Official MM Firearms Thread

[CaptainHenreh]

New Toy!







Took about a little over a month to get here. I'm waiting on three mor parts, and then I can proceed. But this was the most important, most expensive, and most difficult to aquire part, so I am a happy camper.

[Mike]

what is it?

my wild guess is grenade launcher... lol

[CaptainHenreh]

It's the upper receiver to an FN FAL:



But the Fed says that the part I bought is a gun, so I figured I'd show off my new "gun".

[Mike]

lol.

so you're building one of those piece by piece? does it make it legal that way? or is the gun legal in the first place?

[CaptainHenreh]

lol.

so you're building one of those piece by piece? does it make it legal that way? or is the gun legal in the first place?

MMmmm, yes. LOL.

Ok, an FN FAL, as issued to the troops of some 90 nations, the "Right Arm of the Free World", isn't legal for a civilian in the united states to own. It's a machine gun, in most of its configurations. (The UK/Australia issed ones were semi only).

But. WIth a semi-automatic reciever, you can take a demilitarized (cut in half) gun, and build a legal gun with it. It's cheaper than buying one, and more fulfilling than just buying something off a shelf.

[Mike]

gotta love amurican rules.

[balactm]

lol.

so you're building one of those piece by piece? does it make it legal that way? or is the gun legal in the first place?

MMmmm, yes. LOL.

Ok, an FN FAL, as issued to the troops of some 90 nations, the "Right Arm of the Free World", isn't legal for a civilian in the united states to own. It's a machine gun, in most of its configurations. (The UK/Australia issed ones were semi only).

But. WIth a semi-automatic reciever, you can take a demilitarized (cut in half) gun, and build a legal gun with it. It's cheaper than buying one, and more fulfilling than just buying something off a shelf.

so is yours going to be legal?

[CaptainHenreh]

so is yours going to be legal?

What a silly question.

Yes, of course. That's why I had to buy the above. A semi-auto receiver.

In fact, in addition to not being able to be a machine gun (which should be a no brainer for anybody) federal law also states that you can't have MORE than 10 Imported parts on an imported rifle. So I have to buy US made parts like hammers, barrels, receivers, triggers, sears, gas pistons, furniture, bolts, bolt carriers, and a bunch of other shit I can't remember so that I'll be compliant with the law. This has nothing to do with safety, this is strictly to protect gun manufacturers from cheap imported guns.

But yes. Mine will be totally 100% legal. And awesome.

[balactm]

that sounds awesome. i think i'm getting a 12 ga pump shotgun for christmas. we need to do a shooting day or something of the sorts.

[CaptainHenreh]

that sounds awesome. i think i'm getting a 12 ga pump shotgun for christmas. we need to do a shooting day or something of the sorts.

I'll post progress.

Probably going to work on it after christmas.

[rezarxt]

we certainly do need an MM shooting day when we get back.

[V1GiLaNtE]

we certainly do need an MM shooting day when we get back.

Oh hell yea, I would love to bring up my current and future toys.... cough cough( HD shotgun, and AK over christmas break for me... ) 8)

[V1GiLaNtE]

And for HD if I had to choose a pistol, much like Curtis said I'd take a .40 S&W any day.... but not over my shotty loaded with 00...

[Evan]

its about damn time


Associated Press
December 5, 2008
New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
By MATTHEW DALY
WASHINGTON (AP) ÔÇö People will now be able to carry concealed firearms in
some national parks and wildlife refuges.
An Interior Department rule issued Friday allows an individual to carry a
loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge ÔÇö but only if the person has a
permit for a concealed weapon, and if the state where the park or refuge is
located also allows loaded firearms in parks.
The rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns
in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulations required that
firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible,
such as in a car trunk.
Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long
tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural
resource issues.
The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal
parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under
state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules
adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest
Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with
applicable federal and state laws.
The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take
effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.
"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of
law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while
enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox,
the NRA's chief lobbyist.
The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands
and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located,
Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called
inconsistent and unclear.
A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations
said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other
law enforcement agencies.
"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the
preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in
this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade,
president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the
National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it
and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has
been working for decades," Wade said.
The park rule will be published in the Federal Register next week and take
effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning
the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new
administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process

[rezarxt]

its about damn time


Associated Press
December 5, 2008
New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
By MATTHEW DALY
WASHINGTON (AP) ÔÇö People will now be able to carry concealed firearms in
some national parks and wildlife refuges.
An Interior Department rule issued Friday allows an individual to carry a
loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge ÔÇö but only if the person has a
permit for a concealed weapon, and if the state where the park or refuge is
located also allows loaded firearms in parks.
The rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns
in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulations required that
firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible,
such as in a car trunk.
Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long
tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural
resource issues.
The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal
parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under
state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules
adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest
Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with
applicable federal and state laws.
The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take
effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.
"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of
law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while
enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox,
the NRA's chief lobbyist.
The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands
and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located,
Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called
inconsistent and unclear.
A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations
said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other
law enforcement agencies.
"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the
preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in
this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade,
president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the
National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it
and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has
been working for decades," Wade said.
The park rule will be published in the Federal Register next week and take
effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning
the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new
administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process

Good. I had been watching this for the last couple weeks. Glad it passed.

[Ryan T]

And for HD if I had to choose a pistol, much like Curtis said I'd take a .40 S&W any day.... but not over my shotty loaded with 00...

I've got a .40 S&W, my second one actually, and I like it, but if I was choosing a pistol it would not be a .40. I'm not sure why but it just isn't a great round to shoot for me. I'd take a .45 or a .357 over a .40 any day.

[balactm]

what does everyone think of the Ruger SR9?

[CaptainHenreh]

what does everyone think of the Ruger SR9?

I think there are better pistols out there. Plus, blah blah I hate Ruger, blah blah.

[V1GiLaNtE]

And for HD if I had to choose a pistol, much like Curtis said I'd take a .40 S&W any day.... but not over my shotty loaded with 00...

I've got a .40 S&W, my second one actually, and I like it, but if I was choosing a pistol it would not be a .40. I'm not sure why but it just isn't a great round to shoot for me. I'd take a .45 or a .357 over a .40 any day.

Yea it all pretty much comes down to preferences... But you can't argue with either one of those rounds. They all have their + and -'s ... I will agree with you on the .357 that's a dirty round right there....

[rezarxt]

Well a .40 is good enough for most police departments to use. If they trust it to take down a bad guy, I trust it also. Not that there arent better rounds out there, but I think it gets the job done. And ammo is pretty cheap to go target shooting with it. When I eventually buy a handgun, it will be more for fun. Until then, I have plenty of fun with my dads assortment of glocks (9mm, .40, .45 ACP) To be honest, I doubt Ill be shooting someone in the civilian world.

Now when Im commissioned in the army thats another story... But we'll see.