Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard that the CFC can now make a gun restricted/prohib just on looks alone. If it looks like a gun that's already restricted or prohibited it can make that gun restricted/prohib. ie: GSG-5 looks like an MP-5so it's prohib.
Non-Restricted M4?
- Thread starter drache
- Start date
I have a couple of .22's that LOOK like they've been though a war,,,,,, is that close enough ??
My dad had one that looks like someone attemted to drill/tap scope mounts in about 6 different locations till they found what they liked, laff.
M.
My dad had one that looks like someone attemted to drill/tap scope mounts in about 6 different locations till they found what they liked, laff.
M.
Racial profiling which is based on looks alone is illegal....but basing guns on their looks is not? Mini 14 is non restricted whereas AR 15 is? Same semi auto operation. Where's the logic behind these decisions.
Non gun person sitting in a cushy federal job flips throught some pictures. Because they "feel" like this one is okay and that one isn't, that's how they get classified? Wow. Where do I find a job like that?
- Location
- SW Ontario
My solution around this is to paint the muzzle orange and name it "my toy."
The last silly argument I heard from the FRT clowns is; "If the original gun had not existed, would this new gun exist? No... Then it is a variant" These guys have been cooped up in their government offices for too long.
Last edited:
The Squires are restricted by name in the FA regulations. These are not, because they were not around them. The question will be if they are a variant or not.
I think it is high time though, that us CGN'ers got together and started to push back with litigation against the 'variant' BS, starting with the GSG5.
I understand someone has retained counsel to challenge that ruling. IF that's true, they should start a fund on here for people to donate money to the legal challenge.
I think it is high time though, that us CGN'ers got together and started to push back with litigation against the 'variant' BS, starting with the GSG5.
I understand someone has retained counsel to challenge that ruling. IF that's true, they should start a fund on here for people to donate money to the legal challenge.
A friend had the opportunity to shoot one in the US. I was so looking forward to a good review, but was very surprised to hear what he had to say. I respect this friend and have no reason, not to listen his opinion...very dissapointing and disheartening.
This was one I was really looking forward to owning. I was really ready to jump all over one of these.
Here are excerpts of his review:
"Basically ALL plastic...fake forward assist, fake bolt hold open, plastic barrel w/liner, plastic rail(s), PLASTIC EVERYTHING!!!!!"
"The mag would not lock in, rounds would not chamber because where the liner/barrel/feedramp all come freakin' pressed together there's a sharp 'ledge' that shaves lead, ruins the bullet and fouls the chamber, the front sight was canted to the right and there was not enough adjustment in the PLASTIC rear sight to compensate, no way to remove the bolt from the upper to clean from the breech, the take-down pins are not captive so they fall out, upon taking them out the fake bolt hold open falls out of the lower since it only sits in a recess, the charging handle is non-removable and PLASTIC........A TOTAL PIECE OF S**T!"
"STAY AWAY FROM THIS......why Colt/Walther would even put their name on such junk is beyond me."
"Anyone have hands-on experience with the SIG .22? Anything would be better than that crap we tried to shoot.....what a piece, STILL can't get over it."
This was one I was really looking forward to owning. I was really ready to jump all over one of these.
Here are excerpts of his review:
"Basically ALL plastic...fake forward assist, fake bolt hold open, plastic barrel w/liner, plastic rail(s), PLASTIC EVERYTHING!!!!!"
"The mag would not lock in, rounds would not chamber because where the liner/barrel/feedramp all come freakin' pressed together there's a sharp 'ledge' that shaves lead, ruins the bullet and fouls the chamber, the front sight was canted to the right and there was not enough adjustment in the PLASTIC rear sight to compensate, no way to remove the bolt from the upper to clean from the breech, the take-down pins are not captive so they fall out, upon taking them out the fake bolt hold open falls out of the lower since it only sits in a recess, the charging handle is non-removable and PLASTIC........A TOTAL PIECE OF S**T!"
"STAY AWAY FROM THIS......why Colt/Walther would even put their name on such junk is beyond me."
"Anyone have hands-on experience with the SIG .22? Anything would be better than that crap we tried to shoot.....what a piece, STILL can't get over it."
b-wingpilot
CGN Regular
- Location
- Sherwood Park
Yup, as a stock gun it is pretty junky. After some heavy modifications though, I think you could have a really neat non-restriced .22 M4gery.
Holy crap! Is this for real? Sounds like an incredible piece of garbage...I once had a Jager AP74, it had a wooden stock and was kind of marginal, had a few jams but still, it was fairly well made, all metal and wood and sounds like a much better go than this.
I wouldn't pay $100 for one of these if all of this is accurate.
AFAIK, I have read that the Squires Bingham M16 is not restricted or prohibited.
Correct. It's the Armi Jaeger AP-74 that's restricted. If this baffles people they should go to the nearest Liberal Party Hack and ask them why this is so.
