USC in black, now on the HK site

That rifle looks rather like a shotgun, but eurotrash'd (talking about the semi auto hunting rifle).
Why do they insist on the silly web stocks on the USC? Not that it matters...
 
Last edited:
Yah, smgcon has it right. It's all about American law. The USC is almost a tribute to anti-"Assault Weapon" laws in that country. As they are made in Germany, a semi-auto UMP-type gun simply would not be allowed into the U.S. for regular civilian end-users unless there were major changes. Just like how the various semi-auto MP5s and similar firearms have not been allowed to be imported into the U.S. since the 1980s. Have a look at this to see how history is repeating itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_HK_94

Hence, with the USC, the non-pistol grip, the non-blackness, the 16 inch barrel (which comes from a different, older, U.S. legal requirement), and the 10 round mags. At least HK has backed off on the colour now.

Of course in the U.S., the USC mod'ing "industry" has gotten pretty big, although they have had some adverse rulings from ATF on some issues:

http://www.top-notchparts.com/

The USC is pretty funky, it's true, and we are unlikely to ever be able to get around the 5 round mag issue with this firearm in this country, but still... my mind keeps coming back to the idea of getting one. If you want an HK long arm in this country, the SL8, USC and SLB2000 are it. The single-digit numbers of single shot G36's and UMP's that came into this country are clearly a screw-up that will never be repeated. Any talk of getting "civilian" version of the MP7 or other such firearms is pure fantasy in my view. Even the civilian oriented FS2000 and PS90 from FN seem to now be all but a dead issue.

For myself, I'm seriously considering doing a USC project gun. The barrel cannot be cut to 8 inches like an UMP, contrary to what some people have said on this board.

(see "Prohibited firearm" under section 84 of the Criminal Code)

The best you can do is put a shroud on it that makes it look like a can. They sell them in the U.S. You can also get an aftermarket Lower/Stock that gives you the UMP's pistol grip and folding stock, and you can get the rails and foregrip.

It's a lot of work and expense though. I may just get a RRA 9mm AR-15. At least I can get 10 round mags for that.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't look bad. The stock can always be...altered for a more appealing look.
IMG_8808.jpg

IMG_8809.jpg

IMG_8812.jpg


But I am waiting for this one...
IMG_8767.jpg

IMG_8759.jpg
 
ghostie said:
For myself, I'm seriously considering doing a USC project gun. The barrel cannot be cut to 8 inches like an UMP, contrary to what some people have said on this board.
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge it is not illegal to cut down a restricted barrel. A non-restricted yes, but not a barrel that is already below 18.5".
 
smgcon said:
That was for the US market when the Assault Ban had the pistol grip as an evil feature. The thumbhole stock didn't count.
Click to expand...

Imported B&G rifles like this Vepr II as marketed by Robinson Arms........

VEPR-K-5.45-LG.gif


Notice the buttstock and pistol grip is one piece to comply the Yankee's law without the nullified look........
 
Last edited:
assyrian: all the ones i have ever seen have been that horrid gray. would also be nice if they werent so pricey lol. might aswell save the extra $900 and buy a Tavor :D.

the USC looks interesting. not sure id get it. it looks kinda silly with that huge barrel sitting out the front.
 
ghostie said:
The barrel cannot be cut to 8 inches like an UMP, contrary to what some people have said on this board.

(see "Prohibited firearm" under section 84 of the Criminal Code)
Click to expand...

Since I had a Hk94 that had a cut barrel that was reregistred - I fail to see your point - since many other firearms have been registred since...
 
ghostie said:
For myself, I'm seriously considering doing a USC project gun. The barrel cannot be cut to 8 inches like an UMP, contrary to what some people have said on this board.

(see "Prohibited firearm" under section 84 of the Criminal Code)
Click to expand...

like everyone else has said. a restricted rifle barrel can be shortened to whatever length you want. a pistol can only be chopped to 106mm.
 
O.k., maybe I am missing something. If so, please enlighten me as to the source of this distinction between shortening "restricted" vs. "non-restricted" firearms.

The definition of "prohibited firearm" in s. 84 includes a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted,

(i) is less than 660 mm (25.98 inch) in length, or

(ii) is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm (17.99 inch) in length.

This definition of "prohibited firearm" is without reference to "restricted" or "non-restricted" firearms. The terms "rifle" or "shotgun" do not appear to be defined anywhere in sections 2 or 84 of the Code, or in the Firearms Act. The plain language reading of this statute is that it is the act of adapting or altering (by any method), so that it meets the above definition, which renders the rifle or shotgun a prohibited firearm.

"Restricted firearm" is also definited in s. 84, and includes a firearm that

(i) is not a prohibited firearm,

(ii) has a barrel less than 470 mm (18.5 inch) in length, and

(iii) is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner.

So, what I understand the combination of these two definitions to be saying is that, if a firearm has the above ("Restricted firearm") characteristics, it would be a classified as a restricted firearm. However, if adapting or altering takes place which reduces the length... the "Prohibited firearm" classification will apply.

So if there is some other part of the Code, the Firearms Act, any other act, or any of the Regulations under these acts which would render this analysis incorrect, please let me know. I'm interested to learn.

P.S. - I would like to see the actual section of the act or regs, not just some general comment based on experience, or a friend's experience.
 
ghostie -- other than pointing out the CFC does, and prior to that the RCMP did allow restricted firearms to be cut down, and reregistered with the shorter barrel I dont know what to say.

I had my AR10T cut down to 20" from 24" - CFC re-registered it when it was verified.

IF you all that concerned - go a business that has manufacturing on their licenese and have them manufacture you a new barrel.


I beleive that another part stems from the fact that when the law was written where where no restricted long guns - and no one had a problem with altering the barrels on restricted weapons.
Now with the fact that ALL firearms are registred - that segment of the law is a bit passe - since the CFC registers the changes anyway.
 
IMG_8767.jpg


Is this a production item that is coming to market?
I went to HK's site and only saw the P30 not the P30L.
 
O.k., thanks Kevin. That is interesting. If it can be done - at it certainly sounds like it can - this may be a factor which puts the black USC on my "to buy" list.

This area of the law is absolutely brutal in my view. So many vague sections and inconsistencies. As many of the CGN'ers know, I am a lawyer in Vancouver. I've done lots of criminal cases involving firearms, but never any which have involved registered firearms or licenced gun owners - so this end of the firearms laws (the stuff that has the possibility of affecting people who try to follow the law) is as vague to me as it is to anyone else reading those sections off of the black and white.

There is occasionally a really good case that sheds light on what some of these sections means - but they are pretty few and far between. There was an excellent case from our Court of Appeal out here a few years back clarifying what is prohibited and what isn't in terms of bear spray/dog spray/pepper spray.

"What is prohibited is an item designed to be used to incapacitate humans; that the substance in both types of canister may be used to incapacitate humans is immaterial."

The case is called R. v. Jordan. You can read it here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2004/2004bcca139/2004bcca139.html

I wish there was something crystal clear and definitive for all these prohibited weapons/prohibited firearms sections. It would make things a lot easier. Unfortunately it seems to take somebody going to trial (preferably in the Superior Court of the province) before there is any clarity.

There was another interesting case fairly recently about how a "flick knife" is not a "prohibited weapon". That one seems like a no brainer to me, but it's nice to see it in black and white from a court. The case can be found here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2006/2006bcpc389/2006bcpc389.html

The same case also has some usefull stuff about what is and isn't a "replica firearm".

I'd like to see a case on cutting the barrel on a restricted (non-handgun) firearm, but I've done a quick check and don't see anything. Lots of cases about sentencing people for using sawed-off shotguns to rob banks and stuff like that, but nothing on the technicalities of s. 84. Which seems to leave us with just the words of the Code, and that black box known as the CFC.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom