SKS and the Bullpup Conversion Stock Issue.

R

ronjonjd

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Toronto
Hi, All.

I was looking at SKS stock upgrade kits and saw this bullpub conversion that makes the SKS look a lot like the IWI Tavor. I got quite interested, and then looked at the website for the mfg co.
It stated that they would not ship to Canada. So I then looked into why and it seemed based on what I read that it is considered a prohibited kit. Very strange considering that the Tavor is considered unrestricted?! Then some of the threads I read said that there may be some changes on the horizon to make this bullpup kit legal.

has anything changed? Can someone confirm if this kit is actually banned, or if it was just misinformation? I'd love to have one but I also don't want to run afoul of any laws related to it, even if they make no sense whatsoever (considering the Tavor's legality)

Any info would be appreciated.
 
OK, so if one was to start a firearms mfg co that took SKS parts and created a bullpup out of it with some modifications to make it a 'new construction' and sold it with a new model number, it could be deemed legal and possibly even unrestricted?
 
ronjonjd said:
OK, so if one was to start a firearms mfg co that took SKS parts and created a bullpup out of it with some modifications to make it a 'new construction' and sold it with a new model number, it could be deemed legal and possibly even unrestricted?
Click to expand...

No. Stock is an addition the firearms initial design that shortens the overall length of the gun. You can't add a stock and call it a new gun design. The receiver is what makes up the core of the firearm, and is why you need a licence to own a stripped receiver.

The Tavor, the type 97 and other non restricted bullpups are not receivers in a bullpup stock. The bullpup design is integrated into their overall function and design of the gun and is not a separate piece. The bullpup theme of the gun is not an addition, but is an integral part of the function of the gun. It isn't just a stock added to a receiver.
 
It's a stupid regulation really.

I think the rational behind it was that if it were to be allowed, many long guns could be shortened into pistols using the evil bullpop design. Now you don't want someone running around with an SKS pistol, that has evil assault magazine, that stores assault cartridges and feeds them an assault receiver, shooting assault projectiles, assault assault asssault assssssssssssssault.
 
98/29 said:
It's a stupid regulation really.
Click to expand...

Totally true. Given how "poorly" the authors of bill 68 actually understood guns, and tried to sound excessively smart in their writing, it wouldn't surprise me that their intent was to ban bull pups of any type. But, like how pistol mags are allowed in rifles, and mags can hold ammo over intended limits when using a different calibre than they were designed for, their writing has made some things go our way, and others not so much.

Emotional writing vs intelligent writing.
 
fenceline said:
Emotional writing vs intelligent writing.
Click to expand...

Most gun regulation are bogus if you ask me. Those who use firearms with malicious intent aren't exactly law biding citizens, it's like taxing the poor for the welfare of the society, oh wait, we already do that too.
 
Speaking of Bullpup SKS ...

fw7pms.png


It turns that unwieldy Russian thing into such a joy to shoot.

I had a chance to try the SGWorks bullpup in US, aside from the trigger, it's such a comfortable platform.
 
fenceline said:
Which is impossible if starting with the SKS as the receiver, the part that constitutes the legal firearm, would have to be fitted to an extension that puts the trigger ahead of the action.

Such a device is commonly known as a stock, ie a bullpup stock.
Click to expand...

Take an SKS barrelled action. From the receiver, remove the rear pillar and other features which allow the standard SKS trigger group and stock to be attached. Create a new lower receiver which incorporates the fire control group, magazine housing and ergonomics, which can only be assembled on the modified barrel/receiver. It would not fit a standard SKS. This new assembly would not be a bullpup stock; rather it would be a functional part of the mechanism, without which the barrelled action would be inoperative.
Thoughts?
 
"...this kit is actually banned..." Yes. You need to read the law. You cannot build a bullpup rifle out of SKS parts. A bullpup that can be fired without the stock on is evil.
"...authors of bill 68 actually understood guns..." Not much understanding of English Common Law either. Mind you, Trudeau the Elder and his French gang(and Mulroney's Montreal Irish gang) have been trying to change the basis of Canadian law from English to French Common Law for eons. French Common Law says you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The FA's 'onus on the accused' does it.
"...intent was to ban..." The intent was to take another step towards no private ownership of firerarms of any kind in Canada.
 
tiriaq said:
Take an SKS barrelled action. From the receiver, remove the rear pillar and other features which allow the standard SKS trigger group and stock to be attached. Create a new lower receiver which incorporates the fire control group, magazine housing and ergonomics, which can only be assembled on the modified barrel/receiver. It would not fit a standard SKS. This new assembly would not be a bullpup stock; rather it would be a functional part of the mechanism, without which the barrelled action would be inoperative.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Not worth the time and the effort, that's my thought.

I'd rather wait for them to change these ridiculous regulation.
 
tiriaq said:
Take an SKS barrelled action. From the receiver, remove the rear pillar and other features which allow the standard SKS trigger group and stock to be attached. Create a new lower receiver which incorporates the fire control group, magazine housing and ergonomics, which can only be assembled on the modified barrel/receiver. It would not fit a standard SKS. This new assembly would not be a bullpup stock; rather it would be a functional part of the mechanism, without which the barrelled action would be inoperative.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Using a "new lower receiver" that accepts a modified barrel and an SKS trigger group wouldn't be putting an SKS into a new stock, it would be building a new gun. Legally the receiver is the firearm. If you change that part of the equation you aren't modifying a gun, you are designing a new gun.

Change your suggestion to any gun. Remove the trigger group from an AR, modify an AR barrel and build a new integrated bullpup receiver for those parts. You haven't modified an AR, you have just used AR parts in a new gun design.
 
Last edited:
fenceline said:
Totally true. Given how "poorly" the authors of bill 68 actually understood guns, and tried to sound excessively smart in their writing, it wouldn't surprise me that their intent was to ban bull pups of any type. But, like how pistol mags are allowed in rifles, and mags can hold ammo over intended limits when using a different calibre than they were designed for, their writing has made some things go our way, and others not so much.

Emotional writing vs intelligent writing.
Click to expand...

Trying to make sense of the majority of our firearm laws will cause a severe headache and possibly brain damage. Just look at those who originally wrote them!
 
sunray said:
"...this kit is actually banned..." Yes. You need to read the law. You cannot build a bullpup rifle out of SKS parts. A bullpup that can be fired without the stock on is evil.
"...authors of bill 68 actually understood guns..." Not much understanding of English Common Law either. Mind you, Trudeau the Elder and his French gang(and Mulroney's Montreal Irish gang) have been trying to change the basis of Canadian law from English to French Common Law for eons. French Common Law says you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The FA's 'onus on the accused' does it.
"...intent was to ban..." The intent was to take another step towards no private ownership of firerarms of any kind in Canada.
Click to expand...

Yes, they wanted to ban everything fun. I simply said that a lack of firearms understanding created, for lack of a better term, loop holes around what it would seem to be their initial intent.

They may have wanted all bullpup designs banned, but referred to stocks, which ignored integrated bull pup designs and thus, allowed for the Tavor and type 97 to be NR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom