or third rate when it comes to precision 50 cal uppers.

BTW, both ALS and Spider Firearms will chamber their uppers in .510 DTC which is arguably a better designed cartridge.

Yugo
11-18-2013, 4:20 PM
As others have already mentioned, it is perfectly legal to put a 50BMG upper on a RAW AR15 lower. Of course, there are a lot of 50 cal uppers out there but only two I would ever consider owning. Go for an ALS upper (mine is well used and the last group record group through it was a 4 1/2" 5 shot group at 1000 yards shot by a friend at the FCSA World Championships this year. My last 5 shot record group was just under 5" with the 5th shot doubling my group size. Yea, I had a flyer (my fault) that kept me from setting a new world record in that class. If you don't want an ALS, get a Ferret. They're good guns too. Everything else is second or third rate when it comes to precision 50 cal uppers.

BTW, both ALS and Spider Firearms will chamber their uppers in .510 DTC which is arguably a better designed cartridge.

So .510DTC is almost the same as .50BMG?

ke6guj
11-18-2013, 4:28 PM
So .510DTC is almost the same as .50BMG?basically, 99% the same. .510DTC rounds are made by trimming BMG brass around 0.1" and then running it through a sizing die. at that point, it is loaded up and fire-formed to the DTC chamber. All the components used are the same, primers, bullets, powder.

mrkubota
11-18-2013, 5:05 PM
So .510DTC is almost the same as .50BMG?

Ballistically speaking they are identical... with a slight edge to DTC after fire-forming. It has slightly MORE case capacity than BMG and can make better use of the slow powders to drive the heavy match bullets.

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

CSACANNONEER
11-18-2013, 6:27 PM
So .510DTC is almost the same as .50BMG?

Yup. I'm thinking hard about starting to plan to buy another 50 upper in a few years. I think I need an upper that will make the FCSA "Light class" and even though I have a registered lower that I could put it on, I'm strongly considering getting it chambered in .510DTC for the reasons Ben just mentioned and just to be able to loan it out if I wanted to.

sarabellum
11-21-2013, 12:26 PM
Skip the 50 bmg, banned by caliber like in Mexico. Select a different caliber, the .416 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8IkAvOCxXE

mrkubota
11-21-2013, 6:26 PM
Skip the 50 bmg, banned by caliber like in Mexico. Select a different caliber, the .416 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8IkAvOCxXE

Wrong.... The .50bmg cartridge or caliber isn't banned or regulated. Only NEW rifles chambered for the .50BMG cartridge are regulated under AB50.

As noted in earlier posts, a .50BMG upper conversion on a RAW lower would be perfectly legal as well as a .50DTC conversion or rifle.

Too, non-rifles, like M2HB beltfeds, or other weapons that aren't shoulder fired would be fine chambered for .50BMG (or any other .50caliber cartridge)

The .416, while a nice shooting round, is more expensive to shoot or reload for than the BMG or DTC. Barrel life is likely to be much less than the .50s as well.

MPG
11-21-2013, 6:43 PM
Is 510 dtc readily avialable ?
How long till they ban that anyway?

CSACANNONEER
11-21-2013, 7:15 PM
Skip the 50 bmg, banned by caliber like in Mexico. Select a different caliber, the .416 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8IkAvOCxXE

Get a clue. If you have a .416, I'll go up against you with one of my 50BMGs at 1000 yards. Besides,50 ammo is more readily available, less expensive and there is a lot more load data and components available for 50s.

CSACANNONEER
11-21-2013, 7:19 PM
Is 510 dtc readily avialable ?
How long till they ban that anyway?

There are a couple people who manufacture it for sale. Mrkobota is the only licensed manufacture who sells to the public. But, it's not hard to load your own once you buy new bigger everything for your reloading bench. I doubt it will be banned.

sarabellum
11-21-2013, 7:24 PM
Get a clue. If you have a .416, I'll go up against you with one of my 50BMGs at 1000 yards. Besides,50 ammo is more readily available, less expensive and there is a lot more load data and components available for 50s.

Fortunately for the OP, .416 exceeds the .50 BMGs effective range and is legal without any if and or buts.

ArmedCMT
11-21-2013, 7:43 PM
Pardon me fellas, just got a quick question...Does AB50 apply to all 50BMG riffles or only semi's? If I wanted a 50BMG and I didnt have a RAW lower to put it on, would a bolt action upper on a new lower be an option?

Thanks in advance:)

ke6guj
11-21-2013, 7:50 PM
Pardon me fellas, just got a quick question...Does AB50 apply to all 50BMG riffles or only semi's? If I wanted a 50BMG and I didnt have a RAW lower to put it on, would a bolt action upper on a new lower be an option?

Thanks in advance:)




30530. (a) As used in this part, ".50 BMG rifle" means a center
fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an
assault weapon or a machinegun.
(b) A ".50 BMG rifle" does not include any antique firearm, nor
any curio or relic as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.

CSACANNONEER
11-21-2013, 8:17 PM
Fortunately for the OP, .416 exceeds the .50 BMGs effective range and is legal without any if and or buts.

Prove it. Don't just parrot information you've read on the internet. The simple fact is that most who make claims like this can't shoot XLR in the first place. I'm up for the challenge. Also, it is fortunate for the OP that only 50BMG rifles which weren't registered as AWs or 50BMG rifles, are also legal without any ifs ands or buts. So, any firearm chambered in .510DTC is 100% legal in CA. That's no more or less questionable as the legality of the .416 Barrett.

mdib870
11-21-2013, 8:21 PM
416

ArmedCMT
11-21-2013, 9:29 PM
30530. (a) As used in this part, ".50 BMG rifle" means a center
fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an
assault weapon or a machinegun.
(b) A ".50 BMG rifle" does not include any antique firearm, nor
any curio or relic as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.

Thanx.

sarabellum
11-22-2013, 12:33 PM
That's no more or less questionable as the legality of the .416 Barrett.

This statement is nonsense. .416 Barrett is not prohibited by any statute in California.

http://www.barrett.net/ammunition/416barrett

CSACANNONEER
11-22-2013, 1:16 PM
This statement is nonsense. .416 Barrett is not prohibited by any statute in California.

http://www.barrett.net/ammunition/416barrett

LOL. I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Rockit
11-23-2013, 9:12 PM
This statement is nonsense. .416 Barrett is not prohibited by any statute in California.

http://www.barrett.net/ammunition/416barrett
Neither is 50 DTC.
You can swing from the barrett nuts all you want but that doesn't make you right.

OleCuss
11-24-2013, 7:54 AM
Prove it. Don't just parrot information you've read on the internet. The simple fact is that most who make claims like this can't shoot XLR in the first place. I'm up for the challenge. . .

Would you do me a favor? And understand that this is not a challenge, but a request for information.

For years I have been under the impression that the .416 has better ballistics than does the .50 BMG. This is based on reading rather than experience since I've never fired a .416 and have only fired a .50 BMG machine gun (military service in my background). For that matter, I did very little with the machine gun - I do not find automatic fire to be appealing to me.

So could you explain to me how the .50 BMG (and possibly .510 DTC) are superior to the .416?

Are the .50s more accurate? Do they carry more punch at long-range? Are they more pleasant (or less painful) to fire? Or is it something else I'm not asking?


And personally, I've speculated that a .50 upper on a RAW lower might not be much fun to fire. . . I'd be interested in hearing that I'm wrong about that.

This is of a little interest to me since I actually do have a RAW and sometimes speculate that it would be fun to have a firearm which was very accurate at very long range. Not sure I'll ever go there, however. No ranges around here that are that long - although I may soon get access to a private range which might allow for ranges up to 600 yards.

But then, something like a .338 Lapua might be more accurate anyway? I dunno.

CSACANNONEER
11-24-2013, 9:14 AM
Would you do me a favor? And understand that this is not a challenge, but a request for information.

For years I have been under the impression that the .416 has better ballistics than does the .50 BMG. This is based on reading rather than experience since I've never fired a .416 and have only fired a .50 BMG machine gun (military service in my background). For that matter, I did very little with the machine gun - I do not find automatic fire to be appealing to me.

So could you explain to me how the .50 BMG (and possibly .510 DTC) are superior to the .416?

Are the .50s more accurate? Do they carry more punch at long-range? Are they more pleasant (or less painful) to fire? Or is it something else I'm not asking?


And personally, I've speculated that a .50 upper on a RAW lower might not be much fun to fire. . . I'd be interested in hearing that I'm wrong about that.

This is of a little interest to me since I actually do have a RAW and sometimes speculate that it would be fun to have a firearm which was very accurate at very long range. Not sure I'll ever go there, however. No ranges around here that are that long - although I may soon get access to a private range which might allow for ranges up to 600 yards.

But then, something like a .338 Lapua might be more accurate anyway? I dunno.

The .416 Barrett is a bastard boutique round. It doesn't fit into any category for competitive shooting and has very limited load data and available components. Therefore, it will never be developed to it's true potential. I've shot a .416 Barrett chambered custom rifle on a McBros action and it was fun but, I've never been impressed with the precision of Barrett made rifles and, the lack of available components and load info just make it a deal breaker for me. The hype over printed data vs. real life data doesn't impress me either. That's why, when keyboard commando's post their under educated and inexperienced opinions, I offer them a chance to put up or shut up. I'm far from a world class shooter and wouldn't mind being beat by a .416 but, if you noticed, no one ever takes me up on my challenge/offer for a little friendly competition. There must be a reason for that?????

OleCuss
11-24-2013, 9:54 AM
Thank you. That is much appreciated.

CSACANNONEER
11-24-2013, 11:32 AM
Also, the .416 bullets get blown around more in the wind. Now, as far as pure ballistic science goes, sure, the .416 can reach out further. BUT, and that is a big "but", how many people truly have the experience to read conditions at +1 mile? I'm going to guess that not more than about 50 registered users on this forum have the experience and capability to shoot a mile on a good day. For practical purposes, 50BMG/.510DTC will get the best shooters past 1.5 miles on a good day and components/ammunition is much more readily available.

The Gleam
11-24-2013, 1:12 PM
there is no law that says that the RAW must stay in the "registered" configuration. It is legal for me to swap uppers from 5.56 to 9mm to .50Beauwulf with no issues. It is also not an issue to put a .50BMG upper on it either. reason being. The definition of a .50BMG rifle excludes those that are registered as Assault Weapons. If it is an RAW, it wouldn't legally fit the definition of a .50BMG rifle even if it has a .50BMG upper on it.

I explained it quite clearly, read the law; it IS legal for you to put any upper you wish on your lower, including your RAW lower - from 5.56 to 9mm to .50Beowulf with no issues. SB23 was NOT caliber specific, even though the question had been queried on the forms.

However, the law that derived from AB50 is VERY specific about when you had a RAW chambered in .50BMG. It did not allow for any AW to also be .50BMG, unless it was ALREADY .50BMG and previously registered under SB23's features ban.

If you read the law, it is clear about when, and when not, any particular firearm was or was not chambered in .50BMG, by date. SO - DID YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT RIFLE MATED TO THAT .50BMG UPPER PRIOR TO 1/2005? Of course you did, so your RAW lower can be swapped into a .50BMG rifle. However, as AB50 has a cut-off date, I contend, and the law is clear on this matter, that if you bought and added a .50BMG upper to a RAW lower NOW, any time after 1/1/2005, you are manufacturing a NEW .50BMG rifle that was NOT in that configuration or chambered in that caliber prior to 2005. It's a technical glitch, but true. If you had it in that configuration PRIOR to 2005, then you are fine.

Which you did, of course. Because the AW ban that came about from SB23 did not designate by caliber or ban .50BMG - see how that is? You are correct; to a point. There IS a cut-off date as to when you can make a firearm into .50BMG whether you like it or not, or whether there is any possible way it could be enforced. The upper is NOT a firearm; but manufacturing a rifle chambered in .50BMG after 1/1/2005 is strictly banned, whether it was an RAW receiver or not. The only exception I can find is that if the RAW had already been chambered in .50BMG for the 2000 AW registration, it was good to go with no registration requirement for 1/1/2005.

The Gleam
11-24-2013, 1:18 PM
Of course, there are a lot of 50 cal uppers out there but only two I would ever consider owning. Go for an ALS upper (mine is well used and the last group record group through it was a 4 1/2" 5 shot group at 1000 yards shot by a friend at the FCSA World Championships this year.

I agree - ALS is about the ONLY .50BMG upper I would buy.

Tincon
11-24-2013, 1:49 PM
If you read the law, it is clear about when, and when not, any particular firearm was or was not chambered in .50BMG, by date. SO - DID YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT RIFLE MATED TO THAT .50BMG UPPER PRIOR TO 1/2005? Of course you did, so your RAW lower can be swapped into a .50BMG rifle. However, as AB50 has a cut-off date, I contend, and the law is clear on this matter, that if you bought and added a .50BMG upper to a RAW lower NOW, any time after 1/1/2005, you are manufacturing a NEW .50BMG rifle that was NOT in that configuration or chambered in that caliber prior to 2005. It's a technical glitch, but true. If you had it in that configuration PRIOR to 2005, then you are fine.


I don't think so. Putting a .50BMG upper on an AR lower makes it an AW. But if it is already an AW, you can't make it "more" of an AW. Just like adding another feature to to a RAW would not make it more of an AW. All that happened in 2005 was .50BMG rifles became AWs.

In other words, having a .50BMG chambering on a rifle is equivalent to having a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. If it's a RAW with those two features, adding a flash hider, or a .50BMG upper, won't make it more of an AW.

CSACANNONEER
11-24-2013, 2:45 PM
I explained it quite clearly, read the law; it IS legal for you to put any upper you wish on your lower, including your RAW lower - from 5.56 to 9mm to .50Beowulf with no issues. SB23 was NOT caliber specific, even though the question had been queried on the forms.

However, the law that derived from AB50 is VERY specific about when you had a RAW chambered in .50BMG. It did not allow for any AW to also be .50BMG, unless it was ALREADY .50BMG and previously registered under SB23's features ban.

If you read the law, it is clear about when, and when not, any particular firearm was or was not chambered in .50BMG, by date. SO - DID YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT RIFLE MATED TO THAT .50BMG UPPER PRIOR TO 1/2005? Of course you did, so your RAW lower can be swapped into a .50BMG rifle. However, as AB50 has a cut-off date, I contend, and the law is clear on this matter, that if you bought and added a .50BMG upper to a RAW lower NOW, any time after 1/1/2005, you are manufacturing a NEW .50BMG rifle that was NOT in that configuration or chambered in that caliber prior to 2005. It's a technical glitch, but true. If you had it in that configuration PRIOR to 2005, then you are fine.

Which you did, of course. Because the AW ban that came about from SB23 did not designate by caliber or ban .50BMG - see how that is? You are correct; to a point. There IS a cut-off date as to when you can make a firearm into .50BMG whether you like it or not, or whether there is any possible way it could be enforced. The upper is NOT a firearm; but manufacturing a rifle chambered in .50BMG after 1/1/2005 is strictly banned, whether it was an RAW receiver or not. The only exception I can find is that if the RAW had already been chambered in .50BMG for the 2000 AW registration, it was good to go with no registration requirement for 1/1/2005.

Actually, any RAW can be rechambered to 50BMG. If a firearm was already registered as an AW in CA when AB50 took affect, it wasn't allowed to be reregistered as a 50BMG because, the state doesn't care if a RAW is 50BMG or not. However, if a lower was registered as a "50BMG rifle" during AB50 registration, it is only a registered "50BMG rifle" and not a RAW.

I agree - ALS is about the ONLY .50BMG upper I would buy.

While I'm partial to ALS, I'd proudly shoot a Ferret50 if I had one.

ke6guj
11-24-2013, 3:09 PM
I explained it quite clearly, read the law; it IS legal for you to put any upper you wish on your lower, including your RAW lower - from 5.56 to 9mm to .50Beowulf with no issues. SB23 was NOT caliber specific, even though the question had been queried on the forms. no argument there.

However, the law that derived from AB50 is VERY specific about when you had a RAW chambered in .50BMG. It did not allow for any AW to also be .50BMG, unless it was ALREADY .50BMG and previously registered under SB23's features ban. I disagree. there is nothing in the .50BMG law that puts a date-restriction on when that RAW was chambered in .50BMG to be exempt from the ban.

If you read the law, it is clear about when, and when not, any particular firearm was or was not chambered in .50BMG, by date. SO - DID YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT RIFLE MATED TO THAT .50BMG UPPER PRIOR TO 1/2005? Of course you did, so your RAW lower can be swapped into a .50BMG rifle. However, as AB50 has a cut-off date, I contend, and the law is clear on this matter, that if you bought and added a .50BMG upper to a RAW lower NOW, any time after 1/1/2005, you are manufacturing a NEW .50BMG rifle that was NOT in that configuration or chambered in that caliber prior to 2005. It's a technical glitch, but true. If you had it in that configuration PRIOR to 2005, then you are fine.

Which you did, of course. Because the AW ban that came about from SB23 did not designate by caliber or ban .50BMG - see how that is? You are correct; to a point. There IS a cut-off date as to when you can make a firearm into .50BMG whether you like it or not, or whether there is any possible way it could be enforced. The upper is NOT a firearm; but manufacturing a rifle chambered in .50BMG after 1/1/2005 is strictly banned, whether it was an RAW receiver or not. The only exception I can find is that if the RAW had already been chambered in .50BMG for the 2000 AW registration, it was good to go with no registration requirement for 1/1/2005.for your info, I did have (and still have it) a .50BMG upper that was used on my RAW lowers in the 90's, even before they were RAW'ed.

But, if you were to take a RAW lower today and put a .50BMG upper on it today, it would not be a ".50 BMG rifle" per CA definition. And since it doesn't meet the definition of a .50 BMG rifle, there is no violation of the .50 BMG rifle ban.


30530. (a) As used in this part, ".50 BMG rifle" means a center
fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an
assault weapon or a machinegun.

follow the PC, I have a centerfire rifle that is already a RAW and I change the barrel to .50 BMG today. since it was already a RAW, it doesn't become a ".50 BMG rifle" the PC does not say that the caliber conversion must have happened pre-2005.

And had SB-374 been signed by the governor, every new RAW could have been .50BMG'ed afterwards since they would already "be an AW" and wouldn't meet the definition of a ".50 BMG rifle" if later caliber converted to .50BMG.

ke6guj
11-24-2013, 3:11 PM
I don't think so. Putting a .50BMG upper on an AR lower makes it an AW. But if it is already an AW, you can't make it "more" of an AW. Just like adding another feature to to a RAW would not make it more of an AW. All that happened in 2005 was .50BMG rifles became AWs.

In other words, having a .50BMG chambering on a rifle is equivalent to having a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. If it's a RAW with those two features, adding a flash hider, or a .50BMG upper, won't make it more of an AW.

actually, putting a .50BMG upper on a non-AW AR does not create an AW. if it wasn't already an AW, then it would be a ".50 BMG rifle".

Tincon
11-24-2013, 3:23 PM
actually, putting a .50BMG upper on a non-AW AR does not create an AW. if it wasn't already an AW, then it would be a ".50 BMG rifle".

Yes, you are correct.

mjmagee67
11-24-2013, 4:44 PM
416 Berrett it's a better round anyway.

OleCuss
11-24-2013, 5:10 PM
Also, the .416 bullets get blown around more in the wind. Now, as far as pure ballistic science goes, sure, the .416 can reach out further. BUT, and that is a big "but", how many people truly have the experience to read conditions at +1 mile? I'm going to guess that not more than about 50 registered users on this forum have the experience and capability to shoot a mile on a good day. For practical purposes, 50BMG/.510DTC will get the best shooters past 1.5 miles on a good day and components/ammunition is much more readily available.

So maybe it might be accurate to say that if one has plenty of money to buy or make the more expensive .416 ammo and had the ability and training to be a superb/professional marksman/markswoman that the .416 might be superior for some purposes.

But for those of us who are not professional-level and who aspire to shoot long range with either the .416 or a .50-class projectile, the .50-class chambering and ammo is more likely to yield a satisfactory performance.

And FWIW, I don't know of any military unit which uses the .416 although I know the .50 BMG is used quite a bit by our superbly trained military snipers.

Is my understanding roughly in the ball-park?

CSACANNONEER
11-24-2013, 6:52 PM
So maybe it might be accurate to say that if one has plenty of money to buy or make the more expensive .416 ammo and had the ability and training to be a superb/professional marksman/markswoman that the .416 might be superior for some purposes.

But for those of us who are not professional-level and who aspire to shoot long range with either the .416 or a .50-class projectile, the .50-class chambering and ammo is more likely to yield a satisfactory performance.

And FWIW, I don't know of any military unit which uses the .416 although I know the .50 BMG is used quite a bit by our superbly trained military snipers.

Is my understanding roughly in the ball-park?

It would take years/decades of projectile and load development to come close to what has already been done for .50 cals and/or sub .40 cal. With the caliber being a bastard and not able to compete in any current bench rest type shooting, no one or no business will ever invest the time and money it would take to develop it to it's true potential. Then, there's the fact that the lighter bullet will be affected more by conditions. So, it would take the most elite of the elite shooters to be able to shoot it at distance. Anyway, I have several friends who are member's of Skip Talbot's unofficial "Two Mile Club". They use to get together and go shoot their 50s at a lone rock 2 miles from their firing line. How many people think they can shoot their .416s further than 2 miles? How many people have actually tried or done it?

Also, there is a large supply of .50cal surplus projos for plinking, fun and military type applications. I'm sitting on thousands of rounds of .50cal AP bullets that I paid .25 cents a piece for. I could never afford to stock up on .416 cal plinking bullets. I also have inert .50 cal spotter bullets that leave a whit dust cloud on impact and even limited range training rounds. The .416 will never be as versatile.

It's funny to see the keyboard commandos still posting that it's a "better round". Better for what mjmagee67? Do you have ANY experience with either round? Do you want to put your money where your mouth is? Can you even back up your claim with real world data instead of marketing hype?

dwtt
11-29-2013, 7:53 PM
Ballistically speaking they are identical... with a slight edge to DTC after fire-forming. It has slightly MORE case capacity than BMG and can make better use of the slow powders to drive the heavy match bullets.

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

How much effort is involved in transforming a .50 BMG cast to .510 DTC? I have a .50 rifle so I never paid much attention to the .510 DTC, but now that I'm in VA, I'm thinking a .510 upper receiver on one of my AR lower recivers would be easier to transport than the big .50 Viper rifle. Is the forming done with a swaging die? Do you have to do any stress relief after forming?
Sorry for the dumb questions, but I let my FCSA membership lapse in the last few years because of my work.

Anyway, I have several friends who are member's of Skip Talbot's unofficial "Two Mile Club". They use to get together and go shoot their 50s at a lone rock 2 miles from their firing line. How many people think they can shoot their .416s further than 2 miles?

I remember reading about this a while back and the rock was about the size of an RV, if I recall. 3200 meters is a long way to shoot, even if the target is a large rock. Does FCSA still have the hunter class, shooting with a bipod on the ground?

mrkubota
11-30-2013, 5:41 AM
How much effort is involved in transforming a .50 BMG cast to .510 DTC? I have a .50 rifle so I never paid much attention to the .510 DTC, but now that I'm in VA, I'm thinking a .510 upper receiver on one of my AR lower recivers would be easier to transport than the big .50 Viper rifle. Is the forming done with a swaging die? Do you have to do any stress relief after forming?
Sorry for the dumb questions, but I let my FCSA membership lapse in the last few years because of my work.


I remember reading about this a while back and the rock was about the size of an RV, if I recall. 3200 meters is a long way to shoot, even if the target is a large rock. Does FCSA still have the hunter class, shooting with a bipod on the ground?


Reloading for .50DTC is no more effort than reloading .50BMG. You trim the brass down more. To 3.78"-3.80" rather than the 3.89-3.90 for BMG.
Annealing the brass may also assist in the initial fire-form, and longevity of the case too, but that's true of fire-forming brass for any rifle cartridge.

CSACANNONEER
11-30-2013, 6:44 AM
How much effort is involved in transforming a .50 BMG cast to .510 DTC? I have a .50 rifle so I never paid much attention to the .510 DTC, but now that I'm in VA, I'm thinking a .510 upper receiver on one of my AR lower recivers would be easier to transport than the big .50 Viper rifle. Is the forming done with a swaging die? Do you have to do any stress relief after forming?
Sorry for the dumb questions, but I let my FCSA membership lapse in the last few years because of my work.


I remember reading about this a while back and the rock was about the size of an RV, if I recall. 3200 meters is a long way to shoot, even if the target is a large rock. Does FCSA still have the hunter class, shooting with a bipod on the ground?

Like Ben said, DTC brass isn't really hard to make.

The 2 mile club shot at a rock about the size of an old VW bug. Yes, Hunter class is still around.

chuckdc
12-01-2013, 12:04 PM
Just to toss another formed stool into the bowl of fruit drink.. how about a .50BMG upper on an AR "pistol" receiver? Since they're not fired from the shoulder, I'd think it'd be legal, unless there's something I'm missing (perhaps over-diameter handgun/SBS rule would prohibit this?). Make what would effectively be an XP-100/Wichita on steroids.

mrkubota
12-02-2013, 5:14 AM
Just to toss another formed stool into the bowl of fruit drink.. how about a .50BMG upper on an AR "pistol" receiver? Since they're not fired from the shoulder, I'd think it'd be legal, unless there's something I'm missing (perhaps over-diameter handgun/SBS rule would prohibit this?). Make what would effectively be an XP-100/Wichita on steroids.

It's been done, and yes it would be legal...
However, as the feds have done with some cheap steel core ammo in the past when 'pistol' versions of a firearm were introduced into the mainstream. They ban the importation and manufacture of such ammunition as then being capable of piercing body armor (from a pistol).
It would effectively do away with sources of relatively inexpensive surplus components and ammunition for the .50 cal shooters.