Bolt action Milsurp in 762x39?

The OP started the thread asking about bolt action military rifles in x39.
It has wandered, but I think the discussion is worthwhile.

One of those Italian carbines that have been sold recently would be really interesting in x39. Might be a good use for one with a horrid bore. And it wouldn't have to be a one way conversion. Barrel swap without any modifications.
 
As long as the thread is wandering a bit, about the easiest conversion one would find or able to do is converting an existing AR15 chambered in 7.62x39mm to one of the straight pull rifles.
 
beltfed said:
As long as the thread is wandering a bit, about the easiest conversion one would find or able to do is converting an existing AR15 chambered in 7.62x39mm to one of the straight pull rifles.
Click to expand...

What’s the point this isn’t it the uk
 
There are the two Canadian upper and lower bolt action kits that one could complete using AR parts. One manual open and close, the other manual open, spring loaded close.
I do not recall anyone here reporting assembling one of these in anything other than .223. Lack of primary extraction could be problematic in x39.
 
m1008 said:
What’s the point this isn’t it the uk
Click to expand...

No, but it is heading that way.
If someone is looking for a bolt action option in this caliber, and lacks the necessary smithing tools and knowledge to convert an existing milsurp bolt gun, the AR is another avenue - and they are simple to work on.
 
beltfed said:
No, but it is heading that way.
If someone is looking for a bolt action option in this caliber, and lacks the necessary smithing tools and knowledge to convert an existing milsurp bolt gun, the AR is another avenue - and they are simple to work on.
Click to expand...

According to Runkle, the AR components would be on the prohib list, if he's correct about his definition of the recent SECU release.
 
bearhunter said:
According to Runkle, the AR components would be on the prohib list, if he's correct about his definition of the recent SECU release.
Click to expand...

So non semi's that share comparability parts with the worlds most popular rifles are going to be caught up in this ideological nonense.... , well that makes sense.
 
mmattockx said:
AR upper receivers are now named as prohib parts in the 2020 OIC but everything else is still clear unless I missed something newer?


Mark
Click to expand...

I believe you're correct, I went back and listened again. Sometimes he just gives to much information and it conflicts with earlier info, if the listener isn't putting it all together.
 
Can-down said:
So non semi's that share comparability parts with the worlds most popular rifles are going to be caught up in this ideological nonense.... , well that makes sense.
Click to expand...

That was my first impression, but I don't think I was listening close enough while trying to fathom all of Mr Runkles info.
 
bearhunter said:
That was my first impression, but I don't think I was listening close enough while trying to fathom all of Mr Runkles info.
Click to expand...

It's pretty hard to try and guess where things are heading when it's so far removed from reality and rational thought.

There was and still are many things that the Liberals could do that would make our lives as gun owners in Canada better and simplify some of the convoluted nonsense in our gun laws but there idea of "fixing" problems only applies in the direction of less rights(privelages) and more restrictions.

The legislation is a dog's breakfast of regurgitated barf and then they want to somehow make it so that no rational minds in the future can undo their mess.

If they think their proposed laws and regulations along with their magic handgun freeze is going to be so effective..... why would they think future govts and voters would want to dismantle it?

It should not be possible to tie the hands of future voters and lawmakers, it's anti democratic and the height of entitled hubris.
 
mmattockx said:
The proposed legislation text only talked about detachable mags, but that is preliminary and who knows where it would have ended up.


Mark
Click to expand...

Well, every M1 garand owner was going through considerable angst about 'losing their investment'
Yep, I realize that an M1 is a totally different beast. They were gonna put Ruger No 1's on the list...you don't think that " The Rifle that was used to assassinate President Kennedy " wouldn't look good on the list as well?
The Liberals paint with a wide brush...they wouldn't care a lick if it was peculiar. They never have and never will. Mo' betta would be their logic.
 
tokguy said:
Well, every M1 garand owner was going through considerable angst about 'losing their investment'
Yep, I realize that an M1 is a totally different beast. They were gonna put Ruger No 1's on the list...you don't think that " The Rifle that was used to assassinate President Kennedy " wouldn't look good on the list as well?
The Liberals paint with a wide brush...they wouldn't care a lick if it was peculiar. They never have and never will. Mo' betta would be their logic.
Click to expand...

As a Garand owner I am well aware of it being named in the first amendment. I also am well aware of Lib stupidity, but historically they have not touched manual action mags nor en bloc clips and the current text of the proposed amendments says 'detachable mags'. That can easily change, of course, but we won't know until things are actually tabled in committee.


Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom