Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 9/2/2002 11:35:11 AM EST
I am thinking about getting one and wanted to know if there is anything I sould look out for or need to know about them? Thanks in advance!
Link Posted: 9/2/2002 11:40:41 AM EST
They are good. I regret selling mine. At least it was to my buddy.

The only bad part is that you can't get it remanufactured. Other than that they are good to go.

Link Posted: 9/2/2002 1:04:00 PM EST
PWA are some of the best. I'll never sell mine...
Link Posted: 9/2/2002 4:26:48 PM EST
I have a PWA lower it fits and functions perfectly. They are completely reliable. Buy one.
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 8:54:24 AM EST
from everything I have seen, PWA makes a very fine lower. Howerver, herein lies the problem for some people. PWA made lowers only. And therefore, it is difficult to proove it was assembled into a preban weapon before the 94 AW Ban. This is one of the reasons lowers it does not cammand the premuim price of other lowers which can be checked and verified as having been built into a complete weapon before the ban.
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 11:04:09 AM EST

Forged or cast?
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 11:45:46 AM EST
Pac-West Arms (PWA)
No known phone number
This information was given to me by a net citizen who saw it in the Brownell's catalog: "Definite serial cutoff. Last Pre-ban lower is #35,222. All Post-ban receivers are given a year prefix."

the above information was borrowed from : www.mp5.net/info/preban.htm

I have two they are great lowers.....Give 'em Colt guts and an M4 Colt upper and you have a nice M4gery....
Link Posted: 9/3/2002 3:56:26 PM EST
Thanks for all your help guys!
I bought it today. It is forged
and has a RRA national match trigger!

Can not wait to get it!

Link Posted: 9/4/2002 6:04:43 AM EST
" it is difficult to proove it was assembled into a preban weapon before the 94 AW Ban "

Since when in our legal system is the burden of proof on the accused? I don't believe any American citizen has to "prove" he did NOT comply with a law. Last time I was on jury duty it was pretty clear that the prosecutor, representing the state, had to show we the jury evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had broken a specific law with intent.

BTW, the 94 AW law does not say a receiver had to be "assembled into a complete rifle". That is the interpretion of some lacky at ATF.

Federal law and many examples of case law also defines the receiver as the firarm. In that context the word "assemble" would refer to assembling a receiver. That is also the context of the word in the 94 AW law.

If it was made before 9/14/94 it is "preban" period.
Link Posted: 9/4/2002 6:40:50 AM EST
Dean, I wish you were right on all counts of your reply. Really, I do. However, stop over at the legal forum. This has been mulled over MANY times, let me say that again, MANY times by folks on the board, including the lawyers on the board and they all pretty much agree.

The law absolutely says it has to have been made into a complete rifle before the ban, and that if taken to court, the burden of proof will be on you to proove that it was a complete rifle. It sucks, but its true.

Some of this doesnt matter at all to some people, and thats their business. However, people should be able to make an informed decision before buying.
Link Posted: 9/4/2002 7:10:52 AM EST
PWA is just as good as Colt or Bushmaster in my opinion. Go with it....
Link Posted: 9/4/2002 10:38:21 AM EST
Top Top