- Location
- Airdrie, AB
I wish I would have seen this earlier today lol....need to find $400!
8.5" Grizzly Shotgun Now Available to Pre-Order.
- Thread starter CanAm
- Start date
- Location
- East ontario
yep not a problem.
Only hickup could be the thinknedd of the barrle wher the clamp goes, but that could be fixed by making new clamps.
We can make new short rails or mod the ones we have, all depends on how much you want to pay and how long it takes can ammo to get the guns in.
bbb
Re-read that section of the CCC again. You can not reduce the OAL by the means mentioned, otherwise you are creating a prohib. Replacing a part with a commercially available part does not meet the definition, and the CFC have confirmed this point. Since the firearm is not a semi-auto, OAL doesn't matter, unless you are achieving a sub 26 inch OAL by means of a folding or collapsing stock.
If you are adding a collapsing stock and the resulting firearm is less than 26 inches, you have a problem. If the OAL is over 26 inches, there is no problem.
If you are adding a stand alone pistol grip, the OAL will likely be well under 26 inches. As there is no folding, collapsing, or cutting involved in achieving that reduction, the CCC definition of conversion to prohibited doesn't apply.
However, as mentioned before, the RCMP have "determined" that the Dlask 8.5 inch pistol gripped shotgun is a handgun. That determination applies to that FRT only, but has the potential to raise it's head again.
Eric_911
Regular
I can't wait!!!
I cant really tell if thats a photoshop mockup or not... but the mag fed 8.5 inchers must be coming with a different forergrip. That one would smack off the mag housing before fully cycling.
WTF does "any alteration" mean? Replacing one part with another (i.e. - factory fixed stock with a pistol grip), Canuck - you say the CFC confirmed doing so does not constitute an "alteration."
I'm calling the CFC techs on Monday to confirm - I want that in writing before I go around replacing parts of my guns.
Correct. The CFC agree that replacing a factory part with a commercially available replacement part is not what is refered to in the CCC.
Please do post your results.
I was hoping the same thing, 8.8lbs seems really heavy for a gun that size!
I will pre-order the mag fed in a heartbeat......as long as it's lighter than 4kgs.
masterduckmaster
Regular
Does anyone knows, are the parts interchangable with the actual 870?
and how accurate is the 8.5 vs 12.5 inch barrel in turns of slugs?
thanks!
and how accurate is the 8.5 vs 12.5 inch barrel in turns of slugs?
thanks!
CanAm
Canada Ammo - CGN Sponsor
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
The general rule is:
under 26" with no tools (folding, etc) = prohib
under 26" with tools (changing parts) = non-restricted*
*Otherwise, simply removing the stock for repair would be creating a prohib.
The techs will tell you they feel you may (wiggle word) have created a handgun if you put a PG on a SG with a barrel less than 16".
Again, I suggest those who are interested in this subject look up the 3 or 4 long threads on this from the last few years.
under 26" with no tools (folding, etc) = prohib
under 26" with tools (changing parts) = non-restricted*
*Otherwise, simply removing the stock for repair would be creating a prohib.
The techs will tell you they feel you may (wiggle word) have created a handgun if you put a PG on a SG with a barrel less than 16".
Again, I suggest those who are interested in this subject look up the 3 or 4 long threads on this from the last few years.
farmer47
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- southern ontario
my dlask 8.5 holds 3 2.75 shells plus one in the chamber.as for accuracy with slugs if you are scoping the gun it should be the same .if you are using open sights the longer the barrel the better the accuracy because it is easier to sight with. the same holds true in shooting a handgun. as for putting a pistol grip on these guns the r.c.m.p. will tell you that you now have a restricted gun as i was given a lecture when i bought mine as it was used and had been registered as unrestricted with a pistol grip from dlask . they recanted on this as many of you know and made the decision to restrict them unless you were willing to full stock them . i use mine with a full stock and would advise any one to do the same.untill there is a court ruling the law is open to interpretation even though i believe that they are legaly unrestricted the way the law is written with a pistol grip i would not want to be the test case .
nufros
Regular
- Location
- Southern Ontario
By definition (from the criminal code) a “handgun” means a firearm that is designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand, whether or not it has been redesigned or subsequently altered to be aimed and fired by the action of both hands. A pump action shotgun requires 2 hands to use it, therefore it is clearly NOT a handgun.
I would suggest that any tech who thinks someone "creates a handgun" simply by adding a pistol grip to a pump action shotgun should attempt to chamber a shell and fire it only using one hand, and then see how far that gets them...
Sure you could fire a cocked, pistol-gripped (pump-action) shotgun with one hand - just as someone could fire a cocked shotgun with a full stock with one hand if they wanted to... but good luck trying to chamber a shell in it with only one hand
CanAm
Canada Ammo - CGN Sponsor
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
The law does not speak to cycling the action, only to aiming and firing.
I'd rather have it straight from the horse's mouth (the CFC) - so when the door thumpers knock down my door at 3 am in the morning and I find myself standing before a judge arguing with a prosecutor that I didn't have a prohibited device, I'll be able to point out the hard copy ruling I had taped to the gun itself as a defence.
Somehow I don't think a printout of a CGN thread would hold up very well in court.
double post
Last edited:
nufros
Regular
- Location
- Southern Ontario
By definition (from the criminal code) a “handgun” means a firearm that is designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand, whether or not it has been redesigned or subsequently altered to be aimed and fired by the action of both hands. A pump action shotgun requires 2 hands to use it, therefore it is clearly NOT a handgun.
I would suggest that any tech who thinks someone "creates a handgun" simply by adding a pistol grip to a pump action shotgun should attempt to chamber a shell and fire it only using one hand, and then see how far that gets them...
Sure you could fire a cocked, pistol-gripped (pump-action) shotgun with one hand - just as someone could fire a cocked shotgun with a full stock with one hand if they wanted to... but good luck trying to chamber a shell in it with only one hand
...I see what you mean in the letter of the law, and I'm sorry to go on because I know CGNers have discussed this topic to death, but I feel that there might be another interpretation to the "creating a handgun by adding a pistol grip" debate that bears merit... and that is simply: how could one "fire" an un-cocked firearm?
<<The terms "fire" and "discharge" (in reference to a firearm) are not defined in the Criminal Code or the Firearms Act.>>
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but can't someone pull the trigger on a single-action handgun, or a (non semi-automatic) rifle/shotgun as many times as they want to... and (unless the gun is cocked) that it simply will not "fire"? And that an uncocked double-action handgun will only "fire" because the motion of pulling on the trigger initiates a movement that cocks the hammer before it is released?
So I would suggest that perhaps the act of "firing" a gun (for a possible legal interpretation) is more involved than a simple pull of the trigger, but in fact is a series of operations (be they manual or automatic) that culminate in the expulsion of a projectile from the barrel...
At least, this is the interpretation I would have my lawyer suggest if I owned a short barreled shotgun and was for some reason being charged for illegal storage or transport of a "handgun".
Last edited:
manbearpig
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Somewhere in the Third World
here we go again with the <26" PG crap again.
unless you can produce a court precedent or CFC document specifying that these are non-restricted, all this sh*t is just speculation. you can speculate and debate until you are blue in the face, but only a monumental moron would choose to make themselves the guinea-pig in the Canadian legal system to actually prove what is nothing more than a theory right now.
go set a legal precedent or get a document from the CFC confirming your theory and then you can talk. its easy for people sitting in a computer chair to assure others that a <660mm PGO shotgun is non-restricted - but its downright foolish and unethical to do so in a forum where there are some very impressionable new shooters that just might believe you and land in a whole heap of legal trouble.
unless you can produce a court precedent or CFC document specifying that these are non-restricted, all this sh*t is just speculation. you can speculate and debate until you are blue in the face, but only a monumental moron would choose to make themselves the guinea-pig in the Canadian legal system to actually prove what is nothing more than a theory right now.
go set a legal precedent or get a document from the CFC confirming your theory and then you can talk. its easy for people sitting in a computer chair to assure others that a <660mm PGO shotgun is non-restricted - but its downright foolish and unethical to do so in a forum where there are some very impressionable new shooters that just might believe you and land in a whole heap of legal trouble.
nufros
Regular
- Location
- Southern Ontario
Manbearpig: (I'm not sure if this is a blanket statement or directed at my post, but allow me to respond in regards to what I've posted) CanAm had made mention to the possibility of rcmp techs saying that someone may be creating a "handgun" and I simply wanted to give a possible interpretation that came to mind upon further reading. I did suggest that this was only a possible interpretation that may not have been considered (at least not in any of the posts I've yet seen on the topic) and that it might bear some consideration.
If someone were to misconstrue anything I've written in my previous post to somehow constitute any form of legal advice, then they are morons.
That being said, if I personally had the misfortune of being a test case for this particular issue, I would certainly raise this interpretation (amongst others) for consideration before a Justice (or a Judge.. whatever lol)
