80% lower?

The problem with "80%" lowers is what 80% is completed. There is no 'standard'. And as such, some "80% receivers" could still be slapped on an upper and function it enough to fire a round.
You might not be able to insert a magazine, or perhaps there would be no hole in the buffer tower so the gun wouldn't cycle (single shot) but the way the law is written is that if it can fire a round, it's a receiver.
 
*MALICE* said:
The problem with "80%" lowers is what 80% is completed. There is no 'standard'. And as such, some "80% receivers" could still be slapped on an upper and function it enough to fire a round.
You might not be able to insert a magazine, or perhaps there would be no hole in the buffer tower so the gun wouldn't cycle (single shot) but the way the law is written is that if it can fire a round, it's a receiver.
Click to expand...

You make a good point. It probably would fire as a single shot quite easy in 80% configuration.
 
then you have not seen the ones from dlask ,there is NO way to make them fire as they are without more machine work which YOU must do ,there for NOT a firearm as is.
 
Hope they haven't got rid of them, their forgings are pretty nice and fit right into a ar jig no problem. Did see them few months ago I thought.
 
Armedsask said:
I'm going from memory but I do recall the CFO's making it difficult to sell 80% lowers. Basically threatening to shut down guys who were doing it.

I am aware the CFO's don't make law. That hasn't stopped them in the past.
Click to expand...

I can see that.

"Stop selling them or we pull your license. You might win in court, but good luck running a firearm business without a license."

And the store/manufacturer backs off, as it's not worth the risk.
 
The key thing you're all forgetting is that the definition of when a gun becomes a gun during building is not black and white. There is no set definition in Canada. It has even been argued that as soon as the intent to build is there, it's a gun.

Also, there is no 80% rule in Canada. The RCMP has claimed that as soon as you start doing any work to a raw forging, you've started building a gun.

There was a whole thread years ago back when CGN had a lot of more active, knowledgeable users who routinely built stuff and pushed legal definitions.
 
yukoner said:
then you have not seen the ones from dlask ,there is NO way to make them fire as they are without more machine work which YOU must do ,there for NOT a firearm as is.
Click to expand...

Correct. There is no way to attach the upper in any way to these 80%'s as they are. They cannot fire even one round.

Same with the 1911 80%'s they had. Couldn't even mount the slide.
 
*MALICE* said:
The problem with "80%" lowers is what 80% is completed. There is no 'standard'. And as such, some "80% receivers" could still be slapped on an upper and function it enough to fire a round.
You might not be able to insert a magazine, or perhaps there would be no hole in the buffer tower so the gun wouldn't cycle (single shot) but the way the law is written is that if it can fire a round, it's a receiver.
Click to expand...

BULLSH*T!

No 80% receivers are capable of functioning. Whether that be those that require drilling/tapping or those that only require milling of the the fire control pocket. 80% is still not 100% and 100% is needed to function.

TDC
 
BULLSH*T!

No 80% receivers are capable of functioning. Whether that be those that require drilling/tapping or those that only require milling of the the fire control pocket. 80% is still not 100% and 100% is needed to function.
Click to expand...

Before you start throwing out 'bullsh!t', maybe you could enlighten me (the board) by telling me(us) how many ar lowers you have actually built (from solid blocks of aluminum I might add) and registered.

If the answer is 0 then you can kindly go stick it.

If, for example, the fire control group is cut and you can duck tape the upper to the lower and the hammer can engage the firing pin, its a receiver. Think that's bullsh!it? Guess what; the rcmp doesn't. They have done it before. They don't care if the gun self destructs after firing one round.

So, no, '80%' can count as a firearm and it does't need to be '100%' .
 
I don't think that the ones Dlask has been selling recently have been drilled for the receiver extension. That means that the bolt carrier can't be installed and it can't be made to function. Interesting discussion though.
 
*MALICE* said:
The problem with "80%" lowers is what 80% is completed. There is no 'standard'. And as such, some "80% receivers" could still be slapped on an upper and function it enough to fire a round.
You might not be able to insert a magazine, or perhaps there would be no hole in the buffer tower so the gun wouldn't cycle (single shot) but the way the law is written is that if it can fire a round, it's a receiver.
Click to expand...

While there are variations with respect to which machining operations have been performed - and which have yet to be performed - have you ever seen one in which the pivot holes for the hammer and trigger have been drilled? That is, a functional fire control unit could be installed, as received. Without a functionning hammer and trigger, a taped together assembly isn't going to be able to be fired.

Have you ever seen one which would accept a functionning hammer/trigger assembly as received?

I can see the powers that be putting pressure on businesses not to sell these unfinished units. Completed rifles could be either restricted or prohibited, without the authorities having any knowledge of the existence of the rifles. It is a matter of control.

And yes, the 80% business is a US thing - and it isn't even defined all that well there. What definition is used to determine the % to which something is finished? Time to go on a CNC machining center? Number of operations yet to be performed? Pro-rated for degree of difficulty?
 
I don't think that the ones Dlask has been selling recently have been drilled for the receiver extension. That means that the bolt carrier can't be installed and it can't be made to function. Interesting discussion though.
Click to expand...

You don't need a receiver extension to put the bolt carrier in the upper. Not having that hole drilled only means the gun won't cycle upon firing (single shot and you would have to remove the upper to load a new round).

tiriaq- I have never seen one that had the trigger/hammer pins drilled. I have seen them with the FCG pocket cut (but without the mag well and buffer tower drilled). But there is no definition on what 80% is okay and what's not.

That's the thing with calling it '80%'. What 80%? The 80% that makes it functional?
It is totally possible to take a raw forging, complete only 40% of the machining and still have it able to fire a round. It doesn't have to fire that round safely or fire a second round.
Example- raw forging, fire control group pocket and trigger/hammer/selector holes cut, possibly front take down pin slot. That is WAY less than 80% of a 'finished receiver' and that would/could fire a round.

I'm not saying I agree with it. And I'm sure that the Dlask ones are probably not machined enough to get you into trouble.

What I'm saying is that an '80%' could still have enough machining done to have it considered a firearm.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, the only thing I would actually NEED Dlask to do is broach the mag well as I don't have an EDM machine or broaching press.

Virtually everything else can be done with a mill and 2 sizes of tap. Made easier with a commercial AR jig.
 
To be honest, the only thing I would actually NEED Dlask to do is broach the mag well as I don't have an EDM machine or broaching press.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the NEA lowers. They get around broaching/EDM by drilling holes out in the corners of the magwell. QC issues aside it's a clever cost cutting measure.
 
In theory you could fire one round from an upper by it self, in a vise, flick the hammer spring into the firing pin,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, pick up your bolt carrier group and repeat.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose that at that point your vise would be a receiver ;)
 
You CANNOT put an upper on the dlask 80's so stop implying that you can. The channel for the front retaining pin lug is not cut. You'd have to cut the lug off the upper if you wanted to "tape" it on.

And even if you did that, the pin holes for the trigger and hammer Arn't there so how you gonna fire it?
 
*MALICE* said:
Before you start throwing out 'bullsh!t', maybe you could enlighten me (the board) by telling me(us) how many ar lowers you have actually built (from solid blocks of aluminum I might add) and registered.

If the answer is 0 then you can kindly go stick it.

If, for example, the fire control group is cut and you can duck tape the upper to the lower and the hammer can engage the firing pin, its a receiver. Think that's bullsh!it? Guess what; the rcmp doesn't. They have done it before. They don't care if the gun self destructs after firing one round.

So, no, '80%' can count as a firearm and it does't need to be '100%' .
Click to expand...

First off, the RCMP is bull####.
Second, A gunsmith buddy was looking at 80% recievers a while ago, like back in 2010 when he was designing a new gun platform. They were selling faster than hotcakes at the time, and brownells couldnt keep them in stock. Noone else had them in Canada at the time. Dunno how the situation is with them now.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom