.50 Beowulf 3rd Party Magazines

Caleb314 said:
The thing is there is no cartridge that's called .50 caliber( if I'm not mistaken they list it as a .50 cal magazine but I can't find it anymore). It would be like making a magazine that fit in a m14 and calling it a .75 caliber magazine so you can get 10-12 or so round in them.
Click to expand...
??? For real?

See Thread title ' .50 Beowulf 3rd Party Magazines'
 
cancer said:
It's not "enforcing" that is the problem in this case, it's "interpreting" that is the issue. One can interpret just about any statement to mean anything. In this case, by choosing not to follow Section 84 of the Criminal Code in a clear cut manner (ie. 5 rounds MAX for the magazine's intended calibre and manufacture - which was clearly in this case to be .50 Beowulf), they're really opening a can of worms by creating this "dual use" term. Any magazine that can hold different calibres is in touble of being forced into only accepting the lowest number of cartridges possible. It will only take one judge and one verdict for the RCMP to turn Section 84 of the criminal code upside down and force all gun owners in Canada to move their rivets up even further. I doubt even the RCMP would want to see the re-percussions of that outcome. They'll immediately piss off a couple million people (at the least), and they'll be causing a huge headache for the provinces and their hunting regs.
Click to expand...

I agree. Imagine the repercussions for waterfowl if your 3.5" 12 gauge shotgun was deemed capable of 'dual-use' (which they clearly all are) and was limited to 2 rounds of 2 3/4" in the magazine. Completely illogical and bound not to stick. NR has a fighting chance, and to me the example with shotguns is as broad and definable as can be. I really don't think there's a risk of every semi-auto shotgun owner of being 'thrown under the bus' like many other situations either. There's too many of us.

I understand firearm regs and hunting regs are completely different, but there is some overlap here, waterfowl for example is also federally legislated.
 
Well you pointed out the issue with the hunting regs, but that line of thought should follow for *any* semi shotgun labelled 3 1/2" because they are "dual-use" with 2 3/4" shells and can be made to hold more than the mandated number.

If they create a class (dual use) for A (.223 in .50B), then decide that another situation B (2 3/4" shells in 3 1/2" tubes), which is the same as A but isn't part of the class, they've opened themselves up to the challenge that the initial situation shouldn't have been included either. Or that the second must be included (which as you say, there would be *much* more resistance there). Or that there is something inherently defining about A (it's scary won't do here, but they would try to come up with some reasons) that is distinct from B.

As usual, the real problem is the joke that is our body of firearms law.
 
there are a thousand sites that state how many @.#$ fit in a #&@\*. the cat is way long out of the bag. better tighten up are tinfoil hats so as are thoughts are not read either.
 
radmacks said:
there are a thousand sites that state how many @.#$ fit in a #&@\*. the cat is way long out of the bag. better tighten up are tinfoil hats so as are thoughts are not read either.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand what you're talking about, nor the metaphors. Could you elaborate more?
 
There are a couple of posts I read in this thread where people were upset about someone asking a question about how many rounds of 5.56 a beowulf could hold. Then there was a couple more about how stupid it would be too talk about it on a public internet forum (implied). I myself wondered how many they could hold so I googled it (cause I dare not ask here). Guess what, its not a secret. Frustrating when you come to forums to ask questions and people chastise you for it, thinking your going to derail some top secret project. My post was part vent I sincerely apologize. I get cranky late at night lol.

t_102 said:
I don't quite understand what you're talking about, nor the metaphors. Could you elaborate more?
Click to expand...
 
radmacks said:
There are a couple of posts I read in this thread where people were upset about someone asking a question about how many rounds of 5.56 a beowulf could hold. Then there was a couple more about how stupid it would be too talk about it on a public internet forum (implied). I myself wondered how many they could hold so I googled it (cause I dare not ask here). Guess what, its not a secret. Frustrating when you come to forums to ask questions and people chastise you for it, thinking your going to derail some top secret project. My post was part vent I sincerely apologize. I get cranky late at night lol.
Click to expand...

No worries. My frustration arrises from the fact that they are regarded as "dual-use". It is not consistent with previous rulings.
 
What I am saying is, for example my AA mag is only marked on the baseplate.
If someone was unscrupulous, they could crank out a lot of base plates.
 
It is really too bad the magic eight ball woke up on the wrong side of bed on the day of questioning by the RCMP. Dice roll wrong on that faithless day :bangHead:
NR Magazine said:
The markings were fine. It was the fact that you could use .223 in the .50 Beowulf mag that the RCMP didn't like. Bit of a head scratcher when they endorse 9mm in 40SW mags.
Click to expand...
 
burnaby said:
It is really too bad the magic eight ball woke up on the wrong side of bed on the day of questioning by the RCMP. Dice roll wrong on that faithless day :bangHead:
Click to expand...

I think that the balance of gun control has been swinging in our favor for too long. This is unacceptable to some people with friends in high places and they are taking every opportunity to claw back lost ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom