FAL Automatic Locking Magazine Release - Troll Away

[Macho Hambre]

Hey FAL Files – Just wanted to bring you up to speed on a fixed magazine compliance device for the FAL that we have been working on for the past year. Now that our device is officially Patent-Pending, we are ready to let everyone here have a look at our progress and efforts to keep ‘The Right Arm of The Free World’ at least somewhat free here in California.

Not wanting to register my two bullet-buttoned FALs as AWs, I initially settled reluctantly on the neutered ‘featureless’ configuration for my FALs. Once they were in featureless configuration and realizing just how heavy and awkward shooting the FAL offhand is without having your thumb wrapped around the pistol grip to provide stability, I decided that featureless was not going to work for me and that someone really should invent a feasible fixed magazine solution for the FAL. Well I am proud to announce someone finally did – and that someone is me!

Without further ado may I present our FAL Automatic Locking Magazine Release (FALMR). The FALMR is a low profile drop-in replacement for the standard FAL magazine release lever. The FALMR is essentially an extended magazine release that features a ‘trigger guard catch arm’ that locks in place behind the standard FAL trigger guard when the FAL’s action is closed. With the FAL action closed the trigger guard physically prevents the FALMR from being actuated to release the magazine. When the FAL’s action is opened, the trigger guard moves down and away from the FALMR’s catch arm and the FALMR can be operated as a normal FAL magazine release. Easy-peasy!

In regard to reloading the FAL while using the FALMR - though the FAL's magazine can easily be removed once the action is broken, we recommend that the FALMR equipped FAL be used in tandem with a stripper clip top-cover, and that top loading is the preferred method to reload in lieu of opening the action and dropping the magazine. This should prevent undue wear and tear between the FAL's locking body and the receiver lug.

https://vimeo.com/255500975



Advantages of the FALMR:


* A quick drop in compliance solution - installs in under 5 minutes.

* Low-profile design - maintain your FAL’s proper appearance.

* Avoid neutered featureless configuration - the FAL is way too heavy to for that mess!

* Magazine cannot be inserted when the FAL’s action is closed - may or may not be an issue with the Cal DOJ who knows - a non-issue with this design.

* Quickly and easily return to free state configuration when traveling out of state.

* No alteration to mag-well, no tack welds, no tapping & threading the receiver, no blobs of epoxy or other gimmicks.

* Fastest magazine removal of all Cali compliant FAL fixed magazine options.

* Not your old-fashioned FAL compliance device - can swing the FAL’s action open all the way - bolt removal/clearance is no problem!


Work is ongoing. We are still in pre-production phase and are tweaking the design slightly for aesthetics and comfort, however the aluminum prototypes we recently ran function flawlessly. We will soon have our production costs in order for steel versions of the device and will soon be ready to offer them for sale. We are also developing other California compliance products for the FAL rifle platform so stay tuned.


**The device has only been tested on metric pattern FALs - I still need to confirm fitment and function on Inch Pattern/SLR/Paras/other non-metric FALs. Shoot me a PM if you live in California, have one of these and would like to assist with this effort.


I would like to thank all FAL Filers who have provided excellent advice and who have shared their wealth of knowledge and experience with of the FAL platform over the duration of this project - specifically Lear70 & BigStick61!

[308/223shooter]

Actually, not a bad idea.

[sgr]

Thanks for the update.

[Tuhlmann]

Cool for CA, but you named it wrong. It should be FALALMR. Can’t have an acronym inside an acronym. Especially in CA, as I’m sure even that is illegal there.

[Buddymackjr]

Very cool! I'd be wicked excited to have that option if I was in CA. Heck, I might want it just to have it. Great job.

[gunplumber]

elegant in its simplicity.

[The Chief]

Originally Posted by Tuhlmann

...Can’t have an acronym inside an acronym...

You can have an acronym inside an acronym...we had that shit all over the place in aircraft maintenance...for example:

LAT = LANTIRN AEF Tester
LANTIRN = Low-Altitude Navigation & Targeting Infrared for Night
AEF = Air Expeditionary Force

So:
LAT = Low-Altitude Navigation & Targeting Infrared for Night Air Expeditionary Force Tester

[Tuhlmann]

Airdales are never a good example to follow.

[4markk]

Is it all one piece? Or is the lock attached to standard metric mag release lever?

To meet the definition of the law, the lock cannot be removed without opening the action.

So if it is two pieces the lock must be "permanently" attached to release lever.

Whether one piece or two piece, it can still be removed by removing the screw that holds it onto the receiver. So again, the lock can be released without opening the action.

I love the idea, but I don't think it would meet the definition of the law.

[adbm3]

I'm very happy to see that someone in the PRC is thinking about this and done something. For me, the grip wrap works very well and is actually very comfortable to hold. I've even thought about adding an ergo thumb shelf when I get some time. Plus, having my mag release back is nice. I didn't realize how much I missed it.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by 4markk

Is it all one piece? Or is the lock attached to standard metric mag release lever?

To meet the definition of the law, the lock cannot be removed without opening the action.

So if it is two pieces the lock must be "permanently" attached to release lever.

Whether one piece or two piece, it can still be removed by removing the screw that holds it onto the receiver. So again, the lock can be released without opening the action.

I love the idea, but I don't think it would meet the definition of the law.

The two of us hashed this all out. The original idea is Macho Hambre's release. It is indeed one-piece and that version is not the final version. It replaces the original magazine catch entirely.

Upon reading the language of the law and regulations, and some discussion here and on Calguns, I figured out a way to retain the trigger guard such that trigger guard cannot be removed without opening the action, otherwise the release could be defeated by removing the pistol grip and then the trigger guard. Macho Hambre is having the prototype be made soon. He came up with the idea to make the rear like on the early trigger guards to allow for the trigger spring plunger to provide extra support. The final version will likely be alloy to reduce costs.

The final issue I found was that the device could also be defeated by removing it. So we both came up with different ideas to deal with this. Mine involves a plate that attaches to the lower and requires removing the trigger guard for removal, which in turn requires opening or separating the action. His is simpler to make and we will most likely be going with his idea, which is to attach a plate permanently to the magazine intended to be used with this system. In the former case closing the action, and in the latter case installing the magazine, causes the plate to block access to the head of the magazine catch pivot screw, preventing removal. In the latter case, it may be legally inadvisable to close the action without a magazine installed since the magazine catch would be in a potentially removable state with the action closed.

It was mentioned in the OP, and should again be noted that a magazine cannot be inserted into the mag well with the action closed and lock into place or be manually positioned to where it can feed. The catch cannot actuate in any meaningful way with the action closed.

This system is not meant to be used for purposes of reloading, but to allow for removal of the magazine for cleaning, maintenance, repair, etc., and provide a means of fixing the mag to the letter of the law and regulations in CA which can be readily reversed in free America and does not require any permanent or lasting modifications to any major part. Ideally, a proper ten-rounder or a blocked magazine that is blocked in a manner that allows for removal of the internals should be used to help rectify certain types of stoppages. If you decide you want to reload with magazines anyways, I'd suggest using an Inch BHO so that you don't accidentally try to open the action with the rat tail still in the recoil tube or with a bunch of tension on the para recoil spring.

For reloading it is recommended that a charger guide top cover be installed for ease of loading individual cartridges or loading with chargers. For paras, this means using a scope mount with a charger guide, although someone posted a para cover the other day that had been cut down to a similar length as the charger guide covers, although it lacked a guide.

[NFADLR]

To make the mag release and bho pivot pin harder to remove I would suggest one that has a security Allen or torx head.

The Calif DOJ is not going to give a clean bill of health to any fixed magazine device.

The calif do is only going to say as they have many times in the past years is this issue will be decided by the 58 Attorney generals when someone is thought to be in violation of the statute.

I understand the desire to make this item permanent with the shield for the pivot pin but I'm not aware that the statute requires a permanently attached device.

[Macho Hambre]

Originally Posted by 4markk

Is it all one piece? Or is the lock attached to standard metric mag release lever?

To meet the definition of the law, the lock cannot be removed without opening the action.

So if it is two pieces the lock must be "permanently" attached to release lever.

Whether one piece or two piece, it can still be removed by removing the screw that holds it onto the receiver. So again, the lock can be released without opening the action.

I love the idea, but I don't think it would meet the definition of the law.

Excellent point 4Markk! Its a one piece unit and I just addressed the concern you bring up over on CalGuns earlier today so I’ll just cut and paste with just a few edits:
This has been debated and the Cal DOJ is certainly not showing its hand on how loose/strict they will interpret "not readily removable". Whereas some have argued that removing the axis pin will be interpreted as rendering the FAL incapable of accepting any type of feeding device, others have argued the DOJ will see it otherwise... Only time will tell on that matter which is why we are also developing additional compliance measures.

In regards to the particular concern you have raised, there is a relatively straight forward way to address that as well that was discussed here on the Files recently - essentially physically block off access to the axis pin screw head. I’ve been tinkering with one idea - a small metal strip TIG welded onto a FAL magazine so that when it is inserted into the FAL it blocks off access to the axis pin screw. People would have to sacrifice one of their FAL mags to pull this off, however the ‘Cover-over-Center’ Block (AKA Coc-Block) will effectively cut off that route for defeating the FALMR.



The FALMR is just the first of three parts we are developing. The FALMR might be run stand-alone for those who are confident the Cal DOJ will have a loose interpretation of "not readily removed". Others might choose to scale up into an airtight three-part system that should withstand even the toughest level of DOJ scrutiny.

[NFADLR]

As I recall the DSA FAL came into California with the e block welded up that wouldn't let the mag release open.

The e block was held in place with the two solid pins
the lawyers were OK with that.

It was many years ago but it did show that there was nothing permanent about the way the mfg (DSA) held in the magazine.

[4markk]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

This system is not meant to be used for purposes of reloading, but to allow for removal of the magazine for cleaning, maintenance, repair, etc., and provide a means of fixing the mag to the letter of the law and regulations in CA which can be readily reversed in free America and does not require any permanent or lasting modifications to any major part. Ideally, a proper ten-rounder or a blocked magazine that is blocked in a manner that allows for removal of the internals should be used to help rectify certain types of stoppages. If you decide you want to reload with magazines anyways, I'd suggest using an Inch BHO so that you don't accidentally try to open the action with the rat tail still in the recoil tube or with a bunch of tension on the para recoil spring.

For reloading it is recommended that a charger guide top cover be installed for ease of loading individual cartridges or loading with chargers. For paras, this means using a scope mount with a charger guide, although someone posted a para cover the other day that had been cut down to a similar length as the charger guide covers, although it lacked a guide.

Totally agree. This is the easiest method to comply with the law.

Originally Posted by Macho Hambre

In regards to the particular concern you have raised, there is a relatively straight forward way to address that as well that was discussed here on the Files recently - essentially physically block off access to the axis pin screw head. I’ve been tinkering with one idea - a small metal strip TIG welded onto a FAL magazine so that when it is inserted into the FAL it blocks off access to the axis pin screw. People would have to sacrifice one of their FAL mags to pull this off, however the ‘Cover-over-Center’ Block (AKA Coc-Block) will effectively cut off that route for defeating the FALMR.

I like it. That does seem to comply as well. Once again, no matter how stupid the law, American ingenuity will find a way to comply.

Originally Posted by NFADLR

It was many years ago but it did show that there was nothing permanent about the way the mfg (DSA) held in the magazine.

Nothing is "permanent" in the strictest sense. In the legal sense it is not easily or intended to be altered. Unfortunately there are judgement calls on the degree of each term.

If you show a "reasonable" effort to comply, you will usually prevail (usually is the key word).

[CH1291]

I can't be the only person that played Skyrim.

[jhend170]

Originally Posted by Macho Hambre

Excellent point 4Markk! Its a one piece unit and I just addressed the concern you bring up over on CalGuns earlier today so I’ll just cut and paste with just a few edits:
This has been debated and the Cal DOJ is certainly not showing its hand on how loose/strict they will interpret "not readily removable". Whereas some have argued that removing the axis pin will be interpreted as rendering the FAL incapable of accepting any type of feeding device, others have argued the DOJ will see it otherwise... Only time will tell on that matter which is why we are also developing additional compliance measures.

In regards to the particular concern you have raised, there is a relatively straight forward way to address that as well that was discussed here on the Files recently - essentially physically block off access to the axis pin screw head. I’ve been tinkering with one idea - a small metal strip TIG welded onto a FAL magazine so that when it is inserted into the FAL it blocks off access to the axis pin screw. People would have to sacrifice one of their FAL mags to pull this off, however the ‘Cover-over-Center’ Block (AKA Coc-Block) will effectively cut off that route for defeating the FALMR.



The FALMR is just the first of three parts we are developing. The FALMR might be run stand-alone for those who are confident the Cal DOJ will have a loose interpretation of "not readily removed". Others might choose to scale up into an airtight three-part system that should withstand even the toughest level of DOJ scrutiny.

In another thread this was recently discussed. This is why I suggested a plate that mounts under the takedown pin and covers the screw head. It makes no permanent change to anything, simply covers the screw pin hole when mounted. Remove the assembly pin, the cover comes off, reveals the screw head. No need for welding anything. Also easy peasy. As I don't live in the PRK feel free to run with the idea. I put a basic image over in that feed as well, feel free to get a look and see if it's doable. I'd say the 2 combined devices meet the letter of the law, but the PRK is still out to screw you.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by 4markk

Totally agree. This is the easiest method to comply with the law.



I like it. That does seem to comply as well. Once again, no matter how stupid the law, American ingenuity will find a way to comply.



Nothing is "permanent" in the strictest sense. In the legal sense it is not easily or intended to be altered. Unfortunately there are judgement calls on the degree of each term.

If you show a "reasonable" effort to comply, you will usually prevail (usually is the key word).

In the absence of any special legal definition of the word "permanent" in the statutes (which I don't believe is used with respect to fixed mags, but is used with respect to blocked magazines), the dictionary definition is used. Permanence, IIRC, does not mean totally irreversible or unalterable, or forever-lasting. The word may well be used with respect to statutes in other states in application to fixed magazines. This device, of course, was designed with CA laws in mind and no guarantees can be made with respect to laws in other ban States, although I'd be curious to know if it would work elsewhere.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by jhend170

In another thread this was recently discussed. This is why I suggested a plate that mounts under the takedown pin and covers the screw head. It makes no permanent change to anything, simply covers the screw pin hole when mounted. Remove the assembly pin, the cover comes off, reveals the screw head. No need for welding anything. Also easy peasy. As I don't live in the PRK feel free to run with the idea. I put a basic image over in that feed as well, feel free to get a look and see if it's doable. I'd say the 2 combined devices meet the letter of the law, but the PRK is still out to screw you.

I went over your idea and it didn't work, legally. When you remove the pivot pin, the weapon can still be fired and it thus does not constitute disassembly of the action. I modified your idea such that it would be held in place by the third component of the system, which would make it so that it would require disassembly of the action to be removed, but while it would require no modifications, it is more difficult to manufacture and is untested outside of models made out of very thin metal or thin cardboard. I'm not sure how it would hold up to abuse based on how it's attached. The pivot pin for security is definitely a no-go, however. Also, it would require a modified male end of the pivot pin, at the least.

[Parga]

Looks great, did SA Graham call you back?

[NFADLR]

On my DSA FAL with its eblock welded up area I could have pulled the two pins that hold in the E block and or just the countersunk mag release lever / BHO small bolt and held the mag in and it would have functioned.

The whole idea of the mag release being connected to the trigger guard shows a attempt to fall in line with the letter and spirit of the law.

I believe the block attached to the mag so the mag release and bho pin cannot be accessed is overkill.

And this brings me to say **** the SOC Corp and their anti liberty pro illegal alien mentality!!!

Originally Posted by bigstick61

I went over your idea and it didn't work, legally. When you remove the pivot pin, the weapon can still be fired and it thus does not constitute disassembly of the action. I modified your idea such that it would be held in place by the third component of the system, which would make it so that it would require disassembly of the action to be removed, but while it would require no modifications, it is more difficult to manufacture and is untested outside of models made out of very thin metal or thin cardboard. I'm not sure how it would hold up to abuse based on how it's attached. The pivot pin for security is definitely a no-go, however. Also, it would require a modified male end of the pivot pin, at the least.

[bigstick61]

The issue is that when you back out the mag catch pivot screw sufficiently to clear this locking mag catch design it shifts sufficiently to keep it from holding the magazine in place and the mag actually pops out a bit right away. I can then remove and replace the magazine, push the mag lock back into position, and put the pivot screw all of the way back in. Thus I can change the magazine through the use of a tool (a screwdriver), which makes it legaly indistinguishable from the now-insufficient bullet button type devices, or any of the older devices that used a screw (usually with an Allen head) to permit magazine removal. The only way to prevent this that met the goals for this device was to block access to the pivot screw head, for which there is more than one possible approach, the design seen above using the magazine being one of them and probably the simplest way to go about it from a manufacturing standpoint.

The nice thing about this system is that you can switch to a "free state" mode in a couple of minutes while still meeting the letter of the law here in CA.

[Meataxe556]

The Vz58 has a similar tilting bolt layout to the FAL (though no pivoting upper and lower receivers) and can also be loaded with stripper clips from the top. Czechpoint came up with a fixed magazine solution that basically requires the action to be removed so a pin can be knocked up from the bottom to remove the magazine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPbe-Z7Zi8Y

I was thinking for the FAL that if a modified magazine and mag release could be screwed together from the top (where the mag release normally latches onto the mag), so that the bolt / carrier would have to be removed in order access the screw, that might pass muster with the Nazis.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Meataxe556

The Vz58 has a similar tilting bolt layout to the FAL (though no pivoting upper and lower receivers) and can also be loaded with stripper clips from the top. Czechpoint came up with a fixed magazine solution that basically requires the action to be removed so a pin can be knocked up from the bottom to remove the magazine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPbe-Z7Zi8Y

I was thinking for the FAL that if a modified magazine and mag release could be screwed together from the top (where the mag release normally latches onto the mag), so that the bolt / carrier would have to be removed in order access the screw, that might pass muster with the Nazis.

It's not realy feasible the way you describe it. You'd need to have a screw go through the ejector block either from the top rear at an angle or from the rear (someone posted a pic of this sort of modification). This can be used to block the magazine catch from being actuated. However, in order to ensure that the catch cannot simply be removed with the action closed, you'd have to make it so that the screw also screws into the magazine catch, capturing it. This might require a catch to be made that lacks the groove at the rear of the top half to provide more metal through which the hole would be drilled and tapped. I think it'd likely be easier to go through the rear of the ejector block. One would have to separate the action, back out the screw enough to allow the catch to be depressed, and then remove the magazine in the normal fashion, and then do the reverse to reinstall the magazine. With a standard mag catch, this can also be done using the "COC-Block" component to prevent magazine catch removal.

What this mag lock design is meant to avoid is having to do something like drill through the ejector block in the first place. Except for the "COC-Block", which requires modification of a readily removable and replacable part, it is drop-in. I can literally install or remove the system in a matter of minutes, and make it useable like a standard rifle in even less time (since the third component of the system does not have to be removed to restore function), maybe two minutes. The only tool required is a screwdriver.

Despite this ease of installation and removal, the action does have to be pivoted open, preventing operation, in order for the magazine to be removed, and the same at minimum is true for removal of any component essential to making it so that such opening is required for magazine removal. For California, this meets the letter of the law for what constitutes disassembly of the action.

A method like the one above might well be suited to a ban state that uses a different fixed magazine definition that would make our FAL Mag Lock design non-compliant, but you'd have to check those laws to be sure. I'm only familiar with the California definition.

[Meataxe556]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

It's not realy feasible the way you describe it. You'd need to have a screw go through the ejector block either from the top rear at an angle or from the rear (someone posted a pic of this sort of modification). This can be used to block the magazine catch from being actuated. However, in order to ensure that the catch cannot simply be removed with the action closed, you'd have to make it so that the screw also screws into the magazine catch, capturing it. This might require a catch to be made that lacks the groove at the rear of the top half to provide more metal through which the hole would be drilled and tapped. I think it'd likely be easier to go through the rear of the ejector block. One would have to separate the action, back out the screw enough to allow the catch to be depressed, and then remove the magazine in the normal fashion, and then do the reverse to reinstall the magazine. With a standard mag catch, this can also be done using the "COC-Block" component to prevent magazine catch removal.

What this mag lock design is meant to avoid is having to do something like drill through the ejector block in the first place. Except for the "COC-Block", which requires modification of a readily removable and replacable part, it is drop-in. I can literally install or remove the system in a matter of minutes, and make it useable like a standard rifle in even less time (since the third component of the system does not have to be removed to restore function), maybe two minutes. The only tool required is a screwdriver.

Despite this ease of installation and removal, the action does have to be pivoted open, preventing operation, in order for the magazine to be removed, and the same at minimum is true for removal of any component essential to making it so that such opening is required for magazine removal. For California, this meets the letter of the law for what constitutes disassembly of the action.

A method like the one above might well be suited to a ban state that uses a different fixed magazine definition that would make our FAL Mag Lock design non-compliant, but you'd have to check those laws to be sure. I'm only familiar with the California definition.

Not sure I like the name of the "COC-Block" thing, but it sounds interesting. Do you have a link? Maybe they'd sell more if they called it the "Freedom Penetrator" or something...

My son is going to school in CA, so we're trying to figure out what semi-auto rifles he could bring out and still be in compliance with Commiefornia. Like the Vz58 "Liberty," a top-loading FAL would be a possibility if we could fix the magazine without drilling into the receiver, ejector block, etc. and still maintain a pistol grip configuration.

Not sure what the actual legal definition of "disassembly of the action" is in CA to make these legal. Does it mean removing the bolt carrier / bolt from the receiver (as in the Vz58 Liberty) or can you get away with just separating the upper and lower receivers, which would be easy on a FAL?

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Meataxe556

Not sure I like the name of the "COC-Block" thing, but it sounds interesting. Do you have a link? Maybe they'd sell more if they called it the "Freedom Penetrator" or something...

My son is going to school in CA, so we're trying to figure out what semi-auto rifles he could bring out and still be in compliance with Commiefornia. Like the Vz58 "Liberty," a top-loading FAL would be a possibility if we could fix the magazine without drilling into the receiver, ejector block, etc. and still maintain a pistol grip configuration.

Not sure what the actual legal definition of "disassembly of the action" is in CA to make these legal. Does it mean removing the bolt carrier / bolt from the receiver (as in the Vz58 Liberty) or can you get away with just separating the upper and lower receivers, which would be easy on a FAL?

Macho Hambre came up with an amusing name for each of the three components of the system. That's the name for the piece that attaches to the magazine shown above. There is no website associated with this at the moment. This is just barely being debuted via pictures and videos of prototype versions here and on Calguns. Work is ongoing towards the final version of each component of the system.

As far as disassembly of the action goes, it's basically any disassembly of the firearm action which makes it so that it can no longer fire or function. With designs with separate halves like the FAL and AR, with the bolt group and barrel on one, and the FCG on the other, simply pivoting the halves apart causes the FCG and recoil systems to disengage from the rifle, preventing it from functioning in any meaningful way (I suppose someone could use a hammer to fire the upper group by itself, but the bolt group is going to fly out to the rear), and as I recall the DOJ has even clarified that this qualifies as disassembly per their regulations. Removal of the bolt group would count as well, as would removing key FCG components or the FCG entirely.

Also, removing or replacing parts such that the rifle cannot function as a semi-auto as configured also makes it not considered a semi-auto for purposes of assessing AW compliance. For the FAL, removing the piston and spring and putting the gas plug on grenade setting would make it compliant. The regulations also clarified that there is no constructive possession, so having the piston in your possession would not make it as if you had an AW, and having a separate upper and lower that when put together would make a non-compliant weapon does not constitute possession of an AW, as in either case the rifle is not considered an AW. The rifle has to be complete and capable of functioning as a semi-auto while also having a detachable magazine under the new standard and having banned features, or a fixed hi-cap mag, or be under 30" in length.

One thing that might hurt Para FAL owners right now is that despite the law not changing, the DOJ used the opportunity to state that OAL is going to now be measured with the muzzle device removed, whereas this is not how the law was written. This would cause those who have an 18" barreled Para FAL with the stock actually capable of folding to be in possession of assault weapons.

Anyhow, this system is designed specifically to be CA compliant just like the Vz-58's "Liberty" system (really ironic name). It is tailored to the FAL design to be as close to "drop-in" as possible. Not sure of the Vz-58s uses the existing receiver design, or requires a modified receiver for it to work. The majority of the AR locks are also designed to work without the AR itself being modified.

[Pappy]

Interesting concept Macho, what is your projected price point on this device?

[Macho Hambre]

Thanks for the kind words and encouragement all... Just got back from a road trip out to Wyoming! What an awesome state - so nice being out in free America even if just for a short while, but alas I'm back behind the Iron Kurtain again.... Thank you Bigstick61 for covering the bases in my absence. Work on the FALMR is ongoing...

Originally Posted by Parga

Looks great, did SA Graham call you back?

Hey Parga - No I called and left SA Graham a VM - was not too surprised that he never returned my call though lol... I have to admit that it was viscerally unsettling and counterintuitive to the OpSec ethos to try and get on a DOJ SA's radar screen...
Thank you for trying to put me in contact with him....

Originally Posted by Pappy

Interesting concept Macho, what is your projected price point on this device?

Pappy - We are still in development and should have opur price point established shortly.

[Parga]

Originally Posted by Macho Hambre

Thanks for the kind words and encouragement all... Just got back from a road trip out to Wyoming! What an awesome state - so nice being out in free America even if just for a short while, but alas I'm back behind the Iron Kurtain again.... Thank you Bigstick61 for covering the bases in my absence. Work on the FALMR is ongoing...




Hey Parga - No I called and left SA Graham a VM - was not too surprised that he never returned my call though lol... I have to admit that it was viscerally unsettling and counterintuitive to the OpSec ethos to try and get on a DOJ SA's radar screen...
Thank you for trying to put me in contact with him....




Pappy - We are still in development and should have opur price point established shortly.

It took him about a week and a half to get back to me. I know he's traveling up and down the state giving classes on the new firearms laws in CA

[Meataxe556]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

Macho Hambre came up with an amusing name for each of the three components of the system. That's the name for the piece that attaches to the magazine shown above. There is no website associated with this at the moment. This is just barely being debuted via pictures and videos of prototype versions here and on Calguns. Work is ongoing towards the final version of each component of the system.

As far as disassembly of the action goes, it's basically any disassembly of the firearm action which makes it so that it can no longer fire or function. With designs with separate halves like the FAL and AR, with the bolt group and barrel on one, and the FCG on the other, simply pivoting the halves apart causes the FCG and recoil systems to disengage from the rifle, preventing it from functioning in any meaningful way (I suppose someone could use a hammer to fire the upper group by itself, but the bolt group is going to fly out to the rear), and as I recall the DOJ has even clarified that this qualifies as disassembly per their regulations. Removal of the bolt group would count as well, as would removing key FCG components or the FCG entirely.

Also, removing or replacing parts such that the rifle cannot function as a semi-auto as configured also makes it not considered a semi-auto for purposes of assessing AW compliance. For the FAL, removing the piston and spring and putting the gas plug on grenade setting would make it compliant. The regulations also clarified that there is no constructive possession, so having the piston in your possession would not make it as if you had an AW, and having a separate upper and lower that when put together would make a non-compliant weapon does not constitute possession of an AW, as in either case the rifle is not considered an AW. The rifle has to be complete and capable of functioning as a semi-auto while also having a detachable magazine under the new standard and having banned features, or a fixed hi-cap mag, or be under 30" in length.

One thing that might hurt Para FAL owners right now is that despite the law not changing, the DOJ used the opportunity to state that OAL is going to now be measured with the muzzle device removed, whereas this is not how the law was written. This would cause those who have an 18" barreled Para FAL with the stock actually capable of folding to be in possession of assault weapons.

Anyhow, this system is designed specifically to be CA compliant just like the Vz-58's "Liberty" system (really ironic name). It is tailored to the FAL design to be as close to "drop-in" as possible. Not sure of the Vz-58s uses the existing receiver design, or requires a modified receiver for it to work. The majority of the AR locks are also designed to work without the AR itself being modified.

I notice that DSA has a gun smithing service of $250 to make one of their rifles CA compliant, which includes a new ejector block, apparently (see #12 in the link below):

https://www.dsarms.com/t-gunsmithing.aspx

I wonder what that entails.

Also, I was thinking if you could drill and tap a small hole through the ejector block / lower receiver, even if you had to drill through the pivot area, you could probably line up / drill a hole into the mag release so it's captured / pushed forward by the screw and holds the mag in place with the mag release. That would require taking the upper and lower receivers apart in order to remove the screw.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Meataxe556

I notice that DSA has a gun smithing service of $250 to make one of their rifles CA compliant, which includes a new ejector block, apparently (see #12 in the link below):

https://www.dsarms.com/t-gunsmithing.aspx

I wonder what that entails.

Also, I was thinking if you could drill and tap a small hole through the ejector block / lower receiver, even if you had to drill through the pivot area, you could probably line up / drill a hole into the mag release so it's captured / pushed forward by the screw and holds the mag in place with the mag release. That would require taking the upper and lower receivers apart in order to remove the screw.

Someone already posted a pic of that on their rifle. You'd still need to prevent the magazine catch from being removable with the action closed.

But why go through all of that when you could have a drop-in system that at most requires replacing two parts and modifying a magazine body, and at lower cost if you don't do the gunsmithing work yourself?

[Meataxe556]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

Someone already posted a pic of that on their rifle. You'd still need to prevent the magazine catch from being removable with the action closed.

But why go through all of that when you could have a drop-in system that at most requires replacing two parts and modifying a magazine body, and at lower cost if you don't do the gunsmithing work yourself?

Well keep us posted, that would be a nice option for those having to comply with this BS.

I have not seen any pics of the DSA modification.

[Espy0861]

Any updates?

[Macho Hambre]

We will have an update here real soon.

[Macho Hambre]

A short peek at our progress working on compliance measures for the FAL.

FAL Locking Mag Release Update from FAL Locking Mag Release on Vimeo.

More information soon to come...

[Parga]

Looking good!

[hydrotx]

Following as well for us on the east coast

[Macho Hambre]

FALMR - now available to order - check this!

[Macho Hambre]

The initial run of FALMRs have all been shipped out, delivered and have generally been well received by all. Due to this and the continued interest in the FALMR, I think we are going to go ahead and plan another production run.

Before we get too far with this however I first wanted to get some feedback from our California based members who purchased the FALMR.
The verbiage in the regulations associated with SB880/AB1135 are vague in that they do not clarify what exactly constitutes 'not readily removed', nor what 'does' or 'does not' achieve a minimum threshold for being considered compliant.

Some have argued that the FALMR achieves compliance as a stand alone measure as it prohibits the standard method of magazine removal (actuating the magazine release) while the action is closed.

Others have argued that if it can be defeated by using a tool or some other 'work-around' can be employed to remove the magazine with the action closed - regardless of how ridiculously complicated the method might be and unrealistic to actually use - then it is not compliant.

FALFiles member Bigstick61, who I consulted with extensively on the development of the FALMR, and I are on opposite ends of this argument. Whereas I am under the impression that the FALMR satisfies the spirit and intent of the law, Bigstick61 sees the FALMR as an effective device to lock the magazine in place, however it should be just one component of a 2-3 component system that ensures compliance with the strictest possible interpretation of the regulations. His position is predicated on the fact that there are two ways to defeat or work-around the FALMR to release the magazine while the action is closed.
The two methods are:
Axis Pin removal - if one were to unscrew the axis pin and remove it far enough that the FALMR is no longer retained and can drop out of the bottom of the receiver, then the magazine can be removed by hand.

Removal of Pistol Grip & Trigger Guard - if one were to unscrew the pistol grip screw and remove the pistol grip, then the trigger guard which is held in place by the pistol grip but is otherwise loose and not attached to the lower when the pistol grip is removed, can be removed and the FALMR can be actuated like a standard FAL magazine catch.

Though both of these methods are overly-complicated and ridiculous ways to go about reloading a FAL magazine, Bigstick61's concerns carried enough weight to spur development of additional compliance measures that addresses these 2 possible work-arounds.
The 2 additional compliance components are:
Device to Block Access to Axis Pin - An appendage welded onto the body of a FAL magazine in such a manner that when the magazine is inserted into the FAL the appendage blocks tool access to the axis pin. With this measure, you have to open the action and use the FALMR to drop the magazine to gain access to the axis pin. Easy-peasy.

Locking Trigger Guard - The design of the standard trigger guard is modified to have an additional piece of metal added on the backside and a hole drilled in it so that the trigger plunger can capture that modified trigger guard. The front tab of the trigger guard also has a small hole drilled in it so that when it is inserted into the slot in the trigger housing, it can be attached and locked to the receiver by inserting a cotter pin through the hole. This requires the action to e opened and the FCG dissassmbled to gain access to and remove the cotter pin. This effectively blocks off the second work around, however it is not so easy-peasy as the cost of creating the die to crank out stamped modified trigger guards is cost prohibitive. As an alternate we resorted to modifying standard trigger guards purchased from DSA.

These 2 additional compliance parts were developed as a contingency should the CA DOJ end up adopting a hard-line stance in interpreting the nebulous regulations. The verdict is still out.

To date we have not offered either of these additional measures for sale as the need for them is still unknown at this time and I don't want to be seen as a snake oil salesman here on FF offering up wares that are not needed. Fact of the matter though is that both of my FALs as well as Bigstick61's FALs have all 3 of the compliance measures installed.

This is where I am asking for some direction from our Cali members - what are your thoughts on the need for these additional compliance items to achieve compliance? Is there a market for them? Are others wanting to purchase these additional measures to have on hand so that come what may, the parts can be added to the FAL to make a 3-part compliance system. Again I don't want to be seen as playing off people's fears and peddling stuff that is not required, but I also think it is not right to sit back confident that mine and Bigstick61's personal FALs should withstand the strictest interpretation of SB880/AB1135, while letting others only have access to the FALMR.

What say ye gents?

[Gorillaaks]

I definitely see where your coming from, I still don’t want to take any of my stuff out for awhile until everything is clear in general, I would be into buying the additional parts, have you used the stripper clip dust cover on these as well? Really stoked on FALMR that I have installed

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Gorillaaks

I definitely see where your coming from, I still don’t want to take any of my stuff out for awhile until everything is clear in general, I would be into buying the additional parts, have you used the stripper clip dust cover on these as well? Really stoked on FALMR that I have installed

I use it on mine. It is much better than changing magazines to reload on a fixed-mag build (and I felt the same about the bullet button). I do have the full set-up, though (and wouldn't think to take it out in public in CA without it), so I can only use the one magazine, anyways. The FAL can be a bit finnicky when it comes to charger-loading, IME; you have to get the technique just right or the cartridges want to move laterally too much. I understand now why they experimented with the horseshoe and box type chargers back in the 1950s. But once you get the hang of it you can reload pretty quickly with chargers.

[V guy]

In NYS, there are 3 schools of thought.

1) the mag cannot ever be removed
2) the mag can be removed with difficulty
3) If it was designed to have a removable mag, even if welded in permanently, then it is still illegal.

The original intent of the Safe Act was to stop any further sales of the AR15.

The removal of the pistol grip defeated the law. Thordsen stocks abound here for AR's and aK's-----all still have detachable mags. Thordsen might be a good source of #'s sold.

There has been no guidance from the State or the Police and the entire issue remains unadjudicated, as no one wants to get into it, especially if SCOTUS finally removes the law entirely.

It is an uneasy peace here..........like waiting for the indians to attack the fort. At least a million AR's remian unregistered here............and no one is going door to door looking for them.