If the CPC have not learned anything about that group by now, considering they were debating against what CAO chiefs and RCMP was declaring on there position towards the registry/gun control then we are in big trouble.
SCAR Where Art Thou ?
- Thread starter mildot
- Start date
If the CPC have not learned anything about that group by now, considering they were debating against what CAO chiefs and RCMP was declaring on there position towards the registry/gun control then we are in big trouble.
You have me very alarmed.....
I suppose you could call the lab and ask. Speak to one of the managers, Murray, if you can reach him (He is often out testifying for the crown at reference hearings, etc), or Bill (hello).
I heard it from another dealer who was trying to get some FRTs sorted out yesterday. I hear the same thing from many sources. The fact the RCMP want the list updated is no shock and is often stated in their briefing reports to the minister. We have all but given up submitting new guns since the last one was submitted in April 2010 has still not been issued an FRT, nor can we even get an answer out of the lab as to when we can expect it.
Wow I just read through all 21 pages of this and I didn't even consider the pre-order and I am outraged by the bureaucratic BS... I hope you guys get your guns soon! Also this mention of adding to the prohibited list is expected but still infuriating. These are police, they should be worrying about enforcing laws, not changing them!
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Nothing. This either helps or does nothing with respect to moving the process for the SCAR along (anyone's guess at this point). I originally said summer/fall, so I'm sticking with that (even though this is one instance where I'd like to be proven wrong).
Ok folks, here is what the FOI says. First let me state that the package was about 300 pages long. It contained many, many drawings of the SCAR 16S, SCAR mk16 and the FNC. I will not make the entire package available, but would be happy to provide parts of it to get this thing moving.
Also, the RCMP violated the policies set out to FOI's with respect to time frames. As soon as this became apparent, I involved my MP in all correspondences and requested the RCMP CC my MP on all future emails. They did not. This speaks volumes to their intentions to play games. I did forward all the emails, and with the help of my MP, it came immediately after.
Let me try to provide the Coles Notes version. I'll try to keep it chronological, but I may jump around.
Prior to receiving the sample, the RCMP starting doing some digging. The package included a thread from an Uzi forum, dated in 2008. The plot of the thread was that the SCAR will never be available to civilians. These armchair commandos were of the impression that it would too easy to make a semi-auto only version full auto due to some of the design cues that were taken from the FNC. The RCMP also used Gunbroker, FN's website, the user manual, Shooting Illustrated, fnforum.net, World.guns.ru, allexperts.com, statemaster.com, hk94.com and Wikipedia as references for information.
Now, prior to receiving the sample, they classed the 16S as possibly being a variant of:
-FNC - upper receiver design
-AR - lower receiver
-G36 - use of composites
Their biggest concern was the upper receiver. When comparing the upper diagrams to the FNC diagrams, they believed that it was a variant and should therefore be prohibited. They noted that this must be discussed amongst themselves
On September 7th, 2010, FN replied to an email for information to the RCMP. Basically, they stated that the 16S was designed and is only produced as a semi-auto receiver. Also of importance, is that the uppers of the mk16 and 16S are not interchangeable and completely different. Also, the trigger modules are different and not interchangeable.
On January 4, 2011, a report was written regarding the inspection of the 16S. The nuts and bolts of the report are as follows:
-The inspectors received the rifle on April 7th, 2010
-The rifle was imaged on May 4th, 2010
-The examination commenced on May 4th, 2010
-The findings stated that the rifle MAY be a modern version of the FNC with design features of the AR18 (rotating bolt and bolt carrier), M1 Carbine (short stroke gas system), FNC (upper receiver, charge handle location), G36 (use of polymer components), M16/AR15 (pistol grip, magazine well and magazine design)
-Upper receiver is the serialized portion for all purposes of the CC and Firearms Act
-Barrel measures 406mm
-With stock folded, gun measures 688mm
-"Research proves a design lineage to the FNC. The early prototypes of the FNH SCAR used the same lower receiver/pistol grip as the FN FNC"
-"NOTE: This finding needs to be discussed with the factory engineering team"
-Rifle uses similar trigger group to the FNC. Pin holes are in the same location but are of different size and don't interchange between the two. "The sample inspected has a pin with a spring grove and has a indent cut for an auto sear/safety. It is my belief that the body of the trigger group for the semi-automatic and the full-automatic are the same with only cosmetic marking being different
-"On the left and right side of the lower trigger group stationed around the selector are 3 round indents or markers for the indication the position of the selector, on the sample being inspected the markings are "S and then 1" stamped in the first indent/round marker and the two remaining round markers are blank. There are no selector stops such as those found on the AR15 or SIG-556..."
-Rifle has semi auto bolt that does not allow the bolt to trip an auto sear
-"It is unknown in the receiver/frame is the same for the semi-automatic and the full-automatic and if the bolt is interchangeable between the two."
The conclusions from the report are as follows:
-"The FN SCAR 16S serial number was found NOT TO BE a purpose built semi-automatic and is not a restricted firearm under the Criminal Code S.84...
-"The FN SCAR 16S serial number was found NOT TO BE a variant or modified version of the FN-FNC rifle under the Regulations appended to The Criminal Code...
-These findings are temporary pending communications with FN
Now on March 3, 2011, the RCMP sent another email to FN stating that they recognize that the 16S is not a variant of the FNC (although it seems that the "geneses of the FNH SCAR 16S is most certainly the early 1980's FNC"). They also state that they have "determined the FNH SCAR 16S to be a factory made, purpose-built, semi-automatic action mechanism firearm which would, if the last consideration, bering a legal class of "non restricted" or "restricted"" depending on the barrel length. The RCMP was requesting information on whether the trigger mechanisms between the mk16 and the 16S were interchangeable. Also, they wanted to know why the 16S has a "full auto sear" or as FN has called it in the past "a safety sear". The underlying reasons for these questions is whether the 16S can be "readily converted to full automatic in a relatively short period of time with relative ease". I find it odd that they ask the questions that were answered in the September 2010 email from FN. The "safety sear" needs some attention though. What is it?
FN responds on March 23, 2011. Curiously, they don't answer any of the questions. Instead, they ask 8 questions of their own. All the questions relate only to what our specifications are for classifying firearms as either restricted or non-restricted. This is very odd. It is almost as if an email is missing. The RCMP has not replied to this.
That's it for the FOI.
I also find it disturbing that all interoffice memos were excluded from the FOI. I had specifically requested this to see if there were any proof of stalling. There must have obviously been interoffice discussion since the RCMP was initially deemed to NOT BE A PURPOSE BUILT semi auto, but changed their tune in the email with FN. There are no laws exempting them from FOIs (since they are not ministers). It seems that other than the "safety sear", all questions relating to the easy conversion to FA were answered by FN. The fact that they are asking again points to stalling. The facts as the RCMP have stated or implied in the FOI:
-The 16S is a purpose built semi auto rifle
-The rifle is not a variant of the FNC, nor any other prohibited rifle
-The rifle parts are not interchangeable with the FA SCAR (as per FN)
-The RCMP were not able to convert it to full auto themselves
I think that in order for us to get our rifles, we either need FN to answer to the "safety sear" (hopefully some FA gurus here can help me/us understand this), or put pressure on the RCMP, with help from all our MPs, to recognize the fact that they have done their due diligence and that it is a SEMI-AUTO-ONLY rifle.
Release the damn thing.
Also, the RCMP violated the policies set out to FOI's with respect to time frames. As soon as this became apparent, I involved my MP in all correspondences and requested the RCMP CC my MP on all future emails. They did not. This speaks volumes to their intentions to play games. I did forward all the emails, and with the help of my MP, it came immediately after.
Let me try to provide the Coles Notes version. I'll try to keep it chronological, but I may jump around.
Prior to receiving the sample, the RCMP starting doing some digging. The package included a thread from an Uzi forum, dated in 2008. The plot of the thread was that the SCAR will never be available to civilians. These armchair commandos were of the impression that it would too easy to make a semi-auto only version full auto due to some of the design cues that were taken from the FNC. The RCMP also used Gunbroker, FN's website, the user manual, Shooting Illustrated, fnforum.net, World.guns.ru, allexperts.com, statemaster.com, hk94.com and Wikipedia as references for information.
Now, prior to receiving the sample, they classed the 16S as possibly being a variant of:
-FNC - upper receiver design
-AR - lower receiver
-G36 - use of composites
Their biggest concern was the upper receiver. When comparing the upper diagrams to the FNC diagrams, they believed that it was a variant and should therefore be prohibited. They noted that this must be discussed amongst themselves
On September 7th, 2010, FN replied to an email for information to the RCMP. Basically, they stated that the 16S was designed and is only produced as a semi-auto receiver. Also of importance, is that the uppers of the mk16 and 16S are not interchangeable and completely different. Also, the trigger modules are different and not interchangeable.
On January 4, 2011, a report was written regarding the inspection of the 16S. The nuts and bolts of the report are as follows:
-The inspectors received the rifle on April 7th, 2010
-The rifle was imaged on May 4th, 2010
-The examination commenced on May 4th, 2010
-The findings stated that the rifle MAY be a modern version of the FNC with design features of the AR18 (rotating bolt and bolt carrier), M1 Carbine (short stroke gas system), FNC (upper receiver, charge handle location), G36 (use of polymer components), M16/AR15 (pistol grip, magazine well and magazine design)
-Upper receiver is the serialized portion for all purposes of the CC and Firearms Act
-Barrel measures 406mm
-With stock folded, gun measures 688mm
-"Research proves a design lineage to the FNC. The early prototypes of the FNH SCAR used the same lower receiver/pistol grip as the FN FNC"
-"NOTE: This finding needs to be discussed with the factory engineering team"
-Rifle uses similar trigger group to the FNC. Pin holes are in the same location but are of different size and don't interchange between the two. "The sample inspected has a pin with a spring grove and has a indent cut for an auto sear/safety. It is my belief that the body of the trigger group for the semi-automatic and the full-automatic are the same with only cosmetic marking being different
-"On the left and right side of the lower trigger group stationed around the selector are 3 round indents or markers for the indication the position of the selector, on the sample being inspected the markings are "S and then 1" stamped in the first indent/round marker and the two remaining round markers are blank. There are no selector stops such as those found on the AR15 or SIG-556..."
-Rifle has semi auto bolt that does not allow the bolt to trip an auto sear
-"It is unknown in the receiver/frame is the same for the semi-automatic and the full-automatic and if the bolt is interchangeable between the two."
The conclusions from the report are as follows:
-"The FN SCAR 16S serial number was found NOT TO BE a purpose built semi-automatic and is not a restricted firearm under the Criminal Code S.84...
-"The FN SCAR 16S serial number was found NOT TO BE a variant or modified version of the FN-FNC rifle under the Regulations appended to The Criminal Code...
-These findings are temporary pending communications with FN
Now on March 3, 2011, the RCMP sent another email to FN stating that they recognize that the 16S is not a variant of the FNC (although it seems that the "geneses of the FNH SCAR 16S is most certainly the early 1980's FNC"). They also state that they have "determined the FNH SCAR 16S to be a factory made, purpose-built, semi-automatic action mechanism firearm which would, if the last consideration, bering a legal class of "non restricted" or "restricted"" depending on the barrel length. The RCMP was requesting information on whether the trigger mechanisms between the mk16 and the 16S were interchangeable. Also, they wanted to know why the 16S has a "full auto sear" or as FN has called it in the past "a safety sear". The underlying reasons for these questions is whether the 16S can be "readily converted to full automatic in a relatively short period of time with relative ease". I find it odd that they ask the questions that were answered in the September 2010 email from FN. The "safety sear" needs some attention though. What is it?
FN responds on March 23, 2011. Curiously, they don't answer any of the questions. Instead, they ask 8 questions of their own. All the questions relate only to what our specifications are for classifying firearms as either restricted or non-restricted. This is very odd. It is almost as if an email is missing. The RCMP has not replied to this.
That's it for the FOI.
I also find it disturbing that all interoffice memos were excluded from the FOI. I had specifically requested this to see if there were any proof of stalling. There must have obviously been interoffice discussion since the RCMP was initially deemed to NOT BE A PURPOSE BUILT semi auto, but changed their tune in the email with FN. There are no laws exempting them from FOIs (since they are not ministers). It seems that other than the "safety sear", all questions relating to the easy conversion to FA were answered by FN. The fact that they are asking again points to stalling. The facts as the RCMP have stated or implied in the FOI:
-The 16S is a purpose built semi auto rifle
-The rifle is not a variant of the FNC, nor any other prohibited rifle
-The rifle parts are not interchangeable with the FA SCAR (as per FN)
-The RCMP were not able to convert it to full auto themselves
I think that in order for us to get our rifles, we either need FN to answer to the "safety sear" (hopefully some FA gurus here can help me/us understand this), or put pressure on the RCMP, with help from all our MPs, to recognize the fact that they have done their due diligence and that it is a SEMI-AUTO-ONLY rifle.
Release the damn thing.
This whole "variant" thing is the stupidest idea that one man ever told another about!
The AR15 is a "variant" of the AG42, because of the gas system, right?
And the M1 and M14 are "variants" of the Mauser M1898, note they all have 2-lug rotating bolts that lock at the front!
Jebus! It's called evolution, I doubt that there has been an entirely new firearm made in the last 50 years.
This is just another example of how the Lieberals hate us.
For those of you that have forgotten, the "Variant" thing was written because someone had come-up with a way to construct a sort of AR15 that was a pump action, rather than semi-auto. Around the same time a modification of the M14, also to pump action was at least rumoured (I haven't seen one, myself; but I understand that some were built).
So some Lib-tards started soiling their pants with the vision of pump action AK-47s, pump action BREN guns and maybe bolt action FALs!!! And of course any mags specifically madee for these pump-guns would be unlimited!!!
Oh the horror!!!
So out came the vasaline with an extra hand-full of sand in it...
The AR15 is a "variant" of the AG42, because of the gas system, right?
And the M1 and M14 are "variants" of the Mauser M1898, note they all have 2-lug rotating bolts that lock at the front!
Jebus! It's called evolution, I doubt that there has been an entirely new firearm made in the last 50 years.
This is just another example of how the Lieberals hate us.
For those of you that have forgotten, the "Variant" thing was written because someone had come-up with a way to construct a sort of AR15 that was a pump action, rather than semi-auto. Around the same time a modification of the M14, also to pump action was at least rumoured (I haven't seen one, myself; but I understand that some were built).
So some Lib-tards started soiling their pants with the vision of pump action AK-47s, pump action BREN guns and maybe bolt action FALs!!! And of course any mags specifically madee for these pump-guns would be unlimited!!!
Oh the horror!!!
So out came the vasaline with an extra hand-full of sand in it...
Why not do your own FOI ant take to your MP?
Hk g11
But dont worry they already prohib'd it by name without it being made...the thought police banned a prototype!
But dont worry they already prohib'd it by name without it being made...the thought police banned a prototype!
- Location
- Montréal, Québec
That's their specialty. Just ask the G11.
You'd think that if they had the brains of a dried-out pumpkin, they would realize that a pump action is much slower than a semi-auto (or maybe they think that by pumping, the shooter increases the pressure and the bullets shoot (or the bullet shoots) faster.) Iggiots.
Getting the issue of the RCMP refusing to grant an FRT number to FN's rifle, and effectively prohibiting it ( despite evidence to the contrary ) examined by an MP or perhaps a court would be an amazing idea. I would love to hear a Judge's reaction to the reading of the mail chain between the RCMP and FN. "So you the Crown mean to tell me that the people who designed and built this rifle to fire semi-auto only don't know what they're talking about?" "You have a fully equipped machine shop run by gunsmiths and couldn't convert the rifle to full-auto, then wrote the manufacturer for help in doing so?" Even if the MP or judge doesn't have much interest in the rifle they may at least be interested in the precedent the RCMP's action sets, that of effectively prohibiting an item despite the fact that testing and correspondence from the manufacturer say otherwise. Perhaps in the end we may also force the RCMP to disclose more of their black magic testing methods and where they have their ouija board sessions!
This maybe a stupid-newbie question but, I am still going to ask it. Is their any reason why Prohibited rifles (like the FN FAL, FN FNC.... etc) are prohibited? Is their a mechanical reason? Or is it because someone at the "lab" looked at it, and said ooh that looks really scary! I have never encountered an explanation to as why these are prohibited.
If the prohibited lists gets updated, and it includes Ar-15's and variants, that would be my final straw, moving down South was in the cards for a long time. I am still for it regardless if they update the list or not. Moving down to the U.S would just require me to work my ass off to get to an American Law school (one not in Commiefornia). I don't want to move to the U.S just because of this, but the general gun politics in Canada, and Socialism (both are correlated) are the main reasons.
This is truly pathetic. Nice to know my hard earned tax money is going to firearm "experts" in a "lab" reading internet forums to gain knowledge of firearms, that anyone could of written, hell it could have been written by an 12 year old video gamer in his mom's basement!
If the prohibited lists gets updated, and it includes Ar-15's and variants, that would be my final straw, moving down South was in the cards for a long time. I am still for it regardless if they update the list or not. Moving down to the U.S would just require me to work my ass off to get to an American Law school (one not in Commiefornia). I don't want to move to the U.S just because of this, but the general gun politics in Canada, and Socialism (both are correlated) are the main reasons.
This is truly pathetic. Nice to know my hard earned tax money is going to firearm "experts" in a "lab" reading internet forums to gain knowledge of firearms, that anyone could of written, hell it could have been written by an 12 year old video gamer in his mom's basement!
