no, you have to own a weapon manufactured... that's why with a tax stamp(atleast in AZ and ND) you can own a fully auto AR. the lower reciever has to have been built pre-86

Technically it's not that it had to be manufactured before the date (which is May 19, 1986). It's that it had to be in the NFA registry before that date. Someone, somewhere, had to get an NFA tax stamp legally on the weapon in question before that date, but afterwards the gun can be bought and sold (you do have to update the info in the NFA registry as to who owns it currently). If the weapon was mfg'd before the date but not registered in the NFA registry, you can't ever buy it as a normal civilian.

As noted in another post, for full autos not already in the NFA registry, you have to be a Class III dealer (getting this license generally requires proving you have LE/mil sales contracts, and keeping up that proof), a manufacturer (who obviously can test their own guns), or obviously be issued one by a government entity for duty use.

The net effect for us "regular" civilians is that there is a finite, limited pool of full autos that were on the NFA books prior to 1986, and those are the only ones we can buy/sell/trade between each other. Over time the pool dwindles as guns fall apart, get destroyed, or get "lost" (someone dies and forgets to mention their NFA collection buried in some box in some basement...).

This tight supply problem makes these guns very expensive. A registered Colt M4 that should by all rights be worth about $1,000 ends up selling for ~$12K+, etc. You can see some prices at the NFA section on subguns.com. Note when you see cheap prices there, usually you'll click into the item and see it's a dealer sample only (requires Class III license, not for normal folk).

check this out.

I am going to get me one!!!

Kel-Tec KSG 14 + 1 Pump Bull-Pup Tactical Shotgun

Providing you a well deserved rep for this knowledge when I get back to my comp (for some reason my iPhone won't let me)

I noticed this awhile back. A bit pricey but overall now that they've fixed the trigger issue.... attractive!

Kind of pricey at MSRP $880, but i have seen them online on Buds for about $660. ETA was August2011, but was told through an email that it is possibly early next year.

Plus it is 14+1 capacity, which is about twice as much as the current models.

kick-***!

Which brand lower are you looking to get.

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Starting AR shopping. Should be interesting.

I strongly recommend one of the upper tier rifles, like Bravo Company, Daniel Defense, Colt, Noveske. The more popular brands like Bushmaster, DPMS, Rock River, may be suitable for occasional trips to the range but there are corners cut in their construction and their reliability is suspect.

I have a rock river and have shot over 3000 rounds through it with no problems. Also almost all of the rounds are reloads very reliable and for the money best deals out there imo. Most come with stage 2 triggers

Yes, for those looking for a budget plinker, RRA, Stag, Bushy, DPMS can be entirely satisfactory.

http://cdn.armslist.com/images/posts...00p2wryofk.jpg
http://deepsouthguns.com/dsguns/images/209000_large.jpg

So, I've owned a Glock 23 (40 cal) for a few years now. I haven't owned any other guns, so I never regularly shot any other handguns until a couple a months ago when a buddy of mine (who owns a ****-load of guns) let me shoot some of his. When I say "let me shoot," I don't mean a magazine, I mean, we were shooting for several hours.

The main gun I used was a .45 1911, and what I noticed is, even with the extra power, I was still a better shot with it than my own glock. I could only guess that this was due to the aggressive grip angle on the glock.

So I did what any idiot would do, I purchased a .40 S&W M&P. After a day of shooting, here is my comparison of the two:

Looks: Totally subjective, I know, but I like the looks of the glock more. The swirl pattern on the m&p makes it look a little like a toy, although, it looks better in person than the pictures I had seen.

Slide: I like the slide of the m&p more, the fish scales are easy to grip to rack the slide.

Field Stripping: The field stripping is no contest, the glock butt-rapes the m&p in this category. To take the glock apart, you simply push down on the lever on the side, and a small pull on the slide backwards removes the slide off. The m&p on the other hand, there is a pin on the inside of the gun that has to be pushed down, and if that pin isn't in the correct place when you put the slide back on, game over. Assembling the gun again is also easier with the glock, the slide simply slides right back on. Assembling the m&p is a bit clumsy, because you have to work the switch on the side. Also, the m&p comes with a tool located in the grip that's all but worthless if you're in the field. I had to pry this thing out with a butter knife (and even then, I was concerned about the butter knife holding up). Thanks, but I'll just reach for the nearest ballpoint pin. Also, the spring in the m&p was showing rust o_O

Feel in the hand: Even after putting on the appropriate backstrap for the m&p (which comes with three, for various-sized hands), the glock still felt better in my hand. Subjective, I know, but thought I would throw it in.

Actual shooting: Using the same ammo and shooting back-to-back, I can say that I felt more kickback in the glock. Shooting the m&p felt closer to shooting a 9 than shooting a 40. Not sure I necessarily liked the trigger in the m&p, but it didn't bug me like I thought it would.

Performance: Well, here is where the rubber meets the road, all the other stuff is minor BS when compared to the actual performance of the weapons. After all, we buy guns to shoot and be the best shot possible, right?
That being said, I'm a much better shot with the m&p, even though I was much more familiar with the glock, already having put a couple thousand rounds through it. The pictures below are of my last target of the day. The first one is with the glock. I colored them orange to be easier to see, and you can see a couple outliers, one in the shoulder, and one in the traps area. The grouping is "okay," but not awesome. Compared with the m&p, no outliers, and a great grouping. I guess the shots speak for themselves, I may be dropping by the nearest gun shop to see if they're interested in buying a glock :icon17:

http://www.the370z.com/members/frost...-57-55-594.jpg
http://www.the370z.com/members/frost...-02-11-642.jpg

Edit: I removed how far away the target was, because I didn't need a derail of how much better of a shot anyone supposedly is than me with their particular gun. That's not the point. I'll just say that it was a good distance away; further away than you would be shooting anyone in a real-life scenario.

Wow, much tighter grouping with the m and p.

I had similar experiences with Glocks

just picked up one of these bad boys!
XDM94545BHC
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/i...DM45%20001.jpg