New project

supernova said:
It sure looks like there is a trigger in front of the mag well/pistol grip. If he is going to mount the reciever so that the pistol grip is the magwell and that new trigger reaches back to the OE trigger to actuate it then it is by definition of the law a bullpup stock. More pics and info are needed to determine exactly where he is putting everything but right now it looks like a bullpup. The OP needs to settle down and realize people are trying to help him not call his work down. If he's too sensitive to handle that then he shouldn't be posting his work online.
Click to expand...

After further review I do agree I got it mixed up.

@metalbender, can you take more pictures of the trigger/mag area? Did you make a linkage to move the trigger forward?

With your talks with others was making a trigger linkage legal? I'm not trying to grill you just trying to clear the air plus I'm curious.
 
Without throwing more fuel on this firestorm, it was concluded that it was an unmodified Marlin receiver still making legal length requirement. They didn't recognize a similarity to the Steyr Aug.
 
Been patiently waiting for a response from the CFO. Nothing yet. I'll have to contact them again on Monday. With the pics I sent, if there truly was a problem, I would think it would be addressed by now. Still doing work on it for now. Trigger assembly with the grip is together and functional. Bolt release, mag release and last shot bolt open are functional. Welded two mags together so there would be extension below the grip. Lots of fittin' n fiddlin' to get things to work right.
 
If this does go though, I'd like the CFOs name please. I'd like to import a bullpup stock and if yours is legal, any aftermarket stock should/will be!
 
I keep going back to post #27. "Substantial part of the action" is behind trigger. This trigger is directly underneath the front part of the action. Firearm has not been shortened or altered in any way. Grey area in the wording. Hoping this issue will be resolved shortly. Thanks for the concern.
 
Um, if the trigger is now under the front of the action then a substantial part of the action is now behind it along with the magwell. Just because the RCMP didn't send a gang of cruisers for a hostile takedown while executing a search warrant doesn't mean anything. Others have had their firearms at the lab for verification for years. Certain parts of the RCMP just move slow. Don't get me wrong, this is one of the coolest ideas done with a rimfire but nobody wants to see you face legal troubles over it. If they ok it I hope to see more of your work.

metalbender said:
I keep going back to post #27. "Substantial part of the action" is behind trigger. This trigger is directly underneath the front part of the action. Firearm has not been shortened or altered in any way. Grey area in the wording. Hoping this issue will be resolved shortly. Thanks for the concern.
Click to expand...
 
I think you are on crack with some of these comments

it looks like a cool project, hopefully legal but who knows with our whacky laws

little_airwolf said:
As far as I know, if the Mag is behind the trigger, it's a bullpup. If you are changing the trigger system then yes it it. If you are building the magazine to slide into the grip, the trigger would have to be located behind the mag. If it isn't, then it's a bullpup.
Click to expand...

I guess a sub 2000 is a bullpup now

little_airwolf said:
I assume you don't have a firearms business licence. You need one to do the stuff you are doing, otherwise it's jail time and or a boatload of money.
Click to expand...

you need a business licence to build a stock... right....

little_airwolf said:
You are simply building a bullpup rimfire which is illegal!!!! Silly thing is you are posting pics of it. You can't make you're own stock unless you have a licence. Companies can sell bubpups but they can not be fire when taken apart. ie tavor, and many others.
Click to expand...

again, no you dont need a licence
 
I've forwarded pics to Ottawa, waiting for a reply. Will give the contact a call early next week for any update. First comments without pics was that it would possibly be a bullpup. He didn't outright slam the project though, hence the pics for review. Been giving the project a lot of thought as to options I might have depending on the news I get. Machining a new receiver utilizing the Marlin internals and barrel would be doable.
 
Ok explain to all of us why his build isn't a bullpup.






luke s said:
I think you are on crack with some of these comments

it looks like a cool project, hopefully legal but who knows with our whacky laws



I guess a sub 2000 is a bullpup now



you need a business licence to build a stock... right....



again, no you dont need a licence
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom