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.
(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)