The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

So we have the SGC lever and and the Calidoninian VZ58 MARS...all well and good so far.... The only slightly negative comment I have noted from some regarding shooting, is that they can be bit clunky to shoot.

This got me to thinking, would it still be sec1 legal to push things a step further and develop a compliant interrupted semi, were the interruption is contained within the safety, so the action can function in a conventional way, i.e, feed, fire, eject and re-feed, but a safety has to be activated to fire?

Not knocking the current rifles in any way, I would love to have either in my cabinet!

huntervixen wrote:So we have the SGC lever and and the Calidoninian VZ58 MARS...all well and good so far.... The only slightly negative comment I have noted from some regarding shooting, is that they can be bit clunky to shoot.

This got me to thinking, would it still be sec1 legal to push things a step further and develop a compliant interrupted semi, were the interruption is contained within the safety, so the action can function in a conventional way, i.e, feed, fire, eject and re-feed, but a safety has to be activated to fire?

Not knocking the current rifles in any way, I would love to have either in my cabinet!

Can you clarify a bit more what you are thinking about? Maybe a diagram or something hunter? Plus give it a few more weeks and we might have some more ideas on potential new stuff.

No, I think not. It would boil down to the definition of "self loading", which off the top of my head goes along the lines of, "each press of the trigger, fires, ejects case, loads fresh round and iweapon is prepared for firing by subsequent presses of the trigger". I'm sure that's how the SGC and MARS have been classed as s1, because the cycle as defined, is interrupted.

Put simply, an automatic safety that locks the trigger on loading, so it would need to be turned " live" to fire.

it just seems to me a lot less clunky to shoot, but would such a mechanism be a step to far for big brother.....

If you're talking AR platform then the rifle would have to be non-milspec so that a swap of lowers and uppers wouldn't give you a semi-auto.

What Sim said. At the moment we have "self unloading" rifles which are fine. Self loading rifles are not fine.

:(

safetyfirst wrote:What Sim said. At the moment we have "self unloading" rifles which are fine. Self loading rifles are not fine.

:(

Is self unloading what you define the MARS and the SGC as? It just seemed from what Hunter Vixen was describing was basically the SGC lever release. And I thought one of the Caveats was not so much not milspec but not being able to see the upper go on a straight pull lower which is the same as a semi lower but using an upper without a gas tube in. From what I gather the SGC lever release upper is not that different to a regular one, but has a certain piece of metal on the upper part of the lower that stops its upper going onto a standard lower. It takes all the standard parts after that.

Sixshot6 wrote:

safetyfirst wrote:What Sim said. At the moment we have "self unloading" rifles which are fine. Self loading rifles are not fine.

:(

Is self unloading what you define the MARS and the SGC as? It just seemed from what Hunter Vixen was describing was basically the SGC lever release. And I thought one of the Caveats was not so much not milspec but not being able to see the upper go on a straight pull lower which is the same as a semi lower but using an upper without a gas tube in. From what I gather the SGC lever release upper is not that different to a regular one, but has a certain piece of metal on the upper part of the lower that stops its upper going onto a standard lower. It takes all the standard parts after that.

Doesn't the SGC unload and then automatically hold open, thus not completing the "load" part of the cycle? You've got to press the button to make it ready for the next shot.

Personally i think that would be a step too far. It would be a full cycle of the action from one trigger press and hence be a self-loading rifle, resetting the trigger or taking the safety off for the next shot is irrelevant IMO.

Considering the types of competitions they're used in (other than perhaps IPSC style practical rifle where you have a reason for extrememly rapid follow up shots) i don't really see the lever/trigger press and clunking shut of the bolt is much of an issue, its certainly less disruptive than manually cocking the rifle. Yes a full-cycle of the action would be smoother and quicker, but do you really need it for say CSR?

Blackstuff wrote:Personally i think that would be a step too far. It would be a full cycle of the action from one trigger press and hence be a self-loading rifle, resetting the trigger or taking the safety off for the next shot is irrelevant IMO.

Considering the types of competitions they're used in (other than perhaps IPSC style practical rifle where you have a reason for extrememly rapid follow up shots) i don't really see the lever/trigger press and clunking shut of the bolt is much of an issue, its certainly less disruptive than manually cocking the rifle. Yes a full-cycle of the action would be smoother and quicker, but do you really need it for say CSR?

You're right it has to have an interruption between shots to still be manual op.