why handguns with smaller barrels are now sort of banned?
- Thread starter rosh7674
- Start date
- Location
- Niagara Region, Ontario. For now
It's because these types of guns were considered by the anti's to be concealable, and intended to carry, not for sporting purposes.
Of course all that was just an excuse to take peoples guns away.....
Of course all that was just an excuse to take peoples guns away.....
Was handling a Colt Trooper the other day, it was a prohib because of the 4" barrel. This revolver was longer than my 1911 STI Trojan and definitely did not feel very concealable to me. Think they didn't understand the design differences between a revolver and a semi-auto when they decided the min barrel length would be the criteria for prohib.
Paladin308
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- The Man Cave
the whole idea of prohibition based on barrel lengths should just GDIAF, shorty barrels don't make a gun any deadlier, it's already illegal to conceal a weapon (we need CCW!) the whole idea of banning something because some people misuse it is flawed, those who would use it for illegal ends will simply acquire their "prohibited" items by illegal means.
My 4" heavy-barrel S&W model 10 is huge compared to my Colt 1911A1's - yet it's prohibited, and they're not. None of it makes any sense. My little Llama .22 is prohibited, as it's apparently waaaay more deadly than my .45's even though, realistically, it's no more concealable.
Sometimes I wonder if there was some dickhead in there who knew just enough about guns to make the restriction super-irritating. With the limit placed where it is now, they just BARELY cut off a huge swath of revolvers. It really seems like deliberate trolling.
At least Ruger decided to make their 4" barrels standard 4.2", but a simpler solution would of course be common-sense laws.
The law was designed to specifically remove approximately 500,000 registered restricted firearms from the legal shooting population within one or two generations by making them prohibited/grandfathered. And without having to pay compensation. Simple. The issue of short barreled handguns & the .25 cal . .32 cal handguns being anything else is just a smoke show.
---------
NAA.
---------
NAA.
NAA has nailed it.
It had nothing to do with logic, reason, common sense or statistics that indicated .25s, .32s and guns with less than 4 inch barrels were more deadly or frequently used in the commission of crime.
I have a leather Davis Hi-Ride holster I recently wore on a re-audit of the Black badge course, carrying a 1911. This makes it entirely concealable, even on a short ass like me.
In a properly designed holster, you can carry ANY gun concealed.
People are making a mockery out of the law in any case by having extended barrels fitted to otherwise prohibited guns. I presume that they have to surrender the original barrel or have it welded shut.
The Ruger SR9s (and other designs) have a 4.14 inch barrel, making it a restricted firearm. That alone shows how nonsensical the ruling is. In the case of a revolver, it makes even less sense.
When all this was going down, we rolled, like good Canadian sheeple. It has been an uphill battle since Ron Basford was Minister of Justice for P.E.T. and will not be over any time soon. The debate is NOT over!
It had nothing to do with logic, reason, common sense or statistics that indicated .25s, .32s and guns with less than 4 inch barrels were more deadly or frequently used in the commission of crime.
I have a leather Davis Hi-Ride holster I recently wore on a re-audit of the Black badge course, carrying a 1911. This makes it entirely concealable, even on a short ass like me.
In a properly designed holster, you can carry ANY gun concealed.
People are making a mockery out of the law in any case by having extended barrels fitted to otherwise prohibited guns. I presume that they have to surrender the original barrel or have it welded shut.
The Ruger SR9s (and other designs) have a 4.14 inch barrel, making it a restricted firearm. That alone shows how nonsensical the ruling is. In the case of a revolver, it makes even less sense.
When all this was going down, we rolled, like good Canadian sheeple. It has been an uphill battle since Ron Basford was Minister of Justice for P.E.T. and will not be over any time soon. The debate is NOT over!
hmmmmm, I'm a little long in the tooth, but you wouldn't want to adopt me would you? 
I hope they will try to sell them in the EE first !
I would buy one!
.
The law was designed to specifically remove approximately 500,000 registered restricted firearms from the legal shooting population within one or two generations by making them prohibited/grandfathered. And without having to pay compensation. Simple. The issue of short barreled handguns & the .25 cal . .32 cal handguns being anything else is just a smoke show.
---------
NAA.
Bingo. And 101mm was used as the cutoff precisely because 100mm is 4" and the standard barrel length for almost all police duty revolvers since WW2 has been 4", so they were also removing the huge pool of surplus police duty weapons from possible civilian ownership.
If you think some of the revolvers are ridiculous, how about all the WW1 and WW2 trophy German Lugers? The barrel is permanently attached at the end of that enormous toggle action, making it one of the longest handguns around, but the barrel is 4" long, so the only Lugers that aren't prohibited weapons are the few artillery variants with the 7" barrels.
Just like the minimum barrel length for non-restricted semi-auto rifles in Canada is a copycat of similar US legislation. They picked 18.5" as the minimum length below which rifles should be restricted because they're "too readily concealed" for the sole reason that it was 1/2" longer than the barrel length on the millions of standard-issue GI M1 carbines that were being dumped onto the civilian market at bargain prices around then after the US military ceased to consider them as even "reserve standard".
And then there's the .25 and .32 prohibitions. The rationale was that the most common "cheap" and concealable pocket pistols around were made in .25ACP and .32ACP. So instead of prohibiting handguns "chambered for .25ACP or .32ACP", they prohibitied handguns in .25 and .32 calibre - which also got a lot of fine revolvers, like the older Colt SAAs with the 7.5" barrels chambered in .32-20 and .25-20.
Because something like a .380 pocket pistol is way more dangerous than any of these full size guns: 1911 .45 ACP, S&W .500, Glock in 9mm, .40, .45, 10mm, etc. None of which can be concealed of course.
Always makes me laugh to see a tiny little gun in a small caliber is prohibited and then picturing a rifle in .50 BMG as non restricted.
Always makes me laugh to see a tiny little gun in a small caliber is prohibited and then picturing a rifle in .50 BMG as non restricted.
I agree with screwtape's entire rant except this part, minor inaccuracy:
Lugers have barrels that can be removed by unscrewing them from that toggle action. Joe Dlask and others make nice 108mm replacement barrels for a couple of hundred dollars, but the pistol is no longer "all original". I suspect it's more accurate. Screwtape, you may be thinking of the Mauser C96 (such as the Red 9) which has a permanently attached barrel, but can still be (carefully) gunsmithed into 106mm+ barrel length.
You're all right, 12(6) is totally stupid, and evil.
Lugers have barrels that can be removed by unscrewing them from that toggle action. Joe Dlask and others make nice 108mm replacement barrels for a couple of hundred dollars, but the pistol is no longer "all original". I suspect it's more accurate. Screwtape, you may be thinking of the Mauser C96 (such as the Red 9) which has a permanently attached barrel, but can still be (carefully) gunsmithed into 106mm+ barrel length.
You're all right, 12(6) is totally stupid, and evil.
No, I was thinking more of the fact that, if you have a WW1 trophy 'capture' Luger, complete with original belt, holster and letter from the CEF soldier who 'collected' it, the only way to allow it to continue to be bought, sold or traded in Canada as the irreplaceably valuable collector piece it is is if you first completely destroy its "untouched original straight-from-the-battlefied" value...
Other self-loaders like the Colt .45 or the later Browning HP have a 'drop-in' barrel that is completely covered by the outer slide. If you have to, you can swap barrels without obviously affecting the outer appearance of the gun. The barrel on the Luger is like the barrel on a revolver - fully exposed and a solidly attached part of the whole pistol. Any change to it can be spotted by a collector from about 10m away - unless you employ the services of a really really good 'restoration' expert (aka 'forger') to exactly match both the finish type and colour and the patina of wear on the original barrel.
Same thing, for that matter, with the early 'bird's beak handled' Webleys. I had a pair once that were given by the town council of Peterborough ON to a guy before he went away to serve as an officer in the Boer War. He later also carried them as a colonel in WW1, until he died of pneumonia around 1917. Beautiful big revolvers, about the size of construction bricks and weighing almost as much - with 3 1/2" barrels. Came complete with the original presentation letter from the city, his photograph, book about the Boer War with his photo in it, verifying affidavit from his son, complete line of old registration papers back to the first pistol registration legislation of 1934, etc.
I bought the pair in the 1980s long before the 12(6) nonsense, when they were simply restricted (as they had been for a few decades). Cost me a couple thousand and cheap at the time. I sold them again (fortunately for my investment) just a couple years before the "prohibited" nonsense - at a nice profit. A few years after that, the new owner probably tore his hair out as he watched his investment go down the drain.
Oh sure, he could have re-barrelled them back to restricted status again - could probably even find a couple old Webley Mk VI 6" barrels and unscrew the original ones and screw these longer still-WW1 era ones on in their place. But they would no longer be the same guns that were carried through two different wars by that Canadian officer. (One had holster wear on the outer finish, a slight chip on one grip and the bore showed signs of use; the other was practically factory-fresh. The officer had clearly carried the one in his holster on service, and left the other in his gear as a "spare" that he never had to use.)
However, the only way he was probably ever able actually to recoup his investment in the pair would be if he sold them down into the US through some auction house like Butterworths - as has happened to a lot of historic firearms from Canada since C-68.
Just like, when C-68 passed, my brother and I between us had well over 300 WW1, interwar and WW2 issued European pistols that fell into the new 12(6) category. If you collected early 20th century military self-loading pistols, as we both did, almost everything except the Colt .45s, Browning High Powers and P-38s was suddenly prohibited. Pistols that sold for $500-$1000 apiece at collector gun auctions before the legislation passed were suddenly worth $50 to $100.
Fortunately for our retirement savings, England had not yet been infected by the anti-pistol stupidity, and collectors in France and Germany could also buy and import old pistols easily. So we were able to crate up our 300+ German WW1- and WW2-issued Lugers, Mauser 1914s, Walther PPs and PPKs, Browning 1910s, Mauser HScs, and other European military handguns and ship them over to England for sale by an arms auction house there to eager collectors in the UK and across Europe. In the end, we were able to unload our investment-grade firearms collection at a nice profit after all, absolutely no thanks to Alan Rock and his f*ing cronies. Then, a month after the last of our "cheap, concealable handguns" had sold at that auction, the Dunblane shooting happened in the UK, and all at once they banned all handguns there...
Sorry. I guess even after 18 years, I still have not fully managed to "come to terms with my loss", "forgive the federal Liberal government for the emotional harm it inflicted upon me by intentionally destroying a part of my culture" and thus "achieve closure" and "move forward with my life". I'll just go sit quietly in the corner now...
Last edited:
Chuckbuster
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The law was designed to specifically remove approximately 500,000 registered restricted firearms from the legal shooting population within one or two generations by making them prohibited/grandfathered. And without having to pay compensation. Simple. The issue of short barreled handguns & the .25 cal . .32 cal handguns being anything else is just a smoke show.
---------
NAA.
This is true. It was a deliberate move by Chrétien and Rock (spit). They deliberately set the cut off at a hair over 4 inches to catch as many guns as possible in their net. They used arguments and catch phrases like "Saturday night specials" and "cheaply made" in their press releases, public announcements and information campaigns ( because we all know that Smith and Wesson revolvers are dirt cheap). They applied the same arguments to .25 and .32 calibre handguns to eliminate these as well.
It was dirty pool played against us by dirty Liberals.
Exactly. I believe my SR9 is even shorter overall than a Parabellum 08 (aka Luger) with its "evil" 100mm barrel. And a heck of a lot easier and more comfortable to conceal or slip into a pocket if you wanted to do something seriously anti-social. I think NAA hit the nail on the head. The "reasons" for most of the restrictions were just a smokescreen for Allan Rock's Grand Plan to ensure that law-abiding citizens could only kill each other with knives and crowbars.
StuartWhich begs the question .... How do we convince our beneficent dictators that the need for retaining our remaining 12(6) pistols is absolute?
To us, the question is a 'no brainer' which means that anyone who fails to grasp it is disingenuous at best, a liar at worst. Oh, I think I've just described the political/bureaucratic animal.
To us, the question is a 'no brainer' which means that anyone who fails to grasp it is disingenuous at best, a liar at worst. Oh, I think I've just described the political/bureaucratic animal.
