CA-Legal Fixed Mag "AR15-Style" Receivers

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DougB

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
245
Location
California
I have several friends interested in buying the California-legal fixed magazine AR-style receivers (so they can build a rifle that looks and handles like an AR-15 except for loading, which must be done from the top).

I've seen the FAB-10 version of this, which apparently works pretty well, but is no longer being made by the original manufacturer. They apparently sold the rights to the product to another company (in Nevada, I think), and I don't know if they are in production or not. The original FAB-10 also had a thick and somewhat glossy "powder coat" paint finish that (in my opinion) didn't look good. I'd find it easier to recommend one finished like a standard AR receiver.

I understand that Dalphon is/was/might also make a version of this, but their web site seems to be perpetually "under construction" with no information I can find on this product, and little about anything else.

I also read a rumor awhile back that Bushmaster was developing something like this, but that might just have been wishful thinking.

Anyway, now I can't find any current information on any version of these fixed magazine receivers. Does anyone have information on what is or may soon be available in this category (the only AR option legally available in California). It would be great if someone could design some sort of a flattop receiver that allowed loading without having to push out the pin and tip the barrel forward (something like the Canadian/CA-legal FALs).

Doug
 
Here are some links that might help you out.

http://www.goldcoastguns.com/ar15.htm

http://www.awatters.com/m1a/calegal.html

http://www.redstarmuseum.com/caldreamin.html

I would take what the person says on the second link with a grain of salt. Some of the things he says I have heard conflicting rumors about, so a healthy amount of skepticism is in order.

I will also point out that there are also some shops that will not carry the new CA legal ARs because technically they were banned by name not by their characteristics. So in one interpretation of the law that means all ARs are banned. Nonetheless there are many shops that do sell them and it appears that the DOJ does not care a whole lot about it. I would however talk to whoever you buy it from about the legality of it and what you can and cannot do with it.
 
From the CA DoJ Assault Weapon Registration FAQ:

If I registered my SB 23 assault weapon and now I remove the characteristic(s) that make it an assault weapon, can I cancel the registration?

Yes. If the defining characteristics establishing a firearm as an SB 23 assault weapon are removed, it is no longer an assault weapon and the registration may be canceled. However, once the registration is canceled, you can never replace the characteristic(s) that make it an assault weapon, or you will be in possession of an illegal weapon.

THIS APPLIES ONLY TO FIREARMS DEFINED AS ASSAULT WEAPONS BY CHARACTERISTICS (Penal Code section 12276.1, SB 23). THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ORIGINAL ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS OR AK and AR-15 SERIES WEAPONS IN THAT REMOVAL OF THEIR CHARACTERISTICS DOES NOT NEGATE THE REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER THE ASSAULT WEAPON.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, the third part says if it's an AK or AR-15 variant, then you can't modify or remove characteristics to make it not a CA DoJ "Assault Weapon." Of course, it poses the question of why the CA DoJ has not shutdown dealers selling these fixed magazine AR-15s, yet.
 
BTW: I've seen one of these at a range I frequent. Watching the guy reload was a horrid sight. This is definitely not a defense weapon. If it can be used in matches and you need an AR-15 variant for one, then by all means, get a fixed mag lower receiver.
 
First I must provide a disclaimer that I own several pre-ban black rifles so I may be somewhat biased.

I think that buying any of these monstrosities is a waste of money.

There are still other rifles legal to purchase in CA such as mini-14s, M1As and SKS' that do a better job than a eunuch-AR. These are much more user-friendly and efficient and still have lots of accessories available in which to 'trick-out' their firearms if wanted. They are much more efficient and lethal because they actually work the way they were designed.

Buying a neutered AR is like buying a 'kit car' Porsche with a VW engine. They get laughed at by people who know and are only appreciated by wannabees.
 
I agree with CWL, but am also biased because I own pre-bans.

M1As are awesome, but are a bit pricier than AR-15 variants. The basic model is $1200 give or take. I had the next one up, the Loaded model which came with the national match sights and barrel for $1500 (sold it though back when money was tight for a college student; obviously I regret it, will try to reacquire one soon). Other inexpensive alternatives are the Mini-14 and SKS. Mini-14s are not match guns and are rarely known for getting 1MOA, but if you want something that shoots and can hit a mansized target at 100yds, this should suffice. SKS variants are running wild all over the US, CA included. You can get an SKS in really good condition for under $200.

Even if I did not have an AR, I would rather spend money on a Ruger 10/22 (+ stock, barrel, scope, action parts), a Remington 700 Police Model, or a Beretta over/under than get a fixed magazine AR.

Your friends should think about it first and be sure that they want to invest money in a fixed magazine AR. There are a lot of great weapons out there for plinking and target shooting.
 
then you can't modify or remove characteristics to make it not a CA DoJ "Assault Weapon."
Click to expand...

The AR-15 is banned by name in CA, regardless of the evil features, so removing the evil features doesn't make it legal.

However, the FAB-10 is not named AR-15 and by the fact it doesn't have a detachable box magazine, it doesn't meet the definition of assault weapon based on characteristics. Since CA doesn't ban semiautomatic rifles with fixed magazines, it is therefore legal.

But, like the others, I would by something different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top