.458 Socom 5/10rd Magazines

[Curtis264]

In NATO, a STANdardization AGreement (STANAG, redundantly: STANAG agreement) defines processes, procedures, terms, and conditions for common military or technical procedures or equipment between the member countries of the alliance. Each NATO state ratifies a STANAG and implements it within their own military. The purpose is to provide common operational and administrative procedures and logistics, so one member nation's military may use the stores and support of another member's military. STANAGs also form the basis for technical interoperability between a wide variety of communication and information systems (CIS) essential for NATO and Allied operations. The Allied Data Publication 34 (ADatP-34) NATO Interoperability Standards and Profiles which is covered by STANAG 5524, maintains a catalogue of relevant information and communication technology standards.

[Sinasta]

Complain to the designer of the 458 socom. A tilting follower feeds more reliable than an anti tilt follower. If you are having issues with these specific mags feeding 458socom, I doubt that is the issue

Are saying a tilting follower is more reliable on 458 socom or in general?

[PinaKaleada]

Stanag is basically a set of measurements to ensure compatibility.

Think of it like how we have NR ar looking rifles that take all the same parts but the rcmp do not consider it a variant.

And this stanag template dictates any AR15 magazine design? And very much like the AR variant argument, anything that’s similar to the AR15 magazine, even though the 458 has different feed lips, is classified as a stanag magazine, so 5 x 556 rule applies, while the pistol magazines is a new design due to the body?

I think I understand your point of view. I just have a hard time seeing a consistent argument when the RCMP had explained in the past that 9mm vs 40 s&w, and 10 round pistol mags are legal due to the design intent of the mags. Some 9mm and 40s&w even have the same feed lips, with the only difference being the markings. So the markings of the mags must have been the most significant part determining what type of rounds we apply the limit to. This is the old RCMP view and it made more sense than the “dual use” view, which really is a made up word.

[Brian46]

Are saying a tilting follower is more reliable on 458 socom or in general?

458 and 50 Beowulf need a tilting follower to feed reliably in my own rifle and others I have used

[Brian46]

And this stanag template dictates any AR15 magazine design? And very much like the AR variant argument, anything that’s similar to the AR15 magazine, even though the 458 has different feed lips, is classified as a stanag magazine, so 5 x 556 rule applies, while the pistol magazines is a new design due to the body?

I think I understand your point of view. I just have a hard time seeing a consistent argument when the RCMP had explained in the past that 9mm vs 40 s&w, and 10 round pistol mags are legal due to the design intent of the mags. Some 9mm and 40s&w even have the same feed lips, with the only difference being the markings. So the markings of the mags must have been the most significant part determining what type of rounds we apply the limit to. This is the old RCMP view and it made more sense than the “dual use” view, which really is a made up word.

That portion of bulletin 72 you mention is in regards to pistols only, it does not give or sight a rifle example. Bulletin 72 even goes as far as saying it is not a legal document. However, they are "legal" comments in the FRT

[Brian46]

And this stanag template dictates any AR15 magazine design?

Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 4179 covers the dimensions for 556 NATO magazines.

Saying you built a proprietary magazine for a rifle that was built to use stanag compliant magazines from day one is the issue. AA modified a stanag magazine to work with the 50 Beowulf, same problem. The rcmp are not making this stuff up, they procure design paperwork from the rifle manufacturer to come to the conclusions they do.

I don't agree with it, but until American gun makers realize how the rcmp lab works on prohibiting things and get their design paperwork in line, this is where we are. Unfortunately saying their design is stanag/usgi compliant (basically works in the ar15) is how they make sales in the USA even though it causes problems for us

[PinaKaleada]

That portion of bulletin 72 you mention is in regards to pistols only, it does not give or sight a rifle example. Bulletin 72 even goes as far as saying it is not a legal document. However, they are "legal" comments in the FRT

Yeah the point I am making is that if we follow the older interpretation, we would arrive that the markings bear the utmost importance, as seen in 9mm vs 40S&W and the RRA 10 Rounders. But how this isn't consistent with the recent "dual use" claim is whats puzzling us all. Older interpretation made reference to the firearms act, while the newer interpretation throws this away and introduced a term which 1) Contradicts their previous legally sound interpretation, and 2) invented the new term "dual use" which is not found in any literature.

If markings and design intent bears no significant, then you can also argue that the 40s&w magazines with the same dimensions of the 9mm is "dual use" and should follow the 9mm magazine capacity, even though the marking says 40s&w. No where has this view been embraced in a legal standpoint, not even by the rcmp in the RRA case.

Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 4179 covers the dimensions for 556 NATO magazines.

Saying you built a proprietary magazine for a rifle that was built to use stanag compliant magazines from day one is the issue. AA modified a stanag magazine to work with the 50 Beowulf, same problem. The rcmp are not making this stuff up, they procure design paperwork from the rifle manufacturer to come to the conclusions they do.

I don't agree with it, but until American gun makers realize how the rcmp lab works on prohibiting things and get their design paperwork in line, this is where we are. Unfortunately saying their design is stanag/usgi compliant (basically works in the ar15) is how they make sales in the USA even though it causes problems for us

Here comes the problem, did AA "Modify/Adapt" an already manufactured 556 magazine, or did AA make a new 556 magazine design(feed lips?) and manufactured their own magazine? Like barrels, I cannot "Modify/Adapt" a barrel from 20" to 10" (Prohibited), but I can buy a 10" barrel designed and manufactured as such (Not prohibited). And this is the mechanism of prohibition I want to address. If the wordings "Adapt/Modify" is to be aligned with the rest of the firearms act in regards to barrels, overall lengths, RRA pistol mags, 40 s&w mags, then logically the originally manufactured state must be given some priority, but not the original design.

So the problem boils down to: Why did RCMP's legally sound interpretation of 13 rounds of 9mm in a 10 round 40s&w marked magazine not applicable to 13 rounds of 556 in a 5 round 458 marked magazine? Both are "dual use", and OKAY-ing "dual use" was the main purpose of the RRA bulletin. One contradicts the other.

[Brian46]

Yeah the point I am making is that if we follow the older interpretation, we would arrive that the markings bear the utmost importance, as seen in 9mm vs 40S&W and the RRA 10 Rounders. But how this isn't consistent with the recent "dual use" claim is whats puzzling us all. Older interpretation made reference to the firearms act, while the newer interpretation throws this away and introduced a term which 1) Contradicts their previous legally sound interpretation, and 2) invented the new term "dual use" which is not found in any literature.

If markings and design intent bears no significant, then you can also argue that the 40s&w magazines with the same dimensions of the 9mm is "dual use" and should follow the 9mm magazine capacity, even though the marking says 40s&w. No where has this view been embraced in a legal standpoint, not even by the rcmp in the RRA case.



Here comes the problem, did AA "Modify/Adapt" an already manufactured 556 magazine, or did AA make a new 556 magazine design(feed lips?) and manufactured their own magazine? Like barrels, I cannot "Modify/Adapt" a barrel from 20" to 10" (Prohibited), but I can buy a 10" barrel designed and manufactured as such (Not prohibited). And this is the mechanism of prohibition I want to address. If the wordings "Adapt/Modify" is to be aligned with the rest of the firearms act in regards to barrels, overall lengths, RRA pistol mags, 40 s&w mags, then logically the originally manufactured state must be given some priority, but not the original design.

So the problem boils down to: Why did RCMP's legally sound interpretation of 13 rounds of 9mm in a 10 round 40s&w marked magazine not applicable to 13 rounds of 556 in a 5 round 458 marked magazine? Both are "dual use", and OKAY-ing "dual use" was the main purpose of the RRA bulletin. One contradicts the other.

The answer to you AA question lies in the documentation the RCMP have from AA on their magazines.

You can't take a non legal interpretation for pistols and apply it to rifles and change it to law or we wouldn't have different rules for pistols and rifles in Canada to start with

RRA bulletin? Lar 15 is a pistol, 458 socom is not....... Nothing stopping you from using RRA lar 15 pistol magazines in your 458 socom rifle, other than maybe some feed issues.

[PinaKaleada]

The answer to you AA question lies in the documentation the RCMP have from AA on their magazines.

You can't take a non legal interpretation for pistols and apply it to rifles and change it to law or we wouldn't have different rules for pistols and rifles in Canada to start with

RRA bulletin? Lar 15 is a pistol, 458 socom is not....... Nothing stopping you from using RRA lar 15 pistol magazines in your 458 socom rifle, other than maybe some feed issues.

I think thats a good summary of it, and also where the problem lies. The RCMP bulletin okay-ed 9mm/40s&w use based on the legislation. The new RCMP interpretation of the 50/458 was not okay-ed based on AA documentation, with the help of the new term "dual use".

The comparison leads one to conclude that it's a matter of word of law(in the case of RRA, 9mm/40s&w) vs AA/RCMP communication(in the 50/458 case). They literally contradict each other.

[Brian46]

I think thats a good summary of it, and also where the problem lies. The RCMP bulletin okay-ed 9mm/40s&w use based on the legislation. The new RCMP interpretation of the 50/458 was not okay-ed based on AA documentation, with the help of the new term "dual use".

The comparison leads one to conclude that it's a matter of word of law(in the case of RRA, 9mm/40s&w) vs AA/RCMP communication(in the 50/458 case). They literally contradict each other.

You clearly don't grasp that different regulations apply to pistols than rifles, you cant just apply one to the other because you think that is the way it should work.