Guns

LGS has gotten ridiculous

I arrived at the range and paid my $20 (plus tax) range fee. I used to have an annual pass (cost $650 for both the wife and I) but we let it expire during 2020 because the COVID shutdown made it silly to pay for a range pass we weren’t using. Once they reopened, we didn’t renew it because ammo had gotten so expensive that we couldn’t go shooting enough to make it worthwhile.

Why? At $20 an hour per shooting lane, we need to go to the range at least three times per month to make it worthwhile to have a membership. Even if the wife and I each took a lane, that still means a range visit every three weeks. Ammo has gotten to be so expensive that we just couldn’t pull that off.

In January of 2020, I bought a 1,000 round case of 9mm for $150. So 15 cents a round for 9mm. Then the ammo supply dried up. When I finally DID get a ‘good’ deal on 9mm, it cost me $150 for 500 rounds of 9mm. That’s right- 30 cents per round, for this stuff:

I took it to the range this morning. That was a disaster. After firing one magazine of it, the RSO came over and told me that I couldn’t shoot steel case ammo, because they were unable to sell the casings to their scrap dealer. He invited me to buy some ammo in the store to continue shooting. Here is a cross section of what they were selling:

Norma .22LR for $10 a box?

Remington .38 Special for $1 a round.

Winchester 9mm for 50 cents a round. I can get the same stuff from 2A warehouse for 37 cents a round.

This means that shooting 2 boxes of ammo at this range using their ammo is going to cost me:

  • A $10 annual “membership fee”
  • $20 for the range fee
  • $13 in extra ammo costs.

Over the course of a year, a monthly trip to the range using their ammo will cost me $406 in range fees and extra ammo costs. Also, I don’t reload, but if I did, this would bug me: They won’t let you take your brass with you.

So I will make sure that I have brass cased ammo next time.

By Divemedic, ago

Staples

I recently became aware of a Supreme Court case from 1994, Staples v. United States. This case involved a man who had been arrested for having an AR-15 with more than a few components of an M-16 fire control group installed inside of it including the selector, hammer, disconnector, and trigger.

Suspecting that the AR-15 had been modified to be capable of fully automatic fire, BATF agents seized the weapon. The defendant was indicted for unlawful possession of an unregistered machinegun in violation of the NFA.

At trial, BATF agents testified that when the AR-15 was tested, it fired more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. It was undisputed that the weapon was not registered as required by the NFA. The defendant testified that the rifle had never fired automatically when it was in his possession. He insisted that the AR-15 had operated only semiautomatically, and even then often requiring manual ejection of the spent casing and chambering of the next round. According to the defendant, his alleged ignorance of any automatic firing capability should have shielded him from criminal liability for his failure to register the weapon.

The trial court disagreed, and the man was convicted and sentenced to five years’ probation and a $5,000 fine. He appealed the conviction, and the appeals court agreed with the trial court, affirming his conviction. It was appealed and wound up at the SCOTUS level. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, and let me tell you, there are some great quotes in that opinion.

The opnion says that the language of the statute provides little in the way of guidance in this case. The NFA is silent concerning the mens rea (intent) required for a violation. It states simply that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person . . . to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.”

Nevertheless, silence on this point by itself does not necessarily suggest that Congress intended to dispense with a conventional mens rea element, which would require that the defendant know the facts that make his conduct illegal.

Staples v. United States, 1984

The Government argued in that case that Congress intended the NFA to regulate and restrict the circulation of dangerous weapons. Consequently, in the ATF’s view, this case fits in a line of precedent termed “public welfare” or “regulatory” offenses, in which SCOTUS understood that Congress sought to impose a form of strict criminal liability through statutes that do not require the defendant to know his conduct was illegal.

One money quote that I saw was this one:

The Government does not dispute the contention that virtually any semiautomatic weapon may be converted, either by internal modification or, in some cases, simply by wear and tear, into a machinegun within the meaning of the Act. 

Give the case a read, and see what you can find.

By Divemedic, ago

Scope

I am looking for a Primary Arms scope, because I like the illuminated ACSS reticle calibrated for 308. I want a variable optic with a max near 14x or 18x. Everywhere that normally stocks it is sold out. Anyone know where I can find one?

By Divemedic, ago

Resuming the build

Thanks to the magazine catch on my lower being out of spec, all work on the skirmish rifle had to come to a halt. The slot for the magazine catch is supposed to be 0.250″ but looking at the measurement, you can see that this is not the case:

Since it is several thousandths too small, the catch doesn’t fit. I sent this photo to 5d, the maker of my 80 percent lower, and they shipped me a new one. As soon as I get a day off, the build will resume.

By Divemedic, ago

Out of Spec

So I decided to continue working on my Skirmish rifle this morning. I completed the machining of the lower that I got from 5d, washed it, dried it, and began to put the parts into the lower. The first step was the magazine catch, and…

It doesn’t fit. The slot in the lower is too small for the catch to fit. I tried a second catch, and that one doesn’t fit, either. So I am assuming that the slot that 5d cut for the magazine catch is out of spec. I emailed them, and we will see what they say.

In other news, here is the parts list so far for this lower:

That brings the cost (so far) for this lower to $691, with nearly half of that ($270) being the trigger and buffer. I want to have this rifle done by the end of September, so I am still on schedule.

DISCLAIMER: I have no relationship with any of the vendors or manufacturers mentioned in this post, other than me being a customer. The prices paid and any discounts I received were those available to the general public.

By Divemedic, ago