Legal 1022 25 round mag?

Man, I just found out about this this past year. I bought some Butler Creek 25 round mags years ago (2005/2006) and just this year found out they are now prohibited because they fit in the Charger pistol (which came out AFTER I bought my BC mags). I even think those Butler Creek mags with steel lips were around even after 2009 or so (I remember seeing at LeBaron).

The government's argument makes no sense - on one hand, the BC 25 round mag was designed for the 10/22 since there was no Charger at the time I bought it (think it came out 2007), and happens to fit the Charger, so now all of the sudden it is a pistol mag when it was a rifle mag before?

Contrast this to the LAR-15, designed for the LAR15 AR pistol...so 10 rounds of .223/5.56, but legal to use in our ARs with 10 rounds since it was not designed for the AR rifle, but happens to fit in, so we can legally (for now) shoot 10 rounds of 5.56/.223 using that LAR15 mag in an AR platform rifle.

Yet the Butler Creek 25 round mag designed for the 10/22 now can't be used there, because it fits a Charger pistol?

I am having a hard time following the logic of these guidelines.
 
thegazelle said:
Man, I just found out about this this past year. I bought some Butler Creek 25 round mags years ago (2005/2006) and just this year found out they are now prohibited because they fit in the Charger pistol (which came out AFTER I bought my BC mags). I even think those Butler Creek mags with steel lips were around even after 2009 or so (I remember seeing at LeBaron).

The government's argument makes no sense - on one hand, the BC 25 round mag was designed for the 10/22 since there was no Charger at the time I bought it (think it came out 2007), and happens to fit the Charger, so now all of the sudden it is a pistol mag when it was a rifle mag before?

Contrast this to the LAR-15, designed for the LAR15 AR pistol...so 10 rounds of .223/5.56, but legal to use in our ARs with 10 rounds since it was not designed for the AR rifle, but happens to fit in, so we can legally (for now) shoot 10 rounds of 5.56/.223 using that LAR15 mag in an AR platform rifle.

Yet the Butler Creek 25 round mag designed for the 10/22 now can't be used there, because it fits a Charger pistol?

I am having a hard time following the logic of these guidelines.
Click to expand...

Thats because there is no logic

The law never changed these mags remain legal. The RCMP decided to make up "dual use" despite it not appearing in any law any where. Gun owners and gun businesses rolled over decided to not longer use/sell them without challenge. This has not and will not see court it is simply used to scare gun owners into compliance. EVERE SINGLE TIME a "charge" has been laid for this and the person charged said they will take court and not a plea, it has been dropped

Shawn
 
thegazelle said:
Man, I just found out about this this past year. I bought some Butler Creek 25 round mags years ago (2005/2006) and just this year found out they are now prohibited because they fit in the Charger pistol (which came out AFTER I bought my BC mags). I even think those Butler Creek mags with steel lips were around even after 2009 or so (I remember seeing at LeBaron).

The government's argument makes no sense - on one hand, the BC 25 round mag was designed for the 10/22 since there was no Charger at the time I bought it (think it came out 2007), and happens to fit the Charger, so now all of the sudden it is a pistol mag when it was a rifle mag before?

Contrast this to the LAR-15, designed for the LAR15 AR pistol...so 10 rounds of .223/5.56, but legal to use in our ARs with 10 rounds since it was not designed for the AR rifle, but happens to fit in, so we can legally (for now) shoot 10 rounds of 5.56/.223 using that LAR15 mag in an AR platform rifle.

Yet the Butler Creek 25 round mag designed for the 10/22 now can't be used there, because it fits a Charger pistol?

I am having a hard time following the logic of these guidelines.
Click to expand...

How come nobody addresses the elephant in the room?
Those 25 capacity Charger magazines were allowed into this country in the first place.
I put forth the CBSA are derelict in thier customs and border duties.
Is there any other way to look at it?

These mags prohibited from the get go! They should never have been allowed to be imported into Canada in the very first instance.

A federal agency totally failed.

Edit: Same as a normal Glock or Hi Power magazine that surpasses ten.
 
Last edited:
The RCMP Memo says not to use the 25 round magazines as a stand alone charge, but to add them to a more serious list of charges.

If you go before a Judge it always comes down to intent I was told by a LEO, as the judge knows the law not the officer.

Me personally, I just dremelled out a groove for the Dlask 25 round magazines, but they are not as nice to load and work as the old rotary 10/22 Butler magazines if I remember correctly.

Ever notice how much our gun related options have changed in the last 5 years, just cannot land on one reason why..........................................
 
thegazelle said:
Man, I just found out about this this past year. I bought some Butler Creek 25 round mags years ago (2005/2006) and just this year found out they are now prohibited because they fit in the Charger pistol (which came out AFTER I bought my BC mags). I even think those Butler Creek mags with steel lips were around even after 2009 or so (I remember seeing at LeBaron).

The government's argument makes no sense - on one hand, the BC 25 round mag was designed for the 10/22 since there was no Charger at the time I bought it (think it came out 2007), and happens to fit the Charger, so now all of the sudden it is a pistol mag when it was a rifle mag before?

Contrast this to the LAR-15, designed for the LAR15 AR pistol...so 10 rounds of .223/5.56, but legal to use in our ARs with 10 rounds since it was not designed for the AR rifle, but happens to fit in, so we can legally (for now) shoot 10 rounds of 5.56/.223 using that LAR15 mag in an AR platform rifle.

Yet the Butler Creek 25 round mag designed for the 10/22 now can't be used there, because it fits a Charger pistol?

I am having a hard time following the logic of these guidelines.
Click to expand...

The LAR-15 magazine is the wrong "loophole" to look at. Because if the LAR-15 pistol magazine can exist with 10 rounds then it follows a 10/22 Charger pistol magazine can exist with a max of 10 rounds.

Rather the VZ-58 pistol magazine which is limited to 5 shots because "[VZ58 pistol] is a “handgun”, adapted from a rifle it follows that the ten shot cartridge magazine portrayed as a “pistol” cartridge magazine is indeed a rifle cartridge magazine." is when it really goes off the rails in conflicting judgements.

Either handgun adaptations of rifles exist thus the LAR-15 pistol magazine, 10/22 Charger pistol magazine and VZ 58 pistol magazine are all limited to 10 shots.

OR

Handgun adaptations of rifles don't exist therefore LAR-15 or VZ 58 pistol magazines are limited to 5 shots as a semi-automatic rifle magazine, but 10/22 charger "pistol" magazines are rimfire rifle magazines with no limit.
 
trebor2880 said:
All "normal" Hi-Power, and most "normal" Glock mags surpass the ten round limit.
Click to expand...

I am not debating this or that. Only that CBSA was remiss in thier import inspection duties.
I think you know what I meant here regarding this specific 25 capacity pistol magazine.

Clearly they got into this country, clearly they should never have been allowed importation, clearly someone at CBSA dropped the ball here.
Obviously in a regular shipment of firearms parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom