The New .50 FUCA Rifle. PRK Legal!


El Rojo
September 15, 2004, 10:14 PM
Ok, I posted this in the Legal and Political forum, but I need yalls technical response. Here is the idea.
An alternative to the California .50 BMG ban. (NOT JUNK MAIL!)
Hey guys and gals, I just was browsing my usual hangout
and I came up with a brilliant idea. The California .50 BMG ban says this,

12278. (a) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG rifle" means a
center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not
already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or
12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.
(b) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG cartridge" means a
cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center
fire rifle and that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the
tip of the bullet.
(2) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and
including, .511 inch.
(3) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to,
and including, .804 inch.
(4) The cartridge case length is 3.91 inches.

So here is what I am thinking. If you have a rifle cartridge that has an
overall length (OAL) less than 5.54 inches, it is no longer considered a .50
BMG by this new California law. So basically you get some .50 BMG ammo
manufacturers to seat the bullet a tenth of an inch deeper or longer and
viola, it is no longer banned! Now the new name of the cartridge wasn't
originally my idea, but I like it enough this is what we ought to name the
new round. .50 FUCA. It doesn't mean anything, it is just a neat name
pronounced (foo ka). ;) So you get the .50 FUCA manufacturers to stamp on
the side of their guns ".50 FUCA" and there you go, firearms enthusiasts
still can have .50 calibers in California. Now if for some reason a person
would have a problem with the cool name FUCA, we call it the .50 Feinstein
or pick some other wonderful left wing, gun hating politician to stick their
name on our cool new rifle, all in their honor. Or we could call it the .50
Freedom or the .50 California.

If everyone just calls the new round .50 FUCA (or whatever we decide) and
the ammo is labeled .50 FUCA and the guns are labeled .50 FUCA, there is no
more need to have a .50 BMG. I would think if the manufacturers made this
gun relatively cheap, we could sell them like hotcakes in California.
Suddenly more people have .50 caliber rifles in California than they ever
did before the .50 BMG ban. If you like my idea, let me know. I don't know
who to really talk to about it so I basically am e-mailing this to everyone
linked to the Fifty Caliber Shooter's Association. If you think someone else
ought to have a copy, please forward it on. Lets make this happen!

El Rojo
Taft, CA
A slight modification to the .50 FUCA round.

Ok, a good point has been brought up.

12278. (a) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG rifle" means a
center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not
already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or
12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.

So if we simply change the OAL, the gun can still fire a .50 BMG and we are still stuck. So not being a .50 BMG owner, can we shorten the neck length enough on the .50 FUCA just enough where a .50 BMG round will not allow the bolt to close, but the .50 FUCA can? I mean we would have had to make new brass with the .50 FUCA headstamp on it anyway, so no big deal right? I am telling you, these things will sell like hot cakes. Make them cheap enough, people will be buying them up like crazy. Make them whatever price you want, people will still buy them.

El Rojo
Taft, CA
I sent those two e-mails to everyone on the FCSA website, the FCSA, and the NSSF. Forget strategy or politics, just comment on the technical aspects of such a round and if you think it will meet the new PRK law. I am excited about this. And of course the .50 FUCA's name came from our very own Brad Johnson.

If you enjoyed reading about "The New .50 FUCA Rifle. PRK Legal!" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Zak Smith
September 15, 2004, 11:02 PM
If the criteria is that the bolt cannot close on a 5.54" or longer round, it should be easy to use a chamber reamer with a very short throat.

Of course, as you fire the rifle hundreds of times, the throat will erode and eventually it will be able to chamber that lenth.


September 15, 2004, 11:15 PM
IIRC the metric designation for the .50BMG is 12.7x97mm. You could just make it a 12.7x80-90mm, and if you also changed the taper to a lower amount you could keep the powder capacity almost the same thereby keeping performance about the same. Maybe change the shoulder angle too (probably necessary if you're reducing the taper anyway) and that will not only shorten the round enough to be legal, but keep performance about the same and keep a .50BMG from being able to be chambered.

Edit: You should name it after the original author of AB50 if .50 FUCA doesn't work out.

September 15, 2004, 11:23 PM
IIRC the metric designation for the .50BMG is 12.7x97mm


September 15, 2004, 11:28 PM
Couldn't the folk in **********, deprived of their Refinery-Busters, simply "switch" to another caliber with similar performance, like the .408 Cheytac? Or, even better, like some have suggested, just make something like a .475 BLMG (Browning LEGAL MachineGun :D ).


September 15, 2004, 11:52 PM
the people make it great somebody will come up with something even better and they will wish that had left the 50 alone.

September 16, 2004, 12:18 AM
I think it needs to be bigger. BIGGER. It needs to be the Terminator of big-bore cartridges.

September 16, 2004, 01:01 AM
why not a .60BMG? There's no restriction on cartridges larger than 50bmg is there? I think slam_fire had a more realistic outcome though; cartriges like .408 cheytac will just become more popular.

September 16, 2004, 01:26 AM
Once you get above .50 cal, federal laws get very picky as to which gun firing the >.50 is a Destructive Device and which one isn't. I forget why shotgun slugs are exempt, tho...

What's a .408 Cheytac?

September 16, 2004, 01:30 AM
I nominate the .50 Governator. :fire:

September 16, 2004, 01:33 AM
I say Push the shoulder back an inch, give it a 30 degree taper, trim the case and call it "50 BR" I bet it would be quite a bit more efficient than the 50 BMG.


September 16, 2004, 01:34 AM
The .50 RKBA

or The .50 Jefferson

cracked butt
September 16, 2004, 02:30 AM
I was thinking of a .50 Ackley Improved, but I think ATEK had a better idea.

September 16, 2004, 02:34 AM
50 AI won't work because 50 bmg will still chamber in the rifle :(


September 16, 2004, 02:36 AM
Well, since the .50 BMG is a high cost niche item and only illegal in CA, the new round wouldn't be a commercial success. It would be worth it to stick it to the silly legislators though. It would need to be different enough (a change in case length and neck geometry) so as to be a completely different cartridge (and upholdable as such in court) while similar enough to make a point and be effective for users. Brass should be easily converted from .50 BMG.

Trim a half inch off the case OAL, set back the neck to match and change the angle a bit. Viola, the .510 Feinstein.:cool: If a major loading CO got on board they could develop the dies and this would standardize the idea. Then it is just a matter of setting the barrel back and reaming the chamber with a custom reamer. Expensive, but hey, what about .50 shootin' isn't?

cracked butt
September 16, 2004, 02:51 AM
50 AI won't work because 50 bmg will still chamber in the rifle
Yup, but how many antigunners would know that? Manufacturers could stamp a warning on the guns to fire .50 AI only and that any other ammunition would be dangerous to shoot just to cover their behinds.

It would be a fairly cheap modification and if you don't say anything to the Ca legislature about it, I won't either.:evil:

September 16, 2004, 02:54 AM
I think shortening the case and sharpening the shoulder would actually make a superior cartridge. Witness the difference between 308 and 30-06. 308 gives up about 150 fps to its bigger brother but can be chambered in lighter guns and is a more accurate cartridge. Tall and skinny don't lend themselves to accuracy (don't get me wrong there can be tall and skinny cartridges that are accurate, it just isn't as easy as something short and fat)
But if someone calls it 50 BR, remember folks you heard it hear first :)


cracked butt
September 16, 2004, 03:16 AM
I actually think you have a heck of an idea. Q? could the cases be formed without the use of a hydraulic press?

I like the moniker BR- it sort of gives it the fictional 'legitimate sporting purpose' that liberals use as a litmus test as to whether or not something needs to be banned right away. On the other hand, They are eager to ban ARs and M14's which most people do use for sporting purposes. :fire:

September 16, 2004, 04:21 AM
.50 Legitimate Sporting Purpose (LSP) has sort of a ring to it, actually...

September 16, 2004, 04:34 AM
This is quick and dirty, I've already found mistakes.

Option 1: Short, tight throat with no other change.

Changes the OAL and prevents most 50 BMG from chambering.
Uses Standard 50 BMG brass and dies.
Provides for easy modification to standard 50 BMG if law changes, becomes irrelevant, or the rifle is sold to someone in the US.

Loaded rounds appear identical to 50 BMG.
Some target loads with VLD bullets my chamber and meet the all the legal requirements of the banned rifle.

Option 2: Reduce the neck length by .05-.075”

Maintains the OAL which allows use of 50 BMG load data.
Uses standard 50 BMG Dies.
Maintains ability to be rechambered to 50 BMG at a future date.

Requires new reamer
This would be my choice. I can’t think of anything wrong with this one of the top of head. I’m sure someone else will.
Bullet cannelures in wrong place for good crimp at proper OAL

Option 3: Move the shoulder forward (long chambered)

Can use 50 BMG data for start loads
Doesn’t require a new reamer
Increased case capacity
Use standard 50 BMG dies
Maintains the ability to be converted to 50 BMG (requires removing threads on a lathe, the above can be converted quick an dirty)

Fireforming the 50 BMG
50 BMG rounds will still fit in chamber, creating an excess headspace condition and may cause you some trouble with an ignorant firearms inspector.

Option 4: Move the shoulder back (short chamber)

Doesn’t require a new reamer
Easily converts back to 50 BMG
Standard BMG will not chamber

The dreaded doughnut
Require nonstandard dies
Reduces capacity, requires new data

Option 5: Change the shoulder/body angle

In and of itself doesn’t do anything as long as the 50 BMG can still chamber and safely fire. Combined with some of the above actions it could normalize the case capacity so that standard data could be used. Would require custom reamer and dies, neither would be cheap.

You don't want to push the shoulder back on a 50 BMG too far unless you just enjoy case forming and neck turning and doughnut cutting. Also, the 50 BMG is fairly inexpensive for a cartridge of this magnitude because it is so common. Otherwise they would cost $6 each and be as rare as 700 NE. A new bigger case is not viable option.


September 16, 2004, 05:08 AM
i haven't done any hands on wildcatting so i really don't know how tough it would be to push the shoulder back say 12mm and then trim the now incredibly long neck ~12 mm, but inside neck reaming and outside neck turning would be manditory, but hey since most of the people shooting 50 BR are well...Bench Rest shooters, such nitpicky case prep is almost par for the course. I think the accuracy at 1 mile would be worth it.


September 16, 2004, 07:56 AM
The Soviets, and now Russia, made/make a HMG in some sort of 12.7mm caliber. The DShK, IIRC. Does it use the .50 BMG round, or an indigenous design?

Any reason, besides the rarity, you can't make a gun chambered for that cartridge?

UPDATE: Found some info. The DShK fires a 12.7x108mm round.

You could make a rifle for that. No way in hell the .50 BMG would work in it, though. Need new dies, etc. And finding ammo would be a bitch-wonder if you could get Wolf to make some? Or Norma, S&B, the usual suspects.

That would be pretty in your face: Fine, ban our cartridge. We'll get a bigger one.

El Rojo
September 16, 2004, 10:57 AM
The main thing we would need to do is keep the cartridge as close to the current .50 BMG as possible. This would allow the very cheap conversion or change in production. So using the same bullets is a must, as that will probably be the most expensive part of ammo production. I would think trimming the case and sticking a .50 FUCA stamp on the base would be the cheapest, easiest way to go. For legal reasons, nothing .50 BMG will be able to be associated with the new rifle. Maybe today I will get some e-mail back from the manufacturers.

Black Snowman
September 16, 2004, 11:17 AM
12.7x108mm round - if we can get it imported at reasonable prices that would be wonderful. I really want a .408 CheyTac ( but the guns are still way out of my budget. Maybe with the AB50 other companies will start making more afordable guns chambered in this round.

I could get a brand new motorcycle for the cost of one of those guns, and a bank will give me a loan for that ;) Of course the motorcycle would depreciate much worse.

September 16, 2004, 04:13 PM
Why not build the 50 KM (********** Magnum)? Go bigger... WAY bigger. It's the american way. I suggest necking down a 20mm to .50, you can use those 50bmg bullets but load them to waaay higher velocities. Even outside of Kali a rifle chambered in this round will be a great seller. I would buy one! Really, what do you all think? It shouldn't be that difficult, 20mm casings already exist, and it wouldn't be regulated as a destructive device because it's 50 caliber.

El Tejon
September 16, 2004, 04:37 PM
What about the .499 Tejon?:D

September 16, 2004, 05:36 PM
i like blackrazor's idea. get some 20mm cases, and make a ".50 winchester short magnum" out of it. might end up being an even hotter round than the .50 BMG.

September 16, 2004, 07:02 PM
I don't like the 'necking down 20mm' idea for a few reasons. 50 BMG is already overbore, 12.7x20mm would be INSANELY overbore, like 22 eargehshplittenloudenbooomer overbore (378 weatherby mag necked down to 224). I do however like the 20mm shortened considerably and necked down yeilding a "50 PPC" like case design. However that idea would be REALLY REALLY expensive compared to a wildcat that just involved pushing the shoulder back and trimming.


PS one problem with the 20 mm is the case head is so big the bolt thrust would be massive necessitating a massively heavy lug design.

September 16, 2004, 07:08 PM
SSK already has their ".50 Peacekeeper" and ".510 Whisper" cartridges (which I think would be a lot of fun; ), but you could also use the existing .50 BAT (Battalion Anti-Tank) spotting-rifle cartridge without too much trouble; it's based on the .50 BMG case, only shorter, so you'd have a ready supply of brass at least.

September 16, 2004, 07:23 PM

No man! Insane's the name of the game! You wanna get some attention?! Need something that makes the 50 look like a .22? Buy yourself a new 20-50 KM!!! Also, the thing is, that the action/bolt design has already been pretty much built for us, there is a single shot 20mm made by Lahti (sp?), so all you would need to do is change out the barrel/throat and that's it! The only expense then would be the dies for reloading.

September 16, 2004, 07:31 PM
"It's an .86 Magnum. It shoots through schools." :D

September 16, 2004, 07:37 PM
Insane's the name of the game

would you be so kind as to buy me new barrels every 500 rounds ? pretty please :)


September 16, 2004, 07:41 PM
good point... but 50's ain't exactly cheap, and neither are the people who would be interested in the 50 KM. Do you think it would wear out any faster than a 220 swift? What about a chrome lined/stellite bore? Just throwin' ideas out there, glad someone likes to play along. :)

September 16, 2004, 09:08 PM
Make it a bigger round and call it the Mutha FUCA.

September 16, 2004, 09:22 PM
What about a chrome lined

Nice try, but chrome lined target rifle? I don't think so. I think it would be worse than the 220 swift.


September 16, 2004, 11:18 PM
FN's police/target/tactical .308 is chrome lined, is super accurate... it works great! What's the problem?

September 16, 2004, 11:58 PM
really... I didn't know that.

September 17, 2004, 12:12 AM
I am liking this plan!

My first preference would be to go with the Ackley Improved-type of set-up.This allows for use of existing bullets, cases, barrels and magazine dimensions, which would make the conversion nicely inexpensive, a neccessity since the market is pretty-much limited to Korny Kaliforny.

Additionally, the ability to run off-the-shelf BMG ammo is a major boost to viability of the concept. Remember, this is a PRK-only restriction, so it really doesn't concern the Federal-level BATFE at all. Cal-DOJ is who's in charge of this one, and they can only enforce the law as it's written, and when it comes time to establish what the caliber of a given gun is, it's what's stamped on the barrel that gets run through the paperwork, NOT what the chamber will actually accomodate.

There's precedent for this. There was a batch of those cheap derringers that come in a gazillion different configs but still cost uder $100. Most of 'em are .45 Colt/.410 shotshell, which can't be sold here in the PRK 'cuz they're sawed-off shotguns by our law. However, there was a batch of sxs 2-shots that were only marked (And paperworked.) .45 Colt. They were BORED with extra-long chambers, however. (Lots of free-bore is a good recoil reducer, you know.)

Nary a peep from Cal-DOJ about 'em. Never heard of any prosecuition, or even awareness of anything from them. The only contact they ever had with 'em was through the paperwork for the NICS and the PRK handgun registration provision, and all that said about these guns was that they were chambered for .45 Colt.

Evereyone knows how dangerous it is to put the wrong ammunition in a given gun stamped for something else. Nobody in their right mind would actually FIRE a .410 shotshell in one of these things just because it just happened to fit in the barrel, would they? Why, it's liable to blow up in yor hand, right? Just because it FITS doesn't mean it's SAFE...

...Even though it's safe in the same gun from the same maker when stamped with the appropriate caliber designation...

'Nuther point. The Federal-level "Over .50 caliber is classified as a Class III Destructive Device" provision APPLIES ONLY TO HANDGUNS.

That's why it's OK to have rifled 12-guage barrels for shotguns. Long guns can be chambered for any old thing you care to ream the barrel for and have the cajones to hold up against your shoulder and shoot. Look at the .577 Tyrannosaur, for instance. That caliber was designed to be the absolute BIGGEST case/bullet combination that could be reliably cycled through a large-ring Mauser reciever for the express purpose of being The Ultimate Dangerous Game Hunting Back-up Gun. I think the magazine of a rifle so chambered holds all of ONE additional round beyond what's in the chamber. (I might be wrong on this, and it'll hold 2. Not sure.)

Rifles in .577 Tyrannosaur are not classed as DD's. Niether are double guns chambered in .577, .600, or .700 Nitro Express. They might be expensive, but there's no additional hoops to jump through to get one.

They're LONG guns. At least until a criminal steals it and takes a hacksaw to the end of a $60,000 double gun to make it more "bad-a$$" and fit under a jacket so he can use it to hold-up the local "Stop & Rob" for $45 to get some drugs...:rolleyes:

September 17, 2004, 12:25 AM
'Nuther point. The Federal-level "Over .50 caliber is classified as a Class III Destructive Device" provision APPLIES ONLY TO HANDGUNS.
Not true! All the fancy rifles in .577, 600, 700 etc. meet the "sporting purpose exemption" within the GCA 68. The ATF can withdraw that from any caliber over 1/2 inch. Thats why 20mm is a destructive device and
14.5 mm JDJ isn't. the 14.5 has a DD exemption.


September 17, 2004, 12:56 AM
Just Improving the cartridge isn't enough. It still meets the legal definition. If you aren't concerned about that, you may as well have a 50 BMG.

I think we can forget about necking down the 20mm, but the 50 Spotter and Russian 12.7 have some promise. Spotter cases run $.40 and AFAIK are no longer in production. I don't have a source for brass for the Russian round.

The DD is most certainly in effect for rifles. Certain cartridges have special exections based on "sporting purpose".

Bullets are easier to produce than cases, but cases can be reused. I don't think you could touch a new case this size for less than $4 or $5 a pop, with an minimum order of 100000 or so, but you can buy the equipment to produce your own bullets for few thousand.

The reason the 50 BMG is so popular is that it's the biggest thing you can load for $2. If you can't use surplus bullets and cases, then it isn't practical.
If it can't be converted back to 50 BMG without a new barrel, it's worthless outside CA.


September 17, 2004, 01:18 AM
I stand corrected. Good on yer.

I wonder if I'm remembering a state-level iteration of that, then. Gotta pretty solid conviction that there's some sort of handgun-specific restriction that allows for 12-guage rifled barrels. Old thing, I wanna say '68 GCA, on account of the neccessity to make a change in calibers for the Gyrojet pistols. Their 12.7mm loads became illegal to run in handguns because they were over .500 inches in diameter, and that was ways back, for sure. That's consistent with the 14.7mm JDJ needing an exemption also, as J.D. Jones manufactures barrels for the T/C contender handgun.

There's no distinction I know of in the definition of 'long guns' between rifles and shotguns outside of hunting regulations in some states.

And when did 20mm become a DD? I thought the "sporting purposes" definitions only applied to restrictions on the IMPORTATION of guns, on the Federal level.

I dunno. I confess ignorance, as I'm not neccessarily up on the latest versions of Gubmint encroachment of rights out at the artillery level.

We oughta sponser us a competition match for all ther folks that have those Lahti 20mm anti-tank rifles. Since when did the Gubmint get to decide what's a sport and what's not? Establishing restrictions before the fact stifles the development of new types of competition. Of course, this is from the guy who wants to have a shootin' match with all SORTS of artillery. I've heard the U.S. 8" howitzer is one of the most accurate guns made out at range of like 25,000 yards...

September 17, 2004, 01:36 AM
If we're going to rename it, let's call it the "12.7 LSP".

As for what the new cartridge should look like, for Kali purposes, it needs to be shorter than 5.54", and merely seating the bullet deeper won't be enough. I've never fired the BMG, so I don't know if this is truly a great round, but if it can be improved, here's our chance. Also, as for other markets, don't a lot of the European countries ban weapons that use a military round? If someone can create a viable .50 civilian round, maybe it will find a home overseas, too.

September 17, 2004, 01:36 AM
Courtesy of (

(f) Destructive device
The term ''destructive device'' means (1) any explosive,
incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having
a propellent charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an
explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E)
mine, or (F) similar device; (2) any type of weapon by whatever
name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel
a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the
barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch
in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary
finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting
purposes; and (3) any combination of parts either designed or
intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device
as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a
destructive device may be readily assembled. The term
''destructive device'' shall not include any device which is
neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device,
although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is
redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing,
safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given
by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section
4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or
any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used
as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends
to use solely for sporting purposes.

WHICH Secretary? General? Who is HE accountable too, that we may challenge his definitions?

Re: The bottom emphasis.

We set up a sponsored 20mm shootin' match. I go buy a Lahti which I fully intend to use for competition purposes. Says right there that the intent is defined by the owner, not the Secretary.

Elsewise, someone needs to produce a 20mm competition rifle. Then he can't touch it. Where's my machine shop?

I get such dangerous ideas...

September 17, 2004, 02:01 AM
I'm still all for the 20-50 KM, I think the only way to go is up, up, UP! With a chrome lined bore you could really get some useful barrel life, and throwing 750's at 4200 fps will really get some people going! That's over 25,000 ft-lbs of energy! YEE-HAW! We need a poll here after all the options have been laid out so that the best idea goes into production. With our combined strength I know we can make this a reality! Don't let this one get away.

September 17, 2004, 02:11 AM
so we all run out and buy 'sporting lahti's' then when the gubbmint wants to crack down they say...not sporting, then we'd be ordered to turn over 5k destructive thanks.


September 17, 2004, 02:11 AM
Well the Barret will be moving to keep the HK91 & HK93 ect company at my Oregon residence. I can shoot it there (on the property) anyway:neener: However enough is enough, this actually draws the line in the sand and if I could know when they would come get it, they could try! :cuss: :fire: :evil:

September 17, 2004, 04:43 AM
Prvi Partizan produces brass cased 12.7x107 ammunition. I don't know what primer they use (a huge consideration). The bullet diameter is listed as .5122" but dies and reamer would be custom jobs anyway so you could neck it down to .510".

I sent an e-mail to see if I can get my hands on some cases.

Does anyone have a 50 Spotter case handy to measure?


50 Shooter
September 17, 2004, 10:51 AM
Here's a link that shows the spec's but it's in Spanish but it will give you all the info your looking for.

September 18, 2004, 08:04 AM
50 Shooter,

Thanks, I now have both case and reamer specs. I'd still like to measure capacity, but I bet a model using 50 BMG head and wall thickness would come really close.


Jay Kominek
September 18, 2004, 12:00 PM
Elsewise, someone needs to produce a 20mm competition rifle. Then he can't touch it. Where's my machine shop?
talk to the serbu ( guy?

if/when he decides he can sell them and not have them confiscated the next month, i'll be first in line to max out my credit card buying one. :)

September 19, 2004, 12:32 AM
blackrazor: 20 50 KM YES!

I want mach 5!

I think I also want a very heavy barrel and a very nice muzzle brake :)


September 21, 2004, 09:39 PM
Since there seem to be some 30mm ( cases around, why not base a new cartridge on that?

(Heh, I know...30mm brass is probably a bit harder to come by than 20mm. Still.)

September 21, 2004, 09:57 PM
I like the ".50 ********** Magnum", it rolls off real easy. Speaks to my rebelious nature. And km is kilometer so the anti's will suspect it's made to go about 50 miles or thereabouts. It's an over the horizon weapon.

Somebody better trademark that name, it's catchy. I think I hear a song out there, maybe a poem.


September 21, 2004, 10:43 PM
.50 Legitimate Sporting Purpose (LSP) has sort of a ring to it, actually

The 50lisp?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

It's gonna sthell like hotcakthes in Sthan Francthco.....


El Rojo
September 21, 2004, 11:34 PM
The problem is no one has got back to me on this yet. Only Watson Weapons even bothered to respond. If we are lucky it is because someone is having their lawyers figure out how to make the .50 FUCA wihtout giving us any credit and making all of the money for themselves. Heck, just give me a copy and some ammo and I will be more than happy to sign my product rights away.

September 21, 2004, 11:35 PM
What about getting a hold of some 9x90 and just necking up to .50BMG?

The length should be under limit, thus preventing a true .50BMG from chambering. You could do this simply by changing the bolt (fo r a bolt action rifle) and chamber.

I don't know how common H&K's 9x90 was though. Was it ever produced?

Jim March
September 22, 2004, 12:09 AM


As to technicalities: the quickest is to shave a couple threads off the back of the barrel, shorten up the OAL. Need new load data brewed up though, unless the shoulder was altered to regain volume.

Probably the most practical response is to swap barrels to 338Lapua.

September 22, 2004, 12:15 PM
So, there's room out there for more than one california legal 50 alternative. I just like my idea of the 50 KM since it sounds cool whether you spell it out or just say "KM" and since it's based on a 20mm casing it will way outperform the 50 BMG. Sure it will be expensive, but if you build it, they will come. The best part (financially speaking) is that the 50 KM will have excellent sales appeal OUTSIDE of california, since it will be the new KING OF MAGNUMS!

That's right folks, line on up! 50 BMG just not enough for ya?! Always looking for that something more? THEN LOOK NO FURTHER! The new 50 ********** MAGNUM is here and simply blows away the competition. 26,000 foot-lbs of energy! Accurate to distances greater than 2 MILES! See the amazing truckasaurus fight the 50 KM... uhhh got a little carried away there.

Anyway, I really want to do this, the only problem is the initial production costs. Would anyone want to try putting this together with me? Do you think it would be a good idea to build one working prototype and then sell the design to Armalite/Barrett? Heck, even if Kali outlaws it (which they will eventually) it would be cool to have a law specifically written because of you! And even then costs can still be recouped in free America.

September 22, 2004, 01:59 PM
Why not build the 50 KM (********** Magnum)? Go bigger... WAY bigger. It's the american way. I suggest necking down a 20mm to .50

Been done. It's called the .50 McMillan "Fat Mac".

The problems with it are several:

1) Obviously you can't load these things with any ol' setup. ;)

2) 20mm brass is almost all electrically-primed. You need to use an adaptor to get a .50 BMG primer to fit the base of the flash tube. (On the upside, it has a flash tube; ignition is consistant and long-range accuracy is supposedly outstanding.)

3) A 750gr bullet at 3,425fps generates just a tad bit of recoil, blast, and boltface thrust. 19,545 ft/lbs of muzzle energy is nothing to sneeze at (that's half again more than a .50 BMG. Or, think of it as a .50 BMG plus a .458 Lott. ;) ) The few rifles in this caliber tend to be monster rifles with 42" tubes, massive custom McBros receivers that dwarf a .50 cal rifle's, weigh a ton, and have prices in the early ionosphere.

If you're going to use 20mm shells as the base, why not go all out and resurrect .950 JDJ? ;) (Also, any .50 BMG rifle could be easily rechambered to .700 JDJ. It's just a .50 BMG case blown out to .70 cal, and bullets, dies, and cases are available from SSK Industries. 1100gr bullet at 2,200fps sound fun? :D )

September 22, 2004, 02:17 PM
I want one :)

Seriously, is there anywhere I can go on the web to read more? Should I just call McMillan?

P.S. Tamara, wouldn't necked up 50BMG rounds be destructive devices according to the fed?

September 22, 2004, 02:25 PM
Tamara, do you have any pictures of any of those three cartridges?

September 22, 2004, 02:26 PM
P.S. Tamara, wouldn't necked up 50BMG rounds be destructive devices according to the fed?


Well, more accurately, "Not necessarily."

The .700 JDJ and .950 JDJ have both been declared by the BATFE to not be DD's.

Pics at the bottom of this page (

Incidentally, according to Cartidges of the World the last list price for loaded .950 JDJ ammo was $30.00....

...per round! :eek:

El Rojo
September 22, 2004, 07:53 PM
What happened to the idea of keeping it simple and just cutting the neck on a .50 BMG and calling it something else? I do like the idea of creating something bigger and making it appeal to all of America with a "in your face" California name. But lets keep it reasonable.

September 22, 2004, 08:28 PM
El Rojo,

The problem with cutting the neck on the 50BMG will be that the powers-that-be will probably claim that since that round will chamber and fire in a 50BMG rifle, it is 50 BMG. It's sort of like banning .357 magnum, but claiming 38 spl is still ok... maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Then again, maybe it only works the other way. I don't know... and god knows the people writing these laws don't. Hmmm, this is giving me a headache. ehhhhh, all I know is that I hate the liberal lawmakers here. :barf:

El Rojo
September 22, 2004, 10:19 PM
Not true Blackrazor. Someone corret me if I am wrong, but if you trim enough of the neck off, the chamber will also be shorter. So if you tried to insert the longer .50 BMG round into the gun, the bolt would not close. I know the brass will still fit in there on some minor variations, but what about a tenth to a quarter inch?

September 23, 2004, 12:22 AM
If you're having to recut whole new chambers, there's no reason to cling too tightly to the old cartridge dimensions.

September 23, 2004, 05:37 AM

I have to disagree a bit. I think keeping the case close will provide 2 benefits: Ease of modification to 50 BMG if the rifle is ever sold outside CA or AB50 goes away, and the ability to use off the shelf components and equipment to keep cost down.

I like the short neck version. It can still make use of standard data, can use the same dies, and only requires a slight modification to the reamer. In a repeater you'd have to find a way to crimp, but that is it's only downfall. It seems a reasonable and logical way to avoid the ban.


September 23, 2004, 05:46 AM

I disagree a bit.

I think keeping close is a good idea, esp. if one can use standard dies and load data and be able to rechamber to 50 BMG if the need arises. I like the short neck version.

I propose the name 13mm Govenator.


4v50 Gary
September 23, 2004, 09:36 AM
A 20mm necked down to 50 caliber would be legal, wouldn't it?:p

El Rojo
September 23, 2004, 09:53 AM
Are you insinuating that I don't understand you the first time? Is that why everyone is posting two or three times. Is this a statement about me? :D

I think the most important thing is to make this whole project easy to accomplish and make the switch as cheap as possible. The way you get around the ban is change the name of everything. So what is the cheapest thing to change? Cut the neck down to where a .50 BMG won't fire in the gun and place a new stamp on the base. You would be able to use the same bullets, powder, and primers. The gun is going to have to be changed regardless, but how hard is it to simply shorten up the neck area in the chamber a tad bit and stamp a ".50 FUCA" on the barrel?

The other part about just barely changing enough to make it legal is it makes the .50 FUCA live up to its name. Yeah you tried to ban this, but look, it is back. Where there is a will there is a way. You might even be able to get people outside of the PRK to buy a few too as they will be able to convert the brass no problem since they won't care what is stamped on the brass. You might also be able to fire the .50 FUCA in a .50 BMG, but that is ok as long as you can't fire a .50 BMG in a .50 FUCA.

So what is up manufacturers? When are we going to make this happen? Someone is sitting on a gold mine out there. I might have to find a gun smith and make this happen.

September 23, 2004, 10:38 AM
but how hard is it to simply shorten up the neck area in the chamber a tad bit

You can't just "shorten up the neck area" in a chamber. You will need to design a new chamber reamer and ream a new barrel. (Not sure I'd want to play the "set back and re-cut" game with .50 BMG...) Of course, once the reamer is made, you can ream as many barrels as you like. If you are having to cut new chambers in .50 barrel blanks, like I said, why not go a little crazy? .50 PPC or something? This project is not going to be "cheap" no matter how you look at it (nothing having to do with .50 ever is,) so why not make it cool? Economies of scale would make even the .700 JDJ cheap, if you Californians are as big an economic force in the shooting world as y'all keep saying you are. ;)

September 30, 2004, 05:28 AM
here is the 50 FatMac

interesting thing is it looks like a massively scaled up 6mm BR

I think the case should be shortened considerably, 3400 fps with a 750 gr bullet is out of control. (thats with a 42" barrel)
I'd rather have a much shorter version that could throw the 750 gr. at 2500 fps out of a 20 inch tube.


September 30, 2004, 02:12 PM
i cant rember the web page but they do work on T/C's . It's called the 50 peacekeeper or is it peace keeper

September 30, 2004, 02:15 PM
SSK is now making new sporting and tactical rifles from Brown and other new actions such as Sako. A wide variety of actions, stocks and calibers are available. .50 Peacekeeper = 88% of a 50 browning from a 23" barrel plus brake in a 13-14 pound rifle. Recoil is not as bad as most 35 pound 50 BMG rifles. It does 2400 FPS with a 650 and 2200+ with a 750 hornady with excellent accuracy.

September 30, 2004, 03:03 PM
ya but that cartridge is essentially a straightwalled cartridge. I want a short and fat bottle necked cartridge ala PPC case design.


September 30, 2004, 08:56 PM
Why not ".308" the .50 BMG or has that already been proposed?

I know it wouldn't satisfy the "magnumize or nothing" crowd, but to my mind it would be more efficient, allow the use of the .50 BMG parent case as a base for the new round, give nearly as good performance with the lower projectile weights and beat the PRK as*%oles. The performance of the round should be in the same area as the .50 Peacekeeper(or a bit better) without having to deal with the PITA belted brass.

Additionally, all the current .50 BMG designs should be able to be altered/converted with little trouble(relatively compared to most other alternatives), using almost all currently used components(mags, barrels,etc.).

I know I'd want one, but then I also would like a .50 BMG to start with.

October 4, 2004, 02:51 PM

Cute. I was thinking you could make it the ".498 Feinstein" just to make things really interesting. Can you imagine the look on her face when she heard about it? :evil:

October 6, 2004, 02:59 AM
Part of what will make the round illegal in ********** is that the bullet is 50 caliber. If the 50 BMG brass is left intact, and a saboted whatever (308, 338, etc) is inserted, then the round is no longer a 50 BMG. To prevent a 50 BMG from being fired, the barrel will need to be modified-say .49?-but the sabot itself can compress the 1/100 of an inch. If a sabot jacket is used on a .30-something round, is it conceivable for an aftermarket barrel liner or sleeve to be fitted (which would be much less expensive than a new barrel)?

Please tell me the weaknesses of this idea.

October 6, 2004, 03:29 AM
To prevent a 50 BMG from being fired, the barrel will need to be modified-say .49?-but the sabot itself can compress the 1/100 of an inch.

the law doesn't say "can fire a 50 bmg safely" just fire period. Some people have fired 7.62mm bullets down a 6.5mm bore, wasn't safe but it was done. You could fire 510 bullets down a .49 bore, I wouldn't do it, i'm just saying.


October 6, 2004, 03:56 AM

50 BMG pressures are too much for a barrel sleeve. You would need a new barrel. Accuracy with sabots is mediocre and defeats any purpose I'd want a 50 BMG for. It's not impossible. You could do it using a new .500" (instead of .510" of the 50 BMG) barrel blank. This is already in production because of interest in the 50 S&W. It seems a lot of work for no benefit.


November 14, 2006, 05:18 PM
Why not just neck the .50 down to .408 and blow the cheytac out the water!
.338-50 talbot has been done but was overbore!
new round would solve chambering issues uses and uses current available parts! still not a fifty though!

November 14, 2006, 06:17 PM
An alternative to the .50 already exists, called the .50 DTC. IIRC it's a cartridge of french design, where NO military cartridges are allowed to civvies, such as **********.

November 14, 2006, 06:59 PM
My understanding of the law is that as long as the rifle does not meet the specifications for .50BMG then it is legal as long as it does not meet the requirements for an assault rifle. I have heard of some talk about making rifles in .512 or just slightly lower caliber, all that would do however is cause the PRK not to allow anything over .50 or perhaps even less.

November 14, 2006, 08:24 PM
barret already gave the PRK the bird by refusing to sell or service any ********** govt agencies and developed the .416 barret round

November 14, 2006, 08:41 PM
I tell you he is my Hero,


November 14, 2006, 09:01 PM
Once you get above .50 cal, federal laws get very picky as to which gun firing the >.50 is a Destructive Device and which one isn't. I forget why shotgun slugs are exempt, tho...

Shotguns and some firearms over .500" bores are recognized as being "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" and are not NFA regulated as DD's. .600 NE, .700 NE, .585 Nyati, etc.

November 14, 2006, 09:57 PM
Why not build the 50 KM (********** Magnum)? Go bigger... WAY bigger. It's the american way. I suggest necking down a 20mm to .50, you can use those 50bmg bullets but load them to waaay higher velocities. Even outside of Kali a rifle chambered in this round will be a great seller. I would buy one! Really, what do you all think? It shouldn't be that difficult, 20mm casings already exist, and it wouldn't be regulated as a destructive device because it's 50 caliber.

this one I nominate for ".50 Feinstein" - nothing like having your name associated with the biggest, meanest cannon legal for the man on the street. :evil: You know what, it'd be either an honor or a slam as appropriate. :D

El Rojo
November 14, 2006, 10:52 PM
This is the reason I hate hanging out on discussion boards with people who don't live in California anymore. You guys are just making crap up. It is perfectly legal to have military calibers in California. Otherwise we wouldn't have 5.56mm, 7.62mm, 9mm, or .45 ACP in California. Now that is just plain dumb.

Further, specifically the .50 BMG was banned in California. It was banned by exact measurements. So if you shorten the case a little and change the neck angle so a standard .50 BMG will not fire in the rifle, you no longer have a .50 BMG. That is why the .510 DTC is legal in this state. If you go all the way back to the beginning of this thread you will see it is a rather old thread.

Brad Johnson
December 19, 2006, 01:11 PM
Not quite sure why a two year old thread was resurrected, but it needs some correcting.

Just to set the record straight on the terminology in the originating post on this thread. The post stated that ".50 FUCA" is a nonsensical term used just because it sounds neat. .50 FUCA is incorrect. It is a mistype (or intentional misuse) of the originally proposed designation. The correctly spelled phrase - .50 F.U.CA - had a very specific meaning.

I should know - I proposed it.


December 19, 2006, 01:34 PM

.510 DTC

If you enjoyed reading about "The New .50 FUCA Rifle. PRK Legal!" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!