Could this be legal?

rally guy

rally guy

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
I stumble on this convertion on internet is there anyway that could be legal?


va_IMG_0085.jpg
 
For a belt to be legal, it must be designed and manufactured prior to 1945. Those are M27 belt links, not invented until the 1960s
 
jessekf said:
Not legal in any manner in this country.
Click to expand...

Fail.

Extended barrel shroud is perfectly legal. i.e Spikes Tactical
Belt fed is perfectly legal as long as it is 5 rounds.

I would like to know if you have an AR Pistol, can the belt be 10 rounds?

Does the belt have to be only 5 links long? or can you have 5 loaded, a space, 5 loaded, a space, etc. You would have to re-#### and advance the belt to skip the empty link and again to chamber the next round.
Wouldn't that be the same as changing a mag?


And.....
rally guy said:
....And the question assent about the suppressor but the belt fed system
Click to expand...

It would be isn't, not assent. :)
 
rivetc78 said:
Fail.

Extended barrel shroud is perfectly legal. i.e Spikes Tactical
Belt fed is perfectly legal as long as it is 5 rounds.

I would like to know if you have an AR Pistol, can the belt be 10 rounds?

Does the belt have to be only 5 links long? or can you have 5 loaded, a space, 5 loaded, a space, etc. You would have to re-#### and advance the belt to skip the empty link and again to chamber the next round.
Wouldn't that be the same as changing a mag?


And.....
It would be isn't, not assent. :)
Click to expand...
Yes in deed
 
rivetc78 said:
Does the belt have to be only 5 links long? or can you have 5 loaded, a space, 5 loaded, a space, etc. You would have to re-#### and advance the belt to skip the empty link and again to chamber the next round.
Wouldn't that be the same as changing a mag?
Click to expand...

Well since that uses disintegrating link which requires a casing to hold the belt together, in a word, no.
 
Debating semantics... The upper is a legal conversion. Sort out your ammo preparation and junk you put on it after.

...The upper conversion is legal.:)
 
angryeyebrows said:
Snap cap or dummy round would do the job. So yes, it would work.
Click to expand...

thats a load of false.

Thats like saying 30-round mags are legal as long as you put a dummy round every 5 rounds. Which is absolutely not true.

if the magazine is capable of holding more then 5 live rounds, then its a prohibited device. Its the magazine capacity thats regulated.

So the belt would have to be fonctionnal for only the first five rounds. Meaning that the rest of the belt would not be a belt per say, that the dummy rounds would all be stuck there and you couldn't replace them with live rounds.

But even then, given the fact that the only legal belts need to have been manufactured prior to 1945, they would probably jump on that technicality to make it prohibited.
 
sewktbk said:
thats a load of false.

Thats like saying 30-round mags are legal as long as you put a dummy round every 5 rounds. Which is absolutely not true.

if the magazine is capable of holding more then 5 live rounds, then its a prohibited device. Its the magazine capacity thats regulated.

So the belt would have to be fonctionnal for only the first five rounds. Meaning that the rest of the belt would not be a belt per say, that the dummy rounds would all be stuck there and you couldn't replace them with live rounds.

But even then, given the fact that the only legal belts need to have been manufactured prior to 1945, they would probably jump on that technicality to make it prohibited.
Click to expand...

I was commenting purely from a functional stand point, that simply inserting a dummy round between each group of 5 rounds would allow the user to fire 5, #### the weapon and fire five again. I did not say it was legal. Go lecture somewhere else.
 
angryeyebrows said:
I was commenting purely from a functional stand point, that simply inserting a dummy round between each group of 5 rounds would allow the user to fire 5, #### the weapon and fire five again. I did not say it was legal. Go lecture somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Well, the OP's question is about legality.

Maybe you need to read questions better?

Why would you mislead him into thinking "it would work", when he cannot legally do it??

I'm not lecturing. I'm answering the OPs question with facts.

You seem to have taken offence in my answer. I'm not sure why.
 
Belts are a gray area.

Look at the actual wording of the legislation, it uses the term magazine, one could argue a belt is not actually a magazine.

Ammunition Source would have been less ambiguous.
 
In Ontario the CFO

KevinB said:
Belts are a gray area.

Look at the actual wording of the legislation, it uses the term magazine, one could argue a belt is not actually a magazine.

Ammunition Source would have been less ambiguous.
Click to expand...

ruled belts to be magazines and any one over 5 rounds manf post 1945 a prohib. John1 dealt with it with them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom