In Canada you can have a front sight or a silencer but not both at the same time, eh?
In Canada you can have a front sight or a silencer but not both at the same time, eh?
In Canada you can have a front sight or a silencer but not both at the same time, eh?
you just can't have silencers at all, generally
It's either "at all" or "generally" to insinuate that it could be both of these cases at the same time is idiotic.
anon check your autism. You know perfectly well what he meant, just simulate in your mind what a human would mean by that if they said those words.
not true
most people, ie in general, just can't have silencers at all. There's no "you can have a silencer but only on OAL above x" or whatever, they're just prohib.
But there's exceptions, law enforcement/military for example, or people with specific temporary permission they usually only give out for media shit or academics doing research, in some situations you can have a silencer so "you can't have silencers at all" is only generally true.
also the guys who just don't give a frick and have illegally owned silencers
>morons debating silencer law in canada
>OP is obviously talking about how that rifle is set up
I'm not debating any gun laws.
In my opinion any gun law is immoral.
I'm just asking about what some gun laws are.
You misunderstand me, I meant you were debating what the gun laws are, not whether they should exist.
I'm not debating what the gun laws are.
I'm asking for confirmation/clarification on what they are.
Maybe my questions seem irreverent to someone who's familiar with these laws, but I find it somewhat difficult to believe that such laws really exist because they seem especially ridiculous.
they don't get silencers anyway so what does it matter?
iirrc those are specifically for the arctic division and basically entirely designed around shooting at polar bears while wearing heavy gloves
Why would anyone want a silencer on an arctic scout rifle?
>silencer
I wish
Is this really a law?
What's the point of a silencer if you can't aim?
>no one in this thread gets it
OP is hinting at a popular criticism of this 2000$ rifle which is that the front sight is threaded on and has to be removed if you want to install muzzle devices, a design choice that would be unacceptable anywhere but Canada.
As if Americans are going to be putting cans on theirs either
Is this even available in the US? Last time I checked a few months after release it wasn't. I love how they did the rear sight, shame the front was moronic
I dunno, I'm European. Either way if it's threaded on, people are just going to replace the FS with a can and put a scope on it. Nobody goes for irons + can unless it's a larp rifle of some description
>Nobody goes for irons + can unless it's a larp rifle of some description
which is a bloody shame
but hunters are idiots in Europe
There are 3 million privately owned silencers in the USA.
It wasn't designed for any civilian market. It's a military rifle that they're selling in military configuration.
That's all? With all the the non-stop suppressor shilling on guntube I would have expected them to be a lot more popular than that
That's all the registered ones. There are probably a few millions of "oil filters" more out there.
Stoeger Canada, which is Beretta/Benelli/Sako/Tikka/etc distributor in Canada, sells the front and rear sight combo of the Tikka T3X Arctic for a grand total of $950 CAD. It's more expensive than authentic HK sights...
Every component and accessory on those things is outrageously expensive, it's the main thing deterring me from buying one. The magazines are like $300 a piece, it's robbery. I assume they figure they can get away with it because they've got a contract with the government anyway, so they can just sell a few on the civilian market and mark them up astronomically because "military collectors" or whatever will pay whatever they ask