thanks

[offgrid]

thanks

 

[tiriaq]

Hasn't meant that so far.

 

[offgrid]

thanks

 

[tiriaq]

No, they are not considered variants of the AR-180. There are enough design differences that they were not classified as variants of a named prohibited firearm. That is why their classification is based on barrel length - non-restricted if over 18 1/2".
In the case of the 180B, the upper receiver assembly will fit on a 180 lower. But the 180B lower - the legal receiver - is sufficiently different from the 180 that the 180B is non-restricted.

 

[offgrid]

thanks

 

[BattleRife]

Stop making shìt up, we have enough problems as it is.

The AR-180B and similar designs have been freely available in Canada for 25 years, clearly accepted as non-variants of the Armalite product. Nothing anybody has said, anywhere, ever, suggests that is going to change.

 

[IzzyTheGreat]

If you're going to post something like this please at least provide some evidence, whether embedded or a link. You're spreading misinformation, the named firearms you mention are based on the AR-180b design. As Tiriaq says the design is different enough to not be considered an AR-180. If you're going to post stuff like this, at least provide a cohesive argument or interpretation of what you are using as a source, and a link to the source as well. Posting one line from SOR/98-462 with no context just makes you look like a fearmonger looking for attention.

Is what you describe a possibility? Yes, but that's because with the precedent set by the OIC and FRT changes pretty much anything is in jeopardy until we can get a solid answer in the courts.

 

[BlackVoid]

Nothing anybody has said, anywhere, ever, suggests that is going to change.

Never say never. Evergreen provisions already been suggested by Murray Smith, who has left CFC and now is "freelancing" for a political appointment.

 

[limit time]

Im wondering if that "sufficiently" will be enough. If they added everything else that was remotely close, what would save a model such as this? Seeing as it is closer to what the intent of what they are doing than a 10/22. Logically they would add these to the list as well. Probably as 65a.

And what’s the point of this ?? If you want one ? Get it.... if you don’t? Why the questions ?

 

[chillyrabbit]

Probably because every is lazy and called the WK 180C and WS MCR rifles as being based off the AR-180 instead of the AR-180B they actually are. A letter or number can make a big difference in how different a firearm is.

 

[Leg]

My Google fu is weak but I cannot find a design commonly know as the Armalite AR180 sporter carbine. Sterling marketed a sporter variant I believe but I don’t know if they had a carbine version or not. Armalite always marketed the 180 as a rifle except the 18s but it’s FA and had a 10” barrel I believe. Perhaps that’s why the 180b is non restricted as it’s not a variant of a carbine but of the rifle.

Wish I had bought a 180b when I had the chance. Think I’d prefer it to these modernized versions coming out.

 

[WWIII]

Intel gathering for???

 

[themarauder]

Wait, aren't they AR-15 variants? Or is that tomorrow?

 

[enefgee]

Does this mean everything designed off this platform? For instance does this cover the WS-MCR and the WK180?

Is that why I am seeing more of these on the EE this week?

That's from the Firearms Act - that has not changed. Why is the 180B not a variant? The 180B uses different magazines, a different magazine release, a different trigger, a different sear, a different safety selector, different hammer, different grip assembly, different butt stock, and different pins and none of those parts are interchangeable with the AR-18/AR180. The receiver is made from a different material using a different process. Other than that, they're identical.

 

[Ar180shooter]

Is that the intent of that entry? Are those models considered variants of a 180? I think they were advertised as such at some point.

The intent of the entry is to prohibit the AR180 and its unnamed variants. As it turns out, the Ar180b and the subsequent rifles based off of it (WK180, etc.) used entirely different internal components and construction methods for the lower, to the point that it was not considered a variant, and was in fact considered a novel design that just maintained the outward appearance of the original Ar180.

 

[dieseldog]

The AR 180b was never conceived, built, or used by the military or police. Also never existed as an fully automatic or select fire firearm. This means a lot when determining if an variant of the AR15/M16 or AR18 rifle and being designed for military killing purposes. The point is it was originally designed as a civilian sporting rifle. ---Dieseldog!