California-legal FAL?

D

DougB

New member
I read a reference here someplace to Entreprise Arms selling California-legal FAL rifles. I assume this means that they have designed some sort of non-pistol-grip (legally) that lets you shoot the thing without having it classified as an assault weapon under California law. I went to their web site, and sure enough, they say they have rifles legal in California. But no pictures or description of how they accomplish this. Just removing the normal pistol grip doesn't seem like it would work very well. Can anyone shed light on how Entreprise (or anyone else) has made California-legal FALs? Thanks.

Doug
 
They remove the pistol grip and leave the pistol grip "tang" or screw threads in place.

Cal DOJ is currently of the opinion that this is legal, and it is, the PG is the evil feature that makes the detatch mag a no-no, lose the grip, keep the mag.

The alternative is to fix a 10 round mag and use stripper clips to charge the weapon, keeping the pistol grip, as DSA does.

Either way is compliant.
 
I think Arizona Response Systems was making a CA legal FAL for a little while. Basically, it was a FAL with the gas port plugged, making it a straight pull bolt action.
 
It would be more hard to find gunstore who would do FFL service,
I have had even hard time to let them know that they can do FFL service for C&R, ALL didn't want to risk their neck,
 
It has a fixed 10 round mag,loaded through the top.$1795,and then you have to buy their modified dustcover(to load it) for $29.95.
 

Attachments

  • cal legal stg58.jpg
    cal legal stg58.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 85
$1795 for a fixed mag FAL!

Am I the only one who would rather buy an M1A match rifle for that much money? What is the use of a fixed mag FAL anyway? That is the only good benefit of the FAL over the M1A is the cheap mags. In the PRK you can't get 20 round mags anymore anyway (unless you just happen find some you forgot you bought in 1985 lying around in your trunk just after a vegas trip). What a big waste of money.
 
I admit it's pretty discouraging not to be able to just buy another regular FAL like people in other states where the 2nd amendment isn't completely ignored, but I'm still tempted. Of course, not for $1,795 (M1A would be my clear choice at anything close to that price). I'd be more likely to buy an STG-58 kit, an Imbel receiver, and put one together myself. I'd probably just buy the modified dust cover and a 10-round magazine from Entreprise. I wonder how they lock in the magazine? I haven't thought about it much, but it doesn't seem like it would be too tough. It would be nice to be able to make one of these without significantly altering the rifle so I could convert it back to a normal configuration when I go out-of-state or if (dare I hope it :)) the laws here ever change for the better.

And, as a matter of fact, I DID buy a bunch of FAL, M14, and other full-capacity magazines before they were banned here. I still have magazines for quite a few guns I don't even own (yet).

Doug
 
I'd like to see an AG opinion on guns which could be semi, but for one reason or another (gas port piston reversed so as to cut off gas flow or barrel not drilled for gas port), is a straight pull bolt. I could live with that (and convert it later).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top