8.5" grizzly

some stores are selling them with a pistol grip on them as non restricted??? so i guess it is your responsibilty to know the rules. what has everyone put on it for accesorries?
 
CZ_Brno said:
660 millimeters / 25.4 = 25.984251968503937007874015748031 inches.
470 millimeters = 18.503937 inches



I believe you are also right. Causes too much confusion, these contradictions.
Click to expand...

Not a contradiction. If you re-read your post and the law you posted very carefully, hopefully you'll see why it doesn't apply to the grizzly.

I can see now why can ammo got frustrated trying to explain this to people.
 
Hungsolo said:
Any idea if you will see 8.5" mag fed grizzly this year at can am?
Click to expand...

Not going to happen this year. Just a rumor. A good one but that is all it is. If you want to meet some of the guys at Canada Ammo they are having a booth at the H.A.C. show in Chilliwack on Saturday and Sunday. Worth going
:agree:
 
I'm also in for an 8.5" Grizzly MAG.

Honestly I can't imagine how CanadaAmmo can see this as a bad idea for in-stock item. It's going to sell like hot cakes. I'm willing to bet they'll be sold out before they even hit the shelves.

Come on gents. We want those shotguns. Take our money!
 
I am in the market for an 8.5". If I buy the current one can it be adapted to have the mag feed later or should I wait for this factory mag feed?
 
mobgma said:
I am in the market for an 8.5". If I buy the current one can it be adapted to have the mag feed later or should I wait for this factory mag feed?
Click to expand...

I just received mine last week, Im very happy with it, there are no provisions available (to my knowledge) to convert tube guns over to mag fed, and the magazine fed 8.5" hasnt even been confirmed by CanAm yet, who knows if it will ever get done, could be years, months, weeks, days, etc etc... :D

For the money Im very impressed by the build quality, and the fun factor that can be had with one of these at the range just cant be beat! Also due to the fact that these shotguns are so cheap, heck I may even have to pick up the mag fed and have two of em! :D
 
CST Grad C.Nixon said:
I just received mine last week, Im very happy with it, there are no provisions available (to my knowledge) to convert tube guns over to mag fed, and the magazine fed 8.5" hasnt even been confirmed by CanAm yet, who knows if it will ever get done, could be years, months, weeks, days, etc etc... :D

For the money Im very impressed by the build quality, and the fun factor that can be had with one of these at the range just cant be beat! Also due to the fact that these shotguns are so cheap, heck I may even have to pick up the mag fed and have two of em! :D
Click to expand...

Thanks, yours and Manbearpigs advice pushed my credit card out of my wallet and pulled the trigger. It's in the mail today or tomorrow I believe. Thanks CanadaAmmo.
 
urban250prepper said:
Regardless of which of the two guns you were referring to; it doesn't apply. As neither of them are semi-auto.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is necessarily that simple. It would be nice if it were.

The quote states, "semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles and shotguns with a barrel shorter than 470 mm;"

I read that with an implied "Oxford comma" between "rifles" and "and". In other words, the sentence could be two separate units ("semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles" is one unit, and "shotguns with a barrel..." is a conjoining unit, unrelated to the qualifiers placed on "rifles.") It would be grammatically correct to be read either way. One of the (many) silly inherent ambiguities of the English language.

Happy to be proven wrong, and perhaps it wasn't even the intention of the law (as everything else is separated by semi-colons) but I would assume the courts would interpret this to err on the side of more restriction rather than less. I assume a LEO inspecting your firearms would feel similarly.

Assuming I'm wrong for a moment, is there *any* restriction on the length of a shotgun that comes from the manufacturer neither a semi-automatic nor has any telescoping/folding ability? How would they distinguish a "shotgun" from a "handgun" if you had a 5" shotgun?

Disclaimer: Not legal advice. I have no idea what I'm talking about.
 
i would think a 5" shotgun would fall into a prohib or restricted class, if the overall length was under 26"?

i wonder if you would be able to get a magfed in the bigger size and a 8.5 tube mag gun, and swap the parts between to create a 8.5 mag fed? and order a full length mag tube to give the long one the ability to still hold more than 2 shells? anyone had a mag fed apart? and a tube mag apart? these are just ideas, no actual personal experience with these guns on my part, please dont take this as adivse, just something to ponder.
 
dealwithit said:
i would think a 5" shotgun would fall into a prohib or restricted class, if the overall length was under 26"?
Click to expand...

Please at least read the site before wildly speculating. This isn't the case.
They say:

rifles and shotguns that have been altered by sawing or other means so that their barrel length is less than 457 mm or their overall length is less than 660 mm;
Click to expand...

Keyword is *altered*. If a rifle or shotgun comes from the factory at any length, and is not semi-automatic, it appears that it may be that neither the restricted nor prohibited class applies.
How could this be? Again applying the example of a 5" shotgun that does not fall under any of these categories.
My guess is that it's being left up to the discretion of the RCMP to classify whatever they want as a "handgun," and that probably will include anything at all under 26".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom