SOLD OUT: All-New TYPE 81 SPECIAL EDITION

[onetwentyish]

so let me ask you publicly, if any one of us are unhappy with our bent rifle, would you gladly trade your relatively straight rifle with us?

No because I am not looking to trade my cherry examples, but I can say that a bend wouldn't deter me from buying. If you have a beach wood folder with a bend you would like to sell and you aren't looking for a premium over new, let me know.

I should also add that I completely understand not all people are like this, but they should also understand that this is a com block rifle and to govern their standards accordingly. If you think it's below your standards then don't buy it.

I myself am something of an "Ed Bolian" of the gun world, meaning I don't mind harsh examples as long as the price is right, and these are some of the most affordable feature rich NR rifles Canada has seen in the last 2 decades.

[Curtton]

No because I am not looking to trade my cherry examples,

i dont see why not? you will be happy with the severely bent and one of us will be happy with your relatively straight one. win win for both of us.

[Murray 3-D]

A 4mm deviation is around 2.8 feet @ 100m... thats a misalignment of around .488 degrees. Doesnt sound like much... but its pretty impressive what the human eye can perceive. Case being Tactical Imports puts a .5 degree downward cant in their 1913 mount and look how obvious that was to all the buyers. Most optics are perfectly capable of compensating for .488 degrees. Heck i swear my Vortex Strikeeagle had to compensate for 1.5 degrees when i mounted it to my Benelli MR1 lol and it did.

Despite the 4mm misalignment being trivial in a practical sense. And the fact that it could very well be a testament to the ways of their manufacture. I still get why many here would have the mindset that if there going to pay top dollar for a cheap mass produced gun, they should at least get top pick of the litter. No different then collector wanting to hand pick SVT 40s and SKS rifles.

[Curtton]

I should also add that I completely understand not all people are like this, but they should also understand that this is a com block rifle and to govern their standards accordingly. If you think it's below your standards then don't buy it.

I myself am something of an "Ed Bolian" of the gun world, meaning I don't mind harsh examples as long as the price is right.

but you dont get it. the dealer said the bent is not the standard. if the bent is the standard i certainly would not buy it.

ahhh, now you are talking. i would buy one with the "harsh" bent if "the price is right" . if i paid what the third world countries are paying i certainly would.

[MosinMan13]

This sure is a strange narrative over what must be remembered is a mass produced, affordable (cheap relative to other examples) ultimately utilitarian rifle. This isn’t like a collectable milsurp that seized production 80 years prior.

This is a $1200 toy. Enjoy it.

[Curtton]

A 4mm deviation is around 2.8 feet @ 100m...

how did you arrive to 2.8'?? i got 3.28' , just wondering how you did your calculations and nothing else.

[KriskaCalgary]

The real crime is that this poorly built firearm is one of the few semi-automatic rifle's/lmg's Canadians can buy. You wouldn't have seen a thread at 80 pages for this 2 years ago.

[bennypoo]

I did a rough string test down the center with a sewing thread and it seems pretty straight but who knows it could be a 1-2mm off. good enough for me right now. I'll get the kobra optics once i save a up a few more bucks.

[Murray 3-D]

how did you arrive to 2.8'?? i got 3.28' , just wondering how you did your calculations and nothing else.

U can use a right angle calc and plug in .488 degrees and 328ft.... or u could solve it by using the fact that it deviates 4mm per 470mm ( 18.5" barrel) divided out across 100,000mm (100m)... both versions give u 2.79 or 2.8.... and like really ? 3.2 vs 2.8... who cares.

[Curtton]

U can use a right angle calc and plug in .488 degrees and 328ft.... or u could solve it by using the fact that it deviates 4mm per 470mm ( 18.5" barrel) divided out across 100,000mm (100m)... both versions give u 2.79 or 2.8.... and like really ? 3.2 vs 2.8... who cares.

are you kidding me? i care, the difference is over nearly 6" off at 100m.

i did a reverse calculation and figured you used 18.5" which is wrong. according to TI measuring method , the chamber is excluded cos we cant measure the chamber part. around 40cm length is what most of us uses.