Dlask's pump .223 up on the website

I'm with Bartledan. The ONLY incentive for me to buy an evolutionary step backwards AR is if it was non-restricted. It isn't. Therefore I won't be buying one.

Go to an American forum and ask an AK enthusiast how well the SAR-1P sold :oops:

Besides, if you want a non-restricted black rifle get yourself a Robarm or AR180 :idea:

Who cares about big mag limits if it's not semi? I can put alot of rounds in a win 94 or a Lee Enfield porter, but it doesn;t make me wet my pants in anticipation of having one... :shock: :roll:

Frankly I don't care how smooth or well made a bad product is. If I eat caviar to come up with some high class ####, it's still just #### and worthy of a flush :wink:

I give this product a whopping 2 Thumbs Down and I sincerely doubt it will never make it to production. Dlask's track record for this sort of thing is also not very inspiring... :roll:
 
acrashb said:
try and get the non-restricted
Click to expand...
rumour is 'yes', but first ones will be restricted - still with the normal-cap mags though.
Click to expand...

As long as the law is written as to include:

• The firearm of the design commonly known as the M-16 rifle, and any variant or modified version of it, ...

... this PAC5 will never be allowed a non-restricted designation. I doubt this rifle will ever be received as anything other than a curio item. Who cares about proprietary 30 round mags out of a pump and what will availability be with these proprietary mags when the novelty wears out.

What will happen, as I see it, people will try to get away using full cap AR15 mags in this gun claiming this is allowed because of its manually operated action, or using conventional pinned AR15 mags and that takes you back four steps from what we have now with a semi AR15.

As stated, this is an answer to a question nobody asked. I rate this rifle a futile endeavor. I will not buy one.

Dlask, as a firearms manufacturer, I'm sorry to say, seem a little lost with a screwed up sense of priority.

BTW, what happened to "baalan"? We haven't heard from him in some time.
 
easy said:
BTW, what happened to "baalan"? We haven't heard from him in some time.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he just realized the futilty of trying to appease all of the "knowledgeable" people on this board.

Notice that so few of the guys who actually make/import our beloved black firearms seem to post anyting here anymore aside from the occasional dealer announcement.

So many willing to criticise the handful of guys who are actually bringing new things into the Canadian market. Yet, so few are willing to step up to the plate and do better... or really anything at all for the Canadian firearms community for that matter.
 
Kombayotch - I have to disagree. I'll be the very first guy to praise ANY importer or manufacturer that makes a gun that makes sense. I'd have been happier if they made this new rifle to not take any AR mags at all, just proprietary mags and actually changed it enough to not get classed as an AR variant. That would make sense and satisfy a market niche. All this gun does is compete with real AR's only it doesn;t do anything an AR doesn't do better. Unless they are going to sell it cheaper than the cheapest AR out there (Norincos sell for $700) no one is going to want ot buy it. Who needs a restricted gun designed for hunters?

If anything, those businesses should lurk here for the free marketing research it provides. If DLASK has hundreds of advance orders on this item and proves me wrong, then that is a good thing for the RFC in Canada and good for canadian business. But frankly, I bet they could not sell more than 25 of them Canada wide unless it's under 700 bones.

I wonder though, if you modify an AR15 to take PAC5 mags - that would be interesting. The PAC5 pre-exists such an AR, so maybe you could mod the AR and use hi-cap PAC5 mags the same way you can use Beretta 92 mags in a Storm.

If this is the true reason for building the PAC5 then I stand corrected - it IS useful. :mrgreen: Though I doubt the gov't would stand for that... :shock:
 
OK, here are the mag restriction regs under the criminal code:

Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations


3. (1) Any cartridge magazine

(a) that is capable of containing more than five cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in

(i) a semi-automatic handgun that is not commonly available in Canada,

(ii) a semi-automatic firearm other than a semi-automatic handgun,

(iii) an automatic firearm whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger,

(iv) the firearms of the designs commonly known as the Ingram M10 and M11 pistols, and any variants or modified versions of them, including the Cobray M10 and M11 pistols, the RPB M10, M11 and SM11 pistols and the SWD M10, M11, SM10 and SM11 pistols,

(v) the firearm of the design commonly known as the Partisan Avenger Auto Pistol, and any variant or modified version of it, or

(vi) the firearm of the design commonly known as the UZI pistol, and any variant or modified version of it, including the Micro-UZI pistol; or

(b) that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada.


(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not include any cartridge magazine that

(a) was originally designed or manufactured for use in a firearm that

(i) is chambered for, or designed to use, rimfire cartridges,

(ii) is a rifle of the type commonly known as the "Lee Enfield" rifle, where the magazine is capable of containing not more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed, or

(iii) is commonly known as the U.S. Rifle M1 (Garand) including the Beretta M1 Garand rifle, the Breda M1 Garand rifle and the Springfield Armoury M1 Garand rifle;

(b) is not a reproduction and was originally designed or manufactured for use in a firearm that

(i) is commonly known as the Charlton Rifle,

(ii) is commonly known as the Farquhar-Hill Rifle, or

(iii) is commonly known as the Huot Automatic Rifle;

(c) is of the "drum" type, is not a reproduction and was originally designed or manufactured for use in a firearm commonly known as

(i) the .303 in. Lewis Mark 1 machine-gun, or any variant or modified version of it, including the Lewis Mark 1*, Mark 2, Mark 2*, Mark 3, Mark 4, Lewis SS and .30 in. Savage-Lewis,

(ii) the .303 in. Vickers Mark 1 machine-gun, or any variant or modified version of it, including the Mark 1*, Mark 2, Mark 2*, Mark 3, Mark 4, Mark 4B, Mark 5, Mark 6, Mark 6* and Mark 7, or

(iii) the Bren Light machine-gun, or any variant or modified version of it, including the Mark 1, Mark 2, Mark 2/1, Mark 3 and Mark 4;

(d) is of the "metallic-strip" type, is not a reproduction and was originally designed or manufactured for use in conjunction with the firearm known as the Hotchkiss machine-gun, Model 1895 or Model 1897, or any variant or modified version of it, including the Hotchkiss machine-gun, Model 1900, Model 1909, Model 1914 and Model 1917, and the Hotchkiss machine-gun (Enfield), Number 2, Mark 1 and Mark 1*;

(e) is of the "saddle-drum" type (doppeltrommel or satteltrommel), is not a reproduction and was originally designed or manufactured for use in the automatic firearms known as the MG-13, MG-15, MG-17, MG-34, T6-200 or T6-220, or any variant or modified version of it; or

(f) is of the "belt" type consisting of a fabric or metal belt, is not a reproduction and was originally designed or manufactured for the purpose of feeding cartridges into a automatic firearm of a type that was in existence before 1945.


(3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not include any cartridge magazine that

(a) is of the "snail-drum" type (schneckentrommel) that was originally designed or manufactured for use in a firearm that is a handgun known as the Parabellum-Pistol, System Borchardt-Luger, Model 1900, or "Luger", or any variant or modified version of it, including the Model 1902, Model 1904 (Marine), Model 1904/06 (Marine), Model 1904/08 (Marine), Model 1906, Model 1908 and Model 1908 (Artillery) pistols;

(b) was originally designed or manufactured for use in a firearm that is a semi-automatic handgun, where the magazine was manufactured before 1910;

(c) was originally designed or manufactured as an integral part of the firearm known as the Mauser Selbstladepistole C/96 ("broomhandle"), or any variant or modified version of it, including the Model 1895, Model 1896, Model 1902, Model 1905, Model 1912, Model 1915, Model 1930, Model 1931, M711 and M712; or

(d) was originally designed or manufactured for use in the semi-automatic firearm that is a handgun known as the Webley and Scott Self-Loading Pistol, Model 1912 or Model 1915.


(4) A cartridge magazine described in subsection (1) that has been altered or re-manufactured so that it is not capable of containing more than five or ten cartridges, as the case may be, of the type for which it was originally designed is not a prohibited device as prescribed by that subsection if the modification to the magazine cannot be easily removed and the magazine cannot be easily further altered so that it is so capable of containing more than five or ten cartridges, as the case may be.


(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), altering or re-manufacturing a cartridge magazine includes

(a) the indentation of its casing by forging, casting, swaging or impressing;

(b) in the case of a cartridge magazine with a steel or aluminum casing, the insertion and attachment of a plug, sleeve, rod, pin, flange or similar device, made of steel or aluminum, as the case may be, or of a similar material, to the inner surface of its casing by welding, brazing or any other similar method; or

(c) in the case of a cartridge magazine with a casing made of a material other than steel or aluminum, the attachment of a plug, sleeve, rod, pin, flange or similar device, made of steel or of a material similar to that of the magazine casing, to the inner surface of its casing by welding, brazing or any other similar method or by applying a permanent adhesive substance, such as a cement or an epoxy or other glue.
Click to expand...

So the way I read those regs, any magazine designed to be used in a non-semi-automatic does NOT have to be limited to 5 rounds. So given that hte PAC5 mag is not designed for a semi, if you mod an AR to accept it, you could argue you are not committing an offence according o the above reg.

Basically, all the rest of the regulation is just listing exceptions to paragraph 1(a) that provide for certain antique or collectable semi-auto or auto rifle and handgun mags so that they don't have to be blocked to 5 rounds.

Interesting - I bet DLASK could make it stick in court that if anyone mods a DAR701 to take Pac5 mags that this is not inconsistent with the regulations as written... :twisted:
 
kombayotch said:
...Notice that so few of the guys who actually make/import our beloved black firearms seem to post anyting here anymore aside from the occasional dealer announcement.
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed Josef Dlask personally posting here at any time. Are you the one now taking baalan's position in this regard.

If you're talking about different manufacturers/dealers and importers, they may not want to be here for the very same criticism you imply of the "knowledgeable" people here.

For your information, there ARE many knowledgeable people here and perhaps you should heed their opinion and understand their reasons for other than personal attacks.

As far as the PAC5 goes, an AR180B IS non-restricted AND allows for conventional AR15 magazines. Why would I want a gussied up variant of the M16 in restricted form, that cannot be hunted with, that takes proprietary mags regardless of what the price it may sell for. Think about it.

I believe Dlask's initial intentions WERE to create a non-restricted AR class with proprietary magazines. He just didn't interpret the laws very well. When his design gets denied by the RCMP forensic team, he resorts to trying to pawn off his idea as it presently stands and the "knowledgeable" people get shot down by one of his instuctees for catching him trying to pull a fast one with an item nobody asked for. This new creation was not thought through too well by Dlask, or was this someone elses idea who only though he was "knowledgeable"?

This really makes me wonder what the REAL story behind the 12.5/14", 12ga barrels is.

Best Regards.
 
I not taking anyone's "position". I'm simply pointing out that that everytime someone (be it Dlask, Marstar, Wolverine... whoever) bring something new to the Canadian market, people seem to jump down their throats for not bringing in exactly what they wanted.

Be thankful that this stuff comes in at all and enjoy it while it lasts.

Frankly I don't care about anybody's reasons for wanting a PAC5 over a Beretta Storm or an AR-180B. I've owned both those rifles and I hated them both. No, I actually, truly loathed them. However, that being said, I still say hat's off to the guy(s) who imported them for all those who do enjoy them.

Why try and discourage someone from offering a new black rifle? What's there to gain? If you don't like it, then don't buy it. It's that simple.

If you think you can do better, then step up to the plate.
 
kombayotch said:
I not taking anyone's "position". I'm simply pointing out that that everytime someone (be it Dlask, Marstar, Wolverine... whoever) bring something new to the Canadian market, people seem to jump down their throats for not bringing in exactly what they wanted.

Be thankful that this stuff comes in at all and enjoy it while it lasts.

Frankly I don't care about anybody's reasons for wanting a PAC5 over a Beretta Storm or an AR-180B. I've owned both those rifles and I hated them both. No, I actually, truly loathed them. However, that being said, I still say hat's off to the guy(s) who imported them for all those who do enjoy them.

Why try and discourage someone from offering a new black rifle? What's there to gain? If you don't like it, then don't buy it. It's that simple.

If you think you can do better, then step up to the plate.
Click to expand...

+1 8)
 
Let's open up another can of worms - since it's already been classified as an "AR15 Variant", I wonder if it's magazines will be classified as a "variant" of an AR15 mag, or some type of Gov gobbledy-gook, even though the proprietary ones won't actually fit in an AR.
 
They shoulda started with an (original) AR-10's lower and built it up, wouldn't have been all that difficult to end up with a rifle virtually identical to an AR-15, and yet still non-restricted. But sadly, they cut corners and started with an AR-15 lower, AND made it known to the world, so the RCMP had no choice on the "variant" designation.
 
Who needs a pump action AR when you can get a semi auto AR anyway? I struggle to see why anyone would get one unless they specifically prefer a pump. :?:
 
Like others have mentioned it would be interesting if it wasn't restricted, but since it is, I already have an AR15 that is as well so why buy the pump? I don't see the point unless the higher capacity mag thing flies and even then it is a pump that you can only use on the range.
 
DPMS had a slide action AR on the market in 1994, the pump Panther, to avoid the limitations of Clinton's Assault Weapon Ban. For about $1600. US bones, I wonder how many they sold. It was restricted then as well.


Now here's someone elses bright idea, how the hell do you cycle the action with a bi-pod attached to the forend?
 
And with a question about the PAC - how does this spring-assisted pump work? Did I read that right that one-handed operation is theoretically possible? Sounds weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom