[N1150X]

Was the M-14 covered under the Clinton assult wepons ban, :uhoh:
and is it considered an evil black rifle even though it isn't really black? (ok, some are)

sorry for the nube question but I'm trying to figure out what I need to stock up on before the next election (I have high cap mags for guns I dont even have) :cool: hardly cool right more like super crazy paranoied :D

[Regolith]

You can't buy M14's; well, not cheap anyway.

Numerous manufacturers make M1A's, which are a semi-auto version of the M14. I don't believe it was covered under the last "Assault Weapon" ban, so long as it was supplied with a 10 round magazine. However, if an AWB does get passed, it will likely be similar to HR1022 (a bill that's been languishing in the House for several years now) which DOES mention the M1A by name.

Don't go out and go crazy stocking up just yet, though. If an AWB does get passed, there is no gaurentee that they will grandfather in guns. It could be you'll have just cost yourself many thousands of dollars if they decide to ban and confiscate.

In other words, get what you want, not what you think you'll "need" to get based on a hypothetical ban that may or may not get passed.

[Deanimator]

Numerous manufacturers make M1A's,
I certainly wouldn't say "numerous". In fact, I can only think of three companies that made whole rifles, including Springfield Armory, and perhaps a couple more that made receivers.

[Regolith]

I certainly wouldn't say "numerous". In fact, I can only think of three companies that made whole rifles, including Springfield Armory, and perhaps a couple more that made receivers.

Hey, to me, three is numerous.


Ok, it ain't everyone and their mothers like it is with AR-15's, but it's more than one or none. :neener:

[N1150X]

Regolith thanks for explaining the differance between the M14 and the M1A I was refering to the M1A

[azredhawk44]

The M1A is a trademarked rifle model from Springfield Armory, a commercial manufacturer of semiautomatic M14-pattern rifles.

Fulton Armory, LRB, Smith Enterprises and Armscorp also manufacture M14-pattern rifles, as has Norinco from China in the past. Putting Norinco in the same sentence as Fulton Armory may put some shooters on edge, but there is some truth to the statement that they are M14 pattern much like a Olympic Arms AR-15 and a Colt AR-15 are the same pattern rifle.

I have a Springfield M1A.

I also have a custom built Armscorp M14. It is stamped as a model M14. Not an M1A. It is an M14, just sans the "happy switch" that the original military rifles had.

While one might make the distinction that M16 does not equal AR-15 and so M14 does not equal M1A, I draw this careful observation:

The Armalite model 15 rifle (AR-15) designed by Eugene Stoner did include fully automatic capability as it was designed before the GCA of 1968. The military distinction of M16 for its service model number came long after the rifle was designed. It could be strongly argued that the glut of AR-15's on the market are not true AR-15's since they lack Mr. Stoner's original trigger group.

Conversely, the M14 existed long, long before the M1A ever saw a design board at Springfield, Illinois. The military was never impressed with its full-auto capabilities back in the 1950's and actually ordered many unit armorers to DISABLE the automatic switch as the rifle was largely ineffective at full auto.

While a true early Vietnam Era M14 is technically registered as a fully automatic machine gun, many were neutered. After a while, most were issued without happy switches at all.

There is little-to-no difference between a military era M14 rifle and a new reproduction rifle from Springfield, Fulton, LRB, Armscorp or any other reputable M14 manufacturer, with the exception of the fact that the ONLY receiver that is forged rather than cast out of the lot comes from LRB, and carries nearly twice the price for that particularly prized component. The true military-service M14 receivers were all forged, to my understanding.

The cast receivers tend to either be weaker in strength when retaining integrity to external dimensions, or sacrifice external dimensions in favor of strength. This becomes an issue when using optics mounting systems that bolt to the side of the receiver and ride above the ejection port.

So, long story short... M14's are still currently made, and I have a 2007 production model, sitting in my safe right next to my M1A.

And, most rifles (with the exception of Norincos) bearing an M14 model stamp will shoot better than a Springfield M1A offering, when "standard" models are compared against "standards" and "NM's" are compared against "NM's."

Frankly, if you want an M14 rifle... get one. Quickly. Between democrats desiring to be mischeivious and raw metals prices spiraling upwards, it will become very difficult to effectively feed one of these fine rifles in the future.

Carpe Diem. The M14 is my boomstick.

[MAKster]

The old AWB did not include the M14 or the Ruger Mini-14 because they do not have a pistol grip.

[Match14]

The m14/m1A was affected by the ban, because it had both a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug, when the came came into affect, Springfield got rid of the bayonet lug. Even though the ban has been dead for nearly 4 years, new manufacture M1A's still don't have bayonet lugs, though you can always install one yourself.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Don't go out and go crazy stocking up just yet, though. If an AWB does get passed, there is no gaurentee that they will grandfather in guns. It could be you'll have just cost yourself many thousands of dollars if they decide to ban and confiscate.

That's if one were disposed to simply hand them over in a confiscation. Otherwise, these arms are a good defense against those who would confiscate.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

[RP88]

this is why I wish I could see the future, but alas...

also, shooting confiscators isnt a good idea. The best thing is to bury them far away where they cannot be discovered or built over and wait until 'the time' comes. :p

however, I dont think there will be a ban, but that is because i do have a stint of blind optimism

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If confiscation isn't 'the time', when is it? Is it when they come for you while your gun is buried far out of reach?

Woody

[RP88]

hm...I dunno. I guess it would be wierd if millions of people called in and said that their house was broken into and their assault weapons were stolen, then one day the police noticed several million AR/AK-sized holes throughout the country :p

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Hmmm... We'd have to dig a billion holes to throw them off.:cuss:

Sounds like a plan. I'll dig a couple tomorrow!:evil:

Woody

[Zoogster]

By M-14 I am going to assume you mean Mini-14 which is a totaly different weapon. The M14 is a military select fire weapon, with civilian variants known as the M1A cahmbered in .308/7.62 Nato. It is in fact aestheticly similar to the Ruger Mini 14 which is chambered in .223.

It would be banned. The new "assault weapon" type bills encompass a great deal more weapons than the old federal one. One of the wordings in some of them include all semi auto models and variants of models that were used by the military. The irony is that most weapons were originaly civilian designs that were then adopted by the military.

The Mini-14 was not banned by the first assault weapon bill because Bill Ruger made a deal with the devil to keep it out of the original federal 'assault weapon' ban.
It however is banned by name now in all new such bills including HR1022.

One thing the antis have learned after being told over and over that the weapons they ban as assault weapons are no different than legal versions without those aesthetic features is that they needed to find ways to include those versions without those features.
Essentialy what used to be safe from assault weapon laws just by changing things that primarily effect appearance are now banned as well through other means in HR1022 (essentialy the "improved" more all encompassing federal assault weapons ban.) The majority of weapon designs, especialy semi auto designs with any military heritage are banned. That means most reliable robust firearm designs are prohibited, as many have at some point been adopted by the military.

"L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

And just in case you were not sure if L applies to the M1A if that was the weapon you meant:
"`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L)."
Well the M1A is based on the M14, so it is banned even though it is never mentioned in the bill.




In fact HR1022 makes the first federal assault weapon ban look mild. However to the lay person they appear as almost the same bill, the wording is just different in subtle ways with a few additional sections that cause it to cover essentialy most semi autos at will.

Many firearms not on the list are banned by features. For example all semi auto shotguns that can take a detachable magazine. It also bans all with a pistol grip. So many shotguns are banned not on the list.
It even bans any semi shotgun with a more than 5 round capacity, so many sporting tube magazine fed guns are included.


The old bill had a limited number of certain features allowed. The new bill does not. ANY of those features combined with a detachable magazine makes it an assault weapon as I read it, not a few of them combined.

You can read HR1022 here http://www.nraila.org/hr1022.html

[N1150X]

Hmmm... We'd have to dig a billion holes to throw them off.


I'll add it to my too do list

By M-14 I am going to assume you mean Mini-14 which is a totaly different weapon. The M14 is a military select fire weapon, with civilian variants known as the M1A cahmbered in .308/7.62 Nato. It is in fact aestheticly similar to the Ruger Mini 14 which is chambered in .223.


hence the post by me saying

Regolith thanks for explaining the differance between the M14 and the M1A I was refering to the M1A

and the disclamer at the begenning explaining that I was a nube :banghead:

[Picard]

If this type of bill gets passed, there will be hell to pay.

[N1150X]

but... in your defence you answered my question thouroughly and exactaly. I am greatful that you took the time and energy to educate me on the matter and provide a link.

[RP88]

I dont think it will pass because there are alot more groups and alot more people for guns nowadays. I also dont think that congress will garner enough support for it (alot of the dems still think that the last one was an utter failure to do what it was supposed to do, and despite the claims, not all of them are hell-bent against guns). Gun politics has been shown to be a failure for the democrats, so hopefully they'll wise up.

But...with the oversized executive branch possibly going to the dems, coupled with the house, and the surge of sensationalism against guns because of three crazy college kids, and the fact that alot of people in general, gun-owner, democrat or republican, or anti, etc. etc. have a bias against these weapons...

well, who knows.

[El Tejon]

The old AWB did not include the M14 or the Ruger Mini-14 because they do not have a pistol grip.

Incorrect. If the M14 or Mini-14 (GB) had two or more prohibited features (e.g. bayonet lug and flash suppressor) it was included.

Numerous manufacturers make M1A's

Incorrect. One manufacturer makes an M1A, Springfield Armory. Several companies make/have made Title I M14 clones.

An M1A is not a word to designate a Title I M14 clone. It is a trade name of Springfield Armory.

By M-14 I am going to assume you mean Mini-14 which is a totaly different weapon.

Why would you assume that?:confused: This is confusing, you say red so I going to assume neon lime green??? I do not understand.

He said M14 because I think he meant M14.


The M14 is a military select fire weapon, with civilian variants known as the M1A cahmbered in .308/7.62 Nato.

M14 can be a Title II weapon, but plenty of Title I weapons are marked "M14". Civilian variants are known by several names, as noted earlier M1A is a brand name of Springfield Armory; it does not designate every single Title I M14 copy.

[blackcash88]

"L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

The bold part is the scary part. Even with the named list, if they want to ban any further firearm all they have to do is issue a couple to any said alphabet agency. Want to ban the Ruger 10/22s or MkIIIs? Sure lets issue a couple to Mulder and Scully for cheap target practice. No "originally designed for military or law enforcement use", either. :rolleyes:

[Rmeju]

a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.

I want to go on You Tube and ask Barack Obama if he thinks that's a reasonable restriction.

Reid

[azredhawk44]

Thank you, Tejon. You did a much better job explaining that than I did.

[blackcash88]

What's an assult wepon?