Quote of the day
Q: What rights do you give up with a transferable?
A: Right to tell the wife she buys to much jewelry
For those not in the know, a transferable is a pre-86 machine gun. They are seriously overpriced. For example, this pre-86 M16A1 is listed at $13,750. The military buys new ones for about $700.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Earlier in the decade they were a bit more affordable. M16s were going for $8000. Uzis could be had for $3000; I even saw some cheaper than that. My friend picked up an M-11 SMG for 1500 around 2001, they are going for more than double that now.
I’m kicking myself for not getting one while I had the chance. I’m still wondering why the price increased so dramatically in the course of just a few years.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Seriously overpriced? Not really, just the marketplace at work.
What am I saying? Of course it’s that damnable Bush! The territorial expansion into Afghanistan and Iraq with its pollution from all the military vehicles pumped up global warming which caused hurricane Katrina sending giant waves of instability into the marketplace that further marginalized hundreds of thousands of ethnic minorities who are so hated by the Rapture Right that the excuse was used to reduce the social safety net for the poor so there’s more money in the pockets of the rich, which means that sellers if Class III weapons haved raised their prices. It’s so simple when you just think about it!
August 30th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Actually, the M16A2 rifles on my property book when I was a company commander were listed at $471.
The M16A4 costs about $700 with the rail system.
August 30th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
$13,750 is a steal compared to what I’ve seen ’em going for.
Right now, the only “affordable” Class IIIs are POS Mac-10s and such. And they’re selling for $3K and up.
It’s a lot of fun if you’ve got the money, though…
August 30th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Anyone read this recently? http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html
Interesting info on legislative intent of 922(o), and how it shouldnt have been construed as a ban.
Note that the ATF construes “authority of the United States government” to NOT mean permission, yet those are precisely the grounds upon which SOTs maintain extensive stockpiles of weapons. If “permission” isnt sufficient to possess a machine gun, how does one explain all the non-governmental actors that possess, manufacture and sell them?
August 30th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Sebastian,
MACs greatly increased in price because RPD started building belt-fed uppers for them in 7.62×39. The ATF originally approved the upper, but then backtracked and declared that the upper was classified as a machinegun (and being manufactured after 1986, could not be sold to the public).
Check this out for more info: http://www.autochart.com/savageBM3000.htm
Class iii prices being what they are, usually never come down. Prices seem to have stabilized around 3000-3500 for a MAC.
tkdkerry,
It is the market at work, but prices are artificially inflated because (thanks to the .gov) there is a fixed supply. If the feds would allow manufacturers to add new transferrables to the market, the price would decline.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
I would add that these letters reek with “classic ATF” attitude. They approve the device and the manufacturer starts selling them. They reclassify it as an illegal machine gun and then tell the dealer to provide customer lists so that they can round them up, mr. and mrs. america, turn them all in. If the dealer refuses, they round him up too.
http://www.autochart.com/savageBM3000.htm
September 2nd, 2006 at 7:19 pm
It is the market at work, but prices are artificially inflated because (thanks to the .gov) there is a fixed supply. If the feds would allow manufacturers to add new transferrables to the market, the price would decline.
RW, that IS the marketplace, even if it is manipulated by the gov fixing the supply. Prices would also drop if demand dropped, no gov involved.