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)
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.)