Does Adcor ship to Canada?

cyclone said:
Piston-design ? :redface:
Click to expand...

Sorry there buddy, not enough. Piston AR conversions have been around for years and it doesn't make any difference.

One of the gun companies here (I want to say alberta tactical rifle, but not sure) designed an AR15 based gun that was incompatible with either AR15 uppers or lowers, and it still got classified as a variant.


The only exception right now, are the single shot only (AKA - no magazine well) lowers that are designed for a .50BMG bolt action upper.
 
F22_RaptoR said:
Sorry there buddy, not enough. Piston AR conversions have been around for years and it doesn't make any difference.

One of the gun companies here (I want to say alberta tactical rifle, but not sure) designed an AR15 based gun that was incompatible with either AR15 uppers or lowers, and it still got classified as a variant.


The only exception right now, are the single shot only (AKA - no magazine well) lowers that are designed for a .50BMG bolt action upper.
Click to expand...

Ouch.....:(

rivetc78 said:
Sounds like Quality
Click to expand...

Double ouch !....;)
 
Q: Will an Adcor upper attach to any Mil-Spec lower?
A: Yes.


From there FAQ.

Therefore to contiue beating the deadhorse, restricted.
 
cyclone said:
Ouch.....:(



Double ouch !....;)
Click to expand...

Yes it does suck, the only possible way for a non restricted AR15 type rifle to exist, is if somebody designed something from the ground up to be completely incompatible with major AR15 parts. Upper, lower, trigger parts, bolt carrier/bolt head, barrel extension (remember that one being mentioned specifically) etc...

And keep in mind all the little parts that would have to be made. Even a Canadian made AR15 like the NEA version only used the bigger "basic" parts like upper/lower/barrel, the rest are pretty much factory mil. spec. or commercial parts widely available. Those little guys would drive the cost up substantially, so thus far nobody really seems interested in taking that venture, for MAYBE a couple hundred units to sell.


Or we could try to take the AR15 off the OIC to restrict it, thus making them non restricted or restricted based on barrel length, which IMHO is an achievable goal (with stuff like the Remington R15 20") but it'll take time, and support.
 
I saw one that Saskatoon Gunworks got in and it's a really, really slick setup. FNH heavy barrel, gas piston assembly and ambi side charging handle (along the rail - not the upper receiver). Great quad rail as well. Just waiting for them to get some 10.5" ones in. Quite possibly my next AR.
 
F22_RaptoR said:
Or we could try to take the AR15 off the OIC to restrict it, thus making them non restricted or restricted based on barrel length, which IMHO is an achievable goal (with stuff like the Remington R15 20") but it'll take time, and support.
Click to expand...

But is a 16 or 14.5 really more concealable than a 20 inch barrel.

The idea of barrel length restrictions and prohibitions is completely full of fail.
 
F22_RaptoR said:
Or we could try to take the AR15 off the OIC to restrict it, thus making them non restricted or restricted based on barrel length, which IMHO is an achievable goal (with stuff like the Remington R15 20") but it'll take time, and support.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but then the upper would become the registered component. Just can't see them letting the lowers become unregistered...
 
BCShooterGuy said:
But is a 16 or 14.5 really more concealable than a 20 inch barrel.

The idea of barrel length restrictions and prohibitions is completely full of fail.
Click to expand...

One step at a time, huh? If we can get an AR15 with an 18.5" or longer barrel unrestricted, then go for more. The media would cause an enormous s***storm if they had guys with 12 inch 30 cal semi's out in the bush hunting, and it could cause irrepairable damage if done too soon. Let them find out the world WON'T end if they have some stuff removed before we go asking for more. We got ONE victory so far, we can't let it go right to our heads and expect more right away.

blaxsun said:
Yeah, but then the upper would become the registered component. Just can't see them letting the lowers become unregistered...
Click to expand...

It would be a hard thing to deal with, maybe have matched serials for upper and lower, so the lower is the 'gun' part, but there is a way of determining what goes where. I have a hard time believing the RCMP would let it go without some way of controlling it, as sucky as it would be.
 
F22_RaptoR said:
It would be a hard thing to deal with, maybe have matched serials for upper and lower, so the lower is the 'gun' part, but there is a way of determining what goes where. I have a hard time believing the RCMP would let it go without some way of controlling it, as sucky as it would be.
Click to expand...

My guess would be their concern of the availability of parts to convert to full auto (the same reason I believe the US has the lowers registered). Or it could be that the AR is designed to be used with different uppers.
 
You're over thinking it guys - there was much less thought involved in restricting the AR. They wanted to ban it because it was in the Book of Assault Weapons, and they thought it looked menacing, not because they knew anything about them. Then they found out that the oldest continuous organized shooting sport in the country used that rifle, almost exclusively, and the DCRA kicked up a huge fuss. Instead of banning it and risking having a real organization, with reach and history and tradition to fight, the anti's backed off and went with restricting the AR. This allowed them to fight against more or less fledgling groups (at the time) like the NFA, the anti's sold this as being "reasonable", in reality I think if they'd tried to go head to head with the DCRA at that time it would have been very ugly. They picked their battle. Derestricting them could be just as arbitrary.
 
blaxsun said:
My guess would be their concern of the availability of parts to convert to full auto (the same reason I believe the US has the lowers registered). Or it could be that the AR is designed to be used with different uppers.
Click to expand...

Very well could be, however how many other guns have quick release barrels, like the USC45 for example, I have an 8" and have been thinking about an 18.5. It takes all of 2 minutes with the most basic tools (hammer and pin punch) to change the barrel. Or the ACR with its QR barrel mechanism, or the XCR with its quick change barrel system. So they can't try to say quickly changing the barrel is a concern, because many non-restricted guns already have that feature.

It could be very easy to grab a 10.5" upper and slap it on a non restricted lower, HOWEVER, if the RCMP/police/etc.... caught you out in the bush with a restricted 10.5" it would be identical to having a non-restricted lower with a 10.5" barrel....

Unless we were able to get rid of barrel length limits (which is doubtful) it wouldn't really matter, the end result of disobeying the law would be the same. The only time I could see people getting away with it, is having a non-restricted AR15 lower and using a restricted upper at the range, or on someone's land, which PROBABLY wouldn't be too much different than it is now... And at that point, most people would just have a restricted class lower to go with their restricted upper anyways.
 
F22_RaptoR said:
Unless we were able to get rid of barrel length limits (which is doubtful) it wouldn't really matter, the end result of disobeying the law would be the same. The only time I could see people getting away with it, is having a non-restricted AR15 lower and using a restricted upper at the range, or on someone's land, which PROBABLY wouldn't be too much different than it is now... And at that point, most people would just have a restricted class lower to go with their restricted upper anyways.
Click to expand...

I think it should be 106mm. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom