FN SCAR-16s: RIP Oct 2012

blaxsun said:
Far be it for me to defend the decision, but there is a distinct difference between the ACR and the SCAR. The ACR has a specifically-manufactured SA receiver that will not accept any FA components. The SCAR (presumably, based on the decision) has a FA receiver with SA parts, that can be readily converted to FA with no modification whatsoever.

Even the guy that imported them for the review by the RCMP was surprised how easily the SA was converted to FA.
Click to expand...

If this is the case, how is the Scar able to be sold to US civvies?
I'm surprised the BATFE would allow it if it is so easy to convert.
(Not challenging you, just trying wrap my head around the whole issue...)
 
tootall said:
If this is the case, how is the Scar able to be sold to US civvies?
I'm surprised the BATFE would allow it if it is so easy to convert.
(Not challenging you, just trying wrap my head around the whole issue...)
Click to expand...

I believe that what makes the determination in the US is not what you can potentially - do but what you have done (or intend to do). AR15 = fine, but put a barrel under 16" and you need to pay the $200 tax stamp and register it as an SBR. Add a DIAS and that's a whole other endeavour...

I would also imagine that the FA sears and DIAS are heavily controlled, regulated and obscenely expensive to be enough of a deterrent in of itself. In Canada we have the reverse philosophy with respect to firearms: it's what you can do, regardless of how improbable or unrealistic it actually is.
 
Am I glad I didn't buy all the SCAR accessories, and bailed when I did, I didn't lose a dime, only the interest Questar made in the year they had my $4000.
ha:
 
And here is our problem...
R. V. Hasselwander said:
3. The Appropriate Interpretation of the Definition of Prohibited Weapon
What then, should "capable" mean as it is used in the s. 84(1) definition of prohibited weapon? It should not be restricted to the narrow meaning of immediately capable. Such a definition would mean that the simple removal of a part which could be replaced in seconds would take the weapon outside the definition. This surely could not have been the intention of Parliament. If it were, the danger from automatic weapons would continue to exist just as strongly as it did before the prohibition was enacted.
The word "capable" as it is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed. 1989) includes an aspect of potential capability for conversion. It is defined as:
3. Able or fit to receive and be affected by; open to, susceptible . . . .
. . .
5. Having the needful capacity, power, or fitness for (some specified purpose or activity).
From this, it is clear that "capable" does in fact include a potential for conversion. It is then fair and reasonable to interpret the definition of "prohibited weapon" as including a gun that has the potential to be readily converted to a fully automatic weapon.
Click to expand...

I believe in the US the law is based on what you do and what your intentions are, not what the firearm might be capable of. In the US you can own an FN FAL that can be converted to full auto with just a sear. The sear is considered the machine gun and needs to be registered. The rifle is legal without the sear.
 
Mirk said:
And here is our problem...


I believe in the US the law is based on what you do and what your intentions are, not what the firearm might be capable of. In the US you can own an FN FAL that can be converted to full auto with just a sear. The sear is considered the machine gun and needs to be registered. The rifle is legal without the sear.
Click to expand...

And yet, some FAL versions like the Indian Ishapore 1A1 werenot allowed into the US but were allowed into Canada, due to having a go-fast part.
 
tootall said:
And yet, some FAL versions like the Indian Ishapore 1A1 werenot allowed into the US but were allowed into Canada, due to having a go-fast part.
Click to expand...

I'm not really knowledgeable enough to comment on the FAL. I think what we have seen is perhaps a shift in how firearms are now reviewed and classified with the RCMP labs, ie: where there once may have been more willingness to be impartial there is no longer that transparency.

If the Tavor were submitted for approval today, does anyone have any confidence that it would've been classified and approved in the same timely fashion?
 
Mirk said:
And here is our problem...


I believe in the US the law is based on what you do and what your intentions are, not what the firearm might be capable of. In the US you can own an FN FAL that can be converted to full auto with just a sear. The sear is considered the machine gun and needs to be registered. The rifle is legal without the sear.
Click to expand...

Actually if you read the DSA and other websites, the receiver is not machined for a safety sear, and many imported firearms have been classed as NFA3 due to the safety sear cut ala yugo 76, psl etc......
FAL-SA58-SquematicPDF.pdf


from the BATF
The FN FAL is a machinegun as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). The receiver of an FAL is also a
machinegun as defined. Various manufacturers made FAL style machineguns in caliber 7.62x51mm
(.308). The FAL is a gas operated, shoulder fired, magazine fed, selective fire machinegun.

From cornell law us code 26 s. 5845
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
 
teenahlake said:
Actually if you read the DSA and other websites, the receiver is not machined for a safety sear, and many imported firearms have been classed as NFA3 due to the safety sear cut ala yugo 76, psl etc......
Click to expand...

That could very well be the case. As indicated, I have zero (and perhaps less than zero) knowledge with respect to the FAL. :)

mildot said:
Anyone want to buy some Magpul SCAR selectors cheap??
Click to expand...

I've still got a Branham rail I need to get rid of, too. I think I might have found a buyer, though...
 
teenahlake said:
Actually if you read the DSA and other websites, the receiver is not machined for a safety sear, and many imported firearms have been classed as NFA3 due to the safety sear cut ala yugo 76, psl etc......
FAL-SA58-SquematicPDF.pdf
Click to expand...

This is correct; FAL receivers intended for the US commercial market are incapable of accepting an auto sear. With a three-position selector installed and set to auto on one of these rifles, after the first shot, the hammer will follow the bolt carrier forward, resulting in an uncocked rifle with a round in the chamber.

The exception to this are the early Browning-imported G-Series FALs, which do have sear-cut receivers with a special semi-only selector, bolt carrier, and ejector block. It was later ruled that any receiver capable of accepting an auto sear was a machine gun in and of itself and those FALs already imported were exempted from the NFA by serial number. Another 12 FALs were imported by administrative error in 1974 and were likewise exempted.
 
giwolf said:
Oh well, we still have the ACR.......
Click to expand...

And the H&K's, Swiss's, Tavor's, FN2000's and...any other AR's your heart and wallet desires.

I haven't fully understood the be-all-end-all status of the SCAR, considering that none of us (well minus perhaps less then half of a handful) actually have any lenghtly experience with it to give a proper opinion of it.

ARX-160..Tag! You're hit!
 
Mirk said:
And here is our problem...


I believe in the US the law is based on what you do and what your intentions are, not what the firearm might be capable of. In the US you can own an FN FAL that can be converted to full auto with just a sear. The sear is considered the machine gun and needs to be registered. The rifle is legal without the sear.
Click to expand...

From what I've heard
US: The components to the full auto are the controlled parts, As long as you didn't modify or possess the parts, you're all good

Canada: The potential capability for a gun to be converted to full auto (See T97)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom