1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The New .50 FUCA Rifle. PRK Legal!

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by El Rojo, Sep 15, 2004.

  1. El Rojo

    El Rojo Well-Known Member

    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 www.thehighroad.org
    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.
  2. Zak Smith

    Zak Smith Moderator Staff Member

    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.

  3. sumpnz

    sumpnz Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. PMDW

    PMDW Well-Known Member

  5. GunnySkox

    GunnySkox Well-Known Member

    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 ).

  6. kidcoltoutlaw

    kidcoltoutlaw Well-Known Member

    don't you just love this country

    the people make it great somebody will come up with something even better and they will wish that had left the 50 alone.
  7. deej

    deej Well-Known Member

    I think it needs to be bigger. BIGGER. It needs to be the Terminator of big-bore cartridges.
  8. nico

    nico Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. Dionysusigma

    Dionysusigma Well-Known Member

    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?
  10. The_Antibubba

    The_Antibubba Well-Known Member

    Let us remind people WHY a new cartridge is needed

    I nominate the .50 Governator. :fire:
  11. atek3

    atek3 Well-Known Member

    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.

  12. ReadyontheRight

    ReadyontheRight Well-Known Member

    The .50 RKBA

    or The .50 Jefferson
  13. cracked butt

    cracked butt Well-Known Member

    I was thinking of a .50 Ackley Improved, but I think ATEK had a better idea.
  14. atek3

    atek3 Well-Known Member

    50 AI won't work because 50 bmg will still chamber in the rifle :(

  15. strambo

    strambo Well-Known Member

    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?
  16. cracked butt

    cracked butt Well-Known Member

    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:
  17. atek3

    atek3 Well-Known Member

    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 :)

  18. cracked butt

    cracked butt Well-Known Member

    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:
  19. stv

    stv Well-Known Member

    .50 Legitimate Sporting Purpose (LSP) has sort of a ring to it, actually...
  20. only1asterisk

    only1asterisk member

    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-.075â€

    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.


Share This Page