What makes a black rifle an AR Variant?

M

mildcustom2

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
88   0   1
Location
Surrey, B.C.
Strictly for scientific purposes what in your opinion makes a Black rifle an AR Variant?

JR Carbine uses AR furniture and trigger group. Bushmaster ACR uses an M4 style barrel.


So what in your opinion would need to be done in order to make a black rifle that isn't an AR Variant? What changes would need to be made? What parts do you think could be used from the AR platform?

Please let's try to keep the smart @$$ comments and negativity to a minimum. Lets see some real info.

:cheers:
 
I believe it has more to do with the upper and lower receiver. If the lower receiver is designed in such a way that it will accept a standard AR upper its a variant.
 
I think they classified it simply on "if you put the two side by side, do they look alike to be confused as each other by JoeBlow down the block, from 3 feet away" (or whatever magical formula they used)


@MildCustom I don't think so, because that then would disqualify the H&K MR223/MR556 (not the A1 with interchangeable receivers/lowers)
 
TheGamer### said:
I think they classified it simply on "if you put the two side by side, do they look alike to be confused as each other by JoeBlow down the block, from 3 feet away" (or whatever magical formula they used)


@MildCustom I don't think so, because that then would disqualify the H&K MR223/MR556 (not the A1 with interchangeable receivers/lowers)
Click to expand...

Sorry I should've also said doesn't resemble an AR. So non interchangeable upper and lower that doesn't look like an AR.
 
TheGamer### said:
I think they classified it simply on "if you put the two side by side, do they look alike to be confused as each other by JoeBlow down the block, from 3 feet away" (or whatever magical formula they used)


@MildCustom I don't think so, because that then would disqualify the H&K MR223/MR556 (not the A1 with interchangeable receivers/lowers)
Click to expand...

Being able to accept an AR upper is just one "test" that can be used to determine if it is a variant. The real key is can you trace its lineage (design history) to a named or unnamed variant of the AR series of rifles. There doesn't even have to be any parts interchangeability, just this vague concept of it being a "variant", which is a vary broad and vague term.
 
Just the fact that we, knowledgeable gun owners, need to discuss this proves the stupidity and ambiguity of the legal term "variant".
 
I seriously don't even think those guys even know how to cycle an action. It could probably be mechanically the same as long as it didn't have the trademark outline.
We're really dealing with absolutely ignorant people here. I would say give it a side cocking handle, smooth out the action, and don't give it the front sight.
Ivor
 
sewktbk said:
Just the fact that we, knowledgeable gun owners, need to discuss this proves the stupidity and ambiguity of the legal term "variant".
Click to expand...

Isn't this the truth. Seems it all depends on the mood of the firearms lab at the time.

There is a point to my question here so the more feedback and discussion I get from members here the better.
 
sewktbk said:
Just the fact that we, knowledgeable gun owners, need to discuss this proves the stupidity and ambiguity of the legal term "variant".
Click to expand...

Complete agreement. I have made this point before in regard to other areas as well, like barrel and overall length.
If law abiding, intelligent, well read, dedicated enthusiasts cannot completely understand the meaning of the law, then perhaps the law is flawed.

For MC2's original question, I think it comes down to two issues.
--does an upper mate to a lower? If so, it doesnt matter what it is called, its a variant. This is clear cut, and doesnt cause any argument.
--How is it marketed? This is the screwed up part. This is where the .22LR blowback semi lookalikes get labeled a "Variant"
Someday, I'm going to make an ARML-15 Muzzle loader that does not actually mate up to a real upper or lower but looks similar.
I'm going to describe it as being "based on" the AR-15.
Then I'm ask for an FRT # and see what happens. With any luck at all, it will be deemed a variant, then I'm going to have a word with my CPC MP.
 
tootall said:
Complete agreement. I have made this point before in regard to other areas as well, like barrel and overall length.
If law abiding, intelligent, well read, dedicated enthusiasts cannot completely understand the meaning of the law, then perhaps the law is flawed.

For MC2's original question, I think it comes down to two issues.
--does an upper mate to a lower? If so, it doesnt matter what it is called, its a variant. This is clear cut, and doesnt cause any argument.
--How is it marketed? This is the screwed up part. This is where the .22LR blowback semi lookalikes get labeled a "Variant"
Someday, I'm going to make an ARML-15 Muzzle loader that does not actually mate up to a real upper or lower but looks similar.
I'm going to describe it as being "based on" the AR-15.
Then I'm ask for an FRT # and see what happens. With any luck at all, it will be deemed a variant, then I'm going to have a word with my CPC MP.
Click to expand...
you do know that dlask arms made a pump action "AR" looking rifle that used AR mags, It has an upper and lower that only work with eachother yet it was still classed as restricted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom