I would keep a good eye on Model 1.  Obviously they are getting a lot of interest from the plethora of threads lately ("Have you heard of Model 1 Sales?"  "Hey how about Model 1?"  "Is model 1 sales any good?" etc etc etc!!!).  Now they have a 6.8 upper reasonably priced.  I bought an upper from them in 99 and have had NO problems with it.  I believe they will (or already) do chrome lining as an option also.

Where do Model 1 Sales barrels come from?

I hear that the 6.8 doesn't work well in any AR15 mag even at a reduced count.  This info. is coming from Barrett.  Also Robinson Arms is working on a 6.8 conversion for the M96.  The 6.8 has been extensively tested in the M96 by the military.  The kit would only require a barrel, bolt, and a new mag if you want it to feed perfectly.

 It is well known and documented in the FAQ that no standard 5.56 mag (USGI, Thermold, Orlite, G36) can feed more than about 5 6.8SPC rounds.

However, to say that "no AR15 magazine works" is inaccurate, since if you have one of the PRI mags, it *will* work.



Which is exactly what you need for an AR15: new bolt, new barrel, and new mag bodies/followers.  

If the RobArms gun is using AK-style mags, you'd need to exchange its mag well.

-z

Right the PRI mags will work but they are post ban (i.e. 10 round max capacity).  I sure hope we get the Assault Weapon Ban and the Magazine ban overturned.

Has anyone tried the 6.8 in any other magazines such as AK74 mags or something like that?  I'd really like to shoot more than 10 rounds.

You are correct that newly manufactured [b]complete magazines[/b] won't be available until September.

[i]However[/i], you are incorrect in concluding this means no "normal" capacity mags will be available until then.   It is perfectly legal to replace the magazine body and follower (in fact, any combination of mag parts) as long as the magazine will function in the gun it was originally designed for, and you are not creating a 2nd "pre-ban" magazine.

For example, to get an AR10 magazine, you start with an M14 mag and a "mag rebuild kit" from Armalite which contains a magazine body and follower.  You ditch the original M14 body and follower, and re-assemble the magazine using the new Armalite AR10 body, follower, and the original baseplate and spring.

The exact same procedure can be followed as soon as the PRI kits are available.

-z

Zak:

I'm almost positive that you're wrong ZAK on using a new magazine body.  If you use a new magazine body, it's a new magazine and it will be post ban and illegal.
I've been working with Sterling Nixon the chief of the firearms technology branch of the BATF on this issue.  You can take an existing pre-ban magazine and modify it slightly as long as  it still fits and works in the firearm the magazine was originally made for. Making a new magazine body will put one in the slammer (assuming its high cap).  Armalite uses original magazine bodies for the high cap mags.  It must leave enough of the tab on the back so that it still will fit in an M14.

Furthermore, if anyone has a magazine modificattion, they should run it by the BATF just to make sure its OK.  Otherwise you you an illegal magazine.  If anyone thinks I'm wrong on this issue please point me in the right direction.  

I can't find an on-line copy of the ATF letter that spells it out.   I know for a fact that Armalite sells newly-manufactured AR10 magazine coversion kits.   STI (Strayer-Voight Int'l) sells replacement magazine bodies for their widebody IPSC pistols - you can find these at Brownells.  Scherer sells replacement magazine bodies for Glock mags - and they say they have a copy of the letter.   All of these are newly manufactured replacement parts.  

They are intended for the case where you run over your magazine with your truck, and need to rebuild it.

As long as you started with a pre-ban magazine, you can replace whatever parts you want - including all the parts - as long as the resulting magazine works in the original gun it was designed for (and that you end up with only 1 magazine).

Here is an ATF letter which spells out some of it:
[url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter88.txt[/url]

Well then, someone is breaking the law and I do not think Armalite would make such a careless mistake.

If Armalite would not make such careless mistake, and since they are demonstrably selling these magazine rebuild kits, then one would reasonably conclude that magazine bodies [i]can be[/i] replaced, as long as a 2nd magazine is not created.  

I'll see what documentation was sent with them when I get home tonight.

Also-
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m3197/9_48/109271577/p1/article.jhtml

Zak,

Thanks for the responses.  There's a big difference between what you are proposing with the  PRI Mags. and what Armalite does with the M14 Mags.  To use the Armalite kit, I think you have to have a high cap, pre-ban M14 magazine.  The ATF has allowed them to take the original, high cap, M14 mag body and then destroy the original mag.  Otherwise there would be two high cap magazine where there was only one before (i.e., you've just made a new high cap mag.  

I look forward to hearing your response.

There's no difference, it's absolutely the same thing. You replace your USGI magazine body, spring, and follower with a 6.8 one, then destroy the old mag body. You retain the Preban floorplate, so you even have a preban part in your magazine.

-Cap'n

VonTuefel,

Armalite no longer requires that you send in your magazines, nor that you destroy them.   The ATF does not consider a magazine part a magazine, nor does any particular part in the magazine "contain" the pre-ban status.

That fact can be demonstrated by the following logic: to replace a magazine body, there must first be a second mag body.  So at some point in time, right before you disassemble the original mag, there is one new mag body, and one complete assembled pre-ban magazine.   IF it were the case that a magazine body comprised a magazine all by itself, then it was illegal to produce the replacement mag body.  It is demonstrably not, since they exist legally (see STI, CMMG, Scherer, Armalite).   Therefore, a magazine body alone does not comprise a magazine.

If the newly made replacement mag body does not comprise a magazine, then the old magazine body alone cannot comprise a magazine either.  So logically, there isn't a requirement to destroy the old mag body.

The only restrictions we're working on here is that: (1) a new second complete magazine cannot be produced when only one original pre-ban magazine existed, and (2) any modified magazine, or magazine with replacement parts, must operate in the firearm the original pre-ban magazine was designed for.

Since the replacement PRI bodies run perfectly with 5.56 or 6.8, this isn't a problem.

Furthermore, since no individual part of a magazine "contains" the pre-ban status, it is pointless to worry about any of the original parts from the original pre-ban magazine in the rebuilt magazine.  The original magazine must be totally disassembled; then it is no longer a magazine.

Think about it for a second.  If it's okay to rebuild using all the components of the old magazine but replace the mag body (then trash the old mag body), and it's okay to then a year later replace the springs and put in a green follower, and put on some Ranger Plates, there's no reason to not do it all in one shot.

Capt.

Thanks.  I think you and Zak are right if you use the kit and destroy a pre-ban AR15 magazine.  I need to check with the BATF on this but it sounds like what Armalite is doing.

I just hope we don't have to worry about this nonsense after Sept 13.

Have any of your tried the 6.8 in a different magazine like an AK74.  I'd like to build an AK in 6.8.

I found the following additional information here:
[url]http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2000_ref.htm[/url] in the QA section (3):

[b](O4) How does the law define the term "large capacity ammunition
feeding device?"[/b]

The term "large capacity ammunition feeding device"
is defined as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device
manufactured after September 13, 1994, that has a capacity of, or that
can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of
ammunition. Large capacity ammunition feeding devices in knockdown
(disassembled) condition consisting of all parts needed to assemble a
complete large capacity ammunition feeding device are subject to
regulation if the parts are segregated or packaged together and held
by a person as the parts for the assembly of a particular device.


[b](O7) Are replacement parts for grandfathered semiautomatic assault
weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices subject to
regulation under the law?[/b]

No. Parts may be replaced in grandfathered semiautomatic assault
weapons and grandfathered feeding devices without violating the
law. However, if the frame or a receiver for a semiautomatic assault
weapon is defective, the replacement must be made by the weapon's
manufacturer or importer. The replacement receiver must be marked with
the same serial number as the original receiver, and the original
receiver must be destroyed. However, a manufacturer or importer who is
unable to mark the replacement receiver with the same serial number as
the original receiver may seek a marking variance in accordance with
27 CFR 178.92. In addition, the permanent records of the manufacturer
or importer should indicate that the receiver for the weapon has been
replaced.


---- End of quote.

The additional information here I didn't know before is that if you can't keep enough parts to assembled the second magazine "segregated or packages together and held by the person for the assembly of a particular device."   So as long as you don't end up with enough parts for an extra mag, you're ok.  

-z

This was on my Scherer replacement mag:

Dept. of Treasury
Bureau of ATF
Excerpt from ATF letter:

"...If the original body has been damaged beyond repair, a replacement mag body manufactured at anytime, may be used to replace the body of a large cap magazine that was manufactured before the effective date of the act."
Edward Owen, Jr.

The way I read it what PRI and Armalite are doing is perfectly legal.

I know that the people that make the .50 Thunder Sabre only sell a 10 rounder for theirs. This mag starrts with an SA80 body, and they use a custom made follower and floorplate-they told me they couldn't go over ten with this combo because ATF would view it as a new standard-cap.

Nick (almost said high-cap...lol)

Thanks all for filling me in.  It still sounds a bit strange so I'll go to the BATF Tech branch with a letter just to make sure.  

It sounds like you can run over your pre-ban high cap mag and then replace it with something different.  I've heard of stranger ATF ruling before.

Good Night

You can only replace it with something interoperable with the original mag.

The .50/Sabre mags Commando_Guy referred to can't go over 10 rounds because they will presumably no longer work with 5.56 rounds in the SA80 after conversion.

-z

Von Teufel,  why are you going to send the BATFE a letter?  By the time you get a response from BATFE the AWB will have expired.

Model1sales barrels are made by E.R. Shaw.

As MSTN has stated, the replacement mag bodies are officially designed for 5.56, but happen to work perfectly with 6.8 also.

There is some ammo out there.  I've got 400 rounds - about a quarter of it fired.    New brass will be available in a month or two according to MidwayUSA.  When my dies come in two weeks from Hornady, I'll be all set to produce 110gr VMAX and 120gr Barnes-X based loads.

A nice light AR15 in 6.8 will be able to cleanly take any N.A. game smaller than Elk (which could be done if you avoid the shoulder).

-z