Ok I know most of you guys think guns are evil, but this right here is just nasty!

[SIGbastard]

I have had a Saiga 12 for awhile. Actually I have 2 of them. One converted to pistol grip format and the other one is still in the "sporterized" (neutered basically) state that they have to be in to be eligible for import from Russia.

Anyways I just got 2 MD Arms 20rd drums for it and they are just friggen awesome. I ordered them a year ago when just a prototype existed and they finally started shipping last week. Well worth the wait. The polymer used for these is some tough shit. It's built like a rock. There is another company that makes drums that are called "wraithmaker" but they are pretty much pieces of crap and cost twice as much. I tested one of my drums today with 60 low brass shells and it ran flawlessly. One of them has a smoke colored back plate and the other a clear.

On a side note I got a Pelican case for my UMP conversion as well (also imported as a neutered gun the USC). I was kind of disappointed that the foam was cubed as I much prefer to trace the gun and make a cleaner cut out for it, but it is still a pretty cool case.

 

[Sheepo]

Guns are just evil

 

[Shakermaker]

Also great timing with the news earlier this week.

 

[<RJMC>]

the saiga is a shotgun right?

UMP are cool for the 45 caliber

 

[jverne]

oh come on man...how is it possible you can own assault rifles...it's just not fair.

 

[SIGbastard]

the saiga is a shotgun right?

UMP are cool for the 45 caliber

Yea the saiga 12 is a semi-automatic shotgun. It's basically a 12 guage Kalashnikov (ak47 type). They are imported with a regular rifle stock. You have to knock some rivets out where the current trigger group is, and throw that trigger group away. There are two pins just filling the holes where the trigger normally goes in a true non sporterized saiga. You get a standard ak trigger group to go there, but you may have to modify the hammer some. You must remove the old tigger guard. You have to cut some rivets off to do this. If you want to reuse it you must be careful. There is a plate on the sporterized version riveted and spot welded to the receiver right over where the new ak trigger will drop in. You see the receiver is just like a real deal Saiga 12 receiver in many ways but doctored up to make them legal for import. Once you get the plate off so the trigger can be installed you need to either drill holes to attach the trigger guard in this area or you can weld it there. One thing the reciever does lack is the square hole for the pistol grip nut. You can drill a hole in the proper place and then use a triangular file to square it out. I did this conversion to mine and then refinished it with alumahyde II. I have an oven in my shop but it would not fit so I hung it from the ceiling and put several space heaters around it only inches away to cure the finish and make it more durable. Later I cut the rear tang off to accomodate the Ace internal receiver adapter for an ace folding stock instead of an ak stock. This is only legal if you increase the % of US made parts in the gun. On mine the pistol grip, fire control group (trigger group which is 3 parts), and the stock are all US made. Even though it was made in Russia legally it is not considered a foreign made gun since I changed the parts. Kinda stupid but it allows us to get around the stupid ban on foreign made assault weapons that was passed under Bush Senior in 1989. The ban on domestically made assault weapons expired in 2004 which made projects like this possible.

My UMP still has all the original German internals. This is because it is a registered "short barrel rifle". When you have a registered NFA item such as a machine gun, short barrel rifle, short barrel shotgun, suppressor, etc the whole parts thing doesn't apply. There is a $200 tax stamp you have to purchase though and it takes about 2 months to get approved. Normally in most states you can buy a gun and it take 10 min or so for the background check to be ran and then your out the door with it, but NFA restricted items are a different story which my UMP falls into since the barrel is less than 16" long. I didn't have to wair two months for the gun just about that long to be able to legally replace the 16" barrel with a 7.87" barrel. Once I got approved I put a real UMP lower on it and bought 10-25rd UMP mags. I waited for the lower so I didn't have to use any US made parts for the conversion as they are not as good as the HK factory parts.

Here is a sporterized saiga as imported from Russia just for comparison:

 

[RyanG]

Guns are evil? Since when?
Guns are f***ing awesome.

 

[Calhoun]

Guns are evil? Since when?
Guns are f***ing awesome.

This. Firearms are awesome, and a lot more awesome when I'm the one firing it.

 

[Hazard.Squared]

Does anyone know if SPAS-12 shotguns are available for civ. purchase?


EDIT: nevermind they are, I just checked Wiki, sweet!

 

[Asuka]

Man, i once wanted to start a gun collection. How would i go about getting a license for those?

 

[delusional]

If you grew up guns, you would most likely be pro-gun.
If you didn't grow up with guns, you would either be indifferent or think they are evil.

That's how I see it anyway.

Me you ask? Grew up with guns, but indifferent.

 

[SIGbastard]

Man, i once wanted to start a gun collection. How would i go about getting a license for those?

Around here and most states (not all) no license is required. Thank God for the 2nd amendment. Now states like New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc that's a different animal and I have no idea.

Say you want a semi-automatic AK-47, AR-15, Barret M82a1 .50bmg, etc. Around here you go to the gun store say hey I want that. You fill out a 4473 background check form. They call it in. You get approved, not approved, or delayed. I've bought a shitload of guns and I've never gotten anything but approved. It takes like literally 2 min on the phone (for me). So it is quite possible to be in and out in 5-10 min. My friend on the other hand you can expect a half hour wait for the approval or delay. He has no idea why but it happens every time. One important note though is you are not registering the gun in any way. The form is for a background check and that is it. No registration is needed. There are no limits to how many guns you can buy at least here. You can't however start selling a bunch of guns for profit without a Federal Firearms License. That's not to say you can't sell any of your personally owned guns you just can't make a business out of it. Also private transactions in most states are not restricted. Meaning if you want to buy a gun from some guy that is selling his you need not do a background check etc. You must only do that with a dealer. You can't knowingly sell to a felon or someone who resides in another state or you can get in trouble. I say knowingly because a felon can lie, but you won't get in trouble for being decieved. I sold a shotgun to a guy and met up with him in front of a closed down business for the sale. Before he got there a cop pulled up wanting to know what I was doing. I just said I was selling a shotgun to some dude. The cop just said thanks for letting me know and drove off.

NFA restricted items do need to be registered and there are strict guidelines. Some states don't allow NFA items period. Examples are short barreled rifles or shotguns ("sawed off"), fully automatic firearms or "machine guns", sound suppressors, destructive devices, etc.

 

[Operational]

OMG that's ****ing evil.

You have ducted heating.

 

[15357]

I want your gun collection



+1 reason to go into army. (Legal reason to own/carry/fire firearms)

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Around here and most states (not all) no license is required. Thank God for the 2nd amendment.

You guys are ****in' crazy.

 

[kineaesth]

Yeah now we can go 'hunting', firing 600 rounds per minute!

Take that animals!

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Yeah now we can go 'hunting', firing 600 rounds per minute!

Take that animals!

Today, the americans are off to hunt mosquitoes.

 

[Phobie]

Guns are bad mmk

 

[theotherguy]

Although those firearms are quite cool,

There is no reason for you to have them. Unless you're a revolutionary, or a criminal.

Assault weapon ban needs to be put back into place.

 

[Vegeta897]

There is no reason for you to have them.

How about, it's a hobby/interest of his?

Explain to me why just because they can be used to kill people, he shouldn't be allowed to have them? It's obvious he has no intention of killing anyone. He's interested in the firearm, not what it can do to a person.

According to your logic, nobody should collect/be interested in knives, or any other item that could be used as a weapon. Oh, and nobody should take any drugs that can cause an addiction, either! I don't care how responsible you are!

 

[Gray Fox]

Meh, not really impressed until I see a Noveske 18" SPR with VIS.
If you're gonna show off and can afford a sig, it's only proper.

 

[theotherguy]

How about, it's a hobby/interest of his?

Explain to me why just because they can be used to kill people, he shouldn't be allowed to have them? It's obvious he has no intention of killing anyone. He's interested in the firearm, not what it can do to a person.

According to your logic, nobody should collect/be interested in knives, or any other item that could be used as a weapon. Oh, and nobody should take any drugs that can cause an addiction, either! I don't care how responsible you are!

Explain to me why just because a nuclear bomb can be used to kill people, he shouldn't be able to have it? it's obvious he has no intention of killing anyone. He's interested in the nuclear bomb, not what it can do to a person.

He shouldn't be allowed to own powerful weapons because they are tools, designed to kill people. Not only that, but they are assault rifles, which are modern tools, used in war, to kill people. The knife analogy is less fitting than the atomic weapon analogy, because if he were to use these weapons to kill people, the police would not be able to easily stop him. A knife enthusiast collects only moderately dangerous weapons, which, if he chose to use them to kill people, would not do nearly as much harm.

The drug analogy also doesn't hold, because addictive drugs generally harm only the user. You could take an assault rifle into a room, kill everyone in it, and walk away unharmed. You could not do this with an addictive drug, and possibly even a knife or handgun.

The only legitimate uses for weapons are for protection and hunting. An assault rifle is unneeded for either, it is therefore a useless luxury. Not only is it useless, but dangerous, because its only use is to murder large numbers of people.

 

[Gray Fox]

How about, it's a hobby/interest of his?

Explain to me why just because they can be used to kill people, he shouldn't be allowed to have them? It's obvious he has no intention of killing anyone. He's interested in the firearm, not what it can do to a person.

According to your logic, nobody should collect/be interested in knives, or any other item that could be used as a weapon. Oh, and nobody should take any drugs that can cause an addiction, either! I don't care how responsible you are!

Oh for pete sake. I could use your logic to justify me having a nuke or a tank, seeing as I
have no "intention" of killing anyone. And offcourse you and or some organization can
determine for sure weather or not I have or will have any intention of killing anyone.

The point is, don't be stupid. The issue regarding weather or not something should be legal
comes down to partially philosophy, but mostly the benefit (protection, recreating) vs cost
(killing, intimidation) estimate.

edit: Well ****, theotherduy beat me to it. I'm reporting you.

 

[Vegeta897]

Explain to me why just because a nuclear bomb can be used to kill people, he shouldn't be able to have it? it's obvious he has no intention of killing anyone. He's interested in the nuclear bomb, not what it can do to a person.

He shouldn't be allowed to own powerful weapons because they are tools, designed to kill people. Not only that, but they are assault rifles, which are modern tools, used in war, to kill people. The knife analogy is less fitting than the atomic weapon analogy, because if he were to use these weapons to kill people, the police would not be able to easily stop him. A knife enthusiast collects only moderately dangerous weapons, which, if he chose to use them to kill people, would not do nearly as much harm.

The drug analogy also doesn't hold, because addictive drugs generally harm only the user. You could take an assault rifle into a room, kill everyone in it, and walk away unharmed. You could not do this with an addictive drug, and possibly even a knife or handgun.

The only legitimate uses for weapons are for protection and hunting. An assault rifle is unneeded for either, it is therefore a useless luxury. Not only is it useless, but dangerous, because its only use is to murder large numbers of people.

Nuclear bomb analogy is ridiculous. I don't know how you can seriously say that with a straight face. Nukes are nowhere near on the same level as a firearm. You can't exactly just go down to the gun store and buy one. Lots of people have an interest in firearms. People enjoy collecting/shooting them. Your slippery slope logic of "Guy owning a gun that can kill people means he's going to kill people" is just laughably insane. It's outright nonsense. And it's kind of an insult to the OP.

I don't see what 'how dangerous the item is' has to do with how likely it is for a person to suddenly turn their interest in the dangerous item into an interest to kill people. Explain that to me, please.

Its "use" is to be enjoyed by the OP. Even if you don't consider that a use, where are you getting the idea that just because its only "use" is to kill people, that means everyone who owns one is going to do just that? That is obviously not the case. Plenty of people own assault weapons for reason of hobby/interest.

If somebody wanted to kill somebody or several people with an assault weapon, a law is not going to stop him from obtaining one.

Gray Fox: You're reporting me? You mean like, reporting my post? What reason do you have to do that? I'm not the one coming into a perfectly fine thread about a gun collection and attacking the OP. This is a debate that has nothing to do with what isn't allowed on the forum.


Edit: I can understand where you're coming from with guns of this power being outlawed. But to come into somebody's thread and say "You shouldn't have those" just insinuates that he's going to lose control and go on a shooting spree just because he owns them. That's what got me.

 

[Gray Fox]

No I'm reporting him, the son of a bitch beat me to it, how dare he post before me! The prick!

Either way, he is completely justified to use the nuke analogy as your logic can be used to
allow sig to own a nuke. You mentioned nukes being much more dangerous, and that was
exactly his point, only about assault weapons. To reiterate that, allowing civvies to own
assault weapons bring much more potential risk then benefit to society according to theotherguy.

 

[Vegeta897]

I wasn't really disputing whether or not assault weapons should be outlawed or not. TheOtherGuy's first post sounded like he was attacking OP specifically, like he's a dangerous man just because he owns those weapons.

 

[VirusType2]

We should be allowed to have machine guns and tanks.

I think we are allowed, actually.

A bit tricky to get your hands on and it is old but for all its bad points it probably the best tank a civilian (with a lot of cash) can get your hands on. It's agile (for a tank), small enough to go down streets and if not go round go over most parked cars. If you can get one with its weapons fully operational and with ammo (tricky but not that hard if you know where to look) and you have fuel It could be your ticket to survival.

picture:

awesome.

Looking to buy this sort of thing?
http://www.armyjeeps.net/

 

[Acepilotf14]

You can own a tank with a permit, but I don't think you can actually buy the ammunition. They're ****ing expensive anyway.

I thought it was outright illegal to own a gun classified as an assault rifle in the states.

 

[Vegeta897]

Richard D. James owns an AFV of some sort with a functional machine gun, with ammunition.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Okay guys, we can buy ourselves a tank and go and take over Sweden. Let's do this shit.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Guns are evil, man.

 

[VirusType2]

Man is evil.

 

[Gray Fox]

I wasn't really disputing whether or not assault weapons should be outlawed or not. TheOtherGuy's first post sounded like he was attacking OP specifically, like he's a dangerous man just because he owns those weapons.

Well ****, then it's my mistake. I'm reporting you for making me look stupid.

 

[VirusType2]

I'm reporting you for being stupid.

 

[SIGbastard]

Meh, not really impressed until I see a Noveske 18" SPR with VIS.
If you're gonna show off and can afford a sig, it's only proper.

I don't have an SPR. I do have a couple of ar15's. One is registered SBR (short barrel rifle). It's a LMT 10.5 with a Daniels defense quad rail and other goodies. I actually don't really own many sigs anymore. I have a P225 for my wife to shoot. I got bit by the 1911 bug few years back. Now I have some custom 1911's. My carry gun a Wilson Combat CQB compact and my favorite all around pistol my Rock River Arms "carry". Both are pretty much made and fitted by hand and are kinda pricey but there is absolutely nothing I would change about either of them. I'd rather have a few really high quality firearms over a larger quantity of cheaper stuff.

Here's that LMT 10.5:

And a really old pic of my favorite pistol my RRA Carry:

That second saiga 12 I have will be sent to Tromix once my number is up on his waiting list. I need to register it as a short barreled shotgun first. His wait list is about a year long so I have the time. I can do conversions myself but when you shorten the barrel this much on a gas operated shotty the gas tube and op rod must be shorter as well and I would have no idea how to handle that. Here is a pic of what it will look like. This is not mine:

Like stated by other posters I have no intention of hurting others. I would in self defense but I am not a violent person by nature. I will be a licensed dentist by this summer. I love my life and family and am completely stable. I do this as a hobby. I even make all of my own ammo aside from .22 and shotshells. That pic of my pistol is really old because I haven't used commercially made .45 ammo in 4 years. I am a member at 2 very nice private gun club/ranges. I intend to get land soon and make my own rifle range with a proper back stop and everything. My intention with this thread was not to start long discussions. I should know better because I have started gun threads here before. I just thought my new drums are about the coolest thing I have gotten in a long time. It's almost ridiculous firing a shotgun that holds 20 shells. That thing on the end of the barrel of my Saiga 12 is an adjustable choke (a polychoke). So it is actually quite capable for aerial use. I shoot clay targets with it all the time, and have a 2 round mag that will allow me to use it for bird hunting should I ever choose.

 

[Sheepo]

If you grew up guns, you would most likely be pro-gun.
If you didn't grow up with guns, you would either be indifferent or think they are evil.

That's how I see it anyway.

Me you ask? Grew up with guns, but indifferent.

What the ****? Where do you get off breaking your own rule!?!

 

[AJ Rimmer]

What the ****? Where do you get off breaking your own rule!?!

He did say "likely".

 

[Sheepo]

Where does he get off defying his own general theory!?!

 

[Shift]

Gun collecting is so cool.

 

[theotherguy]

Nuclear bomb analogy is ridiculous. I don't know how you can seriously say that with a straight face. Nukes are nowhere near on the same level as a firearm. You can't exactly just go down to the gun store and buy one. Lots of people have an interest in firearms. People enjoy collecting/shooting them. Your slippery slope logic of "Guy owning a gun that can kill people means he's going to kill people" is just laughably insane. It's outright nonsense. And it's kind of an insult to the OP.

I don't see what 'how dangerous the item is' has to do with how likely it is for a person to suddenly turn their interest in the dangerous item into an interest to kill people. Explain that to me, please.

Its "use" is to be enjoyed by the OP. Even if you don't consider that a use, where are you getting the idea that just because its only "use" is to kill people, that means everyone who owns one is going to do just that? That is obviously not the case. Plenty of people own assault weapons for reason of hobby/interest.

If somebody wanted to kill somebody or several people with an assault weapon, a law is not going to stop him from obtaining one.

Gray Fox: You're reporting me? You mean like, reporting my post? What reason do you have to do that? I'm not the one coming into a perfectly fine thread about a gun collection and attacking the OP. This is a debate that has nothing to do with what isn't allowed on the forum.


Edit: I can understand where you're coming from with guns of this power being outlawed. But to come into somebody's thread and say "You shouldn't have those" just insinuates that he's going to lose control and go on a shooting spree just because he owns them. That's what got me.

I was replacing the object of your argument with another one, which produces an absurdity. This is a common technique for showing faulty reasoning based on assumptions and beliefs rather than argument. If your deduction is true for assault weapons, there is no reason that it wouldn't work for nuclear weapons. Since we know it does not work for nuclear weapons, there must be another premise in there.

To find out this premise, we must ask, "Well, why does it not work for nuclear weapons?"

In your own words: "You can't exactly just go down to the gun store and buy one. Lots of people have an interest in firearms. People enjoy collecting/shooting them."

which makes this argument:
P1. People can buy assault weapons. <<<Warrant: "Something is okay if it's legal"
P2. Lot's of people like firearms. People enjoy collecting/shooting them. <<< Warrant: "Something is okay if many people do it"
P3. Just because assault weapons are designed to kill people doesn't mean that is their exclusive use. <<<Warrant: "If something can be used for something other than killing, then we can ignore its primary use."

C. There is nothing wrong with owning an assault weapon.


Now, I am not making the argument that the OP should be barred from having assault weapons, or that the OP is going to go on a killing spree. I am saying that nobody should have an assault weapon, because somebody can go on a killing spree. No single person should have this much firepower at their disposal, it is a threat to the public. Sure you can have regulations, you can have restrictions and background checks, but honestly, there is nothing preventing the OP, or anyone else, from simply taking their guns and walking out into the street and killing a bunch of people. Not that they will, not that they must, but they can. And given the vast number of weapons in the world, and the vast number of insane people who own them, I find he likelyhood of this scenario to be very high.