Tavor X95 MSW barrel on new U.S receiver?
- Thread starter KanadianShooter
- Start date
Does not mention any parts, simply the firearm. Which in this case would be the frame.
I will answer technical part only. Legal part I won't answer because there are different opinions on what we can do with those parts.
Yes, you can use X95 MSW shorter barrel on civilian (US IWI) X95. Consider that shorter barrel has a groove for part 11 "stabilizing sleeve" close to the receiver, so you either would need a shorter HG or longer HG without "stabilizing sleeve" - your barrel will "free float".
Yes you can also use X95 MSW bolt. Bolt is identical, why would you want to swap it, maybe you wanted to swap carrier?
Yes, you can use X95 MSW shorter barrel on civilian (US IWI) X95. Consider that shorter barrel has a groove for part 11 "stabilizing sleeve" close to the receiver, so you either would need a shorter HG or longer HG without "stabilizing sleeve" - your barrel will "free float".
Yes you can also use X95 MSW bolt. Bolt is identical, why would you want to swap it, maybe you wanted to swap carrier?
So I Could by the 18.5 inch gun swap the hand guard and barrel and it would be functionally the same? Of course the frame and trigger pack would be diffirent so legally again a restricted rifle.
the barrel is what would make it a restricted rifle, not the trigger pack
Yes but not prohibited.
in the same token history has taught us to avoid having restricted firearms ...at least into a registry.
I like the feel and look of the 13 inch gun. I want to know if it's doable because now stripping the rifle is a real possibility if I need to hand it in.
Yep. Many CZ and VZ floating around. Gov has no idea who has them, they only know who bought them when the LGR was still in swing. I still have Mini 14's and 30 and CZ and VZ in there but all long sold.
Once I had a VZ58 with the 11.8 inch barrel, beautiful rifle, really nice, but sold due to the restricted status.
I am somewhat with you regarding this potential course of action, although I do not foresee a permanent installation of the MSW Barrel and Handguard. I'd prefer to simply keep the MSW parts kit on-hand.
Just remember the 30-day rule for notifying the CFC of any change to your barrel length that alters the classification of the firearm. Should you install the short Barrel and Handguard from your MSW to a US X95 (which is entirely do-able) and THEN subsequently change your mind within the 30 day notification window, there is apparently no harm, no foul. On the other hand, if you notify the CFC within the 30-day window you will wind up with a Restricted X95 sporting an MSW front end. It would be restricted and you would be confined to a certified range, but the hybrid carbine would appear near-identical to the original MSW. Differences would be that the hybrid would lack the Magnifier attachment point behind the Upper Picatinny Rail (no big deal) and would have the different Selector Markings with a 90-degree Selector-throw. In other words, nothing visible from a few feet away...
The above notwithstanding, I would prefer to keep my MSW exactly "as is". That is the topic of discussion in the "Rescinded" thread - winning a potential case against the RCMP Lab "Experts". I'm not planning on giving up until the options other than surrender have all been exhausted. That said, I'd really prefer to see the Importer/Distributor(s) take up the charge (with our backing) against the lab's interpretation rather than us owners having to fight such a case on our own.
Last edited:
Yes, correct, it would function the same. And frame and trigger pack are whole different discussion but they don't make rifle restricted or non-restricted or prohibited.
Which thread are you referring to? This one? https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...5228-13-inch-MSW-IWI-X95-Tavor-now-Prohibited
Last edited:
Latest gen MSW did not have attachment, it was flat top rail all the way and squared HG, exactly like on civilian X95s, just shorter.
And you forgot grip. MSWs had pistol grip and civ X95 cutlass, but that is easy changeable too.
The Grip is simply a matter of personal preference. For instance, I already have a Cutlass installed on my MWS and a Pistol Grip on my X95....
I submitted my “reference to an Ontario court of justice judge” paperwork today. Trust me when I say that I’m not looking to be the one to take this to court on behalf of the X95 community. I just know that this is my one option to circumvent the 30 day timeframe that was given by the RCMP. I really hope the dust settles in the meantime, at the very least I can request a disclosure and see what evidence the RCMP is providing and share it with the community. Otherwise, I know that I will be able to request a few adjournments before I ever have to even appear in a courtroom.
I just want to shout out to “Mark C” who seems very knowledgeable and rational in this matter. Thank you for you input and I look forward to any further information you have.
Once again here is the link for the form in Ontario:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iUV...47m/view?pli=1
I suggest that if you have received a “Revocation Letter” appeal it. From what I have gathered, until you responded with what your plans are (surrender, destroy, or appeal) you are a non-compliant firearms owner in the eyes of the RCMP.
I just want to shout out to “Mark C” who seems very knowledgeable and rational in this matter. Thank you for you input and I look forward to any further information you have.
Once again here is the link for the form in Ontario:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iUV...47m/view?pli=1
I suggest that if you have received a “Revocation Letter” appeal it. From what I have gathered, until you responded with what your plans are (surrender, destroy, or appeal) you are a non-compliant firearms owner in the eyes of the RCMP.
Cross-posted from: https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...ted-Tavors?p=19867166&viewfull=1#post19867166
Request for informational assistance
Gentlemen who are affected by this ####storm. At this very moment of time I consider our chances to win and keep MSWs as insignificant, however.... It is just a one person opinion, it doesn't mean we are not going to do our best to fight it. New information is coming in pretty fast, and information changes a lot. We haven't heard orgs, I'm feeding information to helpful lawyers. We will see.
I'm looking for 2-4 ppl that are willing to send an email with specific request to provincial CFO and share some details from provided reply (nothing private) with me. It might help, it might not help, at this stage we're on the fishing trip for information.
So I need couple of ppl who has X95 MSW in restricted configuration registered to them.
And I need another couple of ppl who more or less recently (up to a year) converted X95 MSW into NR configuration and submitted request to reclassify it. It doesn't matter if you still have it or sold it. WHat matter is the fact you're were the owner who reclassified it.
Please PM me and I'll send you instruction, it's very easy and cost you nothing, just several minutes of your screen time.
Request for informational assistance
Gentlemen who are affected by this ####storm. At this very moment of time I consider our chances to win and keep MSWs as insignificant, however.... It is just a one person opinion, it doesn't mean we are not going to do our best to fight it. New information is coming in pretty fast, and information changes a lot. We haven't heard orgs, I'm feeding information to helpful lawyers. We will see.
I'm looking for 2-4 ppl that are willing to send an email with specific request to provincial CFO and share some details from provided reply (nothing private) with me. It might help, it might not help, at this stage we're on the fishing trip for information.
So I need couple of ppl who has X95 MSW in restricted configuration registered to them.
And I need another couple of ppl who more or less recently (up to a year) converted X95 MSW into NR configuration and submitted request to reclassify it. It doesn't matter if you still have it or sold it. WHat matter is the fact you're were the owner who reclassified it.
Please PM me and I'll send you instruction, it's very easy and cost you nothing, just several minutes of your screen time.
So you got a letter in the mail. Because the gov knows Who owns these rifles.
And your solution is to buy a new rifle the gov doesn’t know you will have. And convert it to restricited so they will know you have it? And a few months from now after b21. You will get another letter for that one…
People don’t learn.
Buy another x95 and leave it non restricted.
And your solution is to buy a new rifle the gov doesn’t know you will have. And convert it to restricited so they will know you have it? And a few months from now after b21. You will get another letter for that one…
People don’t learn.
Buy another x95 and leave it non restricted.
I always wanted one of these so I can explore the TTP but I don't like buying surplus....I guess that kinda save me the heartache at the end!
Not an X95 expert. RCMP changed the stances some years ago. Used to be "if it is out of the factory as a semi, it is a semi". I have seen some "police overrun" colt AR sold as Semi with the sear hole blind pinned back in the late 90's. Starting at Questar attempt to import FN SCAR, it became how "easy " it could make it go auto. ( questar was not the problem ) The FN SCAr was a turning point - also when these people constantly poked the bear with Sten.
I am just putting this out as more like a practical matter. yes, there are million of inconsistencies. The point, I don't know the details how the X95 and the full auto version look like, but if the receivers are the same and it can accept the FA trigger pack, most likely it will get a NO. It is kinda like a SG55X with a little block thing just to stop the switch from flipping to FA
You see, use to be "how it comes out of the factory", at some point it became " does the factory just convert auto receiver" - that becomes very murky - like how much "difference" the factory has to add or subtract is not transparent. there probably a checklist somewhere ( they better have one because this is just how an evaluation process should be set up) sitting at the lab for the process, but even check list is subjective to certain degree by the technician who fills it out.
What need to happen is making that check list transparent to importers, so they can have good way to evaluate a product before importing, instead of semi-guessing. This is the problem here. But they don't want to make the check list transparent because they don't want to argue with importers over the checklist - ie, to protect their monopoly in interpreting the regulations.
Not an X95 expert. RCMP changed the stances some years ago. Used to be "if it is out of the factory as a semi, it is a semi". I have seen some "police overrun" colt AR sold as Semi with the sear hole blind pinned back in the late 90's. Starting at Questar attempt to import FN SCAR, it became how "easy " it could make it go auto. ( questar was not the problem ) The FN SCAr was a turning point - also when these people constantly poked the bear with Sten.
I am just putting this out as more like a practical matter. yes, there are million of inconsistencies. The point, I don't know the details how the X95 and the full auto version look like, but if the receivers are the same and it can accept the FA trigger pack, most likely it will get a NO. It is kinda like a SG55X with a little block thing just to stop the switch from flipping to FA
You see, use to be "how it comes out of the factory", at some point it became " does the factory just convert auto receiver" - that becomes very murky - like how much "difference" the factory has to add or subtract is not transparent. there probably a checklist somewhere ( they better have one because this is just how an evaluation process should be set up) sitting at the lab for the process, but even check list is subjective to certain degree by the technician who fills it out.
What need to happen is making that check list transparent to importers, so they can have good way to evaluate a product before importing, instead of semi-guessing. This is the problem here. But they don't want to make the check list transparent because they don't want to argue with importers over the checklist - ie, to protect their monopoly in interpreting the regulations.
Further to greentips’s comment I can’t see why people post pictures or instructions on how to do something to a firearm online. Yes, I understand freedom of speech etc, but what I don’t understand is giving the G’s at the cfo’s office more ammunition to justify banning or declaring items illegal etc. It boogles my mind
