|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I guess I'm curious about his line of reasoning as well.
IIRC, the way the last "ban" read, was that the rifle had to be "complete" before the ban started to be considered "pre-ban". Yes, I know this would have been impossible to enforce etc, but perhaps this is what he is talking about?
Actually I'm interested with these 80% buyer because the discount they are offering is quite impressive. Hope so it's valid yet.
Live with passion.
I could see individual states imposing odd definitions on the meaning of "complete" and "assault weapon." For example, in Virginia, you have to provide proof of citizenship to buy an "assault weapon," e.g. an AR-15 (which I personally don't have any problem with, but I'm sure liberal gun control advocates would somehow find unjust). However, if you buy only a complete lower, you don't need proof of citizenship because it's not considered an "assault weapon."
Anyway, if I was concerned about imminent restrictions on rifles, I personally wouldn't want to mess around with 80% lowers or even stripped lowers. I'd pay the extra money to buy a complete, quality lower like a BCM or LMT and be done with it. Then I'd start buying additional spare parts to allow me to maintain the rifle(s) in the event that it becomes hard to obtain parts in the future, as we're hearing from people in CT and other recent "ban" states.
Dave
If they were available, I would probably opt for the $380 BCM complete lowers available from Grant or Rainier. Not the cheapest route, but at least you are getting known quality and you end up saving some time in the process.
Since those lowers seem to be a rarity, I would probably opt for a Aero Precision or Surplus Arms and Ammo gen 2 lower. They are inexpensive, good quality, and I like that the roll marks are more understated than flashy.
Bookmarks