Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alex C wrote:
I was under the impression that AUG ejection ports are reversible, is this not the case?

They were interchangeable on the A1 and the A2 but not on the new A3. Plus you need to have a different bolt that has the ejector on the left side. Most of the ones out on the market today are A3s, both of mine are. You can buy the older A1/A2 stocks from PJS for $350 or you can get the Rat Worx brass deflector for $30.

Edited for quote since it started a new page.

Augs are always so cool....but so expensive, and seemingly available nowhere

 Alex C wrote:
I was under the impression that AUG ejection ports are reversible, is this not the case?

Yeah, they used to be. When Australia first got them, they were (we were still using the L1A1 SLR at the time (It's like a FN-FAL but semi-auto, no full auto switch).
The SLR was no fun to fire left handed, either (I'm left hand dominant, left EYE dominant also.) OR to charge (bolt on the "wrong" side.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Augs are always so cool....but so expensive, and seemingly available nowhere

Yeah, AUGs really don't show up that often and when they do they are normally priced too high for most people. My 20" barrel one I bought brand new at a local gun shop that had it for way too long. They gave me a good discount just to get rid of it. My 16" barrel one was lightly used and I got it recently at the same place. Some might call me crazy for spending that much on my Steyrs but my 6.8 spc AR I built cost the same. Difference is, I did go crazy on my 6.8 with all the fancy gadgets, not including optics on any of them of course.

I've always wondered what kind of firearms you people have access to in the US. I know it depends on the state, but not much more.

Can someone sum it up for me ?

 Alex C wrote:
I was under the impression that AUG ejection ports are reversible, is this not the case?

Yeah they are

Edit: damn skip to last post-not showing all thing. Chrome dog beat me easy

 LethalShade wrote:
I've always wondered what kind of firearms you people have access to in the US. I know it depends on the state, but not much more.

Can someone sum it up for me ?

Sure.

First, lets go with normal old long rifles & shotguns (like hunting rifles with a minimal internal magazine). These are generally unrestricted, some states require you must be 16 or 18 to own/purchase. Some states require hunter safety courses before actually going out to hunt with one, but generally speaking owning a long gun for home defense is very lightly regulated.

Then you have semi-automatic rifles with removable box magazines; think AKs or ARs. These are generally unrestricted as well: the federal minimum is a 16" barrel - well get into that more in a moment.

Some states have restrictions on the size of the magazines (like California, New York, and I want to say New Jersey) - you can own a larger capacity magazine as long as it's pinned to allow no more than the allowed amount, usually 5 or 10 rounds. California also requires that magazines cannot be changed without the use of a tool - so an AR15 or AK have what's called a "bullet button" where you cannot change the magazine without an external tool; in this case you can literally use the point of a bullet - hence the name. Again, we're talking 3 states out of 50, although California is very large.

California also regulates rifles in the .50BMG caliber.

Handguns:

As long as you are an adult with no criminal history / mental issues/ etc, you can buy a pistol. There is sometimes a waiting period, sometimes not, this varies by state. One notable outlier is New York City, where the law indicates the Sheriff's office may issue (as opposed to shall issue). As a result, it's nearly impossible to legally buy a pistol in New York City, which is probably ripe for a court challenge. Some states require you to take a course and show proficiency, some do not.

Some states allow open carry without a permit, where you can legally wear a gun visible to all in a holster without further licensing. Other states require certain things to get a concealed carry permit, which then also allow open carry if you choose (you shouldn't, open carry is a terrible idea, but that's a different issue). To qualify for a concealed carry permit varies wildly by state, some require a test, some require a test and showing proficiency, some require almost nothing. Many states recognize concealed carry permits from other states, some do not, and so on - it's a real patchwork. Federal law generally protects travelling through a more restrictive state with an item you are legally allowed to have in your own state. There are not generally restrictions on pistols in terms of caliber or capacity, although at least one state I am aware on restricts hollowpoint ammunition.

NFA: The National Firearms Act of 1934 restricted access to a few categories of weapons. I'll touch on them briefly - a rifle with a barrel length of 16" is a short-barreled rifle, a shotgun similarly is short-barreled shotgun, a firearm with a barrel of more than a half inch is a destructive device, automatic weapons (machine guns), suppressors, and "all other weapons" - these are all restricted. You must pay a $200 tax stamp for these (which was a lot of money in 1934 but the law was not pegged to inflation), go through a lengthy background check and waiting period, and so on. The items are registered and must be produced for ATF examination on demand, I believe. There was an additional ban on producing new machine guns (which is any firearm that fires more than one round per trigger pull be it rifle or pistol) in 19... 68? I want to say. As a result, there is a very limited supply of lawful automatic weapons grandfathered in, so they are very, very expensive; as we discussed earllier you're looking at $15,000 USD or so to get a foot in the door.

Some states ban some of these items even if they are legal on the federal level, for example I live in Iowa and I am free to file the NFA paperwork for, say, a short-barreled rife, but Iowa bans all NFA items so I can't posses one legally. There are lots of other little details here that are probably beyond the scope of this post.

Grey areas:

AR & AK pistols: These are both pretty popular, for example an AR15 with a less than 16" barrel but that does not have a stock. This is legal, since you are intended to shoot it with one hand. You can install a "brace" which is essentially a rubber stocklike device that you can strap to one arm, and this is legal.... ish. The ATF recently said that shouldering such a pistol would then be converting it into a short-barreled rifle. So far as I know no one has ever been charged in this way and it's kind of a weird twilight zone now; the idea that the way your hold a gun could make it illegal.

Additionally, adding a vertical foregrip to such a pistol changes it to something that is fired with two hands, which would mean you have built an NFA item (and illegal without the stamp). This last bit actually isn't a grey area at all - it's very clear legally - but I put it in here because it doesn't make sense without the prior background.

 LethalShade wrote:
I've always wondered what kind of firearms you people have access to in the US. I know it depends on the state, but not much more.

Can someone sum it up for me ?

In theory, a US citizen can basically own anything.

At a federal level, certain things are regulated, these are NFA items.

This category includes machine guns, short barreled rifles (barrel under 16" and overall length under 26"), short barreled shotguns (similar but not quite identical to SBR's), suppressors, the nebulous "any other weapon" (e.g. putting a vertical foregrip on a pistol), and "destructive devices" (e.g. grenades, cannons, etc).

These require an ATF tax stamp and months long approval for each item, and machine guns can only be owned if they were in civilian hands before May of 1986. It's perfectly legal to own an something like an anti-tank gun, you can go on Gunbroker right now and buy one if you have $50k and are cool with waiting 4 months for the ATF to issue you your $200 tax stamp before you can take possession.

Various states have their own restrictions. Some don't really have any, some further restrict/ban NFA items, and some, particularly places like New York and California, have further restrictions still on certain characteristics such as magazine size, grip type, stock type, muzzle attachments, etc. These vary wildly from state to state and are hard to TL;DR, but basically some states have a "yeah own anything you want" policy, others like NY or CA tell you "if it looks vaguely military then we don't like it and were going to ban it or make it really annoying to own".

Then there's also weird import requirements, pistols under a certain size can't be imported, certain types of firearms have to have minimum numbers of US made components, etc.

Just our of curiosity... what use would you have for anti-tank weapons?

I can see the argument for pistols, rifles and the like. But taking a deer-hunting trip with your Javelin seems counterproductive.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Just our of curiosity... what use would you have for anti-tank weapons?

I can see the argument for pistols, rifles and the like. But taking a deer-hunting trip with your Javelin seems counterproductive.

Whenever people mention "anti-tank" guns or rifles I believe that they typically mean a firearm chambered in .50cal or higher. The main reason that people have for owning such a rifle is long range target shooting - 1000 yards or greater.

My knowledge of this area is not complete so if anyone else has better information I defer to them. It is my understanding that a Javelin would be prohibitively expensive and I believe that each single munition for it would need to be registered with the ATF as a destructive device, which is another set of rules entirely.

Yup, anything modern and chambered over .50 is a "destructive device" and needs NFA paperwork.

Lots of the Boys AT Rifles that are in the country were converted from .55 to .50 to get around this.

As far as Javelins go, not gonna see them on the open market. I've never seen or heard of anyone legally possessing any kind of operable missile launcher*, let alone a Javelin.


*Except possibly a WW2 Bazooka, but I'm not sure if it was operable or deactivated.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Just our of curiosity... what use would you have for anti-tank weapons?

I can see the argument for pistols, rifles and the like. But taking a deer-hunting trip with your Javelin seems counterproductive.

Whenever people mention "anti-tank" guns or rifles I believe that they typically mean a firearm chambered in .50cal or higher. The main reason that people have for owning such a rifle is long range target shooting - 1000 yards or greater.

My knowledge of this area is not complete so if anyone else has better information I defer to them. It is my understanding that a Javelin would be prohibitively expensive and I believe that each single munition for it would need to be registered with the ATF as a destructive device, which is another set of rules entirely.

Adding to you Javelin comment, I do believe you are correct. If I am not mistaken not only do you need to pay the $200 tax stamp for the launcher itself but you also have to pay a $200 tax stamp for each rocket, this goes for any Destructive Device including 40mm grenade launchers.

 Ruberu wrote:
Adding to you Javelin comment, I do believe you are correct. If I am not mistaken not only do you need to pay the $200 tax stamp for the launcher itself but you also have to pay a $200 tax stamp for each rocket, this goes for any Destructive Device including 40mm grenade launchers.

I believe that the ATF also recently reclassified chalk rounds for 40mm launchers as destructive devices too.

That would not surprise me. I don't even think you can buy 40mm fireworks with out a professional license.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Just our of curiosity... what use would you have for anti-tank weapons?

I can see the argument for pistols, rifles and the like. But taking a deer-hunting trip with your Javelin seems counterproductive.

I'm not sure that you can legally own heavy weapons of that type - I don't believe the second amendment's interpretation of "arms" extends outside of small arms. I've never heard of legal private ownership of a rocket launcher or similar, though.

If you're referring to .50 BMG, then that is not an antitank weapon, and it has hunting applications (although not really in the US, IMO - it would probably be more for Cape Buffalo in my opinion).

 Ouze wrote:
I don't believe the second amendment's interpretation of "arms" extends outside of small arms.

It absolutely does.

Privately owned crew-served weapons, artillery, warships and AFV's were/are a thing.

I mean the modern interpretation.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Just our of curiosity... what use would you have for anti-tank weapons?

I can see the argument for pistols, rifles and the like. But taking a deer-hunting trip with your Javelin seems counterproductive.

kicks and giggles? There doesn't need to be a particular use-case. In reality, most of this stuff is museum pieces or re-enactment items and movie props.

However, the US actually has something of a history with privately owned heavy weapons, during the revolutionary war, many cannons were privately owned (from rich dudes buying the big guns to use with his privately raised militia to ship captains owning two dozen cannons for their privateers, etc) and there are a number of people who own such things....just for kicks and giggles.

There's a privately owned PAK-40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7fhBm1ouSU

Super modern stuff generally tends not to be available simply because the companies will not sell them to private citizens (and few could afford to buy them), but in theory they could go through the ATF process of selling them as a "Destructive Device".

 Ruberu wrote:
That would not surprise me. I don't even think you can buy 40mm fireworks with out a professional license.

And if that weren't enough, there are different licenses that must all be applied for individually. Two family friends of mine had a federal explosives license, I seem to recall them explaining that it was done on a letter system (A-D) or a number system (1-4) where the lower the designation the more destructive the explosives were. The one friend was a demolition man, so he had the class A/1, while the other one had a fireworks license and was C-D.

Would be kinda cool to have an explosives licence classified "C-4"

Actually, you can, it's just regulated under explosives, and you need a special license and stuff.

Edit: nvm, I'm an idiot

Remember cost is a prohibitive factor. You wont find javelins on the market since the workings are still considered classified. But even if you did, in 2000 a Javelin launcher was $125k, each missile was $75k. We did a 3 week training class with them with 30 guys, we only had 5 live shots at the end, chosen by picking straws. First prone live fired missile

Note that as far as I am aware, there has not been a crime committed with a .50bmg and actual rifle crimes are less than 2%.

One thing not mentioned was I think its federal that to buy a pistol you have to be 21.

And there is no such thing as a gun show loophole, all vendors must do a background check when a weapon is purchased.

A .50BMG rifle would be pretty unwieldy for pretty much any crime short of shooting someone inside a armoured vehicle. Even if you were trying to kill someone from range, a normal rifle (for a given value of normal) would probebly do the job far better. Cheaper, lighter, easier to hide, ect.

What's funny is that there really probably doesn't need to be much, if any regulation of the bigger stuff, if only for the cost reasons- that, and because it's so distinctive. Someone gets shot by a .22 in a mugging, you're looking through, what, hundreds, thousands of potential weapons in the area? Someone's house gets imploded by a Pak-40, you know exactly who's responsible, or at least have a good, solid place to start your investigation.

As for why we'd want that sort of stuff... Ever seen or heard about "Red Dawn"? It's a silly, far-out-there concept, but the idea of the 2nd Amendment is for us to be able to defend ourselves- the Amendment is mostly worried about a corrupt oppressive local government, but the idea behind people having the big stuff is that, someone invades, they're gonna have to deal with a lot more than a couple Molotovs and some cut phone lines.

Col. Dash wrote:
Remember cost is a prohibitive factor.

Since it came up, by the way, I'd like to also mention that's another problem I see with the NFA and it's implementation, specifically how it interacts with the machine gun ban of 1986. I think the original intent behind the NFA was pretty legit; some items have so much destructive power they need to be regulated. Fine. Then along comes the machine gun ban, which discontinued production of new machine guns, which is weak but whatever, but it also grandfathered in old ones. This is, I think, a little morally problematic. The status quo now is that machine guns are very dangerous so they are regulated, but the government has stuck it's thumb on the scale and now the price is so high you have to be pretty wealthy to own one. I don't believe that the inherent danger of a select fire weapon scales with your tax bracket.

Truthfully I'd really like to see the NFA get updated; I don't think suppressors should be on there at all. I don't see that happening any time soon though.

NFA just needs to be removed.

Government has no business making me register and pay tax on a suppressor, or if I want my rifle to have a 14.5" barrel instead of a 16" one. Want to put a forward grip on an AR pistol to make it easier to control? Too bad, tax and paperwork please. The whole thing is horse gak.

 Ouze wrote:
Truthfully I'd really like to see the NFA get updated; I don't think suppressors should be on there at all. I don't see that happening any time soon though.

I agree that suppressors should be removed from the NFA. I would also like to see the restrictions on barrel length rescinded, as well as the regulations on what accessories may be attached to a firearm repealed. The inability to easily transfer NFA items should be scrapped too.

I own a Redjacket AK74(not to be confussed with a ak47 ). 5.45x39 of goodness.

Why? Well, i'm a vet, and i like to shoot. I have an ak because they are the most reliable rifle in the world. and i like the 545 ammo.

If something ever happened that i needed a rifle, i'd rather have an ak than the m4 i carried in afghanistan.

Lipstick on a pig! NPAP rifle with M76 stock and a M9 Ultimak rail with a Vortex Strikefire II.

@the airman how much did that set up cost you.