Defense Review has an article up here. Not that it matters a whole lot, because thanks to Congressman Hughes, you’ll never own one.
|
14 Responses to “MagPul FMG 9 Folding Submachine Gun”
Leave a Reply
|
Powered by WordPress, Mandigo theme by tom.
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
February 15th, 2008 at 10:45 am
It’s magpul. They’ll make a semi version.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:46 am
It’ll still be an SBR, but shit… I’ll do the NFA dance for one of those.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
OMG I want one! While usually down on 9mm carbines (as .223 can do more in the same packaging), this thing is just amazing!
This solves the “trunk gun” issue beautifully.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Well, if they drop the shoulder stock, it should just be a folding pistol, right? Unless it counts as an AOW…
The stock appears to be largely empty, so they should be able to figure something out.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I recall reading on one of the SHOT Show collections-of-pictures from attendees that it was a “look what we can do” showoff and they weren’t planning to produce it in the first place.
That may or may not be accurate, of course, but it’s a possibility.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
It’s not an AOW if it looks like a gun when it is in the firing configuration.
This distinction is best illustrated by the non AOW pen guns that fold into a boomerang shape before the trigger can be used to fire them. They count as pistols not AOWs.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
And I would love one if it took the glock 33 rders and the 86 ban went away. I think that would be a kickass toy.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
It’s an SBR, given the shoulder stock & short barrel. The fact that it folds up is irrelevant considering it cannot be fired when folded.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Yes, I know it’s an SBR with the stock, I was asking if it was an AOW without the stock. I thought there might be trouble if it looked like something innocuous, like a tackle box (or, in this case, large flashlight).
Anyway, I suppose they could enlarge it to sixteen inches. That would avoid the whole SBR issue. Maybe Kel-Tec will produce a clone…
March 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Even if they make a semi-auto version you’d have to have a Class II license for it, since it will have a shoulder stock and a barrel less than 16 inches long. Might as well have a full-auto if you’ve got to register it with ATF.
TJ
March 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
You don’t need to be a Class II SOT unless you’re manufacturing them for sale. You just need to fill out form 4 and pay the tax for the transfer. The manufacturers handle registering it on form 1.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
To make it legal with a pistol-length barrel the closing part couldn’t be hinged or it would still constitute a “stock” that could be used for shoulder-firing. It could slip over the bottom of the case to cover the pistol grip and magazine, though, as long as it had to come completely off to fire the gun.
I don’t see any way to make a 16 inch barrel fit, since you couldn’t screw a barrel into the Glock slide, and if you had a two-part barrel with the ends threaded to screw together to make it 16″ long you could still fire it without the extension to make it 16″ long. Short of having a barrel sticking out the front of the thing you’d be stuck with getting a Class II license, which I’d be willing to do.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
You’re right about the Class II license! Guess I got carried away thinking about making one legal for average carry. Sorry I misspoke (twice, too!).
TJ
March 7th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
When I said 16-inch barrel, it was implicit that they’d have to change the design. They just modified a Glock for that prototype, but it could also be made like a SUB-2000 folding rifle.