[Powderman]

Hey, all--check this one out! I saw the link on the 1911 forum, and quickly added my signature.

This is a good start, I think.

http://www.petitiononline.com/M14CMP03/

[VaughnT]

I signed up. Totally love the idea and can't wait to see it happen.

[Bulldozer]

I'd buy one lickety-split.

[MPFreeman]

Didn't Klinton send most of the surplus M14's over to eastern Europe? Latvia, or Lithuania....I think.

[Jason Demond]

Done.

[Gewehr98]

Anybody remember the ATF ruling:"Once a machine gun, always a machine gun"?

[TexasVet]

Didn't Klinton send most of the surplus M14's over to eastern Europe? Latvia, or Lithuania....I think.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. The .... no, I can't say that here.:cuss:

[Blackhawk]

Isn't the M-14 still "current" on the Army TOE?

[CZ-75]

Wouldn't the receivers be classed as an NFA weapon, no matter if the select-fire capability was disabled?

[Powderman]

CZ-75:

I believe the answer would be no--demonstrated by the availability of AR15 receivers. The only difference between the AR receiver and the M16 receiver is the absence of the pin hole for the auto sear. These receivers are readily available. So are civilian-made receivers for the M1A series.

[CZ-75]

But that would mean that the M-14s would only be sold as parts kits, less receiver. I suppose that DCM/CMP could sell NFA weapons, but I see frozen precipitation in Hell first.

My question referred to complete weapons. AFAIK, the M-14 is a select-fire only proposition. Hence, they would be NFA weapons.
Were any ever made as semi-autos only, and not converted from select-fire receivers?

[Powderman]

Don't think so. I know that some were issued with selector locks to limit them to semi auto fire. But I don't think that any gov't arsenal manufatured strictly semiauto M14's.

[CZ-75]

I'm not sure that Klinton created any worse a situation than existed before exporting them. Either way, they'd only be released as parts. I don't think the parts are subject to the same restrictions on re-importation as a complete weapon. I'm not certain I'd use surplus parts with a nice Smith Enterprises receiver, should this be the case.

[Sergeant Bob]

Weren't most of the M-14's not already in the hands of collector's destroyed and exported guns made illegal for import? I remember reading about some company getting into hot water for welding up cut receivers and selling them as semi-autos. I don't think this references that particular case but here's something from the nradefensefund (http://www.nradefensefund.org/docs/litigation.html)

Allan D. Fehlings and Others v. BATF (District of Columbia). BATF in a letter dated August 21, 1980, advised that properly destroyed M14 receivers could be remanufactured with a design that would render them semiautomatic receivers. Consequently, a number of rifles were manufactured with the remanufactured receivers. In 2001 BATF reversed itself and held that the receivers were those of a machine gun and seized them. A declaratory judgment lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on January 16, 2002, challenging the seizures and reclassification. The cases were referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office to initiate administrative forfeiture. That action effectively voids the request for declaratory relief. However, judicial forfeiture has not been filed against any of the plaintiffs.

I'll see if I can come up with any more on this.

[Sergeant Bob]

Here's more:
Since questions come up a lot on the legality of M14's for state teams, I decided to make this a tip for Lane's CSP tips page.

In the late 1980's I wondered how M14's could legally be held by members of the California State Rifle Team. (CA doesn't allow the private ownership of Class III arms.) Basically, the law say's "once a machine gun, always a machine gun, UNLESS it is permanently demilled and cannot be returned to firing status" (BATF has regulations on what is permanent).

I asked Mike Rose, the long time Deputy Director of the DCM about this. He informed me of a very little known fact. Congress made a special exception to the "once a machine gun, always a machine gun" rule ESPECIALLY for National Match M14's that have been permanently modified (welded) so they ONLY fire in semi-automatic mode. THAT'S how they can be legally sent to all 50 states.

BEFORE the Clinton administration came in, DCM was working on obtaining enough M14's to permanently modify and sell to individuals, the same as the M1 Garand program. That went belly up with the DCM and until MAYBE after Clinton is out of office. However, with the current hysteria about semi-automatic firearms, I'm not sure they'll ever allow us to be able to get a modified M14.

Jouster.com (http://www.jouster.com/lanestips/cmpm14.html)

[Sergeant Bob]

And more:

Around 1995, largescale grants and sales of small/light arms began occurring (see appendix 2). In the past few years (1995-early 1998), over 300,000 rifles, pistols, machine guns and grenade launchers have been offered up, including:

124,815 M14 rifles (principally to the Baltics and Taiwan)

U.S. Policy on Small/Light Arms Exports (http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/reports/AAAS.htm)

Am I incorrect that it is now illegal to re-import them? How many does that leave?

[Combat-wombat]

How about a CMP/DCM M109A5 Self-Propelled Howitzer program? That would be neat...

[Powderman]

CZ-75,

Why not? As far as I know, GI spec parts are THE standard when remanufacturing or repairing service rifles. Fulton Armory uses only genuine Mil-Spec parts on their rifles.

I would much rather have a rifle built on a good receiver of proper hardness using properly fitted military surplus parts, than a rifle built from civilian parts of questionable quality. And, before the flames start I simply mean that the milspec parts are of proven quality, while the civilian parts just don't have the reputation for reliability.

Check out Fulton Armory's website, and read the FAQ for the M1A/M14. Really interesting and educational.

(Of course, if you are someone like an ex-military armorer who had about 200 M14's in your arms room, or perhaps a small arms repairer, I apologize for attempting to talk about M14's with you...........:)

[CZ-75]

If I bought a Smith receiver, I'd be putting on NM grade parts, like a Krieger barrel. It is possible that a portion of the rest of the parts would be okay for use, but buying a kit could be more expensive if it includes a barrel you don't want and beat up furniture and a GI issue sight system.

[Gewehr98]

In case you haven't been paying attention to what's coming off the Geneseo, Illinois assembly line at Springfield, Inc, lately.

I built my M14NM on an Armscorp M14NM receiver, using a complete H&R M14 parts gun (sans receiver and "naughty bits", and Krieger barrel. I had no problem selling the GI barrel, either. Suffice it to say, that GI parts kit was definitely worth the cost, as opposed to shopping around and buying components separately, and then trying to figure out which pieces made the milspec inspection process and which ones were cast in somebody's backyard shop...

http://mauser98.com/m14nmbench.jpg

[Blain]

BUMP!!!!! Let's try to reach 5000 sigs by the end of the week!!!! You can use more than one e-mail address to sign it with.

[Frohickey]

What works better is a short handwritten snail-mail letter to your congresscritter and senator-critter.

Thats only $1.02 in stamps, plus the envelop and paper, and some ink. Just make sure that you do not put any white powder in there. Dandruff sufferers take note. :D