LOVE this new pinning method!

DJdeadlyDALEK

DJdeadlyDALEK

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 98.4%
61   1   0
Location
Waterloo Region of Ontario
Got a 1940 Kovrov (Podolosk) in the mail today (see my thread about the 1941 firing pin, page 4 or 5 for pics) and at first glance, I thought the mag wasn't pinned. Pushed down on the follower and yup, she'll only take 5 rounds. Took it apart and this is how she looked inside:

 
Only problem with simply modifying the follower is that under the law, the mag must be prevented from accepting more than 5 rounds by methods like swaging, welding, or pinning the magazine body. The courts decided that the mag body by itself, unmodified, was a prohibited device. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for having a mag as shown above, but the powers that wanna-be are always looking for new ways to screw us.

Here is the exact quote of approved methods:
For the purposes of subsection (4), altering or re-manufacturing a cartridge magazine includes

(a) the indentation of its casing by forging, casting, swaging or impressing;

(b) in the case of a cartridge magazine with a steel or aluminum casing, the insertion and attachment of a plug, sleeve, rod, pin, flange or similar device, made of steel or aluminum, as the case may be, or of a similar material, to the inner surface of its casing by welding, brazing or any other similar method; or

(c) in the case of a cartridge magazine with a casing made of a material other than steel or aluminum, the attachment of a plug, sleeve, rod, pin, flange or similar device, made of steel or of a material similar to that of the magazine casing, to the inner surface of its casing by welding, brazing or any other similar method or by applying a permanent adhesive substance, such as a cement or an epoxy or other glue.
Click to expand...
 
scott585 said:
the offical rules dont seem to allow pop rivets either though
Click to expand...

I think a pop rivet is kind of a combination of a and b. You are swaging a pin. Strength in numbers....they would really be pushing their boundaries if they reversed the decision on pop rivets after this many years.

The problem I see with the magazine in the original post, is that the argument used for the decision on unpinned magazine bodies was that by the mere installation of parts the magazine would be a functioning prohibited device in very short order, and without the need of machine tools (ie drill and file). The same could be applied to the magazine shown in post #1. A regular platform could be easily installed allowing the magazine to function in it's normal un-neutered capacity.
 
stencollector said:
I think a pop rivet is kind of a combination of a and b. You are swaging a pin. Strength in numbers....they would really be pushing their boundaries if they reversed the decision on pop rivets after this many years. The problem I see with the magazine in the original post, is that the argument used for the decision on unpinned magazine bodies was that by the mere installation of parts the magazine would be a functioning prohibited device in very short order, and without the need of machine tools (ie drill and file). The same could be applied to the magazine shown in post #1. A regular platform could be easily installed allowing the magazine to function in it's normal un-neutered capacity.
Click to expand...

Like the Swiss rifle's and such?
 
the problem in the past was that there was no court ruling as to witch part was the offending prohibited device. there is now a ruling out of BC that says the mag body is the prohibited device and has to be altered. So now if they have no charge that will stick and they find a mag body in your possession that is not modified ,they will charge you with having a prohibited device. then it will be death by lawyer. 3 to 7 years fighting in court . and a $40,000 or $ 50,000 bill .all for a mag body
 
zuke said:
Like the Swiss rifle's and such?
Click to expand...

Yes, kind of like that. Except where the Swiss and VZ858 ruling effected maybe 10,000 owners, a negative ruling on the pop rivets could effect a million.

Personally, I'm not so sure that we didn't know all along that the 858 was what it was. I was actually surprised they only prohibited the middle years of production. I can't comment on the technicalities of the Swiss arms as I am not familiar with them. But I suspect that in both cases, going to court was going to be pointless.
 
all to keep law abiding citizens from doing stuff they wouldn't do anyway.....jeebus how much of my tax dollars have been spent on this crap ?

I have a few bridges and roads in mind that could easily be updated / replaced with the money spent on this nonsense....with enough left over to have a BBQ.
 
stencollector said:
Only problem with simply modifying the follower is that under the law, the mag must be prevented from accepting more than 5 rounds by methods like swaging, welding, or pinning the magazine body. The courts decided that the mag body by itself, unmodified, was a prohibited device. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for having a mag as shown above, but the powers that wanna-be are always looking for new ways to screw us.
Click to expand...

Yes, the BC ruling was terrible as is the Firearms Act in general. I'm also disappointed that epoxy is not an approved method for affixing the stopper to the inside of a metal magazine body, yet it is for plastic. A metal tab, securely glued or soldered to the inside, would be as secure as a pop rivet without defacing the exterior. I've wondered if one of the lower temp silver solders, like the style sold by Brownell's, would qualify as "brazing or any other similar method"? I know that question is virtually unanswerable without trying your luck first hand and defending yourself in court --- another example of what's so flawed with our laws.
 
Understand that I am just playing the devil's advocate in all this. My guess is that if your magazine is capable of only accepting the allowable limit, they won't split hairs (at this time) trying to take it any further. But who knows what the future will bring as they have their discretionary powers limited.
 
stencollector said:
I think a pop rivet is kind of a combination of a and b. You are swaging a pin. Strength in numbers....they would really be pushing their boundaries if they reversed the decision on pop rivets after this many years.

The problem I see with the magazine in the original post, is that the argument used for the decision on unpinned magazine bodies was that by the mere installation of parts the magazine would be a functioning prohibited device in very short order, and without the need of machine tools (ie drill and file). The same could be applied to the magazine shown in post #1. A regular platform could be easily installed allowing the magazine to function in it's normal un-neutered capacity.
Click to expand...

while i agree, no judge in their right mind would want to set that precedent, a rivet doesnt swedge the case and no glueing brazing or welding occurs.
 
stickhunter said:
Yes, the BC ruling was terrible as is the Firearms Act in general. I'm also disappointed that epoxy is not an approved method for affixing the stopper to the inside of a metal magazine body, yet it is for plastic. A metal tab, securely glued or soldered to the inside, would be as secure as a pop rivet without defacing the exterior. I've wondered if one of the lower temp silver solders, like the style sold by Brownell's, would qualify as "brazing or any other similar method"? I know that question is virtually unanswerable without trying your luck first hand and defending yourself in court --- another example of what's so flawed with our laws.
Click to expand...
Epoxy is an approved method...
 
A pop rivet is itself tightened by a swaging process. Therefore swaging the pop rivet into the magazine body results in the indentation of the case to restrict the magazine capacity.

The lab has approved the pop rivet method. They are, after all, the unelected ad-hoc second level of parliament. As long as they don't start re-opinioning previous opinions, we should be OK.
 
Deuce-deuce said:
Epoxy is an approved method...
Click to expand...

As I said, an approved method only for plastic-bodied magazines. Here's the section stencollector posted:

For the purposes of subsection (4), altering or re-manufacturing a cartridge magazine includes

(a) the indentation of its casing by forging, casting, swaging or impressing;

(b) in the case of a cartridge magazine with a steel or aluminum casing, the insertion and attachment of a plug, sleeve, rod, pin, flange or similar device, made of steel or aluminum, as the case may be, or of a similar material, to the inner surface of its casing by welding, brazing or any other similar method; or

(c) in the case of a cartridge magazine with a casing made of a material other than steel or aluminum, the attachment of a plug, sleeve, rod, pin, flange or similar device, made of steel or of a material similar to that of the magazine casing, to the inner surface of its casing by welding, brazing or any other similar method or by applying a permanent adhesive substance, such as a cement or an epoxy or other glue.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom