WWSD Rifle

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,234
    Carroll County
    I don't see why the lower would be banned. You could legally build it with an HBAR. It would defeat the purpose, but it would be legal.

    You could perhaps flute the barrel, or swap out a pencil barrel upper when you travel out of state.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Yes. Based on logical definition of interchanging, you can take all of the parts off a functional AR-15 needed to make a CAV arms lower receiver in to a fully functional rifle. It’ll interchange and work. This isn’t like the barrel is different. Or bolt won’t fit. It has an integral buffer tube...so you don’t need an AR-15 buffer tube for it to function.

    You’d be hard pressed to find a jury that couldn’t be pretty easily convinced by a DA that it isn’t a copy if you built a non-HBAR. But if you want to test those waters, go ahead.

    This isn’t like a Polytech 14 and and M1A where the one uses metric and one uses imperial units parts where almost nothing is compatible, but they are functionally identical (but most can’t interchange). Or a piston AR where the gas systems are radically different and swapping a part between them doesn’t result in a working rifle.

    While I agree that some of the parts interchange, not all the functional parts do. You cannot take the buffer tube from a CAV lower and use it on an AR lower. You cannot take the stock or pistol grip from a CAV lower and use it on an AR either. That seems to break your definition of interchange. The same way piston and di guns are similar but different.

    Maybe you can also help me understand how a 300 blk version of an AR is not a copy. The barrels and every other component does interchange. Why does the internal diameter of the barrel mean it does not interchange?
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    Yes. Based on logical definition of interchanging, you can take all of the parts off a functional AR-15 needed to make a CAV arms lower receiver in to a fully functional rifle. It’ll interchange and work. This isn’t like the barrel is different. Or bolt won’t fit. It has an integral buffer tube...so you don’t need an AR-15 buffer tube for it to function.

    You’d be hard pressed to find a jury that couldn’t be pretty easily convinced by a DA that it isn’t a copy if you built a non-HBAR. But if you want to test those waters, go ahead.

    This isn’t like a Polytech 14 and and M1A where the one uses metric and one uses imperial units parts where almost nothing is compatible, but they are functionally identical (but most can’t interchange). Or a piston AR where the gas systems are radically different and swapping a part between them doesn’t result in a working rifle.

    The AG letter of interpretation stands any one part swapped for the same part on the other rifle. If they don't function, they are not copies.

    So there is no buffer tube to put on the AR from the CAV, so not a copy.

    By the AG.

    People here on MDS make the case that a .300 BO AR is not a copy of a 5.56 AR, since if you swap the barrels, they are not functional with the original ammunition.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,234
    Carroll County
    What happens if you fire a 5.56 in a .300 chamber? Funny looking brass?
    I know what happens if you do the opposite...


    Seek not reason nor logick from the MdSP.
     

    erwos

    The Hebrew Hammer
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 25, 2009
    13,866
    Rockville, MD
    I am so confused as to why people think the KE Arms MkIII would ever be considered a copy of the AR lower. You literally cannot put a buffer extension, trigger guard, castle nut, endplate, or pistol grip on it. The takedown and pivot pins are different. It is not 100% parts interchangeable by any measure of the term. I don't see any issue whatsoever with putting a pencil barrel upper on it.

    I think the 300AAC guns have a LOT more legally problematic issues with using a non-HBAR barrel.
     

    1841DNG

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 17, 2016
    1,143
    I am no lawyer but the lack of interchangeability makes sense to me. But I am not going to risk Frosh tricking a jury so I may just grab a couple, put a heavy barrel upper and/or a different caliber upper on it and wait until I am in a free state in case they are only produced in limited quantities.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    Maybe you can also help me understand how a 300 blk version of an AR is not a copy. The barrels and every other component does interchange. Why does the internal diameter of the barrel mean it does not interchange?

    I agree with you.

    But many here on MDS take the attitude that you have to swap the part AND the ammo.

    Personally, when I built a .300 BO rifle, it had a heavy barrel.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    What happens if you fire a 5.56 in a .300 chamber? Funny looking brass?
    I know what happens if you do the opposite...


    Seek not reason nor logick from the MdSP.

    Also, AR listing is NOT caliber specific. So there is no basis for saying other than 5.56 are legal.

    Other rifles listed ARE listed as caliber specific, such at the Mini 14 with Folding Stock. There, it is listed as .223, so other calibers are not banned.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,680
    Also, AR listing is NOT caliber specific. So there is no basis for saying other than 5.56 are legal.

    Other rifles listed ARE listed as caliber specific, such at the Mini 14 with Folding Stock. There, it is listed as .223, so other calibers are not banned.

    Only MSP as interpreting it to mean ARs in calibers other than 5.56/.223 are not copies.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,680
    I

    The AG letter of interpretation stands any one part swapped for the same part on the other rifle. If they don't function, they are not copies.

    So there is no buffer tube to put on the AR from the CAV, so not a copy.

    By the AG.

    People here on MDS make the case that a .300 BO AR is not a copy of a 5.56 AR, since if you swap the barrels, they are not functional with the original ammunition.

    I mean, if you know of an FFL who’d transfer one as a 4473 I am all ears. With my CAV lowers the FFL I transferred through would only do them on a 77r and I made similar arguments (not that I was a D about it. Just asking and pointing it out nicely.)
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,680
    I don't see why the lower would be banned. You could legally build it with an HBAR. It would defeat the purpose, but it would be legal.

    You could perhaps flute the barrel, or swap out a pencil barrel upper when you travel out of state.

    My deer rifle, that uses a CAV arms gen II lower, has a fluted HBAR 18” barrel on it and is 7lbs 13oz with a 3-9x40 scope on it. Not exactly feather weight, but that’s still pretty damn light. Has very good balance. I’ve got one or two parts swaps I want to do to it that’ll shave another couple of ounces without getting super exotic or expensive. I think I’ve put about $500-550 total cost in to the thing. Helped I got screaming deals on a few parts.

    Balances really, really nicely right in front of the front pivot pin at the base of the handguard. Shoots .9MOA 5 shot groups with federal fusion. Haven’t started hand loading for it yet. Hornady black shoots 1MOA.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,680
    Yes, they are.

    But that is not backed up by the actual law. :)

    The law doesn’t define an AR-15. Is “an AR-15” in a caliber other than 5.56/.223 an AR-15?

    MSP is also interpreting AK-47 in calibers other than 7.62x39 as also not banned. So MSP does seem to be semi-consistent in applying their methodology
     

    SWO Daddy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2011
    2,468
    Unfortunately it will not be available here in the People's Utopia, unless you build it with an HBAR, which would nullify the concept. Still, the lower itself sounds interesting, and perhaps you could seriously flute your heavy barrel...


    You could always build it as a 6.5 Grendel, 300BO, etc. if the king decides it is too similar.
     

    1841DNG

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 17, 2016
    1,143
    I mean, if you know of an FFL who’d transfer one as a 4473 I am all ears. With my CAV lowers the FFL I transferred through would only do them on a 77r and I made similar arguments (not that I was a D about it. Just asking and pointing it out nicely.)

    I wonder if you could just bring a complete H-Bar upper to the store, slap it on to complete the rifle, and thus have it transferred as such? Not like you are missing out since it can't physically become a pistol anyway. But I am neither a lawyer nor an FFL.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,946
    Messages
    7,259,827
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom