Thanks for the summary. I forget everyone isn't a roleplayer and hence exposed to this studf. ;)
A note: It's possible to convert an AR-15 to full auto. Of course this makes it rather more illegal, i would imagine--but it means automatic weapons are still relevant in the conversation, and yes, my AR-15-owning friend considered this a selling point in case Things Got Crazy.
You're not converting a bolt-action to full auto (unless there's some sort of motorized bolt mechanism out there...and somehow that makes them less scary.
There is that, yes. From what I've heard it's also reasonably basic to make a fully automatic weapon from scratch if you're reasonably competent with a milling machine (I don't have the skills there to say whether what I've heard is correct or not), though converting an AR15 is a whole lot easier.
I still say that talking about the availability and legality of machine guns is a red herring. Using the possibility of conversion as a reason to distinguish between semiautomatics and revolvers or between semiautomatics and bolt/lever/pump action makes more sense. Is it true of semiautos in general, or just certain models? If it's only some, can the distinction be spelled out clearly in terms that'll work for writing a law?
Also: how often is that conversion actually done? Are criminals using full-auto home-modified weapons?
The AK-47 in particular was designed to be manufactured in third-world facilities using sloppy tooling and unskilled labor. There are people we both know who have access to a Bridgeport. If you have access to a Bridgeport and know how to use it, as many American hobbyists do, you have access to better facilities than what Mikhail Kalashnikov intended the AK-47 to be manufactured in, and you have more skill than the workers who were intended to make one. The AK design subsequently even changed from a milled receiver to a stamped-steel one, making it even easier and cheaper to manufacture.
Anyway, as far as converting semi- to full-auto and subsequently using the weapon in a crime, here's a video from the first time the AWB was debated, 20+ years ago (http://youtu.be/LB8gNCnLDZI). A police officer who specializes in firearms training elaborates some of the technical distinctions you did in the original post. Anyway, what I want to pull out is about 9:35 in and consists of the explanatory lead-in to, and the testimony of, Det. Trahin of the LAPD before the California State Assembly. Money quotes: "...not readily and easily convertible...." "Our unit has never, ever, had one AK-47 converted, one Ruger Mini-14 converted, an H&K 91/93 never converted, an AR-180, never converted."
There *are* full-auto weapons that are used in crimes. Perhaps the classic example is the North Hollywood shootout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout); these enterprising criminals even actually used weapons that they had home-converted to full-auto. But the vast majority of bank robberies don't go down like this; these guys were once-in-a-hundred-years outliers. (FWIW, police still point at the North Hollywood shootout as a justification for the need for patrol rifles in their cruisers, as backup for their sidearms.)
One of the easiest guns for the amateur gunmaker to make is a sub-machine gun. The problem in making such a gun is to get it to stop firing once the trigger is pulled. During WWII, some people in some of the occupied countries made STEN guns, a sub-machine gun, in bicycle shops.
It may be possible to convert an AR to full auto, but it isn't easy, as it required milling out the receiver, if I understand correctly. I believe that one of the modifications to the AR from its original configuration was to make it more difficult to convert. Of course, if a person did convert, he would be liable for prosecution under Federal law for the unlawful manufacture of a full auto weapon without the appropriate license.
There are historic turn -bolt action conversions to fully automatic (EWnfields for instance in both World Wars) and more common there have been some straight pull bolt action rifle conversions before WWI and it is very possible and IMO would be rather easy to turn other straight pull bolt actions into full auto. There has even been a full auto muzzloader in the past. But yes any semi auto can be converted to full auto, but it is not always so easy and for the AR15 yes it can easily be converted to full auto (not all models though) with a "drop in sear", but those sears have been illegal to make for civillian ownership since 1986 and they are serial numbered, registered and taxed at $200 each. You can buy a good one for about $3,000 to $5,000. There is a type of cheaply made way to convert most ARs to full auto but they are stil a few thousand dollars a piece and need a lot of fine tuning and are not reliable. But back to the point, ANY gun can be made full auto including muzzloaders, but it is much easier to make a full auto from scratch cheaply and it is much easier to make than a semi auto actually. You can make it from scarap metal or from hardware store parts so the purpose of banning any semi-auto is moot since it is so easy for criminals or nutjobs to make one of these... http://thehomegunsmith.com/ And that is not the only design out there. There are plenty of videos of people making full auto guns from hardware store parts out there.
(no subject)
A note: It's possible to convert an AR-15 to full auto. Of course this makes it rather more illegal, i would imagine--but it means automatic weapons are still relevant in the conversation, and yes, my AR-15-owning friend considered this a selling point in case Things Got Crazy.
You're not converting a bolt-action to full auto (unless there's some sort of motorized bolt mechanism out there...and somehow that makes them less scary.
(no subject)
I still say that talking about the availability and legality of machine guns is a red herring. Using the possibility of conversion as a reason to distinguish between semiautomatics and revolvers or between semiautomatics and bolt/lever/pump action makes more sense. Is it true of semiautos in general, or just certain models? If it's only some, can the distinction be spelled out clearly in terms that'll work for writing a law?
Also: how often is that conversion actually done? Are criminals using full-auto home-modified weapons?
(no subject)
The AK-47 in particular was designed to be manufactured in third-world facilities using sloppy tooling and unskilled labor. There are people we both know who have access to a Bridgeport. If you have access to a Bridgeport and know how to use it, as many American hobbyists do, you have access to better facilities than what Mikhail Kalashnikov intended the AK-47 to be manufactured in, and you have more skill than the workers who were intended to make one. The AK design subsequently even changed from a milled receiver to a stamped-steel one, making it even easier and cheaper to manufacture.
Anyway, as far as converting semi- to full-auto and subsequently using the weapon in a crime, here's a video from the first time the AWB was debated, 20+ years ago (http://youtu.be/LB8gNCnLDZI). A police officer who specializes in firearms training elaborates some of the technical distinctions you did in the original post. Anyway, what I want to pull out is about 9:35 in and consists of the explanatory lead-in to, and the testimony of, Det. Trahin of the LAPD before the California State Assembly. Money quotes: "...not readily and easily convertible...." "Our unit has never, ever, had one AK-47 converted, one Ruger Mini-14 converted, an H&K 91/93 never converted, an AR-180, never converted."
There *are* full-auto weapons that are used in crimes. Perhaps the classic example is the North Hollywood shootout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout); these enterprising criminals even actually used weapons that they had home-converted to full-auto. But the vast majority of bank robberies don't go down like this; these guys were once-in-a-hundred-years outliers. (FWIW, police still point at the North Hollywood shootout as a justification for the need for patrol rifles in their cruisers, as backup for their sidearms.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)