RPD Update.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Huffing paint is the only thing keeping me sane and relaxed when reading this thread
4307 said:
I equate the frt process and this thread to "watching paint dry"... oil paint! You think it's drying until you touch the subject and realize you have a longer to wait. I feel your pain, and smell the fume.
Click to expand...
 
I'm guessing it would be hard to get any businesses interested, as they would have to do the heavy lifting to import the sample/hopefully obtain the FRT and then any other importer/individual would benefit by buying at retail prices from the US auction/retail market- so there is little incentive. Also prices would be high- marked up from US retail/auction rates. This doesn't mean it isn't worth doing, but we would have to create an incentive for the Canadian importer- by committing to buy a specific number of RPD carbine imports through them, at their mark-up for example. The question is more how to absorb the cost of the sample, which could be destroyed in the process of being evaluated.

Any business members out there interested? IRG or another importer, for example, could buy up say 20 DSA RPD carbines as they are available on auction/retail sites in the US, paid for in full in advance by Canadian clients, with a mark-up to cover their profits/time/import admin and the cost of a sample for testing split between everyone. The firearms are kept in the US and if an FRT is issued they are imported. If they cannot be imported they can be sold back into the US market, clients refunded with some non-refundable fee going to IRG for their troubles etc. (No pressure IRG, just that you are well set up for this type of transaction already) The importer would have no significant risk, would turn a small profit if it fails and a larger profit if it succeeds. With current market rates in the US of $2800-2900 the firearms might cost 3.5-4k at the end of the day in Canada and it would take 2 years.

Another option would be to mod one of the RPDs that AE is bringing in, into a DSA carbine-type configuration with an 18.5" fluted barrel, railed top cover etc. etc. if you can get your hands on one eventually. No doubt some who are in on the AE deal will do so.
 
I get that, but they can still be purchased in the US and exported- not directly by DSA and not at wholesale prices, but if an FRT is issued they can still be purchased and imported by individuals or Canadian importers- just not cheaply. There are probably enough interested Canadians, judging from the reaction to the AE import, to make it worth someone's while. Anyone else interested?
 
Skyridge said:
I get that, but they can still be purchased in the US and exported- not directly by DSA and not at wholesale prices, but if an FRT is issued they can still be purchased and imported by individuals or Canadian importers- just not cheaply. There are probably enough interested Canadians, judging from the reaction to the AE import, to make it worth someone's while. Anyone else interested?
Click to expand...

It might be easy one the Arms East version comes in as non-restricted. It would then be a matter of simply determining if the receiver is the same basic design and an FRT entry would be quick.

Right now given no semi-auto NR frt entry exists, and one is currently at the lab, any import of a DSA version would also be sent to the lab. Often these are tested to destruction, and someone has to pay for that rifle first.

While I get why you are suggesting it, I think you are missing the fact that getting an FRT for a DSA version would be slower than the current pace we are on for the Arms East version.
 
No, I got that too. It is only that the AE design is not the same as the DSA design, and it is the DSA 'RPD carbine' design that I would ultimately prefer, being shorter, lighter, more modular but less traditional. Besides that, I don't know if AE is planning to bring in another batch- here's hoping. What I was proposing above was to create a process to have a DSA carbine tested with the Canadian end users absorbing the cost of the lost sample at little/no risk for the importer and with a profit for the importer whether the FRT goes through or not- sort of a win/win for someone to get involved to handle the paperwork/export license etc.
 
How do you know the receivers from the DSA and AE design aren't the same?

The dsa carbine and the dsa lmg are the same receiver, which is what matters. The barrel length is what would determine R or NR.

Your idea was proposed a year ago and dropped because AE got a RPD to the lab first. The AE design will be the one that gets approved first so everyone is waiting for that.
 
There was some word way back when, there was a shortage of RPD kits in the States. Some build shops don't offer RPD's anymore. There were a lot of hobbyists buying kits as well. I'm not sure if there are enough parts floating around for the US market let alone the Canuck market. The polish kits were starting to get scarce if I recall.
 
4307 said:
There was some word way back when, there was a shortage of RPD kits in the States. Some build shops don't offer RPD's anymore. There were a lot of hobbyists buying kits as well. I'm not sure if there are enough parts floating around for the US market let alone the Canuck market. The polish kits were starting to get scarce if I recall.
Click to expand...

The RPDs likely won't last in the US. European kits are fading. In Canada however, there is the Chinese source. Chinese parts kits, built on DSA, Wiselite or other manufacturer source receivers might work very well here. I'm sure a Canadian supplier/manufacturer could also draft up a reliable RPD semi auto only receiver to work with Chinese parts.

All kind of hanging on this import first.
 
as much as id like to see this project get a positive FRT i must ask.. with zero progress on 2 other types of belt fed rifles that were submitted way before the RPD what makes anyone so sure these will ever get a "final" FRT submission?... or are the labs going to just wait until the libtards get elected and do banning for them?
 
fenceline said:
Because these don't use a 5 wall receiver like the other 2.
Click to expand...

it has been stated from the manufacture that that is NOT true in one of the cases. so what else you got?

wait just read that again. what does 5 sides have anything to do with it? i think you meant to say 4 new sides out of 5? which isnt true...
 
Last edited:
223762 said:
it has been stated from the manufacture that that is NOT true in one of the cases. so what else you got?

wait just read that again. what does 5 sides have anything to do with it? i think you meant to say 4 new sides out of 5? which isnt true...
Click to expand...

You don't understand, and you pick with "what else you got?" I'm not looking for a fight.

A few of the LMG based semi auto design utilizes five walls. The four vertical walks, plus the floor of the receiver, making a five sided box. Semi auto versions have been deemed converted autos as manufacturers have constructed their semi auto versions using a wall taken from a full auto receiver, and adding four new walls. As part of a full auto receiver exists in the newly assembled receiver, that wall constitutes a converted full auto receiver component. This causes us issue in Canada, but not in the US where the BATF has said it is simply a new semi auto.

This issue plagues some designs, and slows classification. The rpd has a one piece milled new receiver. One piece. Not five pieces assembled into one. So that issue won't be a hang up in its classification.
 
im not looking for an argument your just missing the point. the manufacture has stated that all five sides of "said" firearm are %100 new made parts and NO surplus parts.
 
223762 said:
im not looking for an argument your just missing the point. the manufacture has stated that all five sides of "said" firearm are %100 new made parts and NO surplus parts.
Click to expand...
what firearm is this?

is it BATF certified the same as the RPD? (100% new construction semi auto only?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom