overvoluming on dmr and aeg at the same time

[Anonymoose]

I did consider putting an MPiKM pistol grip on it.
View attachment 31451

Click to shrink...

Well you're hardly gonna make it worse.

 

[Cannonfodder]

I did consider putting an MPiKM pistol grip on it.
View attachment 31451

Click to shrink...

 

[Colin Allen]

View attachment 31463

Click to shrink...

I fitted the ones that I bought to the MPiKM and the MPiKMS.

 

[Galvatron]

These are not the most relevant legislation. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 sets the limits and defines what full auto is. In these situations, if the gun can easily be made to shoot in full auto, which usually means anything that does not involve disassembly, it is classified as being capable of full auto.

Click to shrink...

This is genuine curiosity and not playing devil's advocate. Where is the line drawn at "disassembly"?

On my P90 with its Perun mosfet, I have to remove the butt plate to access the button to get into programming mode and change back to full auto.

I guess that grey area is why there's a requirement for a physical semi lock as there are degrees of disassembly at play.

 

[Hudson]

On a separate, but related tangent; I have wondered over the past few years with the increase in HPA, would these not technically fall foul of the law?

They can easily be made to shoot well over the limit in full auto, without any involved work or disassembly.
Where do we think the law would stand with regards to them, should a case ever arise?

 

[Colin Allen]

This is genuine curiosity and not playing devil's advocate. Where is the line drawn at "disassembly"?

On my P90 with its Perun mosfet, I have to remove the butt plate to access the button to get into programming mode and change back to full auto.

I guess that grey area is why there's a requirement for a physical semi lock as there are degrees of disassembly at play.

Click to shrink...

That is the tricky part; based on how it was explained to me, what you are describing would not count as disassembly. Disassembly would probably be a process that would render the gun inoperable until it was reassembled.

However, I guess that the definition will only be set by case law.

 

[Colin Allen]

On a separate, but related tangent; I have wondered over the past few years with the increase in HPA, would these not technically fall foul of the law?

They can easily be made to shoot well over the limit in full auto, without any involved work or disassembly.
Where do we think the law would stand with regards to them, should a case ever arise?

Click to shrink...

Strangely, I was mulling over the same thing in an overly long and extremely boring meeting this afternoon.

A lot of the issues around the definitions stem from the impossibility of defining every possible situation.

Ultimately, if there was ever a prosecution, the outcome of that would help define the law, as is so often the way with our legal system.

Practically, I guess that tournament locks applied by the site would cover it.

 

[Anonymoose]

This is genuine curiosity and not playing devil's advocate. Where is the line drawn at "disassembly"?

Click to shrink...

This is exactly what i'm wondering too. And i guess there's probably no rigid definition because there are so many variables.

For example, with an AEG is you modify the selector plate so it can't lift the cutoff lever, then to "convert" it to full-auto you'd need to disassemble it, remove the gearbox and replace the selector plate.

By contrast, the GHK Sig has a built-in selector lock, and to move it you just remove one receiver pin, split the upper and lower and flip the lock over.



So it can "technically" be mechanically locked to semi, and require "disassembly" to covert, but in reality that takes less than 10 seconds.

I think "readily converted" is the usual term used for this stuff, but that's open to wide interpretation.

 

[Cannonfodder]

A lot of the issues around the definitions stem from the impossibility of defining every possible situation.

Click to shrink...

This. The moment the law specifically says you can't do A, B or C you know someone will do X, Y or Z for the same effect (just look at the way F1 teams find loopholes in racing rules). Deliberately keeping the wording vague allows more things to be covered without having to go through the process of updating legislation

 

[Colin Allen]

This. The moment the law specifically says you can't do A, B or C you know someone will do X, Y or Z for the same effect (just look at the way F1 teams find loopholes in racing rules). Deliberately keeping the wording vague allows more things to be covered without having to go through the process of updating legislation

Click to shrink...

Exactly! Case law then provides precedents.

 

[Tackle]

There's definitely too much flexible interpretation in the legislation.
Given that, things should be simplified, I think all legislation should end with the sentence "look, just don't be a cnut"
Job done