So if you don't know .50 Beowulf is a cartridge made by Alexander Arms sold as an AR15 conversion kit. They have a magazine for the cartridge that holds 5 rds of it.
That magazine happens to hold 15 rounds of .223 people use it like the 14 rds of 9mm in a .40 S&W magazine thing a few years ago.
There is an RCMP bulletin EXACTLY about this practice.
So there is a shortage of these mags, the ones for sale cost a lot of money (think Valmet) and nobody seems to be bringing more in.
So a vendor here decided to have someone make some. E-Lander of Israel made a .50 Beowulf magazine that is IDENTICAL in spec to the OEM AA Arms ones allowed in country.
It got denied under the ruling of being a "dual purpose magazine". What is "dual purpose", never seen this ruling before or anywhere in the FA.
So on one hand you have a bulletin saying this is perfectly legal, on another hand you have this "dual propose" ruling.
So how do the original mags stand legally? They are identical in spec to the ones the RCMP ruled dual use. I feel like this is the next Valmet
That magazine happens to hold 15 rounds of .223 people use it like the 14 rds of 9mm in a .40 S&W magazine thing a few years ago.
There is an RCMP bulletin EXACTLY about this practice.
5. Magazines for semiautomatic handguns which contain more than ten (10) rounds of a different calibre
Magazines designed to contain centrefire cartridges and designed or manufactured for use in a semiautomatic handgun, are limited to 10 cartridges. The capacity is measured by the kind of cartridge the magazine was designed to contain. In some cases the magazine will be capable of containing more than 10 rounds of a different caliber; however that is not relevant in the determination of the maximum permitted capacity.
So there is a shortage of these mags, the ones for sale cost a lot of money (think Valmet) and nobody seems to be bringing more in.
So a vendor here decided to have someone make some. E-Lander of Israel made a .50 Beowulf magazine that is IDENTICAL in spec to the OEM AA Arms ones allowed in country.
It got denied under the ruling of being a "dual purpose magazine". What is "dual purpose", never seen this ruling before or anywhere in the FA.
So on one hand you have a bulletin saying this is perfectly legal, on another hand you have this "dual propose" ruling.
So how do the original mags stand legally? They are identical in spec to the ones the RCMP ruled dual use. I feel like this is the next Valmet


















































