.50 Beowulf Magazine Classification Update

[Drache]

The law does say that if a magazine is 'modified' from the original it doesn't count - and mags that are specifically designed for the 50 are designed for the 50.

Their argument is, the beowulf mags are just modified 223/556 magazines. Thus the whole law of "what they are originally designed for" comes into play (according to them).

[Foxer]

Their argument is, the beowulf mags are just modified 223/556 magazines. Thus the whole law of "what they are originally designed for" comes into play (according to them).

Well - more or less, although they're really arguing that they're designed for both - 'dual' designed so to speak. That it's not really a modification, it's actually a design intended to be used for both in the same gun platform. While they use the word 'modified', what they seem to really be saying is that the new design was specifically 'redone' to deliberately suit either chambering and thus it was 'designed' for both.

If you actually modify a magazine to fit a different gun, then the 'original' design doesn't necessarily apply any more, but they're saying it's designed for both.

Now - i don't know if they're going to be able to sell that. It gets a little iffy. I think we would argue that ANY mag that works for 50 beowolf would have to work for 223 and it's not designed that way, it's just the way it is. And there is no way to make a 50 without it also being able to take 223 without a lot of special engineering. So - it IS a 'happy circumstance' that they work for both, not by 'design'. They argue it the other way around, that it's by design and not a 'happy circumstance'.

We'll see how it plays out. They are in a very grey area and i'm not sure how another authority will see it, although they tend to favour the police historically

[Marshall]

I don't know about other brands, but the Alexander Arms ones which we intended to import are specifically made for the .50 Beowulf rounds. It even says on the their web site that they will only feed .50 Beowulf so therefore this is not in accordance with the law as I understand it. I've responded with this point so we'll see what he has to say... if anything.

[RangeBob]

They claim that the difference here is that it's a magazine designed for two guns. It's 'designed' to fit in a 223 based platform AND a 50 platform, thus being one mag designed for two guns.

My read was that they felt that it was originally designed for 223,
and that it was subsequently modified/adapted using one of 3 techniques ("widening the space between the magazine lips, changing the angle of the magazine lips, or changing the feed angle of the magazine follower") to feed 50 Beowulf without deleting the ability to feed 223. This makes them prohibited.

That how they are currently is that they are now designed as dual caliber, regardless of what's printed on them, which also makes them prohibited.

[Drache]

If you actually modify a magazine to fit a different gun, then the 'original' design doesn't necessarily apply any more

Doesn't the law concerning magazines state differently though?

Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations

3. (1) Any cartridge magazine

(a) that is capable of containing more than five cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in

Thus if you take a standard AR15 magazine in 223/556 and modify it to fit a .50 Beowulf cartridge and pin it to only accept five beowulf rounds, you still follow the rules of the original magazine if you try and put 223/556 back into it.

[RangeBob]

The RCMP are suggesting the designer didn't do this bit, and that it's required:

Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations

(4) A cartridge magazine described in subsection (1) that has been altered or re-manufactured so that it is not capable of containing more than five or ten cartridges, as the case may be, of the type for which it was originally designed is not a prohibited device.

although that used to be about riveting.

[Foxer]

Doesn't the law concerning magazines state differently though?




Thus if you take a standard AR15 magazine in 223/556 and modify it to fit a .50 Beowulf cartridge and pin it to only accept five beowulf rounds, you still follow the rules of the original magazine if you try and put 223/556 back into it.

Well we're kind of mixing two things up, and that's my fault for not being more clear. I worded it poorly. If you take a mag made for a semi auto and 'modifiy' it so it now works in a non semi auto for example then the round count rule doesn't apply. If you were to modify a 223 so that it NOW held 50 (especially for a different gun) then the round count also historically doesn't apply - the 'originally' in the law you quote doesn't refer to pre-mod but rather is meant specifically to ALLOW for the fact that some guns hold different amounts of other ammo (espeically shotguns). So it's the original intended round that 'counts'.

Which should mean that a mag specifically designed for 50 should be pinned to 5 x 50 even if the design came from modifying another design. Because that's what it's designed for.

Let me come at it another way - imagine that the original 223 magazines somehow managed to hold and feed 50's. You could NOT then repin them for 50's and say oh gee now i get to fit 11 223's in there. The mag was orginally designed for 223.

But - if you modify that design in ORDER to allow it to work with 50's specifically and it's no longer the original design, then It's now a magazine designed for 50's. It might happen to take 223, but it is not a 223 mag, it's a new mag based on that design which is made for 50 and there are substantial differences. It's not like you just changed the sticker.

THEY are claiming that while it was modified to fit 50's, the intent of the design is to fit 50's AND 223 and it was purpose designed for both. In other words, the designers purposely intended the mag to be used for both types of cartridges INSTEAD of designing the mag to work with 50's. In other words - the 50's ORIGINAL catridge is BOTH 223 AND 50 intentionally - not 50 by itself.

And i'm saying that because the mag was substantially changed and needed to be in order to accomodate the 50, and because it wasn't designed to be used with the 223 but with the 50 specifically, the original catridge that mag was designed for is 50, not 50 and something else. If you make a magazine that works properly for 50, it just happens to work with 223.

Which is what the law allows for. It was necessary - otherwise how the hell do you 'classify' a shotgun tube mag? you can't. If the shotgun was designed for 3.5 inch shells it's GOING to take 1inch shells, 2 inch shells, 2.5 inch shells, 2.75 etc etc. It's just a tube. You can't make one that'll take the longer shells that doesn't take the shorter ones. So the law accommodates.

And i would argue you can't make a 50 for the ar platform that doesn't also take 223. They argue that you can and these ones were specifically designed for both - or perhaps that it really is a 223 mag and the modifications are insufficient to call it a 'new' type of mag, which it clearly is. Once it is substantially modified it's a new mag.

So they're into a really grey area. Obviously they're going to make an argument that stretches the definitions and such as far in their 'favour' as possible because they hate us. but - that doesn't mean they'll get their way if another authority has to rule on it.

[RangeBob]

There was a while years ago that greentips was having the mods lock any thread, and delete any advertisement, about Beowulf mags. Today he posted

My personal opinion is that, until the time it is published in an official RCMP bulletin that is the authorized source of interpretation or/and distributed to all stake holders in official letterhead, it is just a copy and paste of a private communication in response to an unknown inquiry.

For example, let's take CRA and tax cases as an example, a CRA employee may tell you something in a communication in response to your particular inquiry. .

Until CRA actually publishes the interpretation in their official bulletins, it is just the opinion of one employee in response to a particular inquiry by one person in one case. It is not the official published interpretation of the law by the CRA and has no legal weight, in my opinion. They can do all kind of "internal interpretations" within their organizations, but if it is not published it is not official.

I am just looking at the technical aspect of how a bureaucracy goes about making an official interpretation of the law.

It appears that RCMP only tells people privately one by one through private communication in response to certain inquiry, but they are not publishing an official interpretation bulletin in the official channel to the public for all to read per normal procedure when it comes to major interpretation of law by government ministry that has the power to do so.

Fruit for thought. Internal interpretation/policy in response to inquiry vs official published interpretation that has legal weight.

Unfortunately, people are publishing these internal letters and writing the PMO, it is going to force the hands.

People need to think ahead and look at the big picture before doing stuff. We have just induced our own Apocalypse.

==============

A response from the RCMP regarding the legality of 50 Beowulf magazines has recently been made public. In this response, the RCMP have stated that any 50 Beowulf magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ANY ammunition is a prohibited device.
This directly contradicts the Canadian Firearms Act as well as previous responses from the RCMP including Bulletin 72.
Despite this contradiction, until this matter is officially resolved, as of November 17, 2015, we are suspending sales of the PCV-50.
At this time, we are not offering refunds or returns on previously purchased magazine as such sales were considered completely legal as per the Canadian Firearms Act and all information available to us at the time.
-- http://presscheckventures.3dcartstor...-Gen2_p_8.html


==============

[88 louie]

I don't know about other brands, but the Alexander Arms ones which we intended to import are specifically made for the .50 Beowulf rounds. It even says on the their web site that they will only feed .50 Beowulf.

I've always been curious about that statement. But Not curious enough to buy one & have it collect dust, because there actually is something different compared to other Beowulf Mags that do feed .223/556.

[RangeBob]

I'm wondering if it will boil down to what Alexander Arms did originally.

Did Alexander Arms
a) take a .223 mag they had lying around, and bend it open with a pair of pliers, eor
b) think: we've been building and designing magazines for years, they have to have this and this and that and that, here's an autocad that will fit our new round, press that out.

If (a) then it's prohibited,
and if (b) then its originally designed as 50 Beowulf and not designed for dual caliber.

[Foxer]

I'm wondering if it will boil down to what Alexander Arms did originally.

Did Alexander Arms
a) take a .223 mag they had lying around, and bend it open with a pair of pliers, eor
b) think: we've been building and designing magazines for years, they have to have this and this and that and that, here's an autocad that will fit our new round, press that out.

If (a) then it's prohibited,
and if (b) then its originally designed as 50 Beowulf and not designed for dual caliber.

That would be my take on it.

[Booletsnotreactwell]

I hate to say this but I've know this was gonna happen since about a year ago.


I made a post on a certain gun website about a year ago on doing an access to information request as to why the .50 Beowulf E-Lander magazines (attempted to be imported by NRM) were deemed "dual use" and the original Alexander Arms magazines were not, here was my reasoning.


If you've ever seen an actual .50 Beowulf magazine you'll notice it shares the EXACT same CAGE code as 556 NATO STANAG D&H magazines used by the Canadian Forces. Just like all things AR15, AA probably does not actually make their own magazines, nobody is gonna setup the tooling to make aluminum stampings of magazine bodies just to give one out free with every rifle they sell. They probably piggy-backed off D&H and used standard D&H 30 round magazines, fitted them with an old school tilting type 556 NATO follower and MAYBE slightly bent the feed lips out a little bit. Take a set of calipers to a 556 D&H magazine and your overpriced AA .50 Beowulf magazine and look at the measurements.



A few members realized that I was essentially shooting us in the foot if I used that argument and sanitized anything to do with that post. I was actually amazed that nobody had noticed that yet with the product being on the market for almost a year but I also know despite keeping this on the DL that somebody would fill in the blanks at some point. Apparently today was that day.

[Mark-II]

I saw the problem coming when these Canadian "manufactured" metal ones came out that were obviously reworked 5.56 mags - the epoxied up seams? Really? C'mon....

Then our buddies with the plastic mags that obviously were not tested thoroughly with .50cal ammo because they sure didn't feed my big blunt bullets worth a damn.

But now that the conversation is going and the cat is long out of the bag I think our buddy Rod has to do his thing and take control of the narrative.

See this 30 round mag? See the pop rivet? See how easy it is to remove? See how none of us have done that? See how we've paid big bucks to avoid a rivet? Do you think gangbangers are buying plastic .50cal mags because 30 round ones have rivets?
Given your head a shake lately?

Of course my cynicism says that will only lead to 5 round mag bodies and bullet buttons being mandated, because to a Liberal a failed policy is one that has merely not been taken to its full retard conclusion yet...

[Kane63]

What ever happened with the Mossberg 715 magazines? This is the exact same sh*t. Someone at the lab said they were now prohibited but I don't see a change in the bulletin.

[TV-PressPass]

See this 30 round mag? See the pop rivet? See how easy it is to remove? See how none of us have done that? See how we've paid big bucks to avoid a rivet? Do you think gangbangers are buying plastic .50cal mags because 30 round ones have rivets?
Given your head a shake lately?

That's exactly where my head is at.