Modification to Vulcan "AR style" lower - legal?

[dave3006]

If a person were to replace the pinned in steel magazine on a Cali legal Vulcan lower (while out of State)with a quality Bushmaster 10 round mag secured with a set screw instead of a roll pin, would the lower receiver loose it's "Cali legal" status?

The goal would be to replace the cheap steel mag and make it easier to replace the Bushmaster mag if it were to get bent feed lips in the future. The mag would not be detachable. I was even thinking about also tapping the mag release and making a block so that the mag release would not even activate.

What do you think?

[C.G.]

Originally posted by dave3006:
If a person were to replace the pinned in steel magazine on a Cali legal Vulcan lower (while out of State)with a quality Bushmaster 10 round mag secured with a set screw instead of a roll pin, would the lower receiver loose it's "Cali legal" status?

The goal would be to replace the cheap steel mag and make it easier to replace the Bushmaster mag if it were to get bent feed lips in the future. The mag would not be detachable. I was even thinking about also tapping the mag release and making a block so that the mag release would not even activate.

What do you think?

There is a thread on AR.15.com where someone has done that; according to the article, you pretty much will destroy the old magazine. Just make sure you do it out state, replace the blind pin and make sure the new mag is a ten rounder that cannot be modified to hold more than 10 rounds. New Vulcan lowers have the mag catch glued.

[TimG]

These guys http://sportingconversions.com/ make all kinds of things to neuter your AR

[dave3006]

I saw the one on AR15.com. He replaced his with a roll pin. I would like to use a set screw so that I don't have to go through the same hassel of getting the mag out if the mag has problems.

I want to stay 100% legal. Would a set screw make this rifle an evil baby killing machine in the eyes of DOJ?

[joel1316]

Originally posted by TimG:
These guys http://sportingconversions.com/ make all kinds of things to neuter your AR

The single shot reciever looks interesting....

[C.G.]

Originally posted by Joel1316:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimG:
These guys http://sportingconversions.com/ make all kinds of things to neuter your AR

The single shot reciever looks interesting.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is a DPMS single shot lower, has been out for some time; your FFL can order those and might even give you a lower price.

[joel1316]

Net shows it to have a $150 street price.
Could be a cool long range rifle.... I just can't get used to a opening up an AR to load. Single loading sounds a little better for since it would only be used on the bench.

[C.G.]

Originally posted by Joel1316:
Net shows it to have a $150 street price.
Could be a cool long range rifle.... I just can't get used to a opening up an AR to load. Single loading sounds a little better for since it would only be used on the bench.

You can also go exotic and put a .338 Lapua or .408 Chey-Tac (I want to do that one) upper on it. You will have to sell your children to buy ammo, though.

[TimG]

I assume you load it through the ejection port then release the bolt. Seems like that would be a bit easier than breaking it open to reload.

[TonyM]

Originally posted by dave3006:
I want to stay 100% legal. Would a set screw make this rifle an evil baby killing machine in the eyes of DOJ?

I put a pin back in mine when I installed a Bushmaster 10 rounder, to keep it as close to the original config, but I believe that a set screw would be okay, as I read the law to say it needs to require a tool to remove the magazine (I am no lawyer, I don't claim to be one, you didn't pay for my services/advice, so take that for what it's worth ($0.00)).

After you remove the Vulcan mag and replace it with a Bushy there's no reason to use a screw, if you do move out of state removing the pin you place will be easier as I'm sure you won't use the massive amount of glue and the JB Weld they used between the Mag and Magwell @ the pin/Mag catch.

[bwiese]

I put a pin back in mine when I installed a Bushmaster 10 rounder, to keep it as close to the original config, but I believe that a set screw would be okay, as I read the law to say it needs to require a tool to remove the magazine (I am no lawyer, I don't claim to be one, you didn't pay for my services/advice, so take that for what it's worth ($0.00)).

I'd be careful here.

That's fine for Type III 'by feature' AWs like Imbel CaliFAL clones. As long as the 10rd mag's fixed in normal operation and can't be removed/replaced by user in normal operation, that's fine.

You may be in grey area with these funky ARs. Even removing the mag from a Vulcan temporarily could possibly render it as a Type 2 AR 'series' weapon. This is why Vulcan lower has mag pretty well 'permanently' affixed. I don't think it'd've gotten DOJ approval if the mag were held in via screw like they do in a CaliFAL.

I myself would not remove the Vulcan mag while in CA. I would make sure it's affixed as well as it was originally before bringing it back into CA.

Vulcan lower is not on Roster of AR/AK Series Weapons and may, when without an attached mag, have some protection from Harrott v Kings County but that could be murky esp if 'legislative intent' came to bear.

There are 58 district attorneys in CA. All it takes is one to have a differing opinion on some edge condition.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

[artherdGROUPEESUCKS]

Bill- I think Kelser v Lockyear and Harrott v Kings County have both basically destroyed the reaching language in Category 2 AWs.

That is to say, the case law pretty clearly states that: "If it ain't on the list of make&model stampings, then it ain't an AW. Furthur and reason being, if the AG wants to add an aw he is free to do so at any time, exclusively by explicitedly updating this list!"


ON PAPER, your reciver with a set-screw is just fine. It is not a Category 1 or 2 AW, and because it takes a tool to remove the &lt;10round magazine, it is not a Category 3 AW.

Here is what I would do: Modify the reciver as you describe, and HAVE AN ATTORNEY send it to the CA DOJ for a formal test and letter of approval. Make sure you cite in your letter: Harrott v Kings County and the origional Vulcan letter, as well as the relivant section regarding the definition of "Fixed Magazine" in CA statute law.

[dave3006]

These are good responses from everyone. Here is an important question:

What happens if the DOJ were to add the Vulcan lower, by name, to the list of AR series weapons?

Would there be a registration period for all of the people who purchased them prior to the addition?

Assuming you could register a legally purchased pinned AR as an assault weapon, then could the newly registered Cali legal ARs (now officially evil AWs) be converted to standard non pinned regular AR-15s?

[C.G.]

Tony M

AR-15 receiver is on the DOJ list by series, whether named or not. At this point the only way that it is not an AR-15 receiver, according to DOJ, is when it is modified in the manner of Vulcan and FAB-10. So, a set screw is a big no no, because than it makes it an AR-15 on the list. As Bill pointed out, you can do this a Fal (as long as it is not an FN-FAL, which is named), because it is not named as series. If you think that a set screw is legal, why do you think no manufacturer is doing it? The production cost would be a lot lower.

artherdGROUPEESUCKS

Again, AR-15 is named by series, what you are proposing, if you did this in California, could easily wind up as a felony. If you were to do this, I would send it in out of state. If you think that a set screw is legal, why do you think no manufacturer is doing it? The production cost would be a lot lower.

dave3006
Don't think that would happen; after all they approved it.

[bwiese]

Hi Dave..

Originally posted by dave3006:
What happens if the DOJ were to add the Vulcan lower, by name, to the list of AR series weapons?

Would there be a registration period for all of the people who purchased them prior to the addition?

Assuming you could register a legally purchased pinned AR as an assault weapon, then could the newly registered Cali legal ARs (now officially evil AWs) be converted to standard non pinned regular AR-15s?

There are procedures for 'threatening' weapons to be added to AW list. There's a comment period, etc. Supposedly only true 'assault' weapons could be added but if a judge approves atty general's (DOJ) declaration, it could happen. (After all, the Beretta BM59 made the orig Roberti-Roos list and it's essentially an M1A.)

Once something is declared as an AW, there's a required promulgation period (90 days), and then the DOJ will have a registration period open for a given lenght of time (I believe this time period is up to DOJ regulatory procedures and isn't codified in law. This would work like the two prev AW registration periods and the 50BMG registration.

Now, the good thing (if you can consider it!) about this is that if your FAB10 or Vulcan somehow got declared as an assault weapon (and you registered it at appropriate time, it doesn't become a half-assed assault weapon, it's a full-glory AW just like any other AR, AK, HK, FAL, etc.

Once a gun is an AW, it can have any evil features (except G/L, short barrel, etc.) There's no measure of 'evilness' of an AW. So once that Vulcan is declared an AW, you can rip that fixed mag out and go to town.

I actually think the first gun this may happen to will be the FAL clones. CaliFALs still may scare the libs, and there are enough 'gripless FALs' out there skirting the grey line of the law.

Declaring these FALs as a 'class' would allow non-AW gripless FAL and CaliFAL owners to reg and restore their weapon to a nonemasculated condition. There could be some Harrot- style runarounds about specific FAL brands, but they'd wrap up most of the market with the 6 or 7 different receivers added to the new Roster of FAL-series Weapons.


Bill Wiese
San Jose