They are hopeless, and can't differentiate the barrel length from the overall length.
Sorry OP, this got derailed into a gong show.
Rem 783 16.5" + MDT LSS + folding stock = OAL restricted?
- Thread starter 5.45
- Start date
They are hopeless, and can't differentiate the barrel length from the overall length.
Sorry OP, this got derailed into a gong show.
Everything counts towards oal
You can have a 5 inch barrel and a stick glued to the pistol grip backwards to achieve desired length
I called and asked the cfp about this a while ago
They told me the litmus test for this was that you would need a tool to make it fire under the prescribed length
That is why the rcmp tried to make ar7s restricted years ago, just never went thru with it
The problem is that the regulation isnt clear, “or otherwise “leaves it open to interpretation
But internally the cfp uses the use of a tool test to determine oal
Barrel length above prohib length has ZERO to do with oal
You can have a 5 inch barrel and a stick glued to the pistol grip backwards to achieve desired length
I called and asked the cfp about this a while ago
They told me the litmus test for this was that you would need a tool to make it fire under the prescribed length
That is why the rcmp tried to make ar7s restricted years ago, just never went thru with it
The problem is that the regulation isnt clear, “or otherwise “leaves it open to interpretation
But internally the cfp uses the use of a tool test to determine oal
Barrel length above prohib length has ZERO to do with oal
And then again
Remember when troy had to rebarrel all of the troy pars coming into canada because the rcmp changed their interpretation of regulation and didnt count the brakes on oal
Open to interpretation means the rcmp can and does wing it
Remember when troy had to rebarrel all of the troy pars coming into canada because the rcmp changed their interpretation of regulation and didnt count the brakes on oal
Open to interpretation means the rcmp can and does wing it
I was under the impression that the TROY ruling was reversed, and they counted the pinned on flash hider as part of OAL to make them NR? I didn't think any barrels had to be changed?
Mares legs don't collapse or fold. So no, its not related at all.
The RCMP disagrees with the bolded statement. We were specifically told, via two emails from different techs, that a flash hider does not count towards OAL.
Also, How would the AR7 be restricted? I would assume it can't be fired while dissembled?
It kind of does matter.. as that is exactly what the law says:
"(c) a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or..."
I would say the manufacturer did not design it to be fired one handed, and I would say that having a second pistol grip at the forend would indicate otherwise, which it does not have. Trying to use the optic to shoot folded is not going to be fun, but this last paragraph is just my opinion and not legalese.
As for the Troy, they have a few more restrictions for classification than bolt actions, I suspect the fear and class are a bit tighter on repeaters for classification.
Last edited:
Yes. A FIREARM that is designed or adapted.
The STOCK design means nothing. You even quoted me where I said "they are talking about the firearm not the stock".
Putting a folding stock on a firearm is adapting the firearm to be capable of being fired at a reduced length.
Edit to comment on your edit - The TROY PAR is a pump action gun, which has all the same rules as the bolt action in discussion here.
Last edited:
Consider one of the double barrelled shortguns. Let's say that it is just a smidgen over 660mm, and therefore non-restricted.
Remove the recoil pad, and it is less than 660mm overall length.
So, because it can be fired with a part (the recoil pad) removed, is it a prohibited firearm with the pad installed?
Remove the recoil pad, and it is less than 660mm overall length.
So, because it can be fired with a part (the recoil pad) removed, is it a prohibited firearm with the pad installed?
Yeah I've seen that argument before, although people usually go with "I can shoot my gun with the stock off."...
Needless to say, this whole OAL thing is a mess.
Mare's legs don't fold or collapse. Already said that, but apparently you don't read.
As for the AR7, in what way do you mean? By removing the stock you can still fire it? That would be the case with most any firearm...
The rcmp was going after ar7s specifically because they can be fired under 660 without the use of tool (same as folding collapsing) but the whole thing lost steam and they didnt pursue it further
The mares legs while fully assembled and fully functional arent nr length
Yet they are nr
My point is that the rcmp classification system is a joke
This is turning into a thing here
Im done
The laws are available to read
The regulations are available to read
Enjoy
The mares legs while fully assembled and fully functional arent nr length
Yet they are nr
My point is that the rcmp classification system is a joke
This is turning into a thing here
Im done
The laws are available to read
The regulations are available to read
Enjoy
There is no NR minimum length. OAL only applies to guns that can reduce their length by folding, collapsing, or otherwise. (putting an after market shorter barrel or stock would fall under otherwise, it must leave the factory under 26" to be NR at under 26").
The rcmp classification system is a joke, but not for the reasons you are presenting.
This is NOT true!! The barrel length is not affected by the brake, but overall length IS.
