Belt-fed .22 semi-auto - A cat?

I'm thinking of starting a project to build something similar to a mini (1/2 scale) Browning 1919 (.22 cal).

This is the inspiration...Browning 1919 Beltfed 22LR Machine Gun Overview - YouTube

What I'm interested in is people's opinion regarding how this would stack up as an A-cat gun.

Points to consider:
1. Semi-auto (obviously!)
2. Over 762mm in length
3. Belt-fed

(1) Means it doesn't automatically qualify as a restricted weapon under the Arms (Restricted Weapons and Specially Dangerous Airguns) Order 1984. Moreover, there is

nothing in the restricted weapons schedule that would include it by virtue of its description (i.e. it's not a machine gun).
(2) Means it can't be defined as a pistol
(3) Is interesting. I could limit the belt to 15 rounds so as to not cross the MSSA boundary. However, the definition in the Act could potentially mean that the 15

round limitation may not apply to belt-feed.

To elaborate, the interesting thing is that an MSSA is defined using the word 'magazine' (see * below). Therefore, an argument could be made that a belt-fed gun isn't

subject to this restriction.

Interested in opinions.

Thanks.

* Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Act 2012

“a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:

(ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
(A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
(B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannz

I'm thinking of starting a project to build something similar to a mini (1/2 scale) Browning 1919 (.22 cal).

This is the inspiration...Browning 1919 Beltfed 22LR Machine Gun Overview - YouTube

What I'm interested in is people's opinion regarding how this would stack up as an A-cat gun.

Points to consider:
1. Semi-auto (obviously!)
2. Over 762mm in length
3. Belt-fed

(1) Means it doesn't automatically qualify as a restricted weapon under the Arms (Restricted Weapons and Specially Dangerous Airguns) Order 1984. Moreover, there is

nothing in the restricted weapons schedule that would include it by virtue of its description (i.e. it's not a machine gun).
(2) Means it can't be defined as a pistol
(3) Is interesting. I could limit the belt to 15 rounds so as to not cross the MSSA boundary. However, the definition in the Act could potentially mean that the 15

round limitation may not apply to belt-feed.

To elaborate, the interesting thing is that an MSSA is defined using the word 'magazine' (see * below). Therefore, an argument could be made that a belt-fed gun isn't

subject to this restriction.

Interested in opinions.

Thanks.

* Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Act 2012

“a semi-automatic firearm having 1 or more of the following features:

(ii) a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges that—
(A) is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges; or
(B) is detachable, and by its appearance indicates that it is capable of holding more than 15 cartridges:

---

Dannz

Peoples opinions will count for Shit when these guys turn up at your place.
Attachment 18426

That said It's an interesting project and one I would strongly talk over with your local Firearms Officer first or it could all end in Tears ..... mostly Yours :oh noes:

Here's another concept that while technically legal also has the potential to land you neck deep in Shit

Slide Fire® - Superior Performance Gun Stocks

At the Range: Slide Fire Takes on the .22LR - YouTube

Cheers
Pete

Thanks Pete! Will most definitely talk it over with my AO before I do anything. I guess I'm interested in opinions as to what my chances are :-)

Stick to the letter of the law and you should be fine. Make sure you only have 15 links joined at any one time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimp

Stick to the letter of the law and you should be fine. Make sure you only have 15 links joined at any one time.

---

+1

And make sure it wont go full auto.

Check out these variations along a similar theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2yzcMPQZdU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4i9_kkg30o

Cheers
Pete

what's the point of anything belt feed if its not full auto! :fire:

"Stick to the letter of the law" is good advice, and I certainly will. However, my point (3) is something I'd like some opinions on before I talk to my AO. Belt feed doesn't technically (i.e. letter of the law) seem to be covered by the MSSA definition, so potentially I could do more than 15 rounds. Suspect I wouldn't get very far regardless of how the legislation is worded, but it's interesting.

A lot would depend on how the belt is being fed in the design. Looks like it is being fired by a cranked wheel, more like a Gatling gun than an actual 1919.

It's a straight semi-auto blow-back design with the belt being fed automatically. The crank in the video was made by the owner. All it does is enable rapid trigger pulls - not something I'd look at.