Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/1/2001 9:10:57 AM EST
Is it legal to have a bayonet lug on a barrel with a permantly attached, oversized (23mm?) compensator, since you obviously can't use a bayonet in this configuration?
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 9:13:43 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 12:45:43 PM EST
you could actually make a decent argument, that since there's no bayonet to fit on it (over the oversized comp), that it's no longer a bayonet lug. This would let you use it for a quick-detach bipod or whatever. Make DAMN sure a bayo won't slip over that permanent brake/compensator before bothering, though... there are safer and easier ways to attach bipods.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 2:54:07 PM EST
Is the lower pre or post ban?
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 4:59:58 PM EST
The law states that the evil feature we are talking about is a "bayonet mount". If your rifle will not mount a bayonet then it surely does not have a "bayonet mount" wether or not it has a bayonet lug or not. Unless you want to define "bayonet mount" in a different way. I suppose there are some creative members here that could come up with a different interpretation of "bayonet mount" that could prove interesting.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 6:08:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By Blazinglead: Is the lower pre or post ban?
View Quote
While this is a question based on interpretation of current doctrine/laws and I'm only intersted in other persons ideas, dealings with government entities and/or first hand experiences with afore mentioned groups/laws, it would only matter for post ban rifles.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 8:34:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 5:47:29 AM EST
If all you have to do is slightly open up the ring on the bayonet, and you can easily do this with common hand tools (a file), then your arguement that it is not a bayonet mount will likely fall on deaf ears. You can expect that at trial, the prosecution expert will do exactly that and snap that knife right onto the rifle, right in front of the judge and jury. If you just want the appearance of a bayonet lug on your postban, grind off the "ears" on the bayonet lug that the bayonet locks onto. Without the ears, you have no bayonet mount, just a useless stud that looks like one.
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 8:14:56 PM EST
While the prosecution was at it they could take a common hand tool such as a hack saw and cut the barrel down thus creating a SBR.
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 3:21:06 PM EST
Not the same thing. A bayonet mount is a bayonet mount. Just because standard M16 bayonets are .5mm too small to fit does not mean that you are home free. The ATF has held that a rifle can have non-standard threads to attach a "legal" muzzle brake by the threads alone as long as no flash suppressor/grenade launcher is available that uses those thread specs. It is likely that the bayonet issue would be treated the same.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 2:02:33 PM EST
A bayonet lug is a bayonet lug no matter how you interperet it.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 3:37:00 PM EST
A real stike of genius there Blazinglead. Thing is that the law says nothing about lugs, but does mention mounts.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 3:46:35 PM EST
A bayonet mount is a bayonet mount no matter how you interperet it. Does that make you feel better? A bayonet lug is also a bayonet mount.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 4:01:05 PM EST
Thanks Dave.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 6:07:49 PM EST
This has indeed become an interesting thread after all. So the law says that a bayonet mount is a evil feature. I propose that the definition of a bayonet mount is this: A mount that mounts a bayonet. So if you have a bayonet lug but the rifle does not mount a bayonet lug you do not have a bayonet mount. So the opposing view has a different definition of a bayonet mount. I am interested in what that is. Would be a good read I am quite sure.
Top Top