The FAL Files

The FAL Files (
-   General Firearms Discussion (
-   -   M249, possible civilian legal version? (

Erik the Red January 10, 2006 22:35

M249, possible civilian legal version?
Hi Everybody,

I just checked out Impact Guns website and noticed this. They are selling a M249 SAW that is "In stock, pending ATF approval"? Does this mean that FN is making a civilian legal M249 (it would have to be semi auto)? It does say "For law enforcement only, includes spare barrel", but why does the ATF have to approve a gun for LEO or Military?

Check it out-


MAG58 January 10, 2006 23:26

I don't see the need for a semi auto belt fed .223

There's enough Beta-C mags floating around that its pretty pointles.
I prefer the MAG58 myself

187 January 10, 2006 23:31

Those are post 1986 dealer samples, which can be had by class 3 dealers with proper law enforcement demonstration letter, or by a law enforcement agency itself.

It would be nice to see a semi from FN though :)

W.E.G. January 10, 2006 23:32


What's "need" got to do with it?

Its all about want.

I sure as hell want one.

The big problem is not justifying the need. Its justifying the cost.
They won't be cheap.

Erik the Red January 11, 2006 00:14

Anyone know why it says "pending ATF approval"? It seems odd to me that the government would have to put an approval on something another goverment agency it buying.
Also I don't see why FN couldn't manufacture a civilian legal semi only M240, M249 or even a M2HB, since they are manufacturing here in the USA now. The import ban wouldn't apply to them since there made here.


USMC 0341 January 11, 2006 02:23

As long as we are dreaming - if FN were to put any semi-auto version of one of their belt-fed products on the US civie market I would vote for the Mk48. That would be way cool.

187 January 11, 2006 11:12

Erik, ATF has to approve all transfers of post 1986 machine guns to everyone, including civilian law enforcement agencies. It is a different form (form 10 vs form 4) but regardless, the form for transfer must be sent to ATF for approval before the LE agency can possess the weapon.

Same goes for class 3 dealers. They have to obtain a letter from a Chief of Police, Sheriff, or equal person, stating that they would like to test and evaluate a certain weapon (s). The class 3 dealer can then purchase the post 1986 machinegun from the manufacturer by sending that letter in and completing the required ATF form (form 3 or 4). Once that is approved, the class 3 dealer will have possession of the machinegun for demonstration purposes for the LE agency. If that LE agency does not purchase the weapon from that dealer, then the dealer can retain that machinegun in his inventory until he finds another qualified buyer (another class 3 dealer w/demo letter or another government agency).

With that being said, nothing is stopping FN from designing a semi-auto only 249 for US consumer sales. They are probably looking at the price and potential sales........probably a bit too steep for most folks. They would have to manufacture it here, etc.

wellcraft January 11, 2006 11:21

i've never been interested in semi auto belt feeds because it seemed pretty pointless. but for those that would want one i'm all for it i'd rather have my ar15 with 100 rd drum . i've had some experince with the 249 and found it operates fine when it's clean but try shooting it on a rainy day, mix in a little sand/dirt, powder residue and the 249 gums right up and becomes useless. i ran qualification ranges at ft dix, nj for a year and learned of the 249 short comings.

16R40 January 11, 2006 12:44

FN has a huge military contract to make weapons for the military, I doubt they would piss away their parts and completly redesign the receiver to comply with ATF to make a civilain version of the 249

in the end it's all about $$$$$$$$........the civilian firearm market is not as lucritive as a military contract for folks like them

Rivaltm January 11, 2006 18:36

really, now?

Don't forget the PS90 and the FN2000 they're making for us mere civilians.

yes, in the end they're a business, which is organized to make money. But that doesn't mean that a little MORE money from us civvies would hurt, either.

But even to LE, those weapons are EXPENSIVE! I think the M2 is over $10,000 new, even to a LE agency (why the hell police need .50 MG's is beyond me...), and the M249 is i think $6k-$7k

Erik the Red January 11, 2006 23:07


Even if a MINIMI is semi auto it would still be a kick in the pants to own, same goes for the MAG58. I think bump firing a belt fed could be a lot of fun. We are very fortunate that FN is into selling military rifles (semi only) to civilians. The PS90 and FN2000 are maybe a peek at what might be availible to us in the future. They went out of their way to make a legal length P90 for us to own, so they definetly are into selling to private Americans. Kinda Cool!


16R40 January 30, 2006 17:21


Originally posted by Rivaltm
really, now?

Don't forget the PS90 and the FN2000 they're making for us mere civilians.

1500 dollar price tag for a PS that doesn't have to be totally revamped to make it semi-auto, is not the same as making a M249 that would have to be redsigned to ATF specs on the receiver so it can't be configured back to full auto, and will be priced at 5 grand or more.

kaiserworks January 30, 2006 21:08

If the 249 ever hits the civilian market in a parts kit form, I'm sure some enterprising machine shop (like me) would make a semi-auto receiver for it. Afterall, there are already semi versions of the M60, MG34, MG42, M2, 1919, 1928 and probably a few more not mentioned.

Lon Moer January 30, 2006 22:22

Impact does have a transferable M-240B and its even been marked down $25,000 since I last looked.:uhoh:

Of course, it still cost's more than a house does, in alot of places, but less than a good Ferarri.:rofl:

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:27.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2018 The FAL Files