++UPDATE Dec 22/ 21++ Kel Tec CMR-30 with Dlask Arms Barrel now NON-RESTRICTED !
- Thread starter Dlask Arms
- Start date
freekshow001
Regular
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Since the 17hmr is based off the 22mag case and your making a new barrel anyways, then why not a 17hmr conversion? May have to make a heavier bolt handle, i think thats what other companies did for the conversion to operate reliably.
Look I’m not back seat driving. I’ve had my go arounds with the lab before when I was in the industry. They oven told me once that adding a longer FH to a gun would not count for increasing overall length. I argued with Etter and he finally agreed that this was in fact allowed and had to follow past practice (not for increasing barrel length that is not allowed)What exactly are they saying? Are they using the word “designed” now to mean that any rim fire gun now that came from the factory with a folding stock and originally could fire when reduced to less than 660mm is restricted regardless of being pinned or not? Then that argument should not hold up as adding barrel length to get over 660mm shouldn’t negate the fact that it was designed to fold. I don’t understand this. Not only am I worried about my CMR-30 from the other guys but other rimfire guns with folding stocks that are pinned with short barrels. Also is this the policy of the entire LAB or just what one tech came up with? Because that is a very important distinction.
These guns were not MODIFIED by reducing, cutting etc. They were made from the factory to be reduced. This means this ruling makes no sense unless they are claiming they were "designed" this way and therefore there would be no way to get around this fact and convert them to non restricted, no matter what method was used. They can be reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise. If you permanently disable this feature why would this not be legitimate? I sure hope this is not the direction the lab is taking. The fact that they are allowing longer barrels to re classify these guns tells me there must be some kind of misguided incorrect decision unless I am missing something?
Restricted Firearm
“a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, “
So if it was designed that way what would it matter if you pinned the stock or added barrel length? They both wouldn’t change the fact it was “designed to be fired at a length of less that 660mm by a folding stock?” This lab practice or ruling could have far reaching implications for other guns... have you guys talked to the CCFR or other gun orgs etc? The last thing I need in my life is to jeopardize my liberty and my collection because the lab says one of my rimfires is classified incorrectly,
Also: Will the lab still allow the attachment of a muzzle device to a rim fire or manually operated firearm to count towards overall length still or not? That option would be a lot cheaper and easier to do than replacing the whole barrel to get the proper overall length
These guns were not MODIFIED by reducing, cutting etc. They were made from the factory to be reduced. This means this ruling makes no sense unless they are claiming they were "designed" this way and therefore there would be no way to get around this fact and convert them to non restricted, no matter what method was used. They can be reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise. If you permanently disable this feature why would this not be legitimate? I sure hope this is not the direction the lab is taking. The fact that they are allowing longer barrels to re classify these guns tells me there must be some kind of misguided incorrect decision unless I am missing something?
Restricted Firearm
“a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, “
So if it was designed that way what would it matter if you pinned the stock or added barrel length? They both wouldn’t change the fact it was “designed to be fired at a length of less that 660mm by a folding stock?” This lab practice or ruling could have far reaching implications for other guns... have you guys talked to the CCFR or other gun orgs etc? The last thing I need in my life is to jeopardize my liberty and my collection because the lab says one of my rimfires is classified incorrectly,
Also: Will the lab still allow the attachment of a muzzle device to a rim fire or manually operated firearm to count towards overall length still or not? That option would be a lot cheaper and easier to do than replacing the whole barrel to get the proper overall length
Last edited:
KotKotofeich
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ottawa Valley
+1. I like the gun but the 22wmr idea is somewhat ho-hum for me. But the 17hmr gets my attention. Obviously this would all depend on if 17hmr feeds from the magazine - problems with this may nix the whole idea.
And since I'm writing, Dlask, are people buying the NR rifle from you going to get the original 16" barrel too? (I'm not harbouring ideas of switching back, but I do have a use for it.)
Last edited:
Just a tip: insulting your customers intelligence isn’t a good look. If you cant handle your interactions without doing so, maybe you should hire someone who can.
I honestly did not find what Dlask said insulting, I think he was explaining the situation with some humour
I was thinking the same thing. I didn't feel targeted, what came out is basically that the rules are vague and always changing and even for someone in the industry it's difficult so imagine for the common firearm enthusiast that only reads the rules and doesn't have to deal with the current RCMP administration and all the hoops to go through.
Leigh, if you wanted our attention, you have it.
This will bring clarification to your false statements and fabricated criminal allegations.
The criminal code and the Canadian Firearms Program state that a rimfire rifle having a length greater than 26” or 660mm falls under the classification as NON RESTRICTED.
Although this being the case there is nothing outlining what is acceptable to the RCMP to achieve an overall length of 660mm.
Further clarification was sought through Specialized Firearms Support Services as to what is considered acceptable in achieving said length.
The following is an excerpt from detailed correspondence from Specialized Firearms Support Services outlining what is deemed as acceptable practice for the classification of overall length.
These rifles included a muzzle attachment and permanently restricting the collapsible stock to ensure that the rifle maintained an overall length of 660mm.
We kindly ask that you retract your false statements and allegations.
Govern yourself accordingly.
The IRUNGUNS Team
This will bring clarification to your false statements and fabricated criminal allegations.
The criminal code and the Canadian Firearms Program state that a rimfire rifle having a length greater than 26” or 660mm falls under the classification as NON RESTRICTED.
Although this being the case there is nothing outlining what is acceptable to the RCMP to achieve an overall length of 660mm.
Further clarification was sought through Specialized Firearms Support Services as to what is considered acceptable in achieving said length.
The following is an excerpt from detailed correspondence from Specialized Firearms Support Services outlining what is deemed as acceptable practice for the classification of overall length.
These rifles included a muzzle attachment and permanently restricting the collapsible stock to ensure that the rifle maintained an overall length of 660mm.
We kindly ask that you retract your false statements and allegations.
Govern yourself accordingly.
The IRUNGUNS Team
Attachments
Last edited:
Thumbsmachine
New member
- Location
- Edmonton AB, El Sargento BCS Mexico
definitely. where do
i sign up.
i sign up.
I have the IRG version but I bought it used off the EE
It has the muzzle attachment on it but I thought he previous owner had installed it, was wondering why someone would put a brake on a 22! Lol
Now that I know it’s supposed to be on there I will make sure I won’t remove it as I had thought about doing so
Thanks IRG for the info
It has the muzzle attachment on it but I thought he previous owner had installed it, was wondering why someone would put a brake on a 22! Lol
Now that I know it’s supposed to be on there I will make sure I won’t remove it as I had thought about doing so
Thanks IRG for the info
monster hunter
CGN Regular
- Location
- nova scotia
thanks IRG, i love my legal NR cmr-30.
IRG,
I understand you may take this personally, it is not our intent. To be 100% honest I wasn't sure who it was that brought them in when I posted this. What I did know is what the RCMP SFSS (The Lab) told me when we started messing with the CMR to make it N/R. The reason being is that when we contacted the SFSS about adding our aluminum block stock limiter we spoke to two different senior lab technicians and were told that 'No, that is not allowed' and then they read off their interpretation of the law and why they were not going to let us do it. They then told us someone else had tried that, but they would not say who out of privacy concerns. They also said that the guns that were in Canada as N/R were now being assessed officially by The Lab and a determination is forthcoming but it didn't look promising because of the rules they quoted us. To date, (as of yesterday anyways), there is no FRT listing for a N/R CMR-30. While we understand an FRT number is not needed, nor is it law, it does pose a problem for anyone shooting a CMR-30 off of a range and happens to have the police run the gun through the system as it will show as Restricted. Our goal with all of this is to remedy that officially and get that N/R FRT for everyone.
Our two companies have enjoyed a good business relationship to date and I have personally purchased product through and been very happy with the service so please don't take it as an assault on your company. If you take it that way then I'm sorry, it was not meant to be so and this is an apology to that end.
Hope this eases your concerns,
Leigh
