THe 1994 AWB and belt fed guns

[whm1974]

Now as many of us remember the so 1994 Assault Weapon Ban made a number of "Features" on semi auto firearms a big no no under Federal Law... And New Magazines over 10 rounds illegal...

So how did this apply to Belts of Linked Ammo? Limited to links of 10 rounds only? Now of course semi auto belt fed firearms have always been rare for civilians to begin with, but there were a few models around just not common.

The only thing I ever did here about Belts of linked ammo was some gun writer asked when the bill passed was, "How is the US Army going to put serial numbers on belt links..." Or that what I remember.

I am wondering if anyone does know anything about the subject?

 

[AlexanderA]

The '94 AWB grandfathered existing magazines, belts, links, etc. Those of us with FA weapons had stockpiled plenty of them. Plus, if more were needed, pre-existing ones were available on the market, although at rising prices.

An unmarked magazine, belt, etc., was deemed to be pre-existing. Only new ones had to be marked with the date of manufacture.

 

[hso]

I am wondering if anyone does know anything about the subject?

Belts aren't magazines so the magazine ban wasn't applicable. Belt feds don't use magazines so the magazine capacity capability wasn't applicable.

 

[whm1974]

Belts aren't magazines so the magazine ban wasn't applicable. Belt feds don't use magazines so the magazine capacity capability wasn't applicable.

Thanks. I don't know why I thinking of this in the first place, but I have a weird mind some times...

 

[Ed Ames]

You have your answer for the ‘94 AWB. I’ll just add that some states took (and still take) different views. E.g. California says, “‘Large capacity magazine’ means any firearm magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition, ....”

 

[MAKster]

The 1994 Federal AWB used the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" which was defined as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device.

 

[CapnMac]

Ah, but, belt links are "ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than ten rounds."
SARCO was having a hard time getting ATFE to decide how they ought label the links in compliance.
It took about four years before AFTE realized that the link makers were, in fact, serious in their inquiries. They then wrote a letter stating that the AWB compliance info could just be on the outside of the case they were shipped in.

Which was a somewhat flagrant violation of the AWB, if by the people enforcing it. The premise being that only Military and LE would be ordering links by the case.

Meanwhile Marine Reserve units were taking rakes to ranges to police up links to keep the armories stocked up.

Now, no one was making post-ban belts up; it was easier to get surplus belts for German, Turk, Russian MGs; Browning and Vickers and Maxim belts are still reasonably plentiful. The debil being in the details--only new production MG belts were covered by the AWB, not existing copies.

 

[AlexanderA]

Belts aren't magazines so the magazine ban wasn't applicable. Belt feds don't use magazines so the magazine capacity capability wasn't applicable.

This the actual quotation from the law:

‘‘(31) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means—
‘‘(i) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or
similar device that has a capacity of, or that
can be readily restored or converted to accept,
more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and
‘‘(ii) any combination of parts from which
a device described in clause (i) can be assembled;
​

So, clearly belts were covered. A single link would not be covered. But a group of 10 links would be covered, since it would be a "combination of parts" from which an 11-round belt could be assembled. This was really moot, though, since there were lots and lots of pre-1994 links lying around. (This applied to disintegrating links; nondisintegrating links, such as those used in the German MG42, were treated as a single belt. But again, surplus WW2 belts weren't covered.)

 

[entropy]

Belt feds don't use magazines

The MG15, RPD, and M249 are a couple that come to mind. None of them require the magazine to work, but all have the ability to mount a magazine containing linked ammo.

 

[hso]

None of them require the magazine to work, but all have the ability to mount a magazine containing linked ammo.

Isn't that really less of a magazine than just a box to hold the linked ammo?

 

[AlexanderA]

Isn't that really less of a magazine than just a box to hold the linked ammo?

The M249 can take standard M16 magazines in a pinch. They don't seem to work as well as belts, though.

 

[entropy]

Isn't that really less of a magazine than just a box to hold the linked ammo?

Very true.

The M249 can take standard M16 magazines in a pinch. They don't seem to work as well as belts, though.

The newer ones took out that option. The ones we had in 1986 could do that though. More than one SAW gunner in the 7thID(L) bought the MWG 90 round snail drum.

 

[AlexanderA]

The 1994 AWB is history. What we should be worried about is a new AWB that may be coming down the pike. (We just barely avoided one here in Virginia.) If a new AWB has the same grandfather provision as in 1994, we're fairly safe, especially considering the millions of new magazines that entered the pipeline after the '94 AWB expired. I fear, though, that the antis learned their lesson from that experience, and they won't be as loose next time.

 

[CapnMac]

The M249 can take standard M16 magazines in a pinch. They don't seem to work as well as belts, though.

Off this topic, but, the bolt speed is the culprit in the 249. You need more energy to pull rounds out of a belt. Which means you actually have too much energy to strip rounds off a magazine.
Knights claims to have improved on that with their improved version of the SAW.

 

[herrwalther]

The M249 can take standard M16 magazines in a pinch. They don't seem to work as well as belts, though.

Whenever I took my SAW gunners to the range, I always made them shoot some ammo through M16/M4 magazines. Just so they could know a) it could be done and b) not an optimal choice. I may have gotten some cussing behind my back for this, but the drill never had to be tried on the 2 way range.