Remington 870 Tac-14 Legal Length

Blastattack

Blastattack

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
143   0   0
Location
Winnipeg MB
I have a Remington 870 with a 14” barrel, and I would like to fit a Matador folding stock adapter to it. Would a Mesa (or equivalent) adapter and the folding unit be long enough to remain over the minimum when folded?
 
Would be nice if stocks were advertised with a spec of the length aft of "zero" they take the firearm, so that adding it to a barrel length tells you how long overall you'd be with it.
 
0faustus0 said:
660 mm

"Restricted ...

Firearms designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or ..."

https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/classes-firearms
Click to expand...

Thank you for the useless information. Why do you think I asked the question?

oliviest said:
Pretty sure you would be to short
Click to expand...

lerch641 said:
Short by about an inch. I ran into the same hiccup converting my 20" 590A1 folder to a 14"...
Click to expand...

That's not conclusive, but it does err to what I was expecting. However, 1" isn't a very large difference, and the difference in design between the 870 and Mossberg, and the addition of the folding adapter, could be enough to make the difference.

old303 said:
Would be nice if stocks were advertised with a spec of the length aft of "zero" they take the firearm, so that adding it to a barrel length tells you how long overall you'd be with it.
Click to expand...

That would be nice. It would not be hard for a manufacturer to give a list of barrel lengths and the resultant overall minimum overall length of the firearm. I don't really want to go spend the $100+ to find out it doesn't do what I want it to.

Does anyone have an 870 with the regular (not Gen II) Mesa adapter they could do some measurements on? I feel that it would be really close.
 
Blastattack said:
Does anyone have an 870 with the regular (not Gen II) Mesa adapter they could do some measurements on? I feel that it would be really close.
Click to expand...

10 5/8" from front of receiver to rear of Mesa adapter.

24 1/8" including factory 14" mod barrel, so you would need another 1 7/8" past the Mesa adapter for OAL.
 
WetCoast said:
10 5/8" from front of receiver to rear of Mesa adapter.

24 1/8" including factory 14" mod barrel, so you would need another 1 7/8" past the Mesa adapter for OAL.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that's the best info yet. It may be doable... That nordic sticks out, and has a hole in the end where a stud could be fitted, and the folding adapter has some thickness... worth exploring further. A 16" barrel would solve all the issues, but that adds substantial cost.
 
Blastattack said:
Thank you, that's the best info yet. It may be doable... That nordic sticks out, and has a hole in the end where a stud could be fitted, and the folding adapter has some thickness... worth exploring further. A 16" barrel would solve all the issues, but that adds substantial cost.
Click to expand...

Admittedly it's longer and I know you're trying to go to "minimum", but would an 18.5 be an option? It's more likely to be "off the shelf" since it's the minimum for US NFA compliance, and I'd expect Remmy to have done "least common denominator" for both markets simply to minimize different-inventory costs.
 
Diamondback Six said:
Admittedly it's longer and I know you're trying to go to "minimum", but would an 18.5 be an option? It's more likely to be "off the shelf" since it's the minimum for US NFA compliance, and I'd expect Remmy to have done "least common denominator" for both markets simply to minimize different-inventory costs.
Click to expand...

Not so much that I’m trying to go to minimum, but I already have a 14” 870, and making it a minimum spec folder would be sweet. Always an option to use a longer barrel, but that kinda defeats the point of what I’m trying.
 
Blastattack said:
Not so much that I’m trying to go to minimum, but I already have a 14” 870, and making it a minimum spec folder would be sweet. Always an option to use a longer barrel, but that kinda defeats the point of what I’m trying.
Click to expand...

True. Or, if the 18.5 comes in cheaper than the 16 you might be able to have someone cut it down to exact compliance limit... I'm having a similar puzzle with the extra 0.3" of the BCM C8 vs its Diemaco counterpart, trying to figure out if I need the shoulder turned back or the sleeve cut down before I have the threads extended. (OTOH, my M4 is also 1/4" above milspec for NFA compliance, so maybe leaving the C8 as-is levels the playing field.)
 
It is done. LEO Adapter ordered, Nordic +1 ordered (nut and tube/cap) and a fancy new follower, also ordered. According to the chart above, the extension should stick 1.5" past, and the Matador folder is 3/4" long. That makes up my 1-7/8" I need, and then some.
 
EthanW said:
OAL starts from the barrel
Click to expand...

Please provide legal reference for your legal claim. There is no definition or procedure for measuring overall length in the Criminal Code, the Firearms act, or Regulations Prescribing Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted. If a term is not defined, the legal standard is either expected to be common knowledge or found in a common dictionary. The dictionary definition of "overall length" varies, but is generally understood to be "from the forward-most projection to there rearmost projection".
 
Blastattack said:
Please provide legal reference for your legal claim. There is no definition or procedure for measuring overall length in the Criminal Code, the Firearms act, or Regulations Prescribing Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted. If a term is not defined, the legal standard is either expected to be common knowledge or found in a common dictionary. The dictionary definition of "overall length" varies, but is generally understood to be "from the forward-most projection to there rearmost projection".
Click to expand...

Blastattack, now I am curious .... and what are your legal references for your interpretation of the law?
Do you have any actual court rulings to cite?

What is the case law that your interpretation is based on?
 
Last edited:
Blastattack said:
Please provide legal reference for your legal claim. There is no definition or procedure for measuring overall length in the Criminal Code, the Firearms act, or Regulations Prescribing Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted. If a term is not defined, the legal standard is either expected to be common knowledge or found in a common dictionary. The dictionary definition of "overall length" varies, but is generally understood to be "from the forward-most projection to there rearmost projection".
Click to expand...

I can't, you win, good luck with the build.
 
0faustus0 said:
Blastattack, now I am curious .... and what are your legal references for your interpretation of the law?
Do you have any actual court rulings to cite?

What is the case law that your interpretation is based on?
Click to expand...

My interpretation is based on general knowledge but is backed up by numerous documents. This document, posted on the Department of Justice website supports my viewpoint: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/legis-redact/legistics/p1p5.html

The first paragraph of the content sums it up:

Department of Justice - Legistic Definitions (https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/legis-redact/legistics/p1p5.html) said:
Principles governing the use of definitions

Common meaning of words

Definitions in legislative texts are stipulative; they state what a term is to mean in the text. They are only required if they depart from the commonly understood meaning of the term. Definitions included in legislative texts must never simply reiterate the content of a dictionary or state the obvious. If the meaning of a term is well understood by the intended audience and unambiguous, don't define the term. It is not necessary to define a term simply because it is a technical, scientific or other term of art. Legislative counsel should systematically avoid defining terms that do not depart from their ordinary meaning.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom