I have a dream...A Norinco AR-10...

Megaclocker said:
Would it be possible to import the original AR10 lower from let's say the US and get a blueprint done of it ?
Click to expand...

Or go to US and get a blueprint, this week? Just fooling around with you lol there's many ways.

Yes I agree. Could anyone confirm that the BCG, Barrel and firing controls are the same? It accepts modern day buffer tubes etc right?
 
t_102 said:
Or go to US and get a blueprint, this week? Just fooling around with you lol there's many ways.

Yes I agree. Could anyone confirm that the BCG, Barrel and firing controls are the same? It accepts modern day buffer tubes etc right?
Click to expand...

I was more thinking along the lines of me getting one thru IRG or something like that.

To my understanding, someone would ne to find an AR-10B right ?
 
Is this it?

rr8lm1-2_zps9256633c.jpg


So essentially, this piece of metal is a Non Restricted firearm right? Get them to modernize the upper!
 
Last edited:
Before all you " I'd buy a NR AR10 guys get so happy " someone find a FRT number and report stating the original AR10's are non restricted. My trusty verifier spent a long time looking for it and could not find it. Until someone can provide this its pointless going any further.
 
mildcustom2 said:
Before all you " I'd buy a NR AR10 guys get so happy " someone find a FRT number and report stating the original AR10's are non restricted. My trusty verifier spent a long time looking for it and could not find it. Until someone can provide this its pointless going any further.
Click to expand...

If it doesnt have an FRT, does it mean it wasnt a named Restricted?
 
t_102 said:
If it doesnt have an FRT, does it mean it wasnt a named Restricted?
Click to expand...

All firearms have an FRT number here.

Found this on canfirearms.ca archives :

=======================================
=======================================

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 19:22:32 -0600
From: David A Tomlinson <nfadat@telusplanet.net>
Subject: CALGARY COURT CRASH -- WE WIN ONE!

In Sep 92, Mac MacDonald took his AR-10 rifle to the Calgary Police Service
local registrar and applied for a registration for it.

Yesterday, he got it back -- UNREGISTERED.

Last night, the NFA did something it hardly ever does. It paid for dinner
- -- for Jim Smith, expert witness; Bill the Gunsmith, expert witness; Dave
Tomlinson, expert witness; Wilf Backus, pro-firearms lawyer; Mac MacDonald,
the fighting victim; and the President of the AACCA.

Mac has fought -- almost alone, with NFA help -- for 6 long years, trying to
recover his AR-10. He has REFUSED to agree to demands by the Calgary Police
Service for mutilation of his rifle "to make it less convertible to full
automatic." And yesterday -- we won it all.

The AR-10 rifle in question, unlike most AR-10s, was MANUFACTURED as a
semi-automatic rifle -- by Artillerie-Inrichtung, in Hembrug, Holland,
sometime between 1957 and 1960.

It is not classified as a "restricted weapon" by being a "converted
automatic [CA]" -- because it never WAS a full automatic.

It is not classified as a "restricted weapon" by being on a list on an Order
in Council -- because it never WAS on such a list.

It is not classified as a "restricted weapon" by being a "variant" of some
gun that IS on such a list -- because it is NOT a "variant" of any other
firearm. It is GRANDPA -- the FIRST version of a design that eventually
became one of the world's most important military firearms. All of the
others MAY be "variants" of the AR-10 -- but the AR-10 is NOT a "variant" of
any of THEM.

It is an UNRESTRICTED firearm.

The Crown's theory was that the AR-10 is "capable of firing projectiles in
rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger." The Crown attempted
to show that by playing a video of an officer removing the safety lever from
the gun, loading two cartridges into the magazine, and then firing a burst
of two shots. The video went on to show the officer loading three
cartridges into the magazine, and firing a burst of three shots. Conclusive
proof, right?

WRONG. The firearm was merely malfunctioning. Removing the safety lever
allowed the trigger mechanism parts to move into a WRONG position, and
prevented the sear from holding the hammer back -- as it is designed to do.
So: Fire, extract, eject, feed -- and, as the bolt reaches the
forward-and-locked position, the hammer -- which has been FOLLOWING the bolt
instead of staying cocked as it is designed to do -- gives a slight blow to
the firing pin. It is a VERY weak blow -- NOT enough to fire most
cartridges. When the AR-10 -- or any other semi-auto rifle -- is
demonstrating 'hammer follow' -- it is NEVER cocked. Proper hammer impact
is IMPOSSIBLE.

In the first demonstration, it LOOKS as if the full-automatic fire is
reliable. That is because 5 cartridges from a lot with VERY soft primers
were used, and the test was terminated before any cartridge could fail to
fire. Got it? Good. Stop the tape before something goes wrong!

After viewing the tape (supplied as part of the "discovery" disclosures),
Wilf Backus went to get a cup of coffee and came back to discover that there
was a SECOND "demonstration" on the tape, following a few minutes of "gray
snow."

In the second demonstration, the officer announces that he will now fire a
full magazine -- 20 shots -- in one burst. He leans into it, and pulls the
trigger -- but this time, he is using IVI ammo -- the hard-primer
MILITARY-type cartridges the AR-10 is designed to use.

Bang! Extract, eject, feed, failure to fire. Live cartridge in the
chamber, hammer FORWARD.

Pull cocking handle, extract and eject live cartridge. Aim.

Bang! Extract, eject, fee, failure to fire. Live cartridge in the chamber,
hammer FORWARD.

Pull cocking handle, extract and eject live cartridge. Aim...

As I said, altering the mechanism to cause the AR-10 hammer to FOLLOW the
bolt (instead of swinging froward from the cocked position to HIT the
firing pin) gives a VERY weak impact on the firing pin. Using the IVI ammo,
going to 'hammer follow' operation converted the AR-10 from a reliable
semi-auto into a firearm that USUALLY fired one cartridge, and then WASTED
the next. Twice in three magazines full -- unpredictably! -- it fired a
short burst of two or three cartridges, then stopped with the hammer FORWARD
and a live cartridge in the chamber. That position requires manual
operation of the bolt to eject a perfectly good cartridge and #### the
hammer before the rifle can fire again.

The gun was 'converted' all right -- from a reliable semi-auto into a
manually-operated rifle that usually fired every SECOND cartridge.

The Crown's Calgary Police Service expert witness was excellent. He was
honest and truthful. He did NOT volunteer information that would damage the
Crown's case. When asked questions where an honest answer would have
'trashing' effects, he answered honestly and fully.

He agreed that MANY firearms malfunction -- even without the assistance of
someone deliberately sabotaging the mechanism to FORCE them to malfunction.
He agreed that MANY types of firearms malfunction in a way that results in
the firing of "projectiles in rapid succession during one pressure of the
trigger."

A $12,000 Perazzi over-and-under shotgun can do that. One barrel goes off,
and then the gun malfunctions -- so the second barrel is 'jarred' into
firing by the recoil shock from the first. Does that make it a "prohibited
weapon" on the spot, instantly?

He agreed that that was a malfunction -- and that the correct course of
action when it happens is to stop firing and take the firearm to a gunsmith
for correction of the malfunction -- which may be caused by breakage,
peening, or bending of parts -- or dirt, or powder residue fouling.

He agreed that Mac's AR-10 had been MANUFACTURED as a semi-auto, and that it
was malfunctioning. He suggested that if it malfuntioned RELIABLY into the
full auto mode, it MIGHT be villating the law by being "capable of firing
projectiles in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger" -- but
the second video destroyed any chance of claiming that.

At this point, the judge intervened. He pointed out that the AR-10 had been
brought in for registration, and held for several years without being
seized. In order to get an Order for Disposition, the Crown had formally
seized the AR-10 -- under Criminal Code section 103(1).

What the Crown had NOT noticed (although we had, and were being quiet about)
was that a gun seized under CC s. 103(1) or (2) leads directly to a court
hearing and a decision under s. 103(6).

The seizure must be for SAFETY reasons, and s. 103(6) says the hearing is
to determine whether or not it is SAFE to allow the owner to have the
firearm back -- ON THE BASIS OF THE CHARACTER OF THE OWNER.

There was no such question in this case. The Crown acknowledged that Mr.
MacDonald's character was not an issue. CC s. 103 cannot be used as the
Crown was using it.

Therefore, since the seizure was NOT made over a "safety" issue, the seizure
was illegal. Mac's demand for the return of his property under CC s. 337
was in force, binding. Any refusal to return it would be an indictable
offence committed by the officer who refused to deliver it.

Wilf Backus and the Crown went over all the options to see if the Crown
could do it under any other section. CC s. 102? No. It only authorizes
seizure of a firearm from a "person in possession." Mac was NOT "in
possession" -- and had not been for six YEARS.

NO provision of the Criminal Code -- so far as we can tell -- authorizes the
police to seize a firearm THAT IS IN POLICE CUSTODY -- AND ARRIVED IN THAT
CUSTODY AS PART OF THE REGISTRATION PROCEDURE.

The AR-10 would have to be given back to Mac, and the 6-year incident CLOSED.

One flaw remained -- that 20-shot magazine. The judge proposed that the
police keep it until they could issue Mac a permit to take it to a gunsmith
for capacity reduction. A hurried whisper from the NFA to Wilf Backus, and
he pointed out that the police CANNOT issue a permit to transport a
"prohibited weapon" [an over-capacity magazine] but the magazine CEASES to
be a "prohibited weapon" if it is DISASSEMBLED. No part of a magazine is,
of itself, a 'magazine.'

The magazine was then disassembled and handed over. The AR-10 was handed
over.

And the NFA paid for the dinner.

Principles established:

An original AR-10, IF manufactured as a semi-auto (this does NOT refer to
the different AR-10s NOW being manufactured), is NOT a "restricted firearm"
and does not require registration. (This variant has over 1/2 of the
diameter of the safety lever MILLED away where the full auto sear spring
touches the safety lever shaft; has no full auto sear or spring for one;
DOES have the full auto sear axle; and has the word "AUTO" on the receiver
removed by MILLING WITH AN END MILL. The bolt carrier is 25.4mm in
diameter, NOT 30mm.)

There is no known way for police to LEGALLY seize a firearm brought in for
registration.

An over-capacity magazine that has been disassembled in no longer a
magazine, let alone an over-capacity magazine, and no part of it is a
"prohibited weapon."

Test the above principles CAUTIOUSLY -- there is no guarantee that you will
not have to fight ANOTHER court case to prove those points again.

Dave Tomlinson, NFA

FOCUS: Who SAYS you can't fight City Hall -- and WIN? Especially with the
NFA helping...

===============================================
===============================================
 
Last edited:
I remember reading about how Knights Armament has Stoners original plans for the AR-10. Don't know if its true but would not surprise me as I believe that before Stoner died he worked very closely with KAC.
 
Leonidas said:
An original AR 10 that was manufactured as a semi (virtually all were select fire), or a repro based on the original design should be non restricted.
Click to expand...

Should be non-restricted. That's a nice sentiment. There's a lot of Swiss Arms and 858's that should be non-restricted as well. The RCMP would take one look, say "it's an evil AR" and, well, you know the rest. I would be very suprised if it came through as NR. What about the Ruger 762? Anyone know if that's restricted or not? Or is that not a fair comparrison? Is the Ruger 762 an AR-10 or is it just a 30 caliber AR-15?
 
Not trying to divert, but if this isn't possible, what about something like the HAC-7C. Very much a combination of different firearms, at least to my untrained eye. Maybe the Chinese could produce these....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUnfaKG0SxI

...I would be in for a NON-RES AR10 too.
 
Here is a photo of the KLM Airlines Survival Variant (along with survival kit)

http://4.bp.########.com/-58AA26J4UnM/UEehaS7_-EI/AAAAAAAACG4/wasT0Hy6v0g/s1600/5.+Polar+survival+kit.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom