Type 97 Classification Issues - PART TWO

Kenkell - You call it chinese junk, then get sand in your mitt when people counter what you said.

Wth?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
suprathepeg said:
The T97 is only one of several rifles they have made "rulings" on which would likely never stand up in court. Rule of law and the RCMP don't exactly mix these days, more like just plain old rule.
Click to expand...

Heheh. I read in today's paper an article that included a long list of lawsuits that the RCMP has recently (how recent 'recent' is I am unsure) lost.... Looooong list.
 
kenkell1 said:
Hmmm you own a restricted t97 and yet some say there isn't any available to shoot when I said I had shot one.
Then I express my opinion of this firearm....I get slammed for being a newbie or I get slammed for not liking the gun or I get slammed because I said I had shot one...and I actually fired several rounds thru it.
So get off your high horses....., Just because I don't like the pea shooter doesn't mean you need to slam me or anyone else for it.....
Give me a 338, 300 or 7mm any day.........at least it's useful!!!!!!!!!!
Some seriously swelled heads here..geezuz
And you all wonder why I haven't posted much here LOL......

By the way, just because I am a newbie on THIS forum really means zippo!
Click to expand...

5.56 can be useful too. I know I have seen the results first hand on several gophers and rabbits. :stirthepot2:
 
Throttle_monkey1 said:
That's what I'm doing. Care to add anything of value?

Anything at all, you know regarding the RCMP review of the type 97s?

Arctic blazer, please pm me with the contact info for the people you spoke to.
Click to expand...
It bears no resemblence to any rifle previously banned by Order in Council. The RCMP accepted the samples, issued an FRT # for the rifle as ‘non-restricted’. The company had the Chinese government change the rifle to their specifications to ensure it fit in the non-restricted class, which means that anyone with a valid PAL can purchase one (and use it for hunting). This company, then went to DFAIT and got their paper work done and placed their order. Their container, which contained hundreds of rifles was hung up for 30 days in customs (the longest CBSA can hold a container without a reason), and the CBSA then extended that hold on the basis that a sample had been sent to the RCMP firearms lab for examination. Clearly, some border guard didn’t want their butt on the line for letting the rifles in. It has now been 3 months, but the RCMP still have not officially responded to the issue, and in the meantime, the company has hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up that they cannot use.
Anything else???
 
kenkell1 said:
It bears no resemblence to any rifle previously banned by Order in Council. The RCMP accepted the samples, issued an FRT # for the rifle as ‘non-restricted’. The company had the Chinese government change the rifle to their specifications to ensure it fit in the non-restricted class, which means that anyone with a valid PAL can purchase one (and use it for hunting). This company, then went to DFAIT and got their paper work done and placed their order. Their container, which contained hundreds of rifles was hung up for 30 days in customs (the longest CBSA can hold a container without a reason), and the CBSA then extended that hold on the basis that a sample had been sent to the RCMP firearms lab for examination. Clearly, some border guard didn’t want their butt on the line for letting the rifles in. It has now been 3 months, but the RCMP still have not officially responded to the issue, and in the meantime, the company has hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up that they cannot use.
Anything else???
Click to expand...

How about something that we don't already know...
 
Good stuff.

There is also info coming down the line that the original rifles that lever arms brought in were incorrectly classified. That's what scares me. We have no way of knowing. This thing could be dragged out in court for years.

Which would suck for us, but would really suck for canam.
 
Ffynn said:
How about something that we don't already know...
Click to expand...
I no as much as you... Sorry I don't have any more info....but I was asked to share what I do no.....which was 100% understandable.


OH...and i am all for gun control !!!!! nice tight shots placed exactly where i aim for them to go !!!!!
 
Last edited:
Maybe we're hung up on this C/A thing... if it actually takes as little effort to change as I've heard from a credible source, maybe they're going to class it as a F/A. Hell, a F/A M16 is still a F/A even if you turn the selector to S/A. The change that the T97 takes alledgedly to fire F/A is not much harder than turning a selector.
 
Yup, could be argued, but ease of conversion has been looked at before and if it seriously only takes a screwdriver, minutes, and minimal knowledge it would be an uphill battle.
 
If this is the case, can CanAm modify them or return them to China to be modified so it is nearly impossible to fire or convert to FA without serious machining?
 
rommelrommel said:
Yup, could be argued, but ease of conversion has been looked at before and if it seriously only takes a screwdriver, minutes, and minimal knowledge it would be an uphill battle.
Click to expand...


Edited...guys it's not advised to discuss this in an open forum. FWIW Rommel, I think what you have been told is wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing no. There would have to be all new rifles with a different frt #

A la ar180b (ar180 is prohib).


If I'm wrong someone will be along shortly to correct me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom