Semi-Auto MG42 with a bullet button AND ammo basket (UPDATE)

[ke6guj]

He is talking about links, not cloth belts.

Ok, same question with a MG42 that uses a metallic non-discintigrating belt, not individual links.

[CHS]

He is talking about links, not cloth belts.

I'm talking about both.

CA law defines the linked or belted ammunition as the magazine. The belt itself doesn't count.

I'm certain that it is legal to manufacture or import or sell a cloth 100rd 1919A4 belt that is empty of ammunition. It's the same as me buying 1000 M60 links on gunbroker. The links and belts are not regulated.

so would it be your opinion that those that do have 1919a4 100-round cloth belts that they bought pre-2000 can't reload them past 10-rounds?

In my opinion, if you had a 100rd cloth belt that was loaded full of ammunition before 2000, or a 100rd disintegrating-link belt of ammunition before 2000, you can shoot all 100rd's through your firearm and then pick up the belt and fill it full of ammo again, or pick up the links and re-link them.

That's my opinion. I have no idea if it's legal. But there is a nice letter from the DoJ telling us that we can rebuild our lawfully obtained hi-cap magazines into different magazines using new or old parts.

Here's a similar scenario. You've got a featureless rifle and a pre-2000 USGI 30rd mag. You're at the range and something goes loose on the mag and it totally blows apart from spring pressure. Floor plate comes off, spring and follower shoot out the back and the mag body goes down range. You gather up all the parts, find the problem, fix it, and put the magazine back together. Did you break the law?

Now, back to belts and links. It is my opinion that if you had an EMPTY belt before 2000 and a bag full of links before 2000, and they stayed empty until 2001, you cannot put ammo back into those belts or links past 10 rounds as that would constitute manufacturing of a new hi-cap mag.

[cmace22]

No, Chris said "empty belts and links" aren't mags, not loaded belts or links.

Right , I got that. Sorry I should have said If unloaded belts and links are not mags then an MG42 can never have a detatchable mag unless the top cover is opened with rounds still on the belt/link. Thus the need for a BB top cover.

[Futurecollector]

That's still irrelevant. Attaching magazines is not illegal. It doesn't matter if you use the BB or not.

Ok here is a senario,

you take the BB MG-42

you put a 10rd Linked belt in, without using the BB to pop open the cover,

you shot all 10rds, the belt is spit out the other side,

you know have an empty MG-42 that is ready to be loaded again with out using the BB,

you can now put a new 10rd Linked belt in and keep shooting.

Well, we don't actually know that from a legal standpoint. It's never been fully looked into.

We know for a fact that it's legal to assemble 10rd belts. But we also don't know if we legally can't take a 50rd belt of ammo, shoot it, gather up the links, and re-assemble it into a 50rd belt. I think we can, but other people disagree. Again, not legally tested. It's not that we can't, it's that we don't know.

Besides, you're confusing the issue with hi-cap mags. That's irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is whether or not that MG42 with a bullet-button for a top-cover latch, utilizing 10rd belts, is legal with a pistol grip and shoulder stock.

If it does turn out that you can reasemble them into 50rd belts then to me it seemes as though your argument that the wepon is infact destroying the links is not true, because once the links are "destroyed" you can not legally put them back together in 50rd links,
unless the "rebuild kit" loop hole" works for that. hmmmmm

[cmace22]

Ok here is a senario,

you take the BB MG-42

you put a 10rd Linked belt in, without using the BB to pop open the cover,

you shot all 10rds, the belt is spit out the other side,

you know have an empty MG-42 that is ready to be loaded again with out using the BB,

you can now put a new 10rd Linked belt in and keep shooting.




If it does turn out that you can reasemble them into 50rd belts then to me it seemes as though your argument that the wepon is infact destroying the links is not true, because once the links are "destroyed" you can not legally put them back together in 50rd links,
unless the "rebuild kit" loop hole" works for that. hmmmmm

Since the belt/link unloaded is not a magazine I would say its legal.

[professorhard]

Ok here is a senario,

you take the BB MG-42

you put a 10rd Linked belt in, without using the BB to pop open the cover,

you shot all 10rds, the belt is spit out the other side,

you know have an empty MG-42 that is ready to be loaded again with out using the BB,

you can now put a new 10rd Linked belt in and keep shooting.




If it does turn out that you can reasemble them into 50rd belts then to me it seemes as though your argument that the wepon is infact destroying the links is not true, because once the links are "destroyed" you can not legally put them back together in 50rd links,
unless the "rebuild kit" loop hole" works for that. hmmmmm

I guess that would be the equivelant of shooting 10 rounds through an AR and having the magazine pop out on the last shot, so that you could ATTACH a new one. Not sure if that would be legal or not. The last round fired is what detached the magazine, and a bullet is considered a tool. No idea on legality of such a set up

[CHS]

Ok here is a senario,

you take the BB MG-42

you put a 10rd Linked belt in, without using the BB to pop open the cover,

you shot all 10rds, the belt is spit out the other side,

you know have an empty MG-42 that is ready to be loaded again with out using the BB,

you can now put a new 10rd Linked belt in and keep shooting.

You keep talking about ATTACHING the magazine. The bullet button is needed for DETACHING the magazine. The only time a magazine is EVER in the gun is while there is linked ammunition in the feed tray. To remove that magazine, you have to use the bullet button to open up the top cover and pull it out.

The alternative is that you just keep shooting and the magazine destroys itself.

[Futurecollector]

In my opinion, if you had a 100rd cloth belt that was loaded full of ammunition before 2000, or a 100rd disintegrating-link belt of ammunition before 2000, you can shoot all 100rd's through your firearm and then pick up the belt and fill it full of ammo again, or pick up the links and re-link them.

That's my opinion. I have no idea if it's legal. But there is a nice letter from the DoJ telling us that we can rebuild our lawfully obtained hi-cap magazines into different magazines using new or old parts.

Here's a similar scenario. You've got a featureless rifle and a pre-2000 USGI 30rd mag. You're at the range and something goes loose on the mag and it totally blows apart from spring pressure. Floor plate comes off, spring and follower shoot out the back and the mag body goes down range. You gather up all the parts, find the problem, fix it, and put the magazine back together. Did you break the law?

Now, back to belts and links. It is my opinion that if you had an EMPTY belt before 2000 and a bag full of links before 2000, and they stayed empty until 2001, you cannot put ammo back into those belts or links past 10 rounds as that would constitute manufacturing of a new hi-cap mag.

Simply put I agree because of this,

[ke6guj]

In my opinion, if you had a 100rd cloth belt that was loaded full of ammunition before 2000, or a 100rd disintegrating-link belt of ammunition before 2000, you can shoot all 100rd's through your firearm and then pick up the belt and fill it full of ammo again, or pick up the links and re-link them.

That's my opinion. I have no idea if it's legal. But there is a nice letter from the DoJ telling us that we can rebuild our lawfully obtained hi-cap magazines into different magazines using new or old parts.

may be accurate, but it does sound like you are taking both sides of the arguement, when it suits you.

Here's a similar scenario. You've got a featureless rifle and a pre-2000 USGI 30rd mag. You're at the range and something goes loose on the mag and it totally blows apart from spring pressure. Floor plate comes off, spring and follower shoot out the back and the mag body goes down range. You gather up all the parts, find the problem, fix it, and put the magazine back together. Did you break the law?

Ok, take it one step further, have a 10-round mag designed to fall apart in that manner when empty while in the gun while retained by a BB. Would that magazine destroying itself and leaving an empty magwell that you can now insert a second mag and continue firing be legit?

Now, back to belts and links. It is my opinion that if you had an EMPTY belt before 2000 and a bag full of links before 2000, and they stayed empty until 2001, you cannot put ammo back into those belts or links past 10 rounds as that would constitute manufacturing of a new hi-cap mag.

sounds like a lot of semantics that we have to go through to come up with a reaonable explanation around a piss-poor law

[Futurecollector]

You keep talking about ATTACHING the magazine. The bullet button is needed for DETACHING the magazine. The only time a magazine is EVER in the gun is while there is linked ammunition in the feed tray. To remove that magazine, you have to use the bullet button to open up the top cover and pull it out.

The alternative is that you just keep shooting and the magazine destroys itself.

to remove the ammo all you need to do is pull the trigger,

then put in another and remove it all again, still not useing the BB

[cmace22]

Ok here is a senario,

you take the BB MG-42

you put a 10rd Linked belt in, without using the BB to pop open the cover,

you shot all 10rds, the belt is spit out the other side,

you know have an empty MG-42 that is ready to be loaded again with out using the BB,

you can now put a new 10rd Linked belt in and keep shooting.

Imagine if you had a BB equipt mag M1A, you could feed ten round stipper clips down its throat all day long and not ever need to use the BB. But say you had ten in the mag and had to remove if for some reason you would have to have the BB to remove the mag or it would be an AW. Just like with the MG42.

[Futurecollector]

I guess that would be the equivelant of shooting 10 rounds through an AR and having the magazine pop out on the last shot, so that you could ATTACH a new one. Not sure if that would be legal or not. The last round fired is what detached the magazine, and a bullet is considered a tool. No idea on legality of such a set up

Thats what Im saying exactley.

[Futurecollector]

Imagine if you had a BB equipt mag M1A, you could feed ten round stipper clips down its throat all day long and not ever need to use the BB. But say you had ten in the mag and had to remove if for some reason you would have to have the BB to remove the mag or it would be an AW. Just like with the MG42.

Big difference, you are loading the mag in the M1A, the MG-42 you are loading a new mag essentially.

[CHS]

Thats what Im saying exactley.

Well, a bullet is considered a tool, and that tool is what "detaches" the magazine round by round until there is no more magazine. Heh.

[HendersonDefense]

You keep talking about ATTACHING the magazine. The bullet button is needed for DETACHING the magazine. The only time a magazine is EVER in the gun is while there is linked ammunition in the feed tray. To remove that magazine, you have to use the bullet button to open up the top cover and pull it out.

That's what I was thinking of when mentioning a belt that has extended dummy rounds on either end to prevent the insertion or removal of another belt without using the BB on the top cover. When the top cover is open on the MG42, the weapon cannot fire semi-automatically, only single shot.

I will look at one of my 7.62x51 ammo baskets tomorrow and I think one of my friends has an 8mm basket for his 8mm MG42.

thanks,
Ron