Black Creek Labs AR180 based rifle SVR2 Siberian approved for Non restricted FRT
- Thread starter Northern Shooter
- Start date
onetwentyish
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Central AB (AKA Northern Texas)
Many agencies use non-ar platforms... I believe Lethbridge is still using the Sig 550 series, and I've heard of others using Sig MCX.
The main point to a 180 style rifle is to get away from the need for fixed buffer tube or some janky work around to allow it to fold, or collapse flush to the reciever.
The Sig MCX is a 180 that retains a t-style charging handle which is rather odd for that style platform but makes sense when they are trying to Corner the AR Market. The new MCX Spear / M5 (scaled up 180) that has been adopted as the new infantry rifle in the states retains the t-handle, but has also moved to incorporate a side charger similar to what is seen on other 180 based operating systems like the Stoner 63, Rob Arms M96, Rob Arms XCR, and now the SAI R18 MK2, but adds a bit of flair to it by making it also a snag free folding design similar to what atrs used on their modern Hunter/Varmint line.
It is completely reasonable for BCL to be trying to target a budget version of the MCX design.
Unless they #### it up. SIG had a whole team of professional firearms design Engineers dedicated to properly developing the SIG MCX internals, ensuring proper feeding geometry, and so forth. I simply can't see BCL having anything approaching SIG's talent pool. If they are going for a straight up copy (with enough differences to avoid patent infringement) they may have the in-house talent to pull it off. Time will tell, but BCL's track record does not engender confidence. Yeah, they pulled off a resonably competent bolt-gun in the Bison, however something as complex as the MCX is a whole other, far more challenging matter. I actually do wish them success, as I would like nothing more than to replace my prohibited MCX with a reasonable facsimile. That said, I will remain highly suspect until the positive reviews pour in.
Last edited:
Its your ability to read and your attitude.
You were incorrect already about the MS line of rifles, now you are incorrect again with Murray Smith. Ill spend my time refuting your points for you to not respond again.
My first two lines explain the rest. if you skim, you cant swim. Learn to read the entire comment. its not aimed at civ sales with select fire... use your 2 cents and work it into something useful. There's a reason the original link posted said "the one without an FRT".
I know what the legal Canadian definition of an assault weapon is, it is an item used as a weapon during the commission of an assault. I am aware of what an assault rifle is. They are not legal for use in Canada already. You are using the dog-whistle term for sporting rifles yourself.
Do yourself a favour and go back to the OIC and see what it says about the Modern series of rifles. You may discover what the LPC / JT crew did versus the RCMP.
MS never talked about that because he never was officially involved in those rifles being prohibited. They are not in the OIC and therefore everything you said makes no sense.
OIC is the '4 families' remember? The LPC orchestrated that, all prohibitions to date since the OIC dropped have been due to RCMP reinterpretations, deciding now that these firearms are now one of these 4 family members.
onetwentyish did a great job talking about the other issues in your post.
So it seems that as a seller of firearms, knowing their market, knowing that a political atmosphere is mostly irrelevant when it comes to non-civilian sales of domestic firearms manufacturers, choose to label it under Military products. LEO use select fire in special circumstances, so i imagine they use the military tagline versus Mil LEO specifically.
Hope this helps you catch up.
okay, well none of that happened, so thats where the main issue lies.
ATRS didnt do what you claimed so it still doesnt make sense. They specifically never marketed those as AR15s. They actually made ar15s as well. They do not match up with ar15s or ar10s. They engineered them this way. They created a line of firearms that were not an AR15 or ar10. In the FRT it said so. After a different date in MAY OR LATER they became prohib and the FRT file was illegally scrubbed of materials.
The Lawsuit they filed in the Alberta court systems also shows this. This has to proceed down the court system as well. You should look into this one while riding their leaping logic train. None of these features are specific or unique to these firearms themselves. They are not "ar15 or ar10 characteristics" they are just common engineering features in the firearms world.
MS can talk all he wants about the ideas the RCMP used to determine that, but he is a consultant and was at the time the MS series were redetermined to now be prohib by the RCMP. The scope of the regulations were not actually enlargened. A specific goal and list were provided. The problem is the RCMP took whatever they could to make that broad. He was not allowed to talk about majority of this so it is a mystery. In reality, a firearm cannot be reinterpreted for classification within one year after it is issued an FRT entry. paragraph 87 does not include the MS /V/H lines therefore it is also not based on fact.
The firearms that the RCMP prohibit are due to the new way they choose to read the regulations, not by any change in writing. They arent on the OIC list so he can talk about features like they matter but its like using engine parts to call things race cars.
The issues here are being conflated. The RCMP have created a large umbrella to say things are now ar15s or ar10s based on features alone. So a firearms could become a variant based on sharing features. So bolt actions featuring the same items will be prohib based on the same logic.
If marketing played such a factor, then why cant they produce a single image showing ATRS showing their rifles as AR15s?
Sorry for derail.
ATRS didnt do what you claimed so it still doesnt make sense. They specifically never marketed those as AR15s. They actually made ar15s as well. They do not match up with ar15s or ar10s. They engineered them this way. They created a line of firearms that were not an AR15 or ar10. In the FRT it said so. After a different date in MAY OR LATER they became prohib and the FRT file was illegally scrubbed of materials.
The Lawsuit they filed in the Alberta court systems also shows this. This has to proceed down the court system as well. You should look into this one while riding their leaping logic train. None of these features are specific or unique to these firearms themselves. They are not "ar15 or ar10 characteristics" they are just common engineering features in the firearms world.
MS can talk all he wants about the ideas the RCMP used to determine that, but he is a consultant and was at the time the MS series were redetermined to now be prohib by the RCMP. The scope of the regulations were not actually enlargened. A specific goal and list were provided. The problem is the RCMP took whatever they could to make that broad. He was not allowed to talk about majority of this so it is a mystery. In reality, a firearm cannot be reinterpreted for classification within one year after it is issued an FRT entry. paragraph 87 does not include the MS /V/H lines therefore it is also not based on fact.
The firearms that the RCMP prohibit are due to the new way they choose to read the regulations, not by any change in writing. They arent on the OIC list so he can talk about features like they matter but its like using engine parts to call things race cars.
The issues here are being conflated. The RCMP have created a large umbrella to say things are now ar15s or ar10s based on features alone. So a firearms could become a variant based on sharing features. So bolt actions featuring the same items will be prohib based on the same logic.
If marketing played such a factor, then why cant they produce a single image showing ATRS showing their rifles as AR15s?
Sorry for derail.
r34skyline
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Let's not forget the marketing team along with the financial backing that would allow the big boys like SIG to straight up undercut on the price and drive the competition out on contracts. Glock has been playing that card for decades now.
Not entirely sure what any of that has to do with being the first to design an integral Operating Spring set-up to do away with the AR Receiver Extension (Buffer Tube), but sure - SIG definitely has some clout when it comes to marketing and financing their innovative developments. That is at least in part how they have managed to win both the new US Service Rifle and Handgun competitions in recent years. Say what you want about their abilty to compete in the Defence Marketplace, but you have to admit that SIG has been by far the most innovative ccmpany to come along in a few decades. Not only do they offer unique and well-considered solutions to common design problems (eg. the AR Buffer Tube), SIG also offers one-stop shopping for integrated designs that work well together such as Carbine, Optic and Suppressor packages. Nobody else in the marketplace offers the entire suite of integrated Firearm, Electo-Optic, Suppressor and miscellaneous Accessories. Nobody, not even KAC.
Dude, you got the prototype "Special Forces Dual Gas Weapons System" barrel - they've been "looking for that ever since the guys at Delta (PD) requested one"
soo many 180 variants. That's good. Glad they came out with one.
Has anyone owned or shot any of their pistols? They look alright.
The MK7 was/is reliable and will shoot anything. again, great quality and care on that thing were great IMO.
Has anyone owned or shot any of their pistols? They look alright.
The MK7 was/is reliable and will shoot anything. again, great quality and care on that thing were great IMO.
yup, if SAI or bcl made a good semi 308, id buy instantly.
