 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
This is correct ^. The legislation as it is wrote specifically singled out Bullpup stocks and not bullpup designs as being prohibited devices. So if you have a conventional firearm that can be placed into a Bullpup stock, that stock is prohibited. But if you have a firearm that was clearly designed to be a Bullpup from the factory such as the KSG, RFB, RDB Tavor, T97, Fs2000 or PS90 for example, they do not use a stock and are integrally designed as bullpups.Originally Posted by shawn
"I dont usually bring targets im more of a dirt shooter." -daniel_250r
I am the "small fringe minority" with "unacceptable" views.
CCFR 🍁 CSSA
They would have to develop a receiver that couldn’t take a standard 10/22 trigger box. Then make some kind of a forward trigger and separate hammer in the receiver. Then they would have to find someone to manufacture a housing for all the components. I’d buy one in a heartbeat but I have a feeling the answer will be no just due to the scope of the work and our BS laws.
Your last sentence is correct. While it is really not that difficult to engineer the money needed to invest to make the molds and all the other unique components is simply not financially viable. At least not with the relatively small numbers we could sell in Kanada. While there are a few of you that like the idea and would buy one there are many more people that don't like the bullpup platform for whatever reason. I know because I'm one of them. This is why there aren't many even in the US where the gun market is so much larger than ours.
Cheers,
Leigh
Dlask Arms Corp.
www.dlaskarms.com
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote