.50 Beowulf Magazine Classification Update

[livewire0129]

8 members and 89 guests browsing....smile and wave, boys; smile and wave...

Foxer's still writing his novel

[Foxer]

Foxer's still writing his novel

Shut up, you.

[Foxer]

For those wondering about the apperent contradiction, they're still saying that magazines designed for one gun are ok if they HAPPEN to fit in another gun.

They claim that the difference here is that it's a magazine designed for two guns. It's 'designed' to fit in a 223 based platform AND a 50 platform, thus being one mag designed for two guns.

That might well be hard for them to argue if it goes to court. The law does say that if a magazine is 'modified' from the original it doesn't count - and mags that are specifically designed for the 50 are designed for the 50.

It doesn't affect things like shotguns because of the nature of tube fed magazines. What was the 'original' capacity of a tube? How was the tube 'modified', etc. Shotguns have always held all kinds of different sizes so while they can say that the ar mags were originally designed for 223 you can't say all shotgun tube mags were originally designed for 2 3/4 or 3 inch or 2.5 or whatever.

Well we knew they were waiting for the results of the election to pick some of the fights they've had in mind so i guess this was inevitable. I don't know what the 'judges' are going to say but at least there's a reasonable chance of winning under the current law, tho i suspect that the powers that be will be looking for ways to come down on the cop's side.

[Drache]

The law does say that if a magazine is 'modified' from the original it doesn't count - and mags that are specifically designed for the 50 are designed for the 50.

Their argument is, the beowulf mags are just modified 223/556 magazines. Thus the whole law of "what they are originally designed for" comes into play (according to them).

[Foxer]

Their argument is, the beowulf mags are just modified 223/556 magazines. Thus the whole law of "what they are originally designed for" comes into play (according to them).

Well - more or less, although they're really arguing that they're designed for both - 'dual' designed so to speak. That it's not really a modification, it's actually a design intended to be used for both in the same gun platform. While they use the word 'modified', what they seem to really be saying is that the new design was specifically 'redone' to deliberately suit either chambering and thus it was 'designed' for both.

If you actually modify a magazine to fit a different gun, then the 'original' design doesn't necessarily apply any more, but they're saying it's designed for both.

Now - i don't know if they're going to be able to sell that. It gets a little iffy. I think we would argue that ANY mag that works for 50 beowolf would have to work for 223 and it's not designed that way, it's just the way it is. And there is no way to make a 50 without it also being able to take 223 without a lot of special engineering. So - it IS a 'happy circumstance' that they work for both, not by 'design'. They argue it the other way around, that it's by design and not a 'happy circumstance'.

We'll see how it plays out. They are in a very grey area and i'm not sure how another authority will see it, although they tend to favour the police historically

[Drache]

If you actually modify a magazine to fit a different gun, then the 'original' design doesn't necessarily apply any more

Doesn't the law concerning magazines state differently though?

Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations

3. (1) Any cartridge magazine

(a) that is capable of containing more than five cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in

Thus if you take a standard AR15 magazine in 223/556 and modify it to fit a .50 Beowulf cartridge and pin it to only accept five beowulf rounds, you still follow the rules of the original magazine if you try and put 223/556 back into it.

[Foxer]

Doesn't the law concerning magazines state differently though?




Thus if you take a standard AR15 magazine in 223/556 and modify it to fit a .50 Beowulf cartridge and pin it to only accept five beowulf rounds, you still follow the rules of the original magazine if you try and put 223/556 back into it.

Well we're kind of mixing two things up, and that's my fault for not being more clear. I worded it poorly. If you take a mag made for a semi auto and 'modifiy' it so it now works in a non semi auto for example then the round count rule doesn't apply. If you were to modify a 223 so that it NOW held 50 (especially for a different gun) then the round count also historically doesn't apply - the 'originally' in the law you quote doesn't refer to pre-mod but rather is meant specifically to ALLOW for the fact that some guns hold different amounts of other ammo (espeically shotguns). So it's the original intended round that 'counts'.

Which should mean that a mag specifically designed for 50 should be pinned to 5 x 50 even if the design came from modifying another design. Because that's what it's designed for.

Let me come at it another way - imagine that the original 223 magazines somehow managed to hold and feed 50's. You could NOT then repin them for 50's and say oh gee now i get to fit 11 223's in there. The mag was orginally designed for 223.

But - if you modify that design in ORDER to allow it to work with 50's specifically and it's no longer the original design, then It's now a magazine designed for 50's. It might happen to take 223, but it is not a 223 mag, it's a new mag based on that design which is made for 50 and there are substantial differences. It's not like you just changed the sticker.

THEY are claiming that while it was modified to fit 50's, the intent of the design is to fit 50's AND 223 and it was purpose designed for both. In other words, the designers purposely intended the mag to be used for both types of cartridges INSTEAD of designing the mag to work with 50's. In other words - the 50's ORIGINAL catridge is BOTH 223 AND 50 intentionally - not 50 by itself.

And i'm saying that because the mag was substantially changed and needed to be in order to accomodate the 50, and because it wasn't designed to be used with the 223 but with the 50 specifically, the original catridge that mag was designed for is 50, not 50 and something else. If you make a magazine that works properly for 50, it just happens to work with 223.

Which is what the law allows for. It was necessary - otherwise how the hell do you 'classify' a shotgun tube mag? you can't. If the shotgun was designed for 3.5 inch shells it's GOING to take 1inch shells, 2 inch shells, 2.5 inch shells, 2.75 etc etc. It's just a tube. You can't make one that'll take the longer shells that doesn't take the shorter ones. So the law accommodates.

And i would argue you can't make a 50 for the ar platform that doesn't also take 223. They argue that you can and these ones were specifically designed for both - or perhaps that it really is a 223 mag and the modifications are insufficient to call it a 'new' type of mag, which it clearly is. Once it is substantially modified it's a new mag.

So they're into a really grey area. Obviously they're going to make an argument that stretches the definitions and such as far in their 'favour' as possible because they hate us. but - that doesn't mean they'll get their way if another authority has to rule on it.

[RangeBob]

They claim that the difference here is that it's a magazine designed for two guns. It's 'designed' to fit in a 223 based platform AND a 50 platform, thus being one mag designed for two guns.

My read was that they felt that it was originally designed for 223,
and that it was subsequently modified/adapted using one of 3 techniques ("widening the space between the magazine lips, changing the angle of the magazine lips, or changing the feed angle of the magazine follower") to feed 50 Beowulf without deleting the ability to feed 223. This makes them prohibited.

That how they are currently is that they are now designed as dual caliber, regardless of what's printed on them, which also makes them prohibited.