CLASSIFIED! Beretta ARX160-22 AND ARX100

Semi auto receiver versions of the ARX 100 are only made in the States. The full auto reciecers are made in Italy. To the best of my knowledge a ARX 160 has never been submitted for inspection here.

I would love to know why it takes numerous years to determine that a purpose made semi automatic rifle is easily convertable to fully automatic.

I sure as hell wish there was a legal definition of easily converted.
 
They're ppretty ugly, but I hear they're very light weight and quite reliable. The ambi features are neat, I was looking forward to getting one. Ah well...
 
Ebola said:
Semi auto receiver versions of the ARX 100 are only made in the States. The full auto reciecers are made in Italy. To the best of my knowledge a ARX 160 has never been submitted for inspection here.

I would love to know why it takes numerous years to determine that a purpose made semi automatic rifle is easily convertable to fully automatic.

I sure as hell wish there was a legal definition of easily converted.
Click to expand...

Arx160 is select fire. The Arx100 is the semi auto version.
 
fenceline said:
Arx160 is select fire. The Arx100 is the semi auto version.
Click to expand...

Yup I know the ARX 160 has a fun switch as opposed to the 100 only being semi. I was pointing out that I don't think a 160 was ever submitted to the lab for a comparison between the 100 and 160. I could be wrong. The US manufactured 100 would have a different reciever altogether on the inside I would assume.

Im thinking this is another case of a paper clip and a popsicle type deal like the original T97's.
 
See the trend here, all the new rifles that use the UPPER as the registered firearms are ALL rejected- ARX100, SCAR , B&T AP556 and CZ805.

I think the problem is systematic in a certain way, they look at the lower trigger housing , which is NOT the registered part, and see if factory auto parts can be dropped in with some effort, even if putting the trigger housing onto the registered up will not do absolutely anything.

If this is the case, it is NOT technically correct. The trigger housing is not a receiver, it is just a component. This is like putting a full auto carrier into an ar upper, and claim that the AR lower registered receiver is easily convertible. The confusing thing here is that we need to look at these new rifles "upside down", in the same way we look at AR.
 
greentips said:
See the trend here, all the new rifles that use the UPPER as the registered firearms are ALL rejected- ARX100, SCAR , B&T AP556 and CZ805.

I think the problem is systematic in a certain way, they look at the lower trigger housing , which is NOT the registered part, and see if factory auto parts can be dropped in with some effort, even if putting the trigger housing onto the registered up will not do absolutely anything.

If this is the case, it is NOT technically correct. The trigger housing is not a receiver, it is just a component. This is like putting a full auto carrier into an ar upper, and claim that the AR lower registered receiver is easily convertible. The confusing thing here is that we need to look at these new rifles "upside down", in the same way we look at AR.
Click to expand...
interesting and viable.
 
greentips said:
See the trend here, all the new rifles that use the UPPER as the registered firearms are ALL rejected- ARX100, SCAR , B&T AP556 and CZ805.

I think the problem is systematic in a certain way, they look at the lower trigger housing , which is NOT the registered part, and see if factory auto parts can be dropped in with some effort, even if putting the trigger housing onto the registered up will not do absolutely anything.

If this is the case, it is NOT technically correct. The trigger housing is not a receiver, it is just a component. This is like putting a full auto carrier into an ar upper, and claim that the AR lower registered receiver is easily convertible. The confusing thing here is that we need to look at these new rifles "upside down", in the same way we look at AR.
Click to expand...

so what can be done?
its not like there is an appeal process
i fear the hk243 might end up with the same result
 
greentips said:
See the trend here, all the new rifles that use the UPPER as the registered firearms are ALL rejected- ARX100, SCAR , B&T AP556 and CZ805.

I think the problem is systematic in a certain way, they look at the lower trigger housing , which is NOT the registered part, and see if factory auto parts can be dropped in with some effort, even if putting the trigger housing onto the registered up will not do absolutely anything.

If this is the case, it is NOT technically correct. The trigger housing is not a receiver, it is just a component. This is like putting a full auto carrier into an ar upper, and claim that the AR lower registered receiver is easily convertible. The confusing thing here is that we need to look at these new rifles "upside down", in the same way we look at AR.
Click to expand...

Did the CZ805 go prohib? I haven't heard...

Ben
 
I fear alot of firearms will face similar fate under the way rcmp choses to process frt. Gun companies aren't going to change just for us. Our laws are stupid. Which is sad really. I'm seeing more and more sweet firearms get struck down over this process. I hate our labs.
 
Jarvy said:
I think that CZ knows they would have to redesign their rifle somewhat to have a chance at NR, and so haven't bothered submitting a sample.
Click to expand...

Have I been living under a rock? I've been wanting one for awhile. Curious to hear if one was never submitted. Source?

Ben
 
Ugh..... I was wanting one of these. The .22 is nice, but I dont need another .22...... Was really hoping to get a nice Beretta rifle :(
 
The idea of this happening to basically every non-pistol caliber rifle designed after 2000 is scary for Canadians. I see a trend here. All the newer designs are getting the big P on classification day. This is out of control. We need to know WHY its considered easily convertible. Documents anyone?

IDEA; CGN voluntary defence fund that members can pay into for these kinds of issues. People don't wanna pay to go to court when they loose their property because it costs a life savings, right? CGN Defence Fund. Just a thought. It works with other organizations.

United we stand. Decided we fall.
 
greentips said:
See the trend here, all the new rifles that use the UPPER as the registered firearms are ALL rejected- ARX100, SCAR , B&T AP556 and CZ805.

I think the problem is systematic in a certain way, they look at the lower trigger housing , which is NOT the registered part, and see if factory auto parts can be dropped in with some effort, even if putting the trigger housing onto the registered up will not do absolutely anything.

If this is the case, it is NOT technically correct. The trigger housing is not a receiver, it is just a component. This is like putting a full auto carrier into an ar upper, and claim that the AR lower registered receiver is easily convertible. The confusing thing here is that we need to look at these new rifles "upside down", in the same way we look at AR.
Click to expand...

Said "drop-in" parts, if there were any that would just drop in the civilian ARX, would certainly be prohibited devices here in Canada anyways if they alone make that firearm a full auto, if I'm not mistaken.

If that was the case would they still be able to prohibit this based on that, hypothetically speaking, of course?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom