++UPDATE Dec 22/ 21++ Kel Tec CMR-30 with Dlask Arms Barrel now NON-RESTRICTED !

[Curtis264]

yes, because of the PMR-30, just like the Ruger 10/22

[freekshow001]

Since the 17hmr is based off the 22mag case and your making a new barrel anyways, then why not a 17hmr conversion? May have to make a heavier bolt handle, i think thats what other companies did for the conversion to operate reliably.

[KBCL]

Couldn’t you just make your nifty little block and have Kel-Tec install it at the factory and be the only Canadian seller of the NR version or something? I’d buy one.

[Fisselig]

This looks really interesting. If you add one of these handguards on by Dan Haga it would look fantastic.

[Fisselig]

Since the 17hmr is based off the 22mag case and your making a new barrel anyways, then why not a 17hmr conversion? May have to make a heavier bolt handle, i think thats what other companies did for the conversion to operate reliably.

Honestly this would seal the deal for me. I've been looking for a 17 HMR and if I can get it in this platform I think I'd go for it.

[gutinater]

Look I’m not back seat driving. I’ve had my go arounds with the lab before when I was in the industry. They oven told me once that adding a longer FH to a gun would not count for increasing overall length. I argued with Etter and he finally agreed that this was in fact allowed and had to follow past practice (not for increasing barrel length that is not allowed)What exactly are they saying? Are they using the word “designed” now to mean that any rim fire gun now that came from the factory with a folding stock and originally could fire when reduced to less than 660mm is restricted regardless of being pinned or not? Then that argument should not hold up as adding barrel length to get over 660mm shouldn’t negate the fact that it was designed to fold. I don’t understand this. Not only am I worried about my CMR-30 from the other guys but other rimfire guns with folding stocks that are pinned with short barrels. Also is this the policy of the entire LAB or just what one tech came up with? Because that is a very important distinction.

Morning guys. So, to answer the GSG-16 vs. CMR-30 stock pinning question. The GSG-16 is already non-restricted and therefore we simply swapped barrels and modified the 'stock' to maintain minimum OAL. There was no change of status needed. However. To change the status of a Restricted firearms the firearm cannot have been modified by reducing cutting, sawing blah blah to the rear portion of the gun. There is NO mention of swapping barrels to make it a longer OAL."

These guns were not MODIFIED by reducing, cutting etc. They were made from the factory to be reduced. This means this ruling makes no sense unless they are claiming they were "designed" this way and therefore there would be no way to get around this fact and convert them to non restricted, no matter what method was used. They can be reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise. If you permanently disable this feature why would this not be legitimate? I sure hope this is not the direction the lab is taking. The fact that they are allowing longer barrels to re classify these guns tells me there must be some kind of misguided incorrect decision unless I am missing something?

Restricted Firearm

“a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, “

So if it was designed that way what would it matter if you pinned the stock or added barrel length? They both wouldn’t change the fact it was “designed to be fired at a length of less that 660mm by a folding stock?” This lab practice or ruling could have far reaching implications for other guns... have you guys talked to the CCFR or other gun orgs etc? The last thing I need in my life is to jeopardize my liberty and my collection because the lab says one of my rimfires is classified incorrectly,


Also: Will the lab still allow the attachment of a muzzle device to a rim fire or manually operated firearm to count towards overall length still or not? That option would be a lot cheaper and easier to do than replacing the whole barrel to get the proper overall length

[KotKotofeich]

Honestly this would seal the deal for me. I've been looking for a 17 HMR and if I can get it in this platform I think I'd go for it.

+1. I like the gun but the 22wmr idea is somewhat ho-hum for me. But the 17hmr gets my attention. Obviously this would all depend on if 17hmr feeds from the magazine - problems with this may nix the whole idea.

And since I'm writing, Dlask, are people buying the NR rifle from you going to get the original 16" barrel too? (I'm not harbouring ideas of switching back, but I do have a use for it.)

[brandon_ha]

Morning guys. So, to answer the GSG-16 vs. CMR-30 stock pinning question. The GSG-16 is already non-restricted and therefore we simply swapped barrels and modified the 'stock' to maintain minimum OAL. There was no change of status needed. However. To change the status of a Restricted firearms the firearm cannot have been modified by reducing cutting, sawing blah blah to the rear portion of the gun. There is NO mention of swapping barrels to make it a longer OAL. We originally tried to come up with something more simple and user friendly to install :

Attachment 423170

We made this nifty little block that screws between a slot under the Picatinny rail on the top which limits the stock movement. Once black Loctite has been applied this thing would need to be machined out to remove it. We asked the RCMP Lab if this was cool and were told flat out 'No', because of the rule I mentioned above, and that ended that idea. This kind of had us scratching our heads because this was exactly the same method of making the rifle N/R as what another company had done which is when were told "Why do you think they aren't bring more in if it was kosher with the RCMP ?" There is currently NOT an FRT number for a non-restricted CMR-30. I did however send the a Verification Report yesterday informing them of what we did to this rifle, along with the barrel length and OAL dimensions so hopefully a child entry will be forthcoming soon.

Taking a new approach we decided to make a new, longer barrel and just leave the back of the rifle alone. This is the same thing we do to change the status on any Restricted firearm and is seen as an acceptable method per the RCMP. The B&T's, USC's, P-08 Lugers, all short barreled hand guns etc. use a longer barrel to change their status from P to R or from R to N/R. Will this method be 'interpreted' as not allowed in the future ? Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of the Lab.

I know that some of you have perused the regs, criminal code and firearms act etc. and you think that navigating the 'interpretations' of the SFSS Lab is a breeze. 'Hey Dlask, why don't you just do this or that.....?' Seems easy, right ?

No, no it's not. Regardless of how smart you think you are or how many threads you've read on CGN it is NEVER that easy. This is why the general non-shooting public seldom, if ever, understand our frustration as a community. When you try to explain the inconsistencies and irregularities all brought on by vague rules, if you can call them that, and the ever changing 'interpretations' by the SFSS they just go glassy eyed and think you're making it all up as a gun toting crazy arse redneck. "There's NO way that's how it is, it makes NO sense !" they say. But, they're 100% wrong because the rules we have to follow are that messed up. And if our old friend JT gets re-elected in the next election it's going to get so much worse...

I digress, sorry.

So for those of you that say we are employing a 'sales tactic' or whatever, no we are not. These are the ridiculous rules made for us, the common serf, living in an RCMP / Libtard controlled gun world and we are forced to comply whether we have a common sense argument against them or not.

We cannot make a longer hand guard, sorry Mr. Files, simply because the body of the gun is an extrusion and we would need to sink serious dough into getting dies made to have our own extrusion to play with. Pretty sure Kel Tec isn't going to sell us some of theirs although since we are friendly with the official Canadian distributor I suppose I could ask....

Just a tip: insulting your customers intelligence isn’t a good look. If you cant handle your interactions without doing so, maybe you should hire someone who can.

[Curtis264]

Just a tip: insulting your customers intelligence isn’t a good look. If you cant handle your interactions without doing so, maybe you should hire someone who can.

I honestly did not find what Dlask said insulting, I think he was explaining the situation with some humour

[vcarriere]

I honestly did not find what Dlask said insulting, I think he was explaining the situation with some humour

I was thinking the same thing. I didn't feel targeted, what came out is basically that the rules are vague and always changing and even for someone in the industry it's difficult so imagine for the common firearm enthusiast that only reads the rules and doesn't have to deal with the current RCMP administration and all the hoops to go through.