On the Phone with CFC Technician

Wally

Wally

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Location
B.C.
I'm on the phone right now with a CFC Technician trying to find out what Constitutes as an "M-16 Variant" and how they make that decision.

*eta I'm being transfered to the RCMP Forensics guy for Answers.
*ets OK, I left a message on the guys answering machine. His name is Murhy Smith and his number is: 613-993-0139
I'm assuming this is public knowledge and I'm not breaking any rules for posting it. Please let me know if
otherwise. When I hear back from him I'll post my findings.

Cheers,
Wally
 
Last edited:
If it looks like one, it's a variant.

Honestly, I think the definition of variant is left up to the RCMP... and they are very loose with the variant term.

One thing for SURE - there is no 'list' of similar features that it must have. It's simply discretion.
 
This is what I'm going to find out. All the Legislation is in the LOWER reciever, right? Even the Techi in Ottawa said that. Anyone can own an upper for whatever they want. The AR-180B is very similar.

What happens when you put a run of the mill, anyone can own it, AR-15/AR-10 Upper on an AR-180B Lower?

What happens if you use an AR-15/AR-10 Upper on a Personally Designed, Semi-auto only Lower?

What happens if you Design an build an Upper AND Lower that accepts all or Most of the AR-15/AR-10 parts?

How Different does it have to be to Not be a Variant?

Is there a list of Specific parts?

Is there an AR-15/AR-10 Parts percentage?

This #### Pisses me off and I fully intend to get answers to these questions!

There is OBVIOUSLY Someone that makes these decisions. S/He MUST have some sort of Procedure or basis for comparison used to determine weather it is a variant or not. The AR-180B Looks Very much like an AR-15 but isn't restricted.
 
Last edited:
Having owned an AR180B and AR15... as cool as it would be to swap tops it'd take some serious work to make it happen :)

But yeah, the whole restricted rifle based on look or name is just stupid.
 
I've been over this many years ago, ask before you waste your time making phone calls.

Regardless of what the lower is or how it works, if it can fit and fire and AR15 upper, it will be classes as an AR15 variant.

When I asked about making a billet aluminum lower that used AR180B uppers, I specifically asked if making it look exactly like an AR15 lower would be legal. The chief forensics guy at the RCMP told me that as long as it can not fire an AR15 upper, it will not be an AR15 variant, regardless of how it looks.

Yes, the PAC 5 situation contradicts all of this but it may be different with one off rifles.
 
Hey Armedsask,
Didn't know you had been over this before. Didn't really get an answer from anyone on the subject in the .308 thread.

This REALLY doesn't make any sence (I know I know...). So the Lower is the serial numbered part that is Registered as Restricted but anything that can Fire the Upper would also be restricted.... Do I have that right?

So a guy could design and manufacture an New Upper and Lower that used All the Guts from an AR-15 and it wouldn't be Restricted...... right?

Don't know exactly what you mean with the P.A.C. 5 Reference.... Are you saying Dlask built that thing on an AR-15 Lower? Is it restricted? If not could a new upper be manufactured and used?

You know, I grow to hate the Liebrals more and more with every day that passes.
 
Last edited:
The PAC5 is restricted. :) I was in DLASK's shop with my AR180B way back and he made the comment... "So this is Non-Restricted, but my pump is??!"
 
You have a better chance of finding the right answer to a 200 lb girlfriend's question of "Does my a*s look big in these jeans?" than figuring out the cfc's logic.

Regards,
 
I'm gonna try anyway. With my superior reasoning power perhaps I'll get them to sing a different tune! Hell, I'll work on the mag cap restrictions while I'm at it!

Seriously though, I'm gonna dig for information.
 
you must be young or something..

Look at it like this.. If you like something, its probably prohibited.
 
I think the problem is that no low level beurocrat is gonna wanna put his/her ass on the line by actually making a decision with legal ramifications. And those that can make a decision probably wont take your call anyways. The whole act makes no sense. Its arbitrary at best.
 
Wally said:
This REALLY doesn't make any sense (I know I know...). So the Lower is the serial numbered part that is Registered as Restricted but anything that can Fire the Upper would also be restricted.... Do I have that right?
Click to expand...
If it can use an AR15 upper, it is deemed to be an AR15 variant, therefore restricted. A while back PGW tried to make a non-restricted single shot lower for AR15 uppers, it would have been restricted as it used AR15 uppers.

So a guy could design and manufacture an New Upper and Lower that used All the Guts from an AR-15 and it wouldn't be Restricted...... right?
Click to expand...
Sort of. As long as you couldn't drop on an AR15 upper, it would be non restricted, providing the barrel length was 18.5" +. How ever, as it uses the same action as an AR15, it would most likely be deemed a variant.

Don't know exactly what you mean with the P.A.C. 5 Reference.... Are you saying Dlask built that thing on an AR-15 Lower? Is it restricted? If not could a new upper be manufactured and used?
Click to expand...
Go to Dlask's page. They built a pump action rifle that used the AR15 bolt, trigger group, and mags but was not interchangeable with AR15 uppers or lowers. It should have been non-restricted but the RCMP deemed it a variant. It is thought that claiming it was based on the AR15 was part of its down fall.

This is why my rifle will be based off the AR180B. It's already non-restricted, so being called a variant would be no issue.

You know, I grow to hate the Liebrals more and more with every day that passes.
Click to expand...
The laws are very easy to understand, actually..... once you abandon all logic.
 
Last edited:
Mine eye opening

My eye opening came when I found out I could own a m305 but not an fnc1.
It has been awhile now and I can finally think about that without violently shaking my head, I have learned to live with the absurdity of it as long as I don't see any pictures of an fn.
 
You can only go mad trying to get a clear logical statement out of the CFC techs on what you can or cannot do :runaway: As an example I started asking them if I could use an XD40 mag in an XD9 or an XD40 mag in my XD40 when I had the 9mm barrel in it. This started last Jan and they still will not say yes or no... they just say that are looking into it :rolleyes:
 
Well gentlemen, it would appear that the only logical step is for one of us to become a member of the RCMP forensics team.

Any volunteers? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom