Lakeside LM7 legal in CA?

[biff]

I've been thinking about this. What if in every 11th link you put an empty shell. The links would be separated in 10s and you would have to charge it after each 10 round section.

I don't think that would work since it requires "The limited energy of the 22 LR is used to accomplish the entire cycling process and advance the belt for each cartridge."

[Hunter]

I've been thinking about this. What if in every 11th link you put an empty shell. The links would be separated in 10s and you would have to charge it after each 10 round section.

If you are using the cloth belts, then having zero .22 in the belt doesn't change it classification of being a High Capacity magazine. For the nylon links, a continuous belt that has over 10 rnds is still high cap, even if one sticks in a few empty cases every 10 rnds. The overall belt capacity is what matters.

[ARRRR-15]

If you are using the cloth belts, then having zero .22 in the belt doesn't change it classification of NOT being a High Capacity magazine. For the nylon links, a continuous belt that has over 10 rnds is still high cap, even if one sticks in a few empty cases every 10 rnds. The overall belt capacity is what matters.

Then do you think it would be legal to use on metal links such as those on the 1919?

[Hunter]

Then do you think it would be legal to use on metal links such as those on the 1919?

I'm not following what you are asking here....

[383green]

I'm not following what you are asking here....

I think he's asking about using metal disintegrating links as opposed to non-disintegrating belts (such as cloth belts, though some guns have also used non-disintegrating belts made of metal).

The distinction is that, if I'm not mistaken, disintegrating links are only considered to be "high capacity" if more than 10 of them are presently linked together, while non-disintegrating belts are "high capacity" if they have more than 10 loops, whether or not any ammo is presently inserted in them. So, you can have a hundred rounds of ammo linked in post-2000 disintegrating metal links as long as it is in separate sections of no more than 10 rounds each, while a post-2000 100-round non-disintegrating belt (whether cloth, metal or plastic) would be a no-no, whether it had any ammunition in it or not.

When I write "post-2000", I'm referring to when you first possessed the belt or links in the state, not when they were manufactured. The CA mag ban is based on date of possession, unlike the expired federal mag ban which was based on date of manufacture.

I do not think that trying something tricky like inserting a dummy round or empty case every in every 11th position would OK... I wouldn't expect to win that argument in court.

I would think that a cloth belt with all but the first 10 loops sewn shut should be OK. I'm not so sure whether a cloth belt with every 11th loop sewn shut might be considered a high-capacity magazine, or a bunch of low-cap ones connected end to end. Without a clear ruling on that from DOJ, I'll let somebody else be the test case.

[ARRRR-15]

I think he's asking about using metal disintegrating links as opposed to non-disintegrating belts (such as cloth belts, though some guns have also used non-disintegrating belts made of metal).

The distinction is that, if I'm not mistaken, disintegrating links are only considered to be "high capacity" if more than 10 of them are presently linked together, while non-disintegrating belts are "high capacity" if they have more than 10 loops, whether or not any ammo is presently inserted in them. So, you can have a hundred rounds of ammo linked in post-2000 disintegrating metal links as long as it is in separate sections of no more than 10 rounds each, while a post-2000 100-round non-disintegrating belt (whether cloth, metal or plastic) would be a no-no, whether it had any ammunition in it or not.

When I write "post-2000", I'm referring to when you first possessed the belt or links in the state, not when they were manufactured. The CA mag ban is based on date of possession, unlike the expired federal mag ban which was based on date of manufacture.

I do not think that trying something tricky like inserting a dummy round or empty case every in every 11th position would OK... I wouldn't expect to win that argument in court.

I would think that a cloth belt with all but the first 10 loops sewn shut should be OK. I'm not so sure whether a cloth belt with every 11th loop sewn shut might be considered a high-capacity magazine, or a bunch of low-cap ones connected end to end. Without a clear ruling on that from DOJ, I'll let somebody else be the test case.

Thats what I was going for.


Thanks 383.

[RANGER295]

[Hunter]

I have been thinking quite a bit about this belting issue. Based on prior threads, it has pretty much been the general consensus that after you shoot ammo with disintegrating links below 10 rounds you have destroyed the hi-cap and that putting it back together would be the same as manufacturing a new hi-cap and a no no. But would this still be the case with a cloth belt being that it does not disintegrate?

No cloth belts are treated the same as a hi capacity mag for a pistol.... even empty they are still a high cap magazine.

Then here is the part of my question that applies to this thread. Could I take one of my cloth 1919 belts and modify it to run through the .22 upper? I haven’t seen the .22 belts so I don’t know the weight of the fabric but in theory you could do it. Maybe even leave 11 or 12 rounds of linked .30 cal on the end. Thoughts?

Nope, the .22lr belts are much smaller. They were originally designed for the Tippman M2HB minatuture firearms that Lakeside Arms bought out (also the 1919s as well). They made them for a number of years until they stopped production on them to work on new items like this LM7 upper. Anyway, they basically scaled down the full size M2 HB in 50 cal to one in .22lr, while keeping all of the dimensions porpotional, including the belts.