T97 News.. not good.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ponts said:
Ok so here is how I see it....I could be wrong

New VZ from Marstar = too many full auto parts so CFC makes it prohib. LEAVING ALL other CZ-858's NON RESTRICTED and all VZ-58's PREVIOUSLY imported as RESTRICTED.

T-97 = Lazy CFC techs making a determination by a picture and then when they finally get one in there hands they class it as prohib. They may have done this from the start if they had one in hands. You would think Canam should have brought in a few of there version of the rifle BEFORE the big shipment and submitted samples to the RCMP to get classified properly.

Sorry guys I just don't see ANY conspiracy from the RCMP or Conservatives for new OIC's or to ban semi's. In fact ALL I see is the Conservatives trying to fulfill there one and only promise to kill the registry. They never promised anything else. Neutering bill C-301 HAD to be done or it would not have a chance to pass.
Click to expand...

You are really oversimplifying here. There was already an FRT number issued for CanAm's version of the T97. Why would he need to import a "few" for inspection?

I guess CanAm should have assumed the Firearms Techs wouldn't know what the F@CK they were doing when they issued the FRT number? He should have anticipated this mess?? :slap:Give your head a shake.

Also, if this issue were so cut and dry - like you suggest - why has the RCMP not made a ruling on the T97 yet?? They sure were fast prohibiting Marstars Vz58's! But they've had CanAM's T97 for over a month, and still nothing from them.

It's apparent that this is not cut and dry or else they would be prohib by now. Pressure to the CPC and MP's involved would help this situation.

Oh and if you think the CPC wouldn't turn on gun owners in a SECOND if they could then you are dreaming in Technicolour.
 
Clobbersauras said:
You are really oversimplifying here. There was already an FRT number issued for CanAm's version of the T97. Why would he need to import a "few" for inspection?

I guess CanAm should have assumed the Firearms Techs wouldn't know what the F@CK they were doing when they issued the FRT number? He should have anticipated this mess?? :slap:Give your head a shake.

Also, if this issue were so cut and dry - like you suggest - why has the RCMP not made a ruling on the T97 yet?? They sure were fast prohibiting Marstars Vz58's! But they've had CanAM's T97 for over a month, and still nothing from them.

It's apparent that this is not cut and dry or else they would be prohib by now. Pressure to the CPC and MP's involved would help this situation.

Oh and if you think the CPC wouldn't turn on gun owners in a SECOND if they could then you are dreaming in Technicolour.
Click to expand...

Like I said I could be wrong but that's how I see it. If I were to bring in a newly designed or "different/changed" firearm to Canada I would be sure the RCMP lab had an the exact version for examination before I gave the go for mass production and importation, it only makes sense and really it seems that simple. Is this the case for Canam and Marstar don't know did they or didn't they (seems like they didn't if this is happening)?? Blue-Line did it right with the GSG-5, imported one, submitted to RCMP lab, classed as prohib could of ended up with a container load of prohib guns they could not sell.

Any party in Canada could turn on firearms owners but do you see a better choice? Again I'll stick with the only party in Canada with a chance at a majority that has stood AGAINST a handgun ban, semi-auto ban and the gun registry. The only thing that has stopped them from ditching the registry and making further Firearms law changes to our beneift is the fact that they have not had a majority.

I feel bad that your T-97 is being reclassed but so far I see no reason to blame the Conservatives or jump up and down shouting the sky is falling in and the RCMP and Conservatives are selling us out. Even C-301 with a minority gov't would never pass unless it was gutted just to include the end of the registry. When they get a majority you'll see we will be rewarded for our support if not well that is when I'll jump ship but not till then.
 
Last edited:
Ponts has a point... We don't really have much of a choice when it comes to another political party. The CPC has my continued strong support as well. I'd still be voting for them anyway if I didn't care much for guns.
 
smartbomb said:
Ponts has a point... We don't really have much of a choice when it comes to another political party. The CPC has my continued strong support as well. I'd still be voting for them anyway if I didn't care much for guns.
Click to expand...
---- X 2, smartbomb, -- I agree, --- the only ones that have anything going for them !!! but this reclassing of SA,s is really Pissing me off !!!!!!!!!
 
ponts said:
Blue-Line did it right with the GSG-5, imported one, submitted to RCMP lab, classed as prohib could of ended up with a container load of prohib guns they could not sell.
Click to expand...

The GSG-5 didn't have an FRT number. The one the RCMP inspected was submitted to obtain an FRT number. It's not up to CanAm to question the validity of the FRT labs determinations. The rifle had an FRT number - why would he question it?

ponts said:
Any party in Canada could turn on firearms owners but do you see a better choice? Again I'll stick with the only party in Canada with a chance at a majority that has stood AGAINST a handgun ban, semi-auto ban and the gun registry. The only thing that has stopped them from ditching the registry and making further Firearms law changes to our beneift is the fact that they have not had a majority.

I feel bad that your T-97 is being reclassed but so far I see no reason to blame the Conservatives or jump up and down shouting the sky is falling in and the RCMP and Conservatives are selling us out. Even C-301 with a minority gov't would never pass unless it was gutted just to include the end of the registry. When they get a majority you'll see we will be rewarded for our support if not well that is when I'll jump ship but not till then.
Click to expand...

You have much more faith in the CPC than I do. If we don't keep the pressure on them they would sell out in a heartbeat. They only capitulate to us because they need us. I suspect they are finding out how much they need over the last month. Many CGN members, including myself, have held back donations pending their response to 301 and the FRT issues.
 
Last edited:
NavyShooter said:
Um NO.

That statement is 100% incorrect.

A simple change of parts will not machine in an auto-sear slot, the holes for it's pin and install them.

There are a number of variants of the AR out there, some with milspec parts in them, some without.

That said, the following parts (at a minimum) would have to be capable of being installed:

M-16 selector
M-16 Trigger
M-16 disconnector
M-16 Hammer
M-16 Auto Trip
M-16 Bolt

That said, the Drop In Auto Sear (DIAS) does exist, but requires some of the above parts as well, and potentially modifications to your lower receiver due to fit requirements.

It is not a simple "Drop the parts in" process to make an AR-15 into an automatic weapon.


On the subject at hand, I don't know how the VZ is different from an AR-15, but I suspect that you also don't know the difference, with the lack of knowledge you exhibit above.

NavyShooter
Click to expand...

Above changes stated by you;
  • The same type of parts you would have to replace on the VZ to achieve full auto capability minus the bolt because it is standard.
  • On both firearms by changing barrel length's configurations you can go from pistol length barrel to non-restricted length barrel.
Also as stated buy you. No modification would be required to the receiver to facilitate a "full auto" capability. Only internal parts.
Also personal attacks are not needed, if we have different points of view. So in stating this I would have to agree to dis-agree with your statement.
 
22. Customs officers must first ensure that the components
or parts in question are designed exclusively for use in the
manufacture of, or assembly into, an automatic firearm. In
some instances, the parts may be used on a firearm other
than an automatic firearm, and may be released if all other
requirements are met.
Click to expand...

This part is key (taken from post... 445, was it?).
 
Satain said:
Above changes stated by you;
  • The same type of parts you would have to replace on the VZ to achieve full auto capability minus the bolt because it is standard.
  • On both firearms by changing barrel length's configurations you can go from pistol length barrel to non-restricted length barrel.
Also as stated buy you. No modification would be required to the receiver to facilitate a "full auto" capability. Only internal parts.
Also personal attacks are not needed, if we have different points of view. So in stating this I would have to agree to dis-agree with your statement.
Click to expand...

Actually, he did.

NavyShooter said:
A simple change of parts will not machine in an auto-sear slot, the holes for it's pin and install them.
Click to expand...

This sentence indicates what I have been told too, that you have to make space in the AR 15 reciever for the parts to fit in.
 
I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

In order to fit all the required M-16 parts into an AR-15 lower receiver, you MUST machine permanent modifications into the lower receiver.

Here is a pictoral showing some of the typical differences:

Lower Receiver (AR-15 on left, M-16 on right):

nfa-ar-m16-01.jpg


Colt's method of blocking the installation of the Auto Trip:

coltsearblock02.jpg


Fire Control Group:

ar15m16.gif


Bolt Carrier (if it's not clear from the pic above):

boltcarrier.gif


Upper receiver difference:

searrelief_ar15_m16.jpg



As you can see, there are significant differences that have been engineered into the AR-15s that prevent them from being capable of readily being modified to accept full auto parts, and you'd need access to machine shop equipment and more to be able to do this.

Making an AR-15 "go fast" is NOT a simple drop-in parts change-over.

NS

(Pictures shamelessly borrowed from Quarterbore.)
 
Deckard,

My apologies to the content of the thread, however, if an arguement is being made using incorrect information as a part of it, does that not make us little better than the Antis who discard inconvenient facts that they don't like?

Having the correct information is important IMHO.

I'll let the thread return to it's regularly scheduled programming, and let you guys discuss the lack of information and contradictory information that seems to be coming to light.

NS
 
On both firearms by changing barrel length's configurations you can go from pistol length barrel to non-restricted length barrel.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, one other thing...the AR-15 (and variants) are restricted by NAME. Therefore increasing the barrel length to beyond 18.5" does not un-restrict it.

Note, the standard barrel length for a typical AR (before the current carbine craze) was 20". If barrel length was the reason for restriction, I'd have 2 non-restricted AR's in my safe.

NS
 
NavyShooter said:
Deckard,

My apologies to the content of the thread, however, if an arguement is being made using incorrect information as a part of it, does that not make us little better than the Antis who discard inconvenient facts that they don't like?

Having the correct information is important IMHO.

I'll let the thread return to it's regularly scheduled programming, and let you guys discuss the lack of information and contradictory information that seems to be coming to light.

NS
Click to expand...
Navy - I appreciated your posts. Your info does help this thread.
 
Clobbersauras said:
Navy - I appreciated your posts. Your info does help this thread.
Click to expand...

Clobber...I have the easy job here...I have facts that I can present with evidence (in pictures).

You (and others here) are only able to discuss the suppositions, inferrences, backroom concerns, changing information from the CFC/RCMP, and the incomplete information that's being given because people are still attempting to argue their case that the T-97 should not be a prohib.

I doubt that any one person has all the facts in this situation, so no doubt there is much confusion and concern. Those with a vested interest in ownership especially.

Those still arguing their case would be (in truth) foolish if they posted all their information here, because we all know that the antis, and others monitor this site, and there's no point in giving them the information.

NS
 
Last edited:
One part that won't fit the non-prohib Vz.58 is the auto-trip sear. If the lever won't fit, no auto!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom