unfortunately its after 1946, either i sell it to someone with a prohib status/collector status or inoperable to fire= heard of people keeping it having bolts or receivers modified

which is kinda dumb imo one day all those with prohib status will one day disappear

the firearms act needs to be rewritten and updated.

ars got restricted by class, aks aug spas uzis etc got prohibited yet 50bmg is legal

The Americans' second ammendment is an appropriation of logic that's relevant to an era that ended centuries ago. It's not relevant to contemporary pro-gun self-defense. Canadian laws aren't ideal, but they're a hell of a lot better than the Americans ammendment. To be honest. If you're in a position where you're preparing to shoot a person your worries should not be over a bit of ringing in your ears.
Posted via RS Mobile

you're right just wishful thinking,

but heres a picture taken from Canada's national firearm association

https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/...65404292_n.jpg

^ I think "civilian for personal protection" in that letter means against wild life.

you can always carry a shotgun which would be more effective against a bear
Posted via RS Mobile

Maybe I'm just tired but what's an ATC?

Authorization to Carry

authorization to carry
Posted via RS Mobile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_to_Carry
An Authorization to Carry [ATC] is a permit issued by the government of Canada under the Firearms Act. An ATC allows an individual to lawfully possess a restricted, or a specific class of, prohibited firearm that is loaded or possessed with readily accessible ammunition.

True incubus. I guess I was just speculating what specific reasons those ATCs were issued for.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/f...auvage-eng.htm

I think DragonChi is correct that "civilian for personal protection" includes bears, moose, etc. The figure seems too high to be strictly protection against people.

A note on protection against bears. The stats suggests the effectiveness is 98% for spray, 84% for handguns, 76% for long guns. I linked to the article below. I personally always have spray and occasionally have a shotgun too.

Shoot or Spray: The Best Way to Stop a Charging Bear | Nature | OutsideOnline.com

Well TECHNICALLY it's not really prohibited since the RCMP has ZERO jurisdiction when it comes to banning firearms... :whistle:

The Govn't is dealing with the specific issue right now. Silly to know that the reason this gun is in the hot seat is because two shops that sold them were telling customers that the other shop's guns had prohibited items on it... Stupid shops lying to make a sale ended up affecting 9300 CZ owners. At $700 a pop that's 6.5 million dollars of tax payer money.

First shot with buck then two slugs. Then hope and pray you didn't miss.... :concentrate:

The BC forest service actually lays that out for their surveyors etc

The proper load for bear protection are alternating bird shot with slugs, figuring you blind a bear then put a slug in it
Posted via RS Mobile

I read the article and highly question the statistics presented. First, it openly states that the study is being widely circulated by people with an agenda: those "looking to reduce unnecessary bear killings". The article even admits the study does not take into consideration the circumstances of each bear encounter, and "No bear encounter is identical, and the number of variables, from type of terrain to equipment malfunction, vary significantly from incident to incident". It only accounts for situations in which each was used (spray, handguns, long guns), and the result of if the bear was turned away or not.

This is important because I imagine as a lethal option, a person would only employ a firearm against a bear when the bear presents itself aggressively and is likely a dangerous threat. I would argue against this study that people would be more likely to employ non-lethal bear spray against a bear who is not posing a threat or acting aggresively. Therefore this study is useless if it doesn't account for each specific situation.

The biggest concern is the data includes encounters with 357 bears, a mix of black, brown, and polar bears, but does not catagorize the data based on bear type or bear size/weight. I would like to know which method was most effective against the largest and most dangerous bears, data the study does not give us.

I cannot access the study directly without purchasing it, but the study abstract seems to indicate many of the bear encounters with firearms carriers involved the person also being in proximity to hunted/fished game. This could greatly influence a bear's behaviour compared to a person not near any open food.

Spray requires less accuracy and skill than a gun though.

for you guys that shoot 223... where and what type of round do you buy (grain, FMJ, hollow etc)? and prices?

I think it would be very good due to low recoil and easy to get multiple shots off easily. But I feel 22lr firearms are less reliable. So not sure if you would want to use it if your life depended on it.

I shoot norinco surplus fmj it's great and paper can't tell the difference
Posted via RS Mobile

A bit late to the party but:


but if you store your gun legally it's probably easier to grab a bat/blunt object and deal with the intruder ... that and you'd end up in prison. It sucks, but in Canada there's no castle laws

for the longest time the israeli mossad carried .22lr pistols, specifically the beretta 70/71's

with the right shot placement .22lr is just as lethal as any other calibre for a kill shot imo (something like cci mini mags would be a good choice).

for home defence though i'd be grabbing a pistol grip shotgun loaded with low recoil 00 buckshot. in a pistol i'd be looking for something in .40s&w or .357. m&p, glock, sig, etc.

i have a friend who worked in the field quite a bit for transport canada and his shotgun was loaded 00, slug, 00, slug, 00.

You mean it's GOOD that there are no castle laws in Canada. Otherwise we would be USA North.

I also shoot Norc surplus 55gr fmj for most things. Out of bolt gun and AR, but cant find any 69gr rounds locally for more long range targets.

On another note, just finished this last night.

http://i.imgur.com/tSSitgk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Tje270A.jpg

nice build what is it?

how do you like the eotech? buis not cowitness?
Posted via RS Mobile

Its funny, everyone, including me and my friends, always put some form of effectiveness of end of the world / zombies / home invasion into our decision making regarding firearms, camping gear, etc, as if it holds a legitimate value among categories like cost/reliability/performance/looks.

But talking about home defense is seriously ridiculous, imo. Everyone thinks they are a billy bad ass swat member but in the 0.00001% likelyhood you going to be home and targetted for a home invasion, you're more likely to piss your pants and cry in panic than be capable of tactically countering the home invasion.

Plus, good luck getting your keys which are probably in a room that your firearms aren't, unlocking your firearms, then getting your ammo, which isn't stored with the firearm, loading your firearm, and then confronting the home invaders (usually not 1), in less time than it takes them to run up the stairs and fuck your shit up.

This isn't america where you can have your handgun under your pillow ready to roll.

And IF you did use that weapon, you're spending your life in prison and ruining your family anyway NO MATTER WHAT so why even bother.

If you put "home defense" on your PAL application, they will deny you.

Anyone who buys a gun specifically for "home defense" is an idiot, I'm sorry.

I've been hunting and around guns all my life and to me it's scary when people who weren't raised with them start getting their PAL etc. I've found almost to a person people who get their licenses later in life have a level of respect that makes me not want to be anywhere near them with firearms.
Posted via RS Mobile