Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/10/2003 7:57:04 PM EDT
Howdy folks: could anyone give me some input on the going rate for a Pre-ban Norinco in 7.62?

Its in good shape with a few small scratches here and there. Hate to part with her but must sell to finance another obsession.

Thanks for you help.
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 8:04:06 PM EDT
$125.00


Seriously though, give us a bit more info on the weapon if you want a fair appraisal.

KF
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 8:17:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2003 8:26:49 PM EDT by HiCapMag]
Well....Pre-ban Norinco 56s, less than 400 rounds through it. Have original bayonet and sling and two mags, plus would include one Bulgy waffle mag. No rust (God forbid) but a few small light scratches in the metal, and one gouge on the wood, but the wood is varnished in all spots so I have to assume it came that way from Mother China (go figure). Runs like a champ (of course it does its an AK). Anything else?

Thanks.





Edited to add: blue bedspread not included
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 8:40:24 PM EDT
Retail you're probably looking at between $850-$950

But remember, everyone is dumping their prebans on the market right now in fear of the Assault Weapon Ban sunset. Your rifle won't lose that much value....but alot of people are apprehensive about buying prebans right now.

KF
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 8:49:13 PM EDT
Thanks Krink...as I recall, it was the '86 ban that applied to AK's right? So presumably the sunset of the Criminal bill of '94 does not impact Ak's, but I suppose a lot of people don't know that....unless I am missing something.

Thanks again.
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 10:35:31 PM EDT
Cheapest I've ever paid for a preban Norinco is $700. Usually they go for between $750-$1000.
Link Posted: 12/10/2003 10:43:02 PM EDT
I recently picked up an 84S with two mags and accessories for $625.
Link Posted: 12/11/2003 3:30:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/11/2003 3:45:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/11/2003 6:32:04 AM EDT
I thought that even if the ban sunsets, this does not have anything to do with Chinese AKs.
Link Posted: 12/11/2003 3:01:04 PM EDT
Well, if the ban sunsets, Norinco rifles are no longer banned by name.

Also, there ceases to be a "pre-ban" rifle category, as everything that's allowed on a pre-ban would be allowed.
Link Posted: 12/14/2003 7:40:06 AM EDT
The local EBR shop has a well-used Norinco underfolder going for $1500. If they were willing to sell it for a more reasonable $650-700, I think it might sell.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 7:04:33 AM EDT
I thought ChiCom rifles were banned by Bush I and that is a separate law from the AWB that is due to sunset.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:23:04 AM EDT
I don't know about Bush banning Chinese rifles, but it IS in the '94 AWB:


Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 921 of the United States Code states:

The term ''semiautomatic assault weapon'' means -
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

Link Posted: 12/15/2003 9:26:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brules:
I thought ChiCom rifles were banned by Bush I and that is a separate law from the AWB that is due to sunset.



The 89 ban was on "Imported" rifles regardless from which country it came from.

The reason the immanent sunset of the 94 ban is affecting the AK "pre-ban" market so drastically is the 5 part rule (4 for milled guns). Simply put, in less than 9 months, you can stick 5 us made parts into your MAK or Bulgy or whatever and stick any evil feature you would like. If you have an SAR, it is already a "US" made gun so have a ball.

Except for "Collectors", pre-89 guns will offer no advantage over your $298 SAR-1.

and yes, the ban will sunset

Link Posted: 12/15/2003 9:49:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 12:52:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 12:57:46 PM EDT by rickinvegas]

Originally Posted By Jeepcreep:
Just remember it was Bush 41 that gave us the '89 ban.....



I remember.

I also remember it was 15 years ago. I also remember it was a ban on imported guns only. I also remember that in 1989, Republicans (specifically GWB Sr.) thought that we could deal with Democrats. I also remember that the house was controlled by the dems by 2 times the votes that the Republicans control it now.

Why do I remember this? In 1989, I was a political appointee hired by the Asst. Chief of Staff to the President. The import ban kept a total ban off the floor in Congress and would have kept it there indefinately if everyone who was so pissed off at GHWB hadn't voted for Perot and handed the white house over to Clinton with 43% of the vote.

As for a new ban? There is no new ban. It would take 9 months just to get one out of committee and it is not even written. The Dems lost 54 seats and control in the house in 94. The Republicans control it with less than 25.........Why does everyone think they want to lose control?????

Jeep, I understand your concern/doubt but please understand, laws don't just appear magically. The sunset is part of the 94 ban, it has to go away. After 9/04, everyone starts with a clean slate and no one wants to do that especially the Dems. They got fucking HAMMERED in 94!


Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:14:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:56:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jeepcreep:
my sawbuck sez he will pull something out of his hat to rally some Demos behind him. 'betcha!



I know everyone here knows what the 2nd ammendment says but I think we need a review of what Article 1, section 1 says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives

It doesn't matter how many Dems Bush "rallys" (what a joke, the dems HATE HIS FUCKING GUTS and the feeling is mutual)....Bill Frist and Denny Hastert are Republicans. Jesus, does anyone believe that Bush would say he "supported" a new ban if he didn't know there was no hope in hell it would pass the house? It's called POLITICS people!



Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:19:13 PM EDT
Another thought, I keep putting the more conservative house as the major obsticle to a new ban but think of this........

For 2 years now, the Dems (who are in the minority) have been able to block several judicial nominations from getting to the floor in the Senate by fillabustering. They have been able to do this by maintaining a mere 40 vote block voting against ending debate. Don't you folks think that even if Bush woke up one morning in a fit of political suicide and Hastert started smoking crack, the Senate Republican couldn't muster enough votes (they hold 52 seats) to maintain a fillabuster???

Jeep, let me ask you this. You think this is going to happen. Please tell me what Republican Senators and House Members will vote for the ban. Keep in mind that there are more than a few Dems who would also vote AGAINST IT. Lets do the math....assuming EVERY dem votes in favor (which they wouldn't) that means that 26 house Republicans and at least 3 Senators would have to vote in favor. Who are they? Please let me know so I can start to work for their defeat in November.


Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:35:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:50:34 PM EDT
Jeep, I enjoy having a good give and take with you. Please don't for a minute think I am bagging on you in any way.....you are one of the good guys.

With that said, I will leave this question on the table for you or anyone else who wants to tackle it. I can (and have) pose numerous credible scenarios where no replacement ban is put into effect prior to the sunset of the 94 ban. I have yet to hear ONE credible scenerio voiced that does otherwise. Specifics people..................??

Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:53:26 PM EDT
Top Top