NEA/BCL 102 FAQ Thread

How is this rifle different than an AR-15 or AR-10?

The design is based on the AR-102 which is the predecessor to the AR-10 which is in turn the predecessor to the AR-15. The AR-102 is classed as non-restricted and (I suspect) the bolt carrier, upper, and lower cannot be interchanged with an AR-10. The AR-15 is classed as restricted, however it is a variant of the predecessor the AR-10 which is in turn a variant of the AR-102 so technically the AR-102 and AR-10 are Non-Restricted. The AR-10 remains restricted for reasons unknown to us in the firearms community, and has been discussed thoroughly. Confusing I know. Welcome to Canadian firearms classification.
 
driller212 said:
The design is based on the AR-102 which is the predecessor to the AR-10 which is in turn the predecessor to the AR-15. The AR-102 is classed as non-restricted and (I suspect) the bolt carrier, upper, and lower cannot be interchanged with an AR-10. The AR-15 is classed as restricted, however it is a variant of the predecessor the AR-10 which is in turn a variant of the AR-102 so technically the AR-102 and AR-10 are Non-Restricted. The AR-10 remains restricted for reasons unknown to us in the firearms community, and has been discussed thoroughly. Confusing I know. Welcome to Canadian firearms classification.
Click to expand...

It only adds to the confusion when people throw out more bad information. The AR10 came first. The AR102 is a variant of the AR10 that was created after at least a couple thousand AR10s had left the factory (including the entire Sudan contract).

R_IND-AI_351.jpg


Notice the use of the 4-piece handguard set, with two outer fibreglass clamshells and two steel inner liners, same as the South African / NATO trial guns. This is just one of the features of the AR102 that shows it was produced well into the timeline of AR10 production.

As to this, "The AR-15 is classed as restricted, however it is a variant of the predecessor the AR-10 which is in turn a variant of the AR-102 so technically the AR-102 and AR-10 are Non-Restricted. The AR-10 remains restricted for reasons unknown to us in the firearms community". It is certainly evident that you are confused. I have no trouble understanding the legal status of the various AR10 variations out there but I have no clue how to negotiate the leaps of logic you take in those sentences.

It's really very simple:

The Firearms Act clearly states the AR-15 and its variants are restricted.

A judge has ruled that statement does not impact the AR10, therefore it is not restricted.

The RCMP lab has ruled the NEA102 is a variant of the AR10, there it also is not restricted.

The End.
 
Last edited:
BattleRife said:
It only adds to the confusion when people throw out more bad information. The AR10 came first. The AR102 is a variant of the AR10 that was created after at least a couple thousand AR10s had left the factory (including the entire Sudan contract).

R_IND-AI_351.jpg


Notice the use of the 4-piece handguard set, with two outer fibreglass clamshells and two steel inner liners, same as the South African / NATO trial guns. This is just one of the features of the AR102 that shows it was produced well into the timeline of AR10 production.
Click to expand...

well dang that whole thing just got more confusing.
 
BioPace said:
No. Modern AR10s are scaled up AR15s therefore lineage as variant of AR15.

BCL102 is direct lineage variant of original AR102/10 therefore not restricted.

Simple.
Click to expand...

I was referring to reading the actual development history. I understand the basics.

A lot of modern ar10 rifles are pretty close to the original. The AR308s are scaled up ar15 rifles.
 
According to you, AR10's are non restricted? Really? Show me a NR AR10 i can buy....i'll be waiting...

BattleRife said:
It only adds to the confusion when people throw out more bad information. The AR10 came first. The AR102 is a variant of the AR10 that was created after at least a couple thousand AR10s had left the factory (including the entire Sudan contract).

R_IND-AI_351.jpg


Notice the use of the 4-piece handguard set, with two outer fibreglass clamshells and two steel inner liners, same as the South African / NATO trial guns. This is just one of the features of the AR102 that shows it was produced well into the timeline of AR10 production.

As to this, "The AR-15 is classed as restricted, however it is a variant of the predecessor the AR-10 which is in turn a variant of the AR-102 so technically the AR-102 and AR-10 are Non-Restricted. The AR-10 remains restricted for reasons unknown to us in the firearms community". It is certainly evident that you are confused. I have no trouble understanding the legal status of the various AR10 variations out there but I have no clue how to negotiate the leaps of logic you take in those sentences.

It's really very simple:

The Firearms Act clearly states the AR-15 and its variants are restricted.

A judge has ruled that statement does not impact the AR10, therefore it is not restricted.

The RCMP lab has ruled the NEA102 is a variant of the AR10, there it also is not restricted.

The End.
Click to expand...
 
driller212 said:
That's the ridiculousness of it. They should be NR but our pals in the lab say not.
Click to expand...

I understand that, what i dont understand, is certain members here are trying VERY hard to link the NEA102 to the AR15...are these people trying to get RCMP's opinion of NR overturned? To what end are they continually coming out with "well, duuh, i just dont see a difference between the 102 and an AR15...deerp"
 
Red_Liner740 said:
I understand that, what i dont understand, is certain members here are trying VERY hard to link the NEA102 to the AR15...are these people trying to get RCMP's opinion of NR overturned? To what end are they continually coming out with "well, duuh, i just dont see a difference between the 102 and an AR15...deerp"
Click to expand...

I think it is mostly people wondering because it looks similar. It has some parts and dimensions that are unique to the ar102 which is why it is NR. They went through a lot of trouble to prove the AR102 lineage so that they could build these rifles.
 
Red_Liner740 said:
I understand that, what i dont understand, is certain members here are trying VERY hard to link the NEA102 to the AR15...are these people trying to get RCMP's opinion of NR overturned? To what end are they continually coming out with "well, duuh, i just dont see a difference between the 102 and an AR15...deerp"
Click to expand...

afer many years I have come to a conclusion, it is simple, really. lots of retards here
 
Red_Liner740 said:
According to you, AR10's are non restricted? Really? Show me a NR AR10 i can buy....i'll be waiting...
Click to expand...

There are less than 5 (iirc) Semi-auto only Dutch made AR10 rifles in Canada. If you can find one for sale, it would cost about $20,000. They are in fact non-restricted,

**Also**

Saying a BCL102 is the "same as" an AR15 is like saying the Ruger mini14 is the same as an AR15.

Essentially they are... they are firearms that fire a projectile in a semi-automatic action. That is where the similarity ends.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom