We should take up a pool and see how long it is before an Order in Council revises its status.
New .338 Lapua rifle
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL, what is it costing you to reload 338LM? And, for what projectile?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I believe it works out to $1.75 or so a round. Projectile is the Hornady 225gr SST.
Originally Posted By: Garak
I like it, Overkill! With respect to comments about .50 BMG, yes, our rounds are ridiculously expensive up here for whatever reason. Additionally, almost every .50 BMG firearm I can think of is on the restricted list, which means it must only be used at a bona fide range. Those people with gravel pits or farms or ranches of their own are out of luck, unless they can convince a federal inspector to grant them a range designation.
I am not aware of any restricted .50BMG rifles, prohibited yes. For them to be restricted, they would have to be semi-auto and have a barrel less than 18.5 inches in lenght. No bolt action firearm is restricted that I know of.
I like it, Overkill! With respect to comments about .50 BMG, yes, our rounds are ridiculously expensive up here for whatever reason. Additionally, almost every .50 BMG firearm I can think of is on the restricted list, which means it must only be used at a bona fide range. Those people with gravel pits or farms or ranches of their own are out of luck, unless they can convince a federal inspector to grant them a range designation.
I am not aware of any restricted .50BMG rifles, prohibited yes. For them to be restricted, they would have to be semi-auto and have a barrel less than 18.5 inches in lenght. No bolt action firearm is restricted that I know of.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
Originally Posted By: Garak
I like it, Overkill! With respect to comments about .50 BMG, yes, our rounds are ridiculously expensive up here for whatever reason. Additionally, almost every .50 BMG firearm I can think of is on the restricted list, which means it must only be used at a bona fide range. Those people with gravel pits or farms or ranches of their own are out of luck, unless they can convince a federal inspector to grant them a range designation.
I am not aware of any restricted .50BMG rifles, prohibited yes. For them to be restricted, they would have to be semi-auto and have a barrel less than 18.5 inches in lenght. No bolt action firearm is restricted that I know of.
I believe you are pretty much correct. The M82A1 (semi-auto) and the McMillan TAC-50 (bolt) are both prohibited. On the other hand, PGW and CADEX both make NR mag-equipped .50's and Barrett's M99 is NR.
Originally Posted By: Garak
I like it, Overkill! With respect to comments about .50 BMG, yes, our rounds are ridiculously expensive up here for whatever reason. Additionally, almost every .50 BMG firearm I can think of is on the restricted list, which means it must only be used at a bona fide range. Those people with gravel pits or farms or ranches of their own are out of luck, unless they can convince a federal inspector to grant them a range designation.
I am not aware of any restricted .50BMG rifles, prohibited yes. For them to be restricted, they would have to be semi-auto and have a barrel less than 18.5 inches in lenght. No bolt action firearm is restricted that I know of.
I believe you are pretty much correct. The M82A1 (semi-auto) and the McMillan TAC-50 (bolt) are both prohibited. On the other hand, PGW and CADEX both make NR mag-equipped .50's and Barrett's M99 is NR.
There we go. I knew it was one of them. Either way would make a .50 BMG bolt action completely impractical to me (well, less practical than it really is in the first place).
I haven't actually looked at the lists in a lot of years.
I just remembered, though, we still must be cautious of Orders in Council. That has placed items on the restricted and prohibited lists, without a lot of sense being made in the first place. Don't forget the debacle many years back where the Mini-14 became restricted while the Mini-30 remained unrestricted, with the only difference being caliber. The first big update to the restricted list back in the early 1990s was lifted straight out of California legislation, word for word.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Garak
I just remembered, though, we still must be cautious of Orders in Council. That has placed items on the restricted and prohibited lists, without a lot of sense being made in the first place. Don't forget the debacle many years back where the Mini-14 became restricted while the Mini-30 remained unrestricted, with the only difference being caliber. The first big update to the restricted list back in the early 1990s was lifted straight out of California legislation, word for word.
Thankfully the Mini-14 is now NR. I didn't realize it became restricted, was that due to the Polytechnique incident?
The TAC-50 is prohibited for one reason only: Rob Furlong used it for the longest kill shot record which gave the rifle a particular "stigma" (I know, I wanted one!) and so they banned a gun that, if it didn't say TAC-50 on it, would be NR. Absolutely ridiculous.
Same reason the AR-15 with its itty bitty 5.56 rounds is Restricted but I can go buy a semi-auto Robinson Arms .308 that looks basically the same and hunt with it, LOL!
Some of our firearms restrictions are absolutely RIDICULOUS. Not based on common sense like the licensing/training side of it, but rather stigma and appearance.
I just remembered, though, we still must be cautious of Orders in Council. That has placed items on the restricted and prohibited lists, without a lot of sense being made in the first place. Don't forget the debacle many years back where the Mini-14 became restricted while the Mini-30 remained unrestricted, with the only difference being caliber. The first big update to the restricted list back in the early 1990s was lifted straight out of California legislation, word for word.
Thankfully the Mini-14 is now NR. I didn't realize it became restricted, was that due to the Polytechnique incident?
The TAC-50 is prohibited for one reason only: Rob Furlong used it for the longest kill shot record which gave the rifle a particular "stigma" (I know, I wanted one!) and so they banned a gun that, if it didn't say TAC-50 on it, would be NR. Absolutely ridiculous.
Same reason the AR-15 with its itty bitty 5.56 rounds is Restricted but I can go buy a semi-auto Robinson Arms .308 that looks basically the same and hunt with it, LOL!
Some of our firearms restrictions are absolutely RIDICULOUS. Not based on common sense like the licensing/training side of it, but rather stigma and appearance.
Yes, it was that Polytechnique business. In the interim, someone got some common sense and rectified the matter, without miking the Mini-30 restricted.
Back at the time, too, a bunch of .50 (Barrett stuff comes to mind) rifles were put on the lists, too. My view at the time was that if one really wanted one, one could wait for others to show up in the market and hope that no Order in Council were passed specifically to deal with them.
Back at the time, too, a bunch of .50 (Barrett stuff comes to mind) rifles were put on the lists, too. My view at the time was that if one really wanted one, one could wait for others to show up in the market and hope that no Order in Council were passed specifically to deal with them.
Originally Posted By: Garak
I just remembered, though, we still must be cautious of Orders in Council. That has placed items on the restricted and prohibited lists, without a lot of sense being made in the first place. Don't forget the debacle many years back where the Mini-14 became restricted while the Mini-30 remained unrestricted, with the only difference being caliber. The first big update to the restricted list back in the early 1990s was lifted straight out of California legislation, word for word.
When was the Mini-14 classed as restricted? It was never restricted as far as I know of. There was talk about prohibiting them but they decided not to since they have no idea who owns one and the chances of people turning them in a quite low.
I just remembered, though, we still must be cautious of Orders in Council. That has placed items on the restricted and prohibited lists, without a lot of sense being made in the first place. Don't forget the debacle many years back where the Mini-14 became restricted while the Mini-30 remained unrestricted, with the only difference being caliber. The first big update to the restricted list back in the early 1990s was lifted straight out of California legislation, word for word.
When was the Mini-14 classed as restricted? It was never restricted as far as I know of. There was talk about prohibiting them but they decided not to since they have no idea who owns one and the chances of people turning them in a quite low.
Last edited:
Nope, it was restricted for at least a period, and it was sometime after this Lepine thing. I saw the Order in Council list back in the day. Of course, this was before one could readily find the information online. I don't recall if it was part of the package that went through when the magazines restrictions came into play or if it was before that.
I know it's shocking, because once they throw something on the list, it almost never gets removed.
Maybe it was similar logic to what you mentioned that got it removed. Farmers have the things for varmint rifles, so there's no way people are going to be using them solely at the range. Perhaps it was very short-lived. I do seem to recall what you mention about the prohibition thing. I heard talk about it, and then nothing came about.
Between what happened in the Mulroney's last years and Chretien's first years, there was a giant Charlie Foxtrot, and that was true from the perspective of gun owners and enforcement personnel. As an aside, the only thing that was done right was the ability to get carry permits and transport permits by fax, rather than bothering the local constabulary.
I know it's shocking, because once they throw something on the list, it almost never gets removed.
Between what happened in the Mulroney's last years and Chretien's first years, there was a giant Charlie Foxtrot, and that was true from the perspective of gun owners and enforcement personnel. As an aside, the only thing that was done right was the ability to get carry permits and transport permits by fax, rather than bothering the local constabulary.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Nope, it was restricted for at least a period, and it was sometime after this Lepine thing. I saw the Order in Council list back in the day. Of course, this was before one could readily find the information online. I don't recall if it was part of the package that went through when the magazines restrictions came into play or if it was before that.
I know it's shocking, because once they throw something on the list, it almost never gets removed.
Maybe it was similar logic to what you mentioned that got it removed. Farmers have the things for varmint rifles, so there's no way people are going to be using them solely at the range. Perhaps it was very short-lived. I do seem to recall what you mention about the prohibition thing. I heard talk about it, and then nothing came about.
Between what happened in the Mulroney's last years and Chretien's first years, there was a giant Charlie Foxtrot, and that was true from the perspective of gun owners and enforcement personnel. As an aside, the only thing that was done right was the ability to get carry permits and transport permits by fax, rather than bothering the local constabulary.
I will have to look into that and see exactly when that happened. Kim Campbell brought in the mag restrictions with C-17 but I know the Mini-14 was not affected by that same bill.
Nope, it was restricted for at least a period, and it was sometime after this Lepine thing. I saw the Order in Council list back in the day. Of course, this was before one could readily find the information online. I don't recall if it was part of the package that went through when the magazines restrictions came into play or if it was before that.
I know it's shocking, because once they throw something on the list, it almost never gets removed.
Between what happened in the Mulroney's last years and Chretien's first years, there was a giant Charlie Foxtrot, and that was true from the perspective of gun owners and enforcement personnel. As an aside, the only thing that was done right was the ability to get carry permits and transport permits by fax, rather than bothering the local constabulary.
I will have to look into that and see exactly when that happened. Kim Campbell brought in the mag restrictions with C-17 but I know the Mini-14 was not affected by that same bill.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Quote:
The NDP are its latest victims. Ruger, an American-based firearms manufacturer, builds the Mini-14 rifles, in several different variants. The different variants are essentially identical in terms of their mechanical operation — the “guts” of the rifle, with the highly complex moving parts and delicate components — are common across every variant. Only the finishing touches differ, and those are easy to slap on in the final phase of manufacture.
The reason for the different finishing touches is unremarkable: It’s all marketing. The “Ranch” variant of the rifle is marketed to hunters and farmers, and has few bells and whistles. It has a wooden stock — nothing fancy — and a long barrel, good for accuracy at long ranges (like those found, for example, on a ranch). The “Tactical” variant of the rifle, though mechanically identical, is marketed towards sports shooters, and has a shorter barrel, a black plastic stock and the option to attach accessories like flashlights.
But small differences can have big effects. The Tactical variant of the rifle, due to its shorter barrel, is classified as restricted under Canadian law. The Ranch variant, with two inches more barrel, is non-restricted.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-commen...tional-gun-laws
Maybe that's the source of the confusion?
The NDP are its latest victims. Ruger, an American-based firearms manufacturer, builds the Mini-14 rifles, in several different variants. The different variants are essentially identical in terms of their mechanical operation — the “guts” of the rifle, with the highly complex moving parts and delicate components — are common across every variant. Only the finishing touches differ, and those are easy to slap on in the final phase of manufacture.
The reason for the different finishing touches is unremarkable: It’s all marketing. The “Ranch” variant of the rifle is marketed to hunters and farmers, and has few bells and whistles. It has a wooden stock — nothing fancy — and a long barrel, good for accuracy at long ranges (like those found, for example, on a ranch). The “Tactical” variant of the rifle, though mechanically identical, is marketed towards sports shooters, and has a shorter barrel, a black plastic stock and the option to attach accessories like flashlights.
But small differences can have big effects. The Tactical variant of the rifle, due to its shorter barrel, is classified as restricted under Canadian law. The Ranch variant, with two inches more barrel, is non-restricted.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-commen...tional-gun-laws
Maybe that's the source of the confusion?
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
I will have to look into that and see exactly when that happened. Kim Campbell brought in the mag restrictions with C-17 but I know the Mini-14 was not affected by that same bill.
No, it certainly wasn't in the bill itself, and that's why I'm unsure as to any timelines. Any such thing would have been Order in Council, because it wasn't something that would be "automatically" restricted, like a handgun.
Overkill's link does offer a very plausible explanation, though. The confusion very well could be because of variants. One does always have to watch Order in Council additions to the list, however. At one time, the enforcement interpretation on folding stock rifles was really spotty, too. I had an AR-180 back in the day with a folding stock, and it was unrestricted and I had several 30 round magazines. Of course, you can imagine how that went. The magazines became prohibited and the rifle was classified as restricted, which made it useless to me. Getting magazines modified isn't the end of the world, but if I can't do target shooting and plinking at the farm, I have no use for it. And, the same thing happened with all the 5.56 mm AR-15 variants at the time, and those aren't necessarily "too short." Yet, every last one of them was put on the restricted list at the time by Order in Council, along with my AR-180 and the AK-47 variants. And some items over the years have gone from unrestricted to restricted lists to prohibited lists over the years, solely on Order in Council.
For some reason, the Mini 14 issue seems to coincide with some of Chretiens changes, in my mind. I do recall him talking about the Lepine matter. But, as per Overkill's link, that could very well have had only to do with Mini-14 Tactical variant, and a pile of confusion snowballed from that.
In any event, it's illustrative of the bloody stupidity of the regulations here and why people get nervous here or in the States whenever someone proposes a gun law. They cannot implement something common sense (like safety courses) without accompanying it with as many stupid things as they possibly can at the same time.
If you do come across some documentation, let us know. I'm interested to take a look if you find something useful to this specific matter, but if I sit and read a bunch of restricted and prohibited lists hunting for the data myself, I'll just get madder and madder with each line I read.
I will have to look into that and see exactly when that happened. Kim Campbell brought in the mag restrictions with C-17 but I know the Mini-14 was not affected by that same bill.
No, it certainly wasn't in the bill itself, and that's why I'm unsure as to any timelines. Any such thing would have been Order in Council, because it wasn't something that would be "automatically" restricted, like a handgun.
Overkill's link does offer a very plausible explanation, though. The confusion very well could be because of variants. One does always have to watch Order in Council additions to the list, however. At one time, the enforcement interpretation on folding stock rifles was really spotty, too. I had an AR-180 back in the day with a folding stock, and it was unrestricted and I had several 30 round magazines. Of course, you can imagine how that went. The magazines became prohibited and the rifle was classified as restricted, which made it useless to me. Getting magazines modified isn't the end of the world, but if I can't do target shooting and plinking at the farm, I have no use for it. And, the same thing happened with all the 5.56 mm AR-15 variants at the time, and those aren't necessarily "too short." Yet, every last one of them was put on the restricted list at the time by Order in Council, along with my AR-180 and the AK-47 variants. And some items over the years have gone from unrestricted to restricted lists to prohibited lists over the years, solely on Order in Council.
For some reason, the Mini 14 issue seems to coincide with some of Chretiens changes, in my mind. I do recall him talking about the Lepine matter. But, as per Overkill's link, that could very well have had only to do with Mini-14 Tactical variant, and a pile of confusion snowballed from that.
In any event, it's illustrative of the bloody stupidity of the regulations here and why people get nervous here or in the States whenever someone proposes a gun law. They cannot implement something common sense (like safety courses) without accompanying it with as many stupid things as they possibly can at the same time.
If you do come across some documentation, let us know. I'm interested to take a look if you find something useful to this specific matter, but if I sit and read a bunch of restricted and prohibited lists hunting for the data myself, I'll just get madder and madder with each line I read.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Quote:
The NDP are its latest victims. Ruger, an American-based firearms manufacturer, builds the Mini-14 rifles, in several different variants. The different variants are essentially identical in terms of their mechanical operation — the “guts” of the rifle, with the highly complex moving parts and delicate components — are common across every variant. Only the finishing touches differ, and those are easy to slap on in the final phase of manufacture.
The reason for the different finishing touches is unremarkable: It’s all marketing. The “Ranch” variant of the rifle is marketed to hunters and farmers, and has few bells and whistles. It has a wooden stock — nothing fancy — and a long barrel, good for accuracy at long ranges (like those found, for example, on a ranch). The “Tactical” variant of the rifle, though mechanically identical, is marketed towards sports shooters, and has a shorter barrel, a black plastic stock and the option to attach accessories like flashlights.
But small differences can have big effects. The Tactical variant of the rifle, due to its shorter barrel, is classified as restricted under Canadian law. The Ranch variant, with two inches more barrel, is non-restricted.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-commen...tional-gun-laws
Maybe that's the source of the confusion?
Could be. The standard length barrel on the Mini-14 has always been 18.5 inches, making it non-restricted. That tactical model could definitely be what Garak is thinking about.
Quote:
The NDP are its latest victims. Ruger, an American-based firearms manufacturer, builds the Mini-14 rifles, in several different variants. The different variants are essentially identical in terms of their mechanical operation — the “guts” of the rifle, with the highly complex moving parts and delicate components — are common across every variant. Only the finishing touches differ, and those are easy to slap on in the final phase of manufacture.
The reason for the different finishing touches is unremarkable: It’s all marketing. The “Ranch” variant of the rifle is marketed to hunters and farmers, and has few bells and whistles. It has a wooden stock — nothing fancy — and a long barrel, good for accuracy at long ranges (like those found, for example, on a ranch). The “Tactical” variant of the rifle, though mechanically identical, is marketed towards sports shooters, and has a shorter barrel, a black plastic stock and the option to attach accessories like flashlights.
But small differences can have big effects. The Tactical variant of the rifle, due to its shorter barrel, is classified as restricted under Canadian law. The Ranch variant, with two inches more barrel, is non-restricted.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-commen...tional-gun-laws
Maybe that's the source of the confusion?
Could be. The standard length barrel on the Mini-14 has always been 18.5 inches, making it non-restricted. That tactical model could definitely be what Garak is thinking about.
Yep, very well could be. It's been way too many years since I looked at the list to be sure if I read Ruger Mini-14 or Ruger Mini-14 Tactical, or something else altogether again. But, my real point is that things have found their way onto the restricted list based solely upon Order in Council, without having any of the putative things that would normally make them restricted by default.
Standard Mini's & Ranches have never been anything other than NR.
John.
John.
If that's the case, I must have been remembering the Tactical model or something like that, as per Overkill's link.
I just looked at what appears to be the latest regulations, and the only Order in Council long guns there in any great numbers are the AR-15 and variants.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Rifle arrived today! Unfortunately the scope mount wasn't with it....
That should be here Thursday. Thing looks freakin' awesome!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked