WHY isn't an SKS "Restricted"
- Thread starter Griffoneur
- Start date
- Status
actually ... it was from 1949 to 1956 , 7 years but whos counting .
also its not copying when the russian transferred technology and machinery to china to have the SKS built there .
You sure about that? AFAIK, it was adopted wholesale in 1949, but was first produced, introduced, and battle tested on the Eastern Front in 1945... hence the SKS-45 designation. But I wasn't there, so I have no firsthand knowledge and it doesn't really matter - my point was that it's a Soviet design later adopted by the Chinese. 11 years or 7 years is irrelevant, and copied/adopted/whatever is semantics.
Only partially right. The reg actaully restrict variants of M16, and it restricts specific models of Colt by name as it considers them to be variants of M16.
Anyone who actually read the reg and knows a bit about AR15 would recognize that M16 is just a version of AR15 purchased and type classified by the US ARmy.
M16 is a variant of AR15, but AR 15 is not a variant of M16. But since no one frigging read in the last 15 years and just bend over based on what they "heard" at illiterate gunshop counters, instead of actualy doing any first hand reading, we got into this retarded situation.l
SGTMAJSTEVE
Regular
You are so right. I was in the military then, the AR. was a spin off of the stoner 68 & the Armilite 180. The M in M16 was a military designator.
Also the CAR-15 that came out later was actually the military model of the
SP1 for the civilian model. We had a variant called the XM 177 E2. It had a 10" heavy barrel selective fire rifle. I still own one. (Not original) but the Kimie/wendy connection had no technical info to go on, nor did they want it.
The stupid #####es even banned the .22 cal.squires Bingham M16 as a variant!
tec. help was offered by a master gunsmith & teacher ,but it was turned down. So technically the m-16 should be only restricted as an AR-15 variant!
!
No, technically only the M16 should be restricted and the AR15 should be non restricted if the text of the reg. is striaghtly followed and interpreted But find me a semi auto M16- all the M16 purchased by the US military tare either FA or have 3-rd burst, there is no such animal as semi auto M16. So all M16 are prohib anyways.
People that proclaim AR15 are restricted obviously have not actually READ the reg. itself and are just regurgitating what people said. Of course, when everyone regurgitated the same eventually it became the truth if it was unchallenged. Just like the misconception about "bullpup rifles". Sadly, this same line had been repeated for 15 years, it was almost casted in stone and accepted as the truth.
And think of the political cost and issues of fixing this error....adn the embarrassment.
People that proclaim AR15 are restricted obviously have not actually READ the reg. itself and are just regurgitating what people said. Of course, when everyone regurgitated the same eventually it became the truth if it was unchallenged. Just like the misconception about "bullpup rifles". Sadly, this same line had been repeated for 15 years, it was almost casted in stone and accepted as the truth.
And think of the political cost and issues of fixing this error....adn the embarrassment.
Last edited:
SGTMAJSTEVE
Regular
Sorry your wrong about that. Eugine stoner developed the stoner 68 first. armilite made the ar18/180 before the ar15/ar10.
First AR10 in 1955.
First Armalite AR15 to US Army in 1958.
The AR18 was developed by Armalite to compete with the AR15 after Armalite sold the AR15 rights to Colt.
Your facts are incorrect.
Greentips, the reason the AR-15 is restricted is because the rifle is specifically named as such by OIC. Regardless of its commonality with the M-16, or converted autos or any such stuff, the reason it is restricted is because it is restricted by name by OIC.
Most people don't realize that after the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, the Kim Campbell government went through a copy of Guns Digest and anything they thought looked scary in appearance was listed and then that list was added to Orders In Council as being restricted or prohibited. It is for this reason that the AR-15 is restricted (because it was in the 1990 edition of Guns Digest), and the Swiss Arms Black Special and Robinson XCR are not (because they didn't exist in 1990). It is also why the H&K G11, which in reality does not exist in private hands anywhere, is prohibited (because there was a picture in the 1990 Guns Digest).
Most people don't realize that after the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, the Kim Campbell government went through a copy of Guns Digest and anything they thought looked scary in appearance was listed and then that list was added to Orders In Council as being restricted or prohibited. It is for this reason that the AR-15 is restricted (because it was in the 1990 edition of Guns Digest), and the Swiss Arms Black Special and Robinson XCR are not (because they didn't exist in 1990). It is also why the H&K G11, which in reality does not exist in private hands anywhere, is prohibited (because there was a picture in the 1990 Guns Digest).
Interesting, but a Mini-14 was used if my memory serves me well. Why Kim Campbell et al rather spared it?
Sorry, I must tell you you are DEAD wrong.
Read the OIC again and read it in a logical sequence, not in reverse order. For example, if the reg. say Apples are red, and all apples are bad - it is incorrect to say because my bowling ball is red, therefore it is bad. There is name for this kind of "error" in the study of logical reasoning. This is the same error you are making in reading the OIC and coming to your incorrect conclusion.
Several models of Colt rilfes , for example AR15A2, SP1.....etc are specific named as a variants of M16. Note that "AR15" is mentioned in the reg. as a specific model name of a specific colt rifle, as included specifically as a variant of M16 It is NOT named as the "parent" of what all the variants are derived from - it is M16. If the reg said anything commonly known as "AR15", then your interpretation is correct, but this is NOT what the reg say. Read it yourself beforer jumping to the conclusion. This mess is here becasue people didn't read, and they assumed the first guy who read it know what he was reading.
This interpretation is consistent in prinicple with decisions made by the RCMP in recent cases.
For example, a LMT defender should be non-restricted - because it is not a variant of M16. It is at best a variant of the original AR15 rifle made by the original Armalite. The "Colt AR15A2" is not a variant of the M16 but it is named, so fine. However, the LMT defender is not a variant of the "colt AR15A2" either as they are both the variant of the original AR15. This principle had been demonstrated by Swiss arms rifles and B&T TP9.
I TRIPLE dare you to challenge me my interpretation based on the actual text of the OIC.
Read the OIC again and read it in a logical sequence, not in reverse order. For example, if the reg. say Apples are red, and all apples are bad - it is incorrect to say because my bowling ball is red, therefore it is bad. There is name for this kind of "error" in the study of logical reasoning. This is the same error you are making in reading the OIC and coming to your incorrect conclusion.
Several models of Colt rilfes , for example AR15A2, SP1.....etc are specific named as a variants of M16. Note that "AR15" is mentioned in the reg. as a specific model name of a specific colt rifle, as included specifically as a variant of M16 It is NOT named as the "parent" of what all the variants are derived from - it is M16. If the reg said anything commonly known as "AR15", then your interpretation is correct, but this is NOT what the reg say. Read it yourself beforer jumping to the conclusion. This mess is here becasue people didn't read, and they assumed the first guy who read it know what he was reading.
This interpretation is consistent in prinicple with decisions made by the RCMP in recent cases.
For example, a LMT defender should be non-restricted - because it is not a variant of M16. It is at best a variant of the original AR15 rifle made by the original Armalite. The "Colt AR15A2" is not a variant of the M16 but it is named, so fine. However, the LMT defender is not a variant of the "colt AR15A2" either as they are both the variant of the original AR15. This principle had been demonstrated by Swiss arms rifles and B&T TP9.
I TRIPLE dare you to challenge me my interpretation based on the actual text of the OIC.
Last edited:
The SKS and the M305 are not restricted because they are wood stocked and therefore not evil. Mini14 also wood.
I think that 1990 issue of gun digest story is fascinating. If my memory is not failing me wasn't Kim Campbell a tory? You can't rely on the PC's to do anything positive about gun control because it simply is not in their interest. They need every urban gunfrightened but fiscally conservative vote they can get for that all important majority. They certainly are not going to risk that for
mostly rural or western voters who would rather pass kidney stones the size of golf balls than vote liberal anyway.
I think that 1990 issue of gun digest story is fascinating. If my memory is not failing me wasn't Kim Campbell a tory? You can't rely on the PC's to do anything positive about gun control because it simply is not in their interest. They need every urban gunfrightened but fiscally conservative vote they can get for that all important majority. They certainly are not going to risk that for
mostly rural or western voters who would rather pass kidney stones the size of golf balls than vote liberal anyway.
I'm a gun-loving urbanite from Toronto who swung from NDP to PC based purely on Miller's proposed ban. Yes, i'm a poli-sl*t. Yes, I told Mr. Harper about this debauchery. Yes, there are probably other wh*res such as myself.
Because there were about 8000 of them out there in ridings the PC's wanted to keep. Honestly, it was that craven.
Regarding Greentips:
Even if your argument is logical, you need to remember our gun laws are NOT logical at all. It doesn't actually matter what the law says, what matters is what the people who make the official call thinks the law says.
Wittness the case of the GSG .22 cal rifle. Its a ground up design, completely unique system, but cosmetically it looks like an MP-5, so they banned it as a 'variant of the prohibited MP-5', even though it has nothing in common except looks. The actual law doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is what some career bureaucrat thinks.
- Status
