Why was the coyote prohibited?Originally Posted by zelly
Did it look too scary for the libtards?
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Why was the coyote prohibited?
Did it look too scary for the libtards?
The only government I trust is 45-70 Government!
The coyote was built off of an MDI lower. MDI seen the same fate as ATRS. Although not OIC listed the AB CFO at the time shut them down after the frt change
"I dont usually bring targets im more of a dirt shooter." -daniel_250r
I am the "small fringe minority" with "unacceptable" views.
CCFR 🍁 CSSA
Wow, just doesn't seem right.
And I thought the Alberta CFO was on our side?
Go figure.
The only government I trust is 45-70 Government!
It was the federally appointed CFO - remember that Alberta didn't replace the federal CFO until after the OIC.
I want to get it but full price pre order I can not do that as it could be 6 months.
Thanks oppy!.......
The only government I trust is 45-70 Government!
An open receiver design once again… what a shame
Not necessarily...the test firing video on Instagram of a newer upper seems to show a completely sealed charging handle tract.
The "muh open reciever" fallacy is so tiresome. The BRN 180 also has an open slot in the reciever when the dust cover is open. InRange did their mud test on it with the cover open and closed. It was actually more reliable with the cover open, for whatever reason. They poured mud all over the open slot, and tamped it town with a shovel. Still ran. If this new BCL offering is as reliable without any mud at all i will be impressed tbh.
that closed cover is so important because the buyers of these thing will head off to afghanistan or go be operators somewhere,LOL.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote