Dream Plinker: Lakeside Machine LM7

[WeekendWarrior]

http://www.lakesideguns.com/title1/upper.html

Would a semi-auto version of this be legal (if conforming to other OLL laws and evil features requirements)? I know about the 10 round capacity law, so would you just have to cut the belts down to make it legal if you took care of the other requirements? It would probably be lame with so few rounds, but goddamn it looks awesome! Check out the youtube videos!

[Pistolwhipped]

I want one!!! Is it legal? It said something about not needing an FFL??

[RetroPhit]

Been out for years, good luck making one function.

[mmca]

http://www.jbarms.citymax.com/catalog/item/3766994/3404666.htm

Just shy of 2 grand. But it looks like fun.

[WeekendWarrior]

Yeah I here they are unreliable... but apparenty they function much better with the metal belts than they do with the fabric belts - the metal ones are just more of a pain in the *** to load. Regarding the no FFL needed aspect, that's because they only sell the uppers, you would need to supply your own OLL. Im just trying to get an idea of how the law regulates belt fed ammunition. Are all belt fed guns in CA illegal? Or can you shorted the belt (for instance by cutting the fabric one down to 10 rounds) and make it legal?

[tacticalcity]

The upper by itself...maybe. Those drums...definately not.

They would be a magazine that could accept more than 10 rounds.

Assuming it will still fuction without the magazines, the upper raises some interesting questions. There would be no magazine at all fixed, detached or otherwise. So it should be legal (according to my very basic understanding of SB23), but I am not an expert.

Then the question becomes, are you limited to 10 rounds if no magazine is present? I am not aware of any belt fed laws. But an expert might know of one.

Interesting indeed. We definately need the experts opinions.

[PolishMike]

10 round "ammunition feeding device" includes belts.

No need for fixing the magazine as it is a rimfire weapon.

[WeekendWarrior]

Tacticalcity, the drums themselves are not the magazines though, as they are just empty shells or receptacles - You can definitely operate the rifle without them - I have seen someone do this in one of the videos I saw, so they are not an integral part of ammunition feeding system, just a way to capture the belt as it goes through the rifle. I think the belt would technically be the magazine, but then again I'm not the expert you mentioned.

either way, I cannot get over the fact that this is one of the coolest looking plinkers I have ever seen. The youtube clips of people shooting them look amazing!

[WeekendWarrior]

PolishMike - just because the upper is a 22lr assembly, I think you would still need a lower receiver marked .22lr cal to make it a true rimfire weapon... or is that wrong?

[CHS]

Actually, the belts themselves would be perfectly legal in CA. The large-capacity ban actually bans LINKED ammunition. Not a cloth or plastic belt that has the capacity to accept ammunition.

The problem is, they would be legal but you would never be able to actually put ammo in them, unless it was 10rd's at a time.

[CHS]

PolishMike - just because the upper is a 22lr assembly, I think you would still need a lower receiver marked .22lr cal to make it a true rimfire weapon... or is that wrong?

That is wrong.

The lower markings DO NOT MATTER AT ALL.

[WeekendWarrior]

Sweet! I wasnt sure what the deal was there regarding 22lr uppers and other cal marked lowers. So it comes down to how the gun is currently configured when checked out to determine if it's rimfire or not, good to know.

Regarding using the cloth belts, that's awesome news... Its not that far of a drive to Nevada where you could really let that sucker loose! I could probably deal with 10 rounds in the belt whist in CA territory.

[ohsmily]

PolishMike - just because the upper is a 22lr assembly, I think you would still need a lower receiver marked .22lr cal to make it a true rimfire weapon... or is that wrong?

The lower can say 30mm cannon and it wouldn't make a difference.

[WeekendWarrior]

Panty Dropper model CDI: 69 cal

That's what should be on the lower you put the LM7 upper on

[JohnBrian]

Actually, the belts themselves would be perfectly legal in CA. The large-capacity ban actually bans LINKED ammunition. Not a cloth or plastic belt that has the capacity to accept ammunition.

The problem is, they would be legal but you would never be able to actually put ammo in them, unless it was 10rd's at a time.

Even though I've lived here in Cali most all my life and this is an "old" law, the stupidity of the legislators never ceases to amaze me.