2015 Shot Show: Osprey Armament Mk-36 - M1A/M14 AR Style Rifle

HunterKillerV said:
I don't like how negatively most people seem to think. This looks to be equivalent to putting the M1A into a different stock. It's clearly the same firearm before and after the "lower" is put on it, so it should be fine.
Click to expand...

On the AR the loaer is the firearm, which is resrricted. This would make a m14 restricted. If they classified it as a ar variant which likely would happen judging by the bad news, and s&w m&p22.
 
If it looks like an ar lower, but the unterface is different, then I don't see how this would be any different then the non-restricted ATRS Modern Hunter rifle...
 
zxcvbn said:
From what I understand (and I am happy to be educated differently), in this case it would be the lower that is deemed the "firearm" here in Canada. If that is correct, since the lower is an AR, then it would be restricted. Why then call out others on this thread as being "negative"?
Click to expand...

Well tiriaq has stepped in with his thoughts so I will defer to him. No doubt he is correct so my apologies HKV. But to be honest I would be amazed if it would deemed ok by TPTB to start putting different platforms on AR lowers. I would be the first to cheer if it is so.
 
zxcvbn said:
From what I understand (and I am happy to be educated differently), in this case it would be the lower that is deemed the "firearm" here in Canada. If that is correct, since the lower is an AR, then it would be restricted. Why then call out others on this thread as being "negative"?
Click to expand...

That would be awesome if that happened. If the status goes with the lower, let's slap old H&Rs and TRWs into these things and poof...the receiver is apparently no longer the receiver, so I guess it won't be prohib anymore. Actual M14s for everyone!
 
As far as I know the internals would be completely different than an AR. It has to work with the M14 Action which is entirely different than an AR. I believe the lower is to make for a AR style grip, trigger, and safety.

The internals would have to be very different as you are working with a vastly different bolt carrier and trigger assembly The lower is to make it look and feel like an AR with the mag well, trigger guard, etc.
 
It isn't an AR lower. It is a chassis to which a M-14 type barrelled action is assembled.
Legally no different than the Ruger and Mossberg .22s that have conventional barrelled actions assembled in housings that look akin to an AR.
Without the M-14 type barrelled action, it isn't a firearm, any more than an MDT chassis is a firearm.
 
But this probally wont be a true ar lower in that there's no way to put a true ar lower on a m14. There probally wont even be serial numbers on these lowers because the upper is the recognized part.If they made these restricted it would have essentially made all m14's restricted.
 
ceriksson said:
As far as I know the internals would be completely different than an AR. It has to work with the M14 Action which is entirely different than an AR. I believe the lower is to make for a AR style grip, trigger, and safety.

The internals would have to be very different as you are working with a vastly different bolt carrier and trigger assembly The lower is to make it look and feel like an AR with the mag well, trigger guard, etc.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. In that case someone may want to give the Osprey marketing department the heads up on what is PC up here because I don't think they'll have much success selling "AR" anything, sad to say :(
 
Of course, when Justin becomes PM, an OIC could classify a M305 in this chassis to be restricted or prohibited... Unless the M-305 and other commercial M-14 type rifles are just restricted or prohibited, along with all other semi autos...
 
tiriaq said:
Of course, when Justin becomes PM, an OIC could classify a M305 in this chassis to be restricted or prohibited... Unless the M-305 and other commercial M-14 type rifles are just restricted or prohibited, along with all other semi autos...
Click to expand...

Not only that, but no one will ever have to work again, even the truly lazy and ignorant will be rich, and happiness will reign upon the land.
 
twoguntim said:
If it looks like an ar lower, but the unterface is different, then I don't see how this would be any different then the non-restricted ATRS Modern Hunter rifle...
Click to expand...

The bad ew company 338lm semi is restricted as it is a ar variant, it only fits the AR trigger parts. An upper will not fit on it. Yet it is a restricted AR variant.
Soooo why would this not be?
 
I could be wrong, but people seem to think the RCMP are going to inspect this. If they company labels it as a chassis, and I am sure that is what they are labelling, then the RCMP wont even be taking a look at it. They don't classify chassis, they classify firearms.
 
This is an aluminum stock chassis, it's no different than the offerings from MDT, for example. It's not even firearm.

Now stop all the stupidity in this thread.
 
Armedsask said:
This is an aluminum stock chassis, it's no different than the offerings from MDT, for example. It's not even firearm.

Now stop all the stupidity in this thread.
Click to expand...

It's slightly diffrent then any other m14/m1a chassis out there in that it uses a proprietary trigger system....there's shotgun models out there that are "ar lookalikes",have absolutely zero compatibility with any ar 15 parts with the exception of a buttstock,and are still classified as AR varients....yes I know this isint a complete firearm ,( or maybe it is?maybe it requires extensive mods to work with that lower),but it the same logic....looks like an ar....must be an AR...when have we ever agreed with any classification the rcmp has made?

I hope your right and this is sold,and imported as solely a stock and just a bolt on part for a M1a/M14,all im saying is don't get too disappointed when the rcmp decided against that.
 
zxcvbn said:
It doesn't "look like it", it is an AR lower...
Click to expand...

Armedsask said:
This is an aluminum stock chassis, it's no different than the offerings from MDT, for example. It's not even firearm.

Now stop all the stupidity in this thread.
Click to expand...

Thank you...

I was just scrolling through and was ready to post something that would probably earn an infraction. I can't believe just how dumb (yet opinionated) some people can be.

Unless it's made as a bull pup or manipulates the trigger in such a manor, as to fire two or more consecutive shots with one pull, there is absolutely no reason under current law in Canada why this would be sold as just a new stock; available to anyone, anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom