tactical .22s

jewman22

jewman22

Regular
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Location
Burford Ontario
why are some tactical .22s non restricted and others are restricted. Since they tend not to follow the typical regulations.

Take the ISSC MK22 scar replica for example. It is semi-auto, 16" barrel and has a 22 round magazine. which by the given regulations should make it restricted but its not. why is that.

But then there is the Colt M4 in .22lr, it has almost the same specs except the barrel is 0.2" longer then the scar and has a 30 round mag, but yet it is restricted.

It's the same with the mossberg tac22(non-restricted) and the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22(restricted)

Do they just take a quick glance at the thing and then classify them.
 
it seems they do just take quick look at them!
i,m sure others can explain better but i think it has something to do with resembling m-16. same think as the AR being restricted but sl8 not being.

the scar doesn't resemble the m-16( i believe)
 
what is funny though is that you can buy parts for a .22 to look nasty and in any varient you want they will sell you the parts but wont say anything about changing the stat.
correct me if im wrong plz.
 
to make it easier;

pretty much all firearm laws are written by sub-human caliber people who have absolutely no knowledge in this particular domain what so ever. why what is banned and what is allowed will never make any real sense in any rational mind. there is no short answer that makes complete sense.

fight to change it!
 
Captain Paul said:
to make it easier;

pretty much all firearm laws are written by sub-human caliber people who have absolutely no knowledge in this particular domain what so ever. why what is banned and what is allowed will never make any real sense in any rational mind. there is no short answer that makes complete sense.

fight to change it!
Click to expand...

I think everyone including the government misses the point about gun laws!
Gun laws ONLY affect LAW ABIDING PEOPLE! after all said and done, have you ever heard of a bank robber or murderer NOT doing the crime, because their license was out of date or they didnt have the restricted section yet????


they are actually treating the legal gun owners as nothing but untrustworthy and demon minded potential criminals! BUT the ACTUAL Criminals can get any gun they want, whenever they want and carry them wherever they want, and do whatever they want to with them, and never ever register them or take a course or test to own them, all they have to do to keep this amazing freedom of gun ownership is simply not get caught with one, and even when they do the punishment often seems very lenient.


The answer is really very simple, after a test and the issue of a gun licence, the law abiding shooter should be allowed to own any kind of gun they want, however they can only use it within it's operational limits, ie, (for clarity sake) if you wanted a gun that could say...fire over 10 miles then you could only fire it if you had access to sufficient land mass to accomodate the shot etc, (a bit like a guy who buys a really fast car but the speed limit is only 100kmh... he would have to go to a track to use it to it's full potential speed , ) any misuse of the gun like the car should then bring the severe consequences, because THEN the law has been broken! in that way all the sensible and law abiding shooters out there can enjoy their sport and only those that break the law get the punishment...as it should be!

before all the "wait a minute" crowd get going at me with "why would someone want to own this gun or that gun, for what reason" etc etc, let me say that owning and firing a gun is entirely different, some people just want to own a gun collection and have very little urge or intent to shoot them, a bit like a stamp collector who wants the rare and unusual stamps but never posts a letter with them!

gun laws should be just that simple, common sense and a bit of trust in the people.................let the criminals have the restrictions and penalties not the law abiding sportsman!
 
it seems that the government should hire people with proper firearms knowledge to make these decisions and not just a groups of suits who hate guns.

I looked a little further into it, the mossberg tactical 22 is non-restricted cause it is a plastic shell over a the internals of a 702 plinkster.

The ISSC SCAR isn't built into receivers like the reel one. its a bunch of screws holding together some high quality aluminum.

They told me that its the lower receivers that are the problem
If they are close in any way to the full caliber version, then they are restricted.
i.e: the Colt .22 Tactical M4 and Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22

In what universe does that make sense. I know that the government does nothing logically but they must have some common sense.

It appears that the way they do there jobs is very lazy. They don't take the specs into consideration or even examine the gun, they just look at the picture to determine it's class.

If these laws applied to the military, we would have soldiers walking threw the middle east using pathetic bolt action rifles and side arms limited to 10 round mags.
 
colonelchimp said:
I think everyone including the government misses the point about gun laws!
Gun laws ONLY affect LAW ABIDING PEOPLE! after all said and done, have you ever heard of a bank robber or murderer NOT doing the crime, because their license was out of date or they didnt have the restricted section yet????


they are actually treating the legal gun owners as nothing but untrustworthy and demon minded potential criminals! BUT the ACTUAL Criminals can get any gun they want, whenever they want and carry them wherever they want, and do whatever they want to with them, and never ever register them or take a course or test to own them, all they have to do to keep this amazing freedom of gun ownership is simply not get caught with one, and even when they do the punishment often seems very lenient.


The answer is really very simple, after a test and the issue of a gun licence, the law abiding shooter should be allowed to own any kind of gun they want, however they can only use it within it's operational limits, ie, (for clarity sake) if you wanted a gun that could say...fire over 10 miles then you could only fire it if you had access to sufficient land mass to accomodate the shot etc, (a bit like a guy who buys a really fast car but the speed limit is only 100kmh... he would have to go to a track to use it to it's full potential speed , ) any misuse of the gun like the car should then bring the severe consequences, because THEN the law has been broken! in that way all the sensible and law abiding shooters out there can enjoy their sport and only those that break the law get the punishment...as it should be!

before all the "wait a minute" crowd get going at me with "why would someone want to own this gun or that gun, for what reason" etc etc, let me say that owning and firing a gun is entirely different, some people just want to own a gun collection and have very little urge or intent to shoot them, a bit like a stamp collector who wants the rare and unusual stamps but never posts a letter with them!

gun laws should be just that simple, common sense and a bit of trust in the people.................let the criminals have the restrictions and penalties not the law abiding sportsman!
Click to expand...

There's a thought.. If you want to be a criminal, you have to apply for a license to be so.... different classes for 'type' of criminal ie. Level 5 for violent crimes against others down to Level 1 for petty crimes such as vandalism, shoplifting etc... Special condition will apply if you wish to use any specific tools such has break-in tools, restraints, weapons etc..
 
thats not much to go on. The government enjoys crowding our prisons with law abiding citizens. Why put criminals in jail when you can lock up anyone who owns a gun.
Our gun laws protect criminals and criminalize normal people.

Criminals commit crimes, not normal people. the last time you have heard of someone getting shot with a registered gun was likely a self defence case.
Breaking and entering = 2 years
Murder = 7 years
Self defence with a gun = 10 years

What a Great system. Nice to see people have common sense.

Cant do a lot of damage with a .22lr. I have air guns that would do damage
I know all firearms are dangerous but that still doesn't explain why tactical 22s are restricted but regular semis in a standard rifle configuration are non-restricted.:mad:
 
jewman22 said:
thats not much to go on. The government enjoys crowding our prisons with law abiding citizens. Why put criminals in jail when you can lock up anyone who owns a gun.
Our gun laws protect criminals and criminalize normal people.

Criminals commit crimes, not normal people. the last time you have heard of someone getting shot with a registered gun was likely a self defence case.
Breaking and entering = 2 years
Murder = 7 years
Self defence with a gun = 10 years

What a Great system. Nice to see people have common sense.

Cant do a lot of damage with a .22lr. I have air guns that would do damage
I know all firearms are dangerous but that still doesn't explain why tactical 22s are restricted but regular semis in a standard rifle configuration are non-restricted.:mad:
Click to expand...

We feel your pain.

(hug)
 
Its a never ending source of frustration and disappointment with my country that AR platforms are restricted. It is unfathomable to me that in a modern, successful country such as Canada the powers that be have seen fit to enact laws that restrict firearms based on looks alone and have nothing to do with functionality. It goes to show how power is often placed in the wrong hands and how those hands use it to their selfish benefit. Reality and gun legislation in this country are mutually exclusive terms. Sadly there is precious little that can be done about it. There is virtually no chance of the RCMP, a die hard anti-gun lot, doing an about face on classification issues regardless of what politicians or parties occupy parliament hill.

Remember, locks only keep honest people out.
 
jewman22 said:
It is semi-auto, 16" barrel and has a 22 round magazine. which by the given regulations should make it restricted but its not. why is that.
Click to expand...

By the given regulations, it is not restricted, and so it isn't.

Barrel length(unless below ~4"), action type(semi auto, bolt action, ect.), magazine capacity(which never apply to a firearm's classification), mean nothing to rimfire rifles.
 
That's why I said rimfire rifles.
The scar replica isn't a handgun.

And none of that applies to the classification of rimfire handguns either.
Except for the barrel length, dropping below ~4" would make a rifle or handgun prohibited.

but regular semis in a standard rifle configuration are non-restricted.
Click to expand...
The regular versions of the mossberg tactical 22, and the ruger tactical 22, are non restricted, the same as their 'tactical' dress up kits.
The rifles are the same except for the shell they throw on an ugly shell
The colt and s&w are seen as an AR15 variant. There is no non-restrict non tactical version of them
nothing to do with barrel lengths, magazine capacity, action type.
 
Last edited:
well the reasone the colt m4 22, m&p 15 22 and the cmmg are considered restricted is because you remove the pivot pin and take down pin and you can change the uppers to 223,7.62x39,7.62 nato 6.8 300aac blackout or .50 beowolf
 
Rimfire tactical 22s

the laws regarding so called tactical 22s are made by people who have more than likely never shot a firearm in thier lives. and have no idea what the heck thier doing and should'nt be working in the position they are working. ie law inforcement.

I was at a party the other night with my girlfriend and a friend of hers asked her if I would give her some time to watch tv - a ladies night out . and my girlfriend said no problem he will just go target shooting with his friends . to which this woman recoiled and said you shoot guns ??? and I said I have been target shooting since I was 13 years of age. - never met this woman before.

and she said what happens if you shoot yourself in the eye . LOL . and I said well I won't have the back of my head anymore. that was the end of our conversation. that woman was the kind of person who would come up with a stupid law such as the one governing some 22s. not in the know.
 
well given current laws, I can see slight *SLIGHT* logic to restricting a rimfire AR by my understanding of restricting all AR's and it comes back to bbl length. Because the lower bears the serial number it is the registered part while the upper can be swapped for whatever. An AR 15 can be many things from all the qualifications for NR to shouldnt-that-be-illegal restricted. All by a simple swap of non-controlled parts. So if a 18.5"+ AR were purchased as NR, the owner could then turn around and swap a short bbl upper and have an NR short bbl centerfire semi. The government cant control what modifications a gun owner makes so they blanket class it restricted, take another bite of caviar and snort another....you get the idea. I hate it but thats the way I see it. Like prohibiting a firearm that can be easily converted to FA, they just wave a wand and thats the end of it. Lazy law is easy law, easy law makes for a short day in the office so they can blow more taxpayers money on leisure time. Just keep buying guns until they give up. Get more new shooters involved, more new guns in the country etc. We'll win, and have fun doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom