Saskatchewan Passes Motion Seeking Control of Firearms Regulation
The Saskatchewan legislature unanimously supported the passage of a motion that "calls upon the Government of Canada to devolve all relevant parts of The Firearms Act to the province of Saskatchewan in order to allow it to administer and regulate legal firearms possession." If permitted, this would make the Province of Saskatchewan broadly responsible for the application and administration of the Firearms Act within provincial boundaries.
Tabled by Carrot River MLA Fred Bradshaw, the motion was tabled in response to widespread provincial opposition to the federal Liberal Party of Canada's Bill C-21, which the Saskatchewan Party's caucus press release identifies as nullifying the value of legally owned handguns "despite the fact that most handgun crime is committed using illegally trafficked and acquired handguns." Now having been passed, it will require a response from the federal government and will likely add fuel to an already acrimonious relationship that seems to be forming between Saskatchewan's provincial government, headed up by Scott Moe, and the Trudeau government.
The press release also stated that the Government of Saskatchewan will not "stand idly by as the federal government brands thousands of law-abiding citizens as criminals," but expressed support for measures that actually work to interdict and prevent criminal use of firearms and improve public safety.
Saskatchewan had previously passed firearms legislation that required anyone involved in the confiscation of firearms to possess a Saskatchewan firearms licence - an evident and effective measure to subvert the Liberals' banning of long guns that largely began in May of 2020 by way of Order in Council.
We have reached out to the Government of Saskatchewan for more information and will update this space as we learn more.
Long Gun Ban: Canada Post Refuses To Handle Confiscated Gun Shipments
Canada Post is refusing to handle shipments of confiscated firearms, according to a letter the postal service has written to the federal government.
Leaked, partially, by federal sources who are not authorized to speak on the matter publicly, the letter cited concerns over "employee security," with "one key source of concern" being the potential for conflict between postal workers and gun owners. From this language, it can be assumed that other concerns were presented as well, and likely included concerns about the obvious potential criminal threat posed by theft and robbery from criminal elements to concerns around internal policy issues or theft that may compromise the integrity of the postal system, or gun confiscation itself.
The plan presented to the federal government by contractor IBM, in response to the May 1st, 2020 Order in Council banning some 1,500+ varieties of long gun, involved gun owners applying for confiscation and compensation through an online portal, prior to receiving a government-issued box via Canada Post, into which the firearm for confiscation would be secured and shipped to the Firearms Program for evaluation, valuation, and eventual destruction.
Gun owners were quick to identify issues with this plan, ranging from the lengthy chain of custody of prohibited firearms for which the owner would likely be liable to the use of identifiable standardized boxes as potential risks, and it would be reasonable to assume Canada Post has alighted on at least some of the same issues - especially given the mail carrier's recent increase in firearms shipment regulations, which include policies around ensuring firearms are shipped in "anonymous packaging."
Government officials maintain that Canada Post is the most efficient and cost-effective way to "recover" newly prohibited firearms, and is reportedly still in talks with the Crown corporation, with a supposed compromise being sought around Canada Post "transport the weapons without taking charge of receiving them." Federal sources also said, "It's a challenge, but we do not think this jeopardizes our timetable or the government's desire to move forward," which may be interpreted as meaning such a compromise is likely - or, perhaps, that the government is being realistic about their ability to action this plan before the next election.
Editorial Note:
The only potential concern for gun owners around this news is the seemingly selective nature of the alleged "leak." As can be seen in the CBC coverage linked above, direct quotes were provided by the sources, but only one cause for Canada Post's security concerns was - and it just so happens to be both the least realistic security concern, and the one that paints gun owners in the worst light.
Every gun owner who participates in the confiscation will be likely doing so voluntarily; an amnesty currently protects owners of "newly prohibited firearms" from being charged and will likely be extended until the program is terminated - the Ministry of Justice will likely demand it, Public Safety has intimated the confiscation program for individuals will not occur until at least 2025, and the next election is slated to be within 10 days of the current amnesty expiring - all reasons for it to be extended. That is all to say that it's hard to envision gun owners voluntarily taking part in a confiscation/compensation program representing much risk of conflict to Canada Post employees facilitating that.
Conversely, the threat to Canada Post facilities and staff by criminals who will target both seems like a more realistic and obvious concern, leading one to wonder why this very specific concern centred around potential conflict with gun owners was highlighted as the solitary example provided by these unnamed "federal sources."
Henry Survival Rifle: The AR-7 Today
At the time of writing, most Canadians’ AR-platform rifles are still on the chopping block, thanks to the Liberal government’s Order in Council. But, there is one AR left out there that you can still buy. It’s non-restricted, even, and has a cool quasi-military backstory. And it’s super-affordable to shoot.
I’m talking about the AR-7 survival rifle, currently sold by Henry Repeating Arms as the U.S. Survival AR-7. Designed by Eugene Stoner himself in 1959, when he worked for ArmaLite, this gun has an interesting history, and it’s fun to shoot.
I’ve been fascinated by these little .22s ever since I was a kid, when I first saw them in the King Sol’s Army-Navy surplus catalog. The old black-and-white drawings inspired daydreams of a life as a pith-hatted jungle explorer, fighting off jaguars with my trusty semi-auto. When I got my PAL much later in life, my dreams of an Indiana Jones existence were long-gone, but I was still curious about the rifle and bought one about a decade ago.
The first AR-7 I bought was built by Henry, one of the company’s early-production models after buying the production rights from Charter Arms (who manufactured the rifle after ArmaLite’s production run). It was inaccurate, and it jammed a lot--basically all the things that I was warned about. Eventually, I moved it on.
And yet, it was a fun rifle to shoot. After reading much about Henry’s mid-production re-design of the rifle, I decided it was worth the gamble to give the U.S. Survival AR-7 one more try. Turns out it was a good idea, as the Henry re-design makes it a much more workable firearm.
Ch-ch-ch- changes
When Henry purchased the AR-7 production rights from Charter Arms, it didn’t purchase any machinery. Henry said it wanted to make significant changes to the design, so it started from the ground up, building new tooling for the manufacturing process. In other words, the original Henry design had some big differences from the Charter Arms version.
The mid-production redesign does the same thing again, and several of those changes were immediately noticeable as I assembled the rifle.
The latest AR-7 design is basically the same as the original ArmaLite version. The barrel, action, and magazines store inside the ABS stock. To fire the rifle, you pop the buttpad off the stock, remove the components and assemble them.
Right away, I noticed the new version’s buttpad fits the rifle very tightly (at least, it does so when new), but it’s more flimsy than the previous version. It also appears to be less leakproof, although I never float-tested my old-production version to do a proper comparison. Given the common idea that “these rifles were made to float,” that might be a problem for some. Personally, I think that’s silly; these rifles would sink like a stone if they fell out of a canoe in a backpack, where they’d likely be stored anyway. Still, this could be a factor for some buyers.
Henry itself says the stock is actually beefier now, less prone to breakage than earlier design. It does seem more solid, but I didn’t beat it against a fencepost to find out for sure.
On to the other changes. There’s a new plastic, high-viz orange front sight. The old dovetail scope rail is replaced by … a dovetail scope rail that’s notched, to look like a Picatinny rail. I’m baffled as to why there’s a scope rail on this rifle at all, as you can’t stow a scope rifle inside the buttstock, which surely is the main reason to buy this in the first place? So, while it’s unfortunate to see Henry still doesn’t have a real Picatinny rail here, I don’t think it matters.
Henry also made some tweaks to the magazine design, to improve feeding, and put a slot in the bolt, allowing the handle to be removed via a hole on the side of the receiver. Previously, users had to disassemble the rifle’s sideplate to remove the bolt, and there were many complaints that it caused a jumbled mess. This isn’t the case anymore.
And finally, maybe the most important change: There’s a stud on the top of the barrel that slides into a notch on the front of the receiver, to make sure the barrel is aligned properly with the receiver. On my old Henry, that stud was made of plastic, and it wore down over time. That would have created accuracy problems in the long term. On the new Henry rifle, that barrel location stud is made from metal, so it won’t wear out.
How does it shoot?
The older AR-7s mostly had a reputation for inaccuracy, but I’d heard the newer version was better. After some range time, I’d have to say the rumours are true. This newer model is definitely a better shooter than the older Henry I owned.
I think the problem many shooters have with the AR-7 is, it looks like it should be an accurate rifle. That free-floated barrel combined with semi-tactical looks implies a capability that isn’t there.
But, the AR-7 was never designed to be a tack driver. Eugene Stoner built a rifle for air crash survivors to hunt for food, and the AR-7 will do that job just fine.
During one range visit, I ran a test of seven commonly-available .22lr loads. Generally speaking, the round-nosed lead bullet loads shot the best, and the faster rounds cycled the action best. Henry recommends use of high-velocity or hyper-velocity ammo; I found CCI Mini-Mags were very reliable, but not as accurate as CCI Standard Velocity. Unfortunately, the Standard Velocity didn’t have enough jam to reliably cycle the action, with a fail-to-extract jam in almost every 8-round magazine.
The ammo that worked the best? Good old Blazer. Blazer was as accurate as anything else, and never failed to cycle the action.
Of course, take this all with a grain of salt--buy one of these, and you may find your Henry hates Blazer, or jams on Mini-Mags, or whatever. However, I was most pleased to find that one of the most common budget rounds also happened to shoot very well.
To me, shooting at a standard sighting-in target was only half of the test, though. Practically speaking, survival rifles need to manage head shots on small animals. So, I tacked up some small game targets, roughly the same size and shape as a snowshoe hare.
Shooting from a rest at 25 yards, head shots were no problem. Same for heart-lung shots. Obviously, a downed pilot wouldn’t have the luxury of a shooting bench in the middle of the woods, but there’s usually a tree to brace against, or something--someone who’s hungry enough will quickly figure that problem out. And at 2.5ish pounds, it’s not as if the Henry is a heavy rifle to hold steady, either.
I shot with the reversible peep sight set at its more open setting. Flip the sight upside-down, and there’s a smaller peep, which in theory allows more accuracy, but I suspect it would prove impractical in dark, wooded areas.
Some closing thoughts
Henry’s upgrades make this clever little semi-auto a much more useful gun than before, and should prolong its lifespan. These aren’t made to be high-volume shooters, but if something breaks, it’s certainly easy to replace. There are still some chintzy parts, like the plastic spring guide inside the action, but I’ve never actually heard of one wearing out. Plus, Henry has a lifetime warranty on these things. If something breaks when it shouldn’t, generally they have a reputation for excellent service.
Would I want to trust my life to one, in a survival situation? Having fooled around with similar .22s for several years, I think the AR-7 has a few advantages over some other takedown rifles on the market. It’s a repeater, unlike the straight-shooting Chiappa Lil’ Badger. It’s a bit less money than the Ruger 10/22 Takedown. It’s far more compact than the pump-action Winchester 62 and its Brazilian copies. Thanks to its design, the AR-7 is easy to store. The Teflon finish on the barrel means you don’t have to worry about it rusting when not being used.
So, yeah, I think it would work. It shoots well enough, and with the right ammo, it seems reliable enough. But even if you aren’t flying over the wilderness in northern British Columbia, this is a very fun-to-shoot rimfire; its light weight means that with more powerful .22 cartridges, you get the faintest hint of recoil. The Henry redesign seems to have come with improved fit-and-finish. The trigger is better on this rifle than on the one I owned years ago, the mags are better-made, the safety has a smooth-positive click. It’s a much nicer rifle.
So, if you’re ok with a rimfire that won’t shoot cloverleafs at 25 years, you might want to check it out. I know I’m far more impressed with Henry’s second go at the AR-7; now, I’m just wishing they’d make a straight-pull bolt-action version in .22 magnum, or even better, .22 Hornet.
The Rossi 62: The Vintage Winchester Repeater You Can Afford
How’d you like to own a classic Winchester rifle, for under $500? That’s basically impossible these days, as even beater post-64 Model 94 carbines now regularly sell for that, or more. It gets even more silly if you want a vintage rimfire repeater like a Model 62. You can either pay crazy money for a collector’s gun, and then be afraid to shoot it because you don’t want to rough it up. Or, you can pay slightly less-crazy money for a beat-up shooter, and then be afraid to shoot it because it’s worn out and likely to break.
Or, you can buy a Rossi 62. It might not have the Winchester name on the barrel, but it’s the same design as the pump-action rimfire rifle, and just as much fun to shoot.
John Browning’s brainchild
The .22LR Winchester rifle that Rossi copied was originally a John Browning design. In the late 1800s, Browning thought pump action was the future, not lever action. The Model 1890 rimfire rifle was one of his earliest attempts. A second, similar model joined the lineup more than a decade later, the Model 1906. The Model 62 came along in 1932, also the same basic design. When Model 62 production ended in 1958, Winchester had built almost 2 million rifles along this pattern.
That’s a long production run, and a lot of rifles. Why was it so popular? Browning’s design was successful for two basic ideas: The pump-action rifles were fun to shoot, and they got into the hands of the right people. Professional trick shooters showed what the gun could do, and then kids went out and shot the exact same gun in shooting galleries.
Shooting galleries using real firearms were considered perfectly reputable entertainment in the early 1900s, set up at carnivals and fairs. Pay the carnies, and blast away for a chance at a prize (often not using full-power .22LR--many of these guns came chambered in .22 Short).
They were popular with hunters and general shooting enthusiasts, too. Semi-auto rimfires weren’t as prevalent in the first half of the 20th century; pump-action .22s were fast-shooting, and able to handle just about any kind of ammunition.
However, like most vintage Browning designs, these guns were not aimed at dumbed-down mass production, which made them more expensive to manufacture and more fiddly to fix. With its open-top action, you couldn’t easily mount a scope to the Model 62. And, in the Baby Boom years, the market moved towards semi-autos. It’s no surprise Winchester dumped the Model 62 in the late ‘50s--if anything, it’s a surprise the design lasted that long, and a testament to just how good and how much fun these rifles are.
The Brazilian connection
Most of the American gunmakers had built pump-action .22s in the first half of the 20th century, but by the 1970s, only Remington was still in the game, with the Model 572 Fieldmaster. And then, the Rossi Model 62 started to appear on the market. It was basically the same gun as the Winchester Model 62, but made in Brazil and imported to North America through Interarms.
No doubt some shooters were suspicious of the Rossi brand, as it wasn’t exactly a household name back then--at least, not in North America. The Amadeo Rossi SA factory had a long history of its own, though, building firearms in São Leopoldo all the way back to 1889.
In a way, Rossi was just carrying on a time-honoured tradition with the Model 62. Overseas factories, particularly in Spain, had been copying North American “cowboy guns” for decades. In some cases, like the El Tigre carbine (a copy of the Winchester 1892), production numbers ran over a million rifles built.
Changes to the formula
The Rossi Model 62 is mostly faithful to the original John Browning design. It’s a takedown rifle; a knurled screw on the left side of the receiver splits the rifle into two pieces, a common feature on older sporting firearms. This allowed for easier storage, and made the rifle easier to transport in cramped railway luggage.
There’s no lawyer-friendly safety on the Rossi Model 62; the hammer has a half-cock position instead. The ribbed forearm connects to a single action bar; push the bolt backwards, and it lifts out the rear of the receiver as it ejects an empty casing and lifts a fresh cartridge from the magazine. Pump the forearm forward, and the bolt drops back into the receiver, locking at the front as the cartridge is pushed into the chamber.
Like other classic pump-action designs, the Rossi Model 62 has no trigger disconnect. This means you can hold the trigger down, and the rifle will fire as fast as you can pump the forend. This slamfire feature has zero usefulness on a rimfire rifle, but it’s a fun way to do a mag dump once in a while.
Loading the Model 62 is easy, via a familiar under-barrel tube mag. Rifles with a 23-inch barrel will hold 14 rounds of .22LR.
However, not all these Rossis came with a 23-inch barrel, and not all were chambered in .22LR. Some came with a 16-inch barrel, a much more compact arrangement. And, some were chambered in .22 magnum. Some came with octagon barrels as well.
Rossi also sold the Model 62 with either a blued or stainless finish. Hardcore Winchester fans will say the original rifles had a better finish, but the Rossi rimfires look much better than many of the el-cheapo .22 semi-autos on the market today.
Some hardcore Winchester fans will also say the original rifles shoot better than the Rossi copies. Not all will hold to this belief, though; it seems Rossi Model 62 production did not have great quality control, and some are actually more accurate than the Winchester originals, while others exhibit less-than-stellar precision.
On inaccurate Rossi rimfires, the crude sights are part of the problem. I’ve seen these rifles with decent irons, but others have cheap sights best-suited for a water pistol or capgun. Rossi’s tendency to use odd-shaped sight dovetails makes the problem worse, as it’s not always easy to swap out a better sight system. If you look around long enough, there are solutions on the market, though. One popular upgrade from past years was a tang sight, originally designed for a Rossi lever-action. However, it seems this sight is basically unobtanium now, as it’s been discontinued.
The new Model 62
The Rossi Model 62 was never a huge seller in North America, but there seems to have been a relatively steady supply through the 1970s and 1980s, at least. They’re not common, but they’re not that rare, either. If you want one badly enough, you should be able to find a decent example for $450 or less, depending on condition (although prices are rising, as always).
Rossi seems to see a demand for the rifle, though, because the company revived the Model 62 at the 2020 SHOT Show … except it isn’t really a Model 62.
Looking at photos from last year’s SHOT Show, the new Model 62 is a pump-action .22LR with exposed hammer, but the rest of the rifle looks very different from the classic John Browning design. There’s an ejection port on the side of the receiver, which makes scope mounting easier, but it definitely isn’t the original layout. It comes in several different versions, including one with a synthetic stock and fiber-optic sights.There’s a cross-bolt safety, and an ugly slide release in front of the trigger guard. It’s not a takedown rifle, either.
The new rifle will likely generate some interest, as pump-action .22s are hard to find these days. But, if you want the original John Browning classic, keep your eyes open on used gun sales websites--you should be able to find the older Rossi for roughly the same money, and its vintage design comes with some advantages of its own.
Corrosive Ammunition: What it is, how to spot it, how to clean it - and what to expect if you don't!
Cheap ammo, it’s every shooter’s dream. And cheap ammo that’s superbly accurate is enough to give us fainting spells. Unfortunately, cheap and accurate are rarely used together when describing a batch of ammunition. We usually get one or the other, not both; meaning we have to decide which is most important for a given application. While it would be nice if budget considerations weren’t a factor in our use of firearms, that’s not realistic. So, let’s face facts, sometimes cheap wins. And when cheap wins, it often means we’re feeding our guns corrosive ammo.
Primer Primer
To fully understand corrosive vs non-corrosive ammunition, we need to delve into a little history, particularly that of primers. Of course, the precursor to the modern primer was the percussion cap which provided a way to get rid of the complicated flintlock ignition system. And when the percussion cap was integrated into the cartridge case it became what we now call the primer.
The modern primer was patented in 1866 in both England and America, but as two separate systems, the Boxer system and the Berdan system, both named after their inventors. Hiram Berdan of New York developed his system—which became more common in Europe—at the same time as Henry Boxer of England introduced his system—which dominated in North America.
Most corrosive ammo on the Canadian market (left) uses a Berdan priming system.
The key difference between the two is the location of the anvil. Yes, primers need an anvil. After all, when the firing pin slams into the primer it needs to crush the impact sensitive compound inside the primer against a solid, hard surface for ignition to occur. In the Boxer system that anvil is built into the primer, but in the Berdan system the anvil is part of the cartridge case. It’s impossible to tell what priming system is used in a cartridge by looking at it from the outside. But with the bullet and powder removed, a glance inside the cartridge case tells the tale. A single, centred flash hole above the primer pocket indicates a Boxer primed cartridge, while off-centre flash holes (one, two or three in number) spread out across the primer pocket indicate Berdan priming.
Here in North America, the Boxer system has become universally used in the manufacture of sporting and commercial ammunition, but it’s still common to find Berdan primed ammunition in military surplus products emanating from Europe, Russia, and the Orient. It’s in these products that Canadian shooters are most likely to encounter corrosive ammunition. This has led to a common misconception that all Berdan primed ammunition is corrosive and all Boxer primed ammo is non-corrosive. In reality, the priming system has nothing to do with the corrosiveness of the ammunition, it’s all about the compound in the primer.
The chemical history of primers is far more complicated and well beyond the needs of anyone but the most scientifically inclined. So, let’s summarize by saying that with few exceptions commercial primers produced in North America became non-corrosive about 1931. But because of stringent US government specifications for military ammunition, which could not be met by early versions of the non-corrosive primers, it was not until the 1950s that US military ammunition became non-corrosive. This was because these early mixtures proved unreliable after extended periods of storage. And since countries often store large quantities of ammunition as a war reserve, military ammo must have unquestioned storage stability. However, these transition dates to non-corrosive technology were considerably later in some countries and seem to be almost non-existent in others.
What’s Corrosive?
Leaving history behind, we still need to understand a little about primer chemistry to grasp what we’re dealing with regarding corrosive vs non-corrosive.
All primers, regardless of chemical composition, are composed of three major compounds; there’s always an explosive to get things started, an oxidizer to provide oxygen for the burn, and a fuel for the reaction. These will make up about 90% of what’s in the primer, with an additional 10% of miscellaneous materials. The most common composition currently in use is comprised of 40% lead-styphnate acting as the explosive, 40% barium-nitrate as the oxidizer, 10% antimony-sulphide as fuel, and 10% miscellaneous materials. These primers are considered non-corrosive, but note the presence of heavy metals, especially lead. That lead in the primer contributes significantly to the airborne lead generated by a gunshot, and since lead is a hazardous material, manufacturers are working hard to get rid of it, and thus create the next generation of primers.
The issue with corrosive primers lies in the oxidizer, which is potassium chlorate (KClO₃). When the primer is ignited, the reaction removes the oxygen atom from this molecule, leaving potassium chloride (KCl). Unfortunately, potassium chloride is a salt, much like sodium chloride, our commonly used table salt. And as a salt it’s hygroscopic, meaning it attracts water. Mix water with salt on top of a steel surface, and rust, with its associated pitting, is guaranteed. That’s our problem.
Identifying Corrosive Ammo
Corrosive or not? We can test to find out.
We’ve already discussed the point that both Boxer and Berdan primed ammunition can be corrosive. However, the reality is that in the current Canadian marketplace, Berdan primed ammunition is more likely to be corrosive.
Certainly, the easiest way to determine the corrosive nature of any ammunition is to ask the retailer selling it. Hopefully, they’ve tested sample lots themselves and can therefore offer accurate advice to their customers. However, I expect that many just take the word of the distributor offering it to them, who in turn trusted the importer, who believed their European contact, who maybe said whatever they thought the customer wanted to hear. Meaning, if there’s any doubt about the ammo, you should test it yourself. Fortunately, it’s a simple process.
Common nails are a good metal on which to test ammo for corrosive properties. This test is set up to check ammo believed to be non-corrosive as well as corrosive, with a blank set of nails to serve as a control.
First, you’ll need to pull the bullets on some suspect ammo and dump the powder, leaving the primer intact inside the cartridge case. Then round up some common steel, making sure it’s not stainless and isn’t coated with any protective substance. This can take the form of steel strips or common nails, all available at the local hardware store—if there’s none kicking around your garage. As insurance, I always polish the steel with some fine sandpaper and wipe it with isopropyl alcohol to ensure bare steel is exposed. Now, with steel and a primed cartridge case in hand, all you need is a way of discharging the primer, so its residue coats the steel.
Place a primed cartridge case in a bolt assembly and then tap the firing pin with a hammer to spread primer residue over the nail surface.
The simplest way to accomplish this is to put the primed cartridge case in your firearm, hold the muzzle near the steel sample and pull the trigger. Mission accomplished. The downside to this simplicity is that the gun now needs cleaning. The other option is to remove the bolt and lock the rim of the cartridge case in behind the bolt’s extractor, so the case head is fully supported. Then press the cartridge case down onto the steel sample and tap the exposed firing pin with a hammer. This works great with an SKS. Yes, you’ll get a little residue on the bolt, but that’s a lot simpler to clean than an entire firearm.
Warning! Never just turn the cartridge case upside down on the steel and tap the primer with a punch and hammer. Doing this leaves the primer unsupported and it will blow back at you hard enough to cause eye damage or skin penetration. Then you’ll have to explain to the ER doctor how you came to have a primer embedded in your cheek. Then he’ll call the police. More explaining will be required. You get the picture. Even with the “safe” systems always wear gloves, safety glasses and ear protection.
The final step is to set your steel sample in a humid environment—a bathroom works well—and wait a few days to see if rust develops. If it does, the ammo is corrosive. If not, it’s likely okay. And during your test, it’s always a good idea to mask off some bare steel and leave it uncontaminated as a standard, exposing it to humidity as well. Popping a known non-corrosive primer is also a good idea, as it allows for a meaningful comparison of primer chemistry.
After a week in a humid room, the corrosive primer on the right shows significant rusting. The non-corrosive primer is on the left and the blank in the centre, show much less.
Clean-Up
Let’s say you’ve confirmed that case of 7.62X39mm Chinese you picked up at the gunshow for a bargain price is corrosive. Now what? How do you clean a rifle after a day at the range?
Let’s start by noting that whether you shoot a single round of the stuff, or an entire hermetically sealed “Spam can,” the cleaning process is the same. So, if you’re going to shoot corrosive ammo, you might as well make the cleaning worthwhile and tear through as much ammo in one range session as your budget allows.
Fortunately, the cleaning is cheap, because all that’s required is water. This is because salt is water soluble. Remember the part about salt being hygroscopic? This is where we can make that work for us. By flushing all contaminated parts with plenty of hot water, the corrosive salts are removed.
A kettle and a funnel are one way to flush corrosive salts from a firearm.
If you happen to have a deep laundry sink available, that’s likely a great place to do this. Hook a short flexible hose to the spout and run hot water thoroughly over, in and through the entire disassembled firearm. There’s no laundry sink around here, but there is a floor drain in the garage, so that’s what I use. A full kettle of boiling water gets poured over the disassembled rifle as well as through the bore and gas system. If the rifle has a bayonet, it gets extended and jammed into the drain’s plastic grate. That keeps the rifle supported, muzzle down, and with the help of a funnel with a long flexible spout, boiling water can be directed just about anywhere with no fear of scalding the operator. After an initial flush, run a bore brush through the barrel and the gas system (if possible) and then flush it again.
It may seem counter-intuitive to pour water on a rifle in order to stop rust, but it really is what’s necessary. And making the water as hot as possible heats the metal, helping it to dry quicker. Once it’s cool enough to handle, an air hose helps remove any moisture left. At this point, you’ll still need to tackle the copper fouling in the bore and any remaining carbon fouling wherever it has accumulated.
This bore cleaner won’t dissolve salt, making it a poor choice for cleaning corrosive residue.
While this step is a typical gun cleaning process using solvents, brushes, and scrapers, it should be done with a water-based solvent. Because, although the hot water bath has removed most of the salts, there may be some still hiding under the fouling. Use of a water-based cleaner helps dissolve and remove any remaining salt residue. If you’re not sure if your favourite bore cleaner is water-based, pour a small amount into a clear glass, add a tiny bit of table salt and try to dissolve it. The favourite around here is 1st Choice, a Canadian product that excels not just at removing corrosive residue, but also at any bore cleaning task. And as a bonus, it’s odourless.
Finally, remember to clean the often-ignored parts such as the muzzle brake, bolt assembly, chamber and anywhere firing residue can accumulate. And if the gun metal is squeaky clean, consider applying a protective product like G-96 Gun Treatment. Just don’t expect it or anything else to protect the metal from corrosion after your next range session, not even chrome lining. That chrome bore plating will certainly slow down corrosion, but it won’t stop it. If you care about your gun, you’ll have to clean it.
1st Choice is a Canadian made bore cleaner which works well on corrosive residues, as well as all kinds of copper and powder fouling.
Cleaning within 24 hrs is simply the price we pay for cheap ammo. You knew there was a price, didn’t you? Cheap always has a price. But once you’ve got a system established the cleaning routine isn’t too bad. So, don’t be afraid of corrosive ammo. Just recognize what’s needed to deal with the residue and do it. Someday, you may even hit on that magic combination of cheap and accurate.
Why The Buyback Hasn't Happened (And Why It Likely Won't)
“It should be noted that while staffing efforts are underway to grow the team to deliver on all the priorities, current HR pressures and backlogs in issuing security clearances are a challenge, resulting in delays in onboarding.”
Obviously, neither came to fruition and instead, the amnesty protecting owners of these newly-prohibited firearms was extended to 2025. That had many thinking the extension may have been political in nature; intended to push the commitment beyond the next election writ, and allow the Liberals to once more campaign on a Conservative promise to reverse these changes. But as our research indicates, it's far more likely the program is simply nowhere near completion.
Because while the Transition Book paints a less-than-rosy picture of the Firearm Buyback Program's successes, other Public Safety documents seem to indicate that even October 2025 may be unrealistically optimistic: According to the Public Safety Developmental Evaluation plan, the buyback program's budget for this fiscal year has increased but not significantly, rising from $5.4M last year, to $10.7M for the 2023-24 fiscal year - and certainly a far cry from the $756M cited by the Parliamentary Budget Officer as what would be required to administrate the program. Likewise, the plan also cites that Public Safety's internal review/audit board intends to evaluate the program's performance in 2026-27, meaning the program is expected to be in operation until at least then. Why does this matter? Because so long as the buyback is still in active operation, the amnesty protecting owners must to; otherwise compliance will drop to 0 as owners realize they will be arrested for turning guns in. Ergo, if the program is going to be evaluated in 2027, it'll likely be running until at least 2026, which means we haven't even seen the last amnesty extension... or have we? But more on that later.
Because there is no clarity to be found date-wise elsewhere, either, it seems. According to Grant & Contribution agreement records, Public Safety Canada has funded agreements with the so-called "opt-in" buyback provinces, agreements that commenced in April 2023, and end March of 2027. But these agreements are not to fund the buyback of firearms, nor do their termination dates indicate anything about the buyback's end date. On the contrary, these are relatively small funding agreements that are intended to support the drafting of more formal agreements (setting out formal legal terms and conditions), by which the federal government will fund the buyback of rifles in these opt-in provinces. Basically, it's the federal government paying the provinces' costs for setting these agreements up. And otherwise, not that it helps? Well the woefully outdated 2022-23 Public Safety Department Plan actually shows declining staff levels working at Community Safety; the result of sunsetting programs, and states that Public Safety will, for the 2022-23 fiscal year, "advance the design and development of a mandatory firearms buyback program." That is, to use a technical term, some properly non-descript fluff and it certainly doesn't indicate a healthy, on-schedule program.
This leads us to the final point: Why this means there likely will not be a buyback at all. And the answer is incredibly simple: It seems highly unlikely that the Liberal government will maintain its mandate past October 2025. Most pundits have cited 2024 as a likely election year, and that was before the Liberals started appearing in headlines alongside words like "freefall," and before the NDP started to put public pressure on the Liberals to fund a Pharmacare program they're reticent to. So, it seems likely that we'll see an election writ before we see a buyback, which based on current polling figures will likely result in a change in government - and hopefully Canada's licensed gun owners and taxpayers can put this whole mess behind us.
The Fundamental Role of Government
Roughly three and a half years ago, and just twelve days after the perpetrator of the Portapique massacre had been shot, then Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair somberly declared, "as of today, the market for assault weapons in Canada is closed. Enough is enough. Banning these firearms will save Canadian lives." Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was even more optimistic, “assault-style firearms designed for military use have no place in Canada. By removing them from our streets, we will limit the devastating effects of gun-related violence and help make our country safer.”
Factoring in inflation, most conservative estimates place the price tag for this prohibition at roughly $2 billion, with more liberal estimates (oftentimes including estimates of costs sought by the firearms industry for unsaleable accessories, storage, and other incurred costs) foreseeing totals of $4 billion, or even in excess of $6 billion. Thus far the federal office in charge of the operation, the Buyback Secretariat, has already seen unexpected budget increases of 35% year-over-year. Total costs incurred by the office during its three years in operation now exceeding $10 million, with dramatic increases in spending on outside consultancies marking more recent budgets - and not a single newly prohibited firearm "purchased."
No details of the compensation program have been released, and hundreds of thousands of owners are currently protected from criminal charges for possession of a prohibited firearm by an amnesty that expires on October 30th. Yesterday, in the House of Commons, MP Rempel-Garner asked if the Ministry had any information on a potential extension to the amnesty, but an answer was not forthcoming.
Murder Rate Hits 30 Year High
Meanwhile, according to Statistics Canada, 2022 marked the highest severity of violent crime in Canada since 2007 with the murder rate reaching a 30-year high; a level over 30% higher than when the Liberals took power. Gun crime has risen a staggering 85% over the same period. In fact, there were only 32 fewer crimes involving the discharge of a firearm in 2022 than there were in 2013, 2014, and 2015 combined.
And that’s only the ones we know about: Statistics Canada’s 2019 Generalized Social Survey found just 24% of all violent crime is reported to police. This all explains why Canadians report feeling less safe, dramatically so if Ipsos polling from earlier this year is to be believed: 6 in 10 report feeling less safe in their community since the Pandemic, and 79% feel that more violence in Canada may be on the horizon.
And yet today, in what seems like the first shot of austerity across the national bow - promised by Treasury Board President Anita Anand’s proclamation that the federal government reduce spending by $15 billion - Minister of Defence Bill Blair is being asked to defend the announcement that the federal government will be slashing defence spending by a billion dollars. Serbian forces are massing on the border with Kosovo as I type this, Russia is still waging war in Ukraine (a situation our own government’s ignorance hasn’t helped as of late), we’re still accusing India of murder, and we’re still trying to navigate the murky waters of alleged Chinese foreign interference.
Arguably, any government's single most fundamental responsibility is the collection, allocation, and disbursement of public funds. The public purse represents, in real terms, the actual power wielded by the government - a government that cannot afford to enforce its laws and treaties isn’t. It’s as simple as that. Good governments are historically remembered as those who sought to provide maximum value for the taxpayers' dollar - using the tremendous economies of scale available to public funds to achieve things that would be otherwise impossible.
Conversely, any government that continues to pursue a multi-billion dollar public safety policy years after it's proven to be somewhere between ineffective and detrimental is not fulfilling the aforementioned fundamental responsibility. It is nothing more than buying political capital with taxpayer funds, with no perceptible, real-world safety benefit - and some would argue this government’s already proven capable of that.
But a government that does so at the expense of its defence budget during a time of greater global instability than most Canadians can recall? That’s something else entirely.
FORM LETTERS, COME GET YOUR FORM LETTERS, FRESH, HOT, FORM LETTERS!
Bill C-21 is in a holding pattern for the summer, before Parliament resumes for the Fall session, and the Senate Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (SECD) begins their study of the Bill.
It is CRUCIALLY important that every gun owner in Canada use this time to contact as many Senators, both on SECD and off, as possible. Inundate their offices with letters, emails, and voicemails. Ensure that whatever component of C-21 you take particular issue with is communicated clearly to these representatives in our House of Sober Second Thought. In fact, ensure that every issue possible is communicated to every Senator possible, so that we at least know they have the best information available when SECD studies the bill and recommends amendments, and when the Senate at large inevitably votes on it at the third reading (barring the dissolution of government, of course).
This page will play host to an updating list of form letters that we welcome you to copy, modify, or otherwise use to contact Senators and increase awareness of C-21's issues. Some are generic, and some speak to specific issues, please use them as you see fit but please maintain a respectful tone, and ensure your emails and letters are addressed correctly.
And a quick reminder to those new to this sort of advocacy: You can send paper letters to the Senators for free. Seriously. All you need to do is print it off, stick it in an envelope, and put one of their addresses on it, and your return address, and drop it in the mail. If you like, you can write "No Postage Required" where you'd normally put a stamp - but it's not required. I say this because the conventional logic has always stood that paper letters are generally weighted more heavily in government offices. The effort it takes to send a letter is respected over emails - but, in the immortal words of one of the worlds best memes:
Seriously, this isn't the time to leave anything on the table. So without further ado, the letters (and please read them, one of them has a specific recipient in mind and you'll look like an idiot sending it to the wrong person):
Subject: Urgent Request to Remove Unconsulted Components of Bill C-21 Contravening Indigenous Rights and UNDRIP Obligations
Dear Senator [Senator's Last Name],
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the inclusion of unconsulted components in Bill C-21, which directly infringe upon the rights of Indigenous peoples, and violate Canada's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
Although initial consultations occurred when the bill was introduced, it was made clear to SECU members that no additional Indigenous consultation was sought by the government prior to the government introducing significant amendments to the bill in committee - amendments that so dramatically reformed the bill's intent so as to cause some to question whether there were even within scope.
This absence of comprehensive consultation with Indigenous communities, as pointed out by Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, is evident in the bill's inconsistent and incoherent nature. This lack of consultation undermines the voices and rights of Indigenous communities, potentially impacting their lives and traditions. Vice Chief Heather Bear of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations has also raised concerns about how Bill C-21 and its proposed amendments infringe upon Indigenous hunting rights on reserve lands and traditional territories.
I urge you to reconsider the approach and address the root causes of gun violence instead of further restricting Indigenous peoples' practices, as emphasized by Chief Lazare and Vice Chief Bear.
Furthermore in December, after the Liberal's intent was made known with their first round of amendments, First Nations leaders at the AFN General Assembly directly voted against Bill C-21, viewing it as yet another infringement on their rights, as highlighted by Cat Lake First Nation Chief Russell Wesley. Instead, a motion was adopted calling for the AFN to advocate for amendments to Bill C-21 that would remove long guns from the list of prohibited weapons as long guns are commonly used by First Nations in exercising their inherent right to hunt for food.
Given the constitutional duty of the Government of Canada to consult Indigenous peoples, it is disheartening to witness the absence of meaningful consultation in this case. I strongly urge the Senate committee reviewing this bill provide a platform for all Indigenous witnesses to be heard, and their perspectives seriously considered.
In conclusion, I urgently request the removal of the unconsulted components of Bill C-21, respecting Indigenous rights and Canada's commitment to UNDRIP. It is imperative to prioritize genuine consultation and ensure that the voices and rights of Indigenous communities are properly acknowledged and protected.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will consider the concerns raised and take necessary action. I eagerly await your response and a resolution that upholds the rights and well-being of Indigenous peoples.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Subject: Urgent Appeal to Oppose Handgun Ban in Bill C-21
Dear Senator [Senator's Last Name],
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed handgun ban in Bill C-21 and seek your support in preventing its enactment.
The ban unfairly targets law-abiding firearms owners, including Indigenous hunters. It infringes on Indigenous rights to hunt on reserve lands and traditional territories.
Instead of focusing on the root causes of gun violence, the ban penalizes responsible firearm users. Criminals largely use illegal firearms that this ban won't impact significantly.
Proper consultation with Indigenous communities has been neglected in the bill's development. As the Senate reviews the bill, I urge you to consider Indigenous voices.
Investing in alternative measures to combat crime is more effective than restricting law-abiding citizens.
Please oppose the handgun ban in Bill C-21 and work towards comprehensive solutions to address gun violence without infringing upon rights.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Subject: Urgent Appeal to Oppose Handgun Ban in Bill C-21
Dear Senator [Senator's Last Name],
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed handgun ban in Bill C-21 and to seek your support in preventing its enactment.
The core issue at hand is gun violence, and while we recognize the need for effective solutions, we firmly believe that the proposed ban unfairly targets law-abiding firearms owners, including Indigenous hunters. As Vice Chief Heather Bear of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations points out, Bill C-21 infringes on Indigenous rights to hunt on both reserve lands and traditional territories, with specific provisions targeting legal handgun owners.
The proposed freeze on the sale, purchase, or transfer of legal handguns would affect more than 1 million law-abiding firearms, many of which are used responsibly by competitive shooters and collectors, including Indigenous individuals, who have upheld these traditions for generations.
However, it is crucial to understand that this measure will have little impact on criminal gangs who predominantly rely on illegal firearms, easily acquired from across the border. The focus on restricting legal firearms ownership instead of addressing the root causes of criminal activity is misguided and ultimately ineffective.
Vice Chief Bear's statement about the use of handguns in the far north highlights the importance of these tools for safety, particularly when facing unexpected threats from wild animals. Handguns offer advantages in close-quarter encounters, such as protection against bears, where rifles may not be as practical.
Additionally, it is disheartening to witness the lack of proper consultation with Indigenous peoples in the development of this bill. As the Department of Justice acknowledges, the Government of Canada has a constitutional duty to consult Indigenous communities when measures may adversely impact their potential or established rights. Sadly, this duty appears to have been neglected, and it is vital that Indigenous voices are heard and respected.
As the Senate committee reviews Bill C-21, I urge you to consider the concerns raised by Indigenous leaders and stakeholders. If the government fails to fulfill its promise of proper consultation, it becomes the responsibility of the Senate to ensure Indigenous perspectives are adequately represented.
The proposed handgun freeze, as mentioned by Deputy Chief of Police Myron Demkiw, would do little to address the root cause of crime, as most crime guns are smuggled into Canada. Investing in alternative measures, rather than penalizing law-abiding citizens, is essential to effectively combat criminal activity.
In conclusion, I respectfully request your support in opposing the handgun ban in Bill C-21. Let us work together to find comprehensive and effective solutions to address gun violence without infringing upon the rights of law-abiding individuals, including Indigenous hunters.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that you will give careful consideration to the impact of this proposed ban on Indigenous communities and the broader implications for public safety. Your support in protecting the rights and well-being of all Canadians is crucial, and I look forward to hearing your stance on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Subject: Request to Amend C-21, Refocus on Criminal Use of Firearms
Dear Senator [Senator's Last Name],
I am a gun owner who has been watching Bill C-21's progress, and I am very concerned about its continued focus on gun owners like myself rather than the criminal element. So I am writing to request your support in amending the bill to change that and refocus its efforts on addressing the criminal use of firearms rather than burdening law-abiding gun owners unfairly as it currently will (and is).
The current approach taken by the government in Bill C-21 is gravely concerning, as it appears to lack a thorough understanding of the complexities of the issue at hand, or even the existing laws. Relying on slogans like "stop crime before it starts" and unknowingly scapegoating legal gun owners as the primary cause of gun crime fails to address the root causes of violence effectively - as too many Canadians are tragically learning.
Instead of focusing on law-abiding gun owners, addressing the criminal use of firearms by strengthening measures against repeat violent offenders and tackling the root causes of violent crime is essential. As you know, the number of murders in Canada has increased significantly in recent years, with a quarter of these homicides being gang-related, predominantly involving illegal firearms.
The prevalence of illegal firearms in gang-related homicides underscores the need for targeted solutions to combat the illegal trade and possession of firearms. Rather than targeting responsible gun owners, we must prioritize strategies to prevent illegal firearms from reaching the hands of criminals.
I strongly urge you to consider amending Bill C-21 to ensure it refocuses on the criminal use of firearms and incorporates measures that effectively combat violent crime. Mandatory minimum penalties for gun crime can play a role in deterring offenders and protecting the safety of our communities.
As you deliberate on this matter, I encourage you to engage in open dialogue with experts and stakeholders to develop comprehensive and evidence-based solutions to address gun violence.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this critical issue. Your leadership and support in advocating for a balanced and effective approach to firearm legislation will undoubtedly make a significant difference in ensuring the safety and well-being of all Canadians.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Subject: Opposition to the Handgun Ban Component of Bill C-21
Dear Senator [Senator's Last Name],
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the handgun ban component of Bill C-21 and to urge you to stand against its enactment.
The proposed national freeze on handguns is a deeply concerning measure that, in reality, will do little to enhance public safety. As you are aware, the primary issue with gun crime lies in the illegal possession and use of firearms by criminal gangs. The Deputy Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service, Myron Demkiw, testified that approximately 86% of crime guns seized were smuggled into Canada. An astounding 90% of gun crimes in Ontario were committed with smuggled guns.
Deputy Chief Demkiw's statement emphasizes that the handguns causing problems on Toronto's streets are not domestically sourced but are instead internationally smuggled, primarily from the United States. Restricting legal handgun ownership, as proposed in Bill C-21, will do little to address this crucial issue of illegal firearms.
The proposed handgun ban unfairly targets law-abiding citizens, including responsible handgun owners and competitive pistol shooters who have abided by existing laws and regulations. Banning legal gun owners from buying or selling handguns will not improve public safety. Instead, it will only burden law-abiding individuals without effectively addressing the root causes of gun crime and lead to eventual confiscation, as C-21 means a child cannot even inherit a parent's heirloom firearms.
It is concerning that the government seemingly disregards expert opinions and fails to consult with relevant stakeholders while developing firearm legislation. The lack of consideration for the perspectives of those closely involved in public safety measures raises doubts about the effectiveness of this proposed ban.
I implore you to carefully review the implications of the handgun ban component in Bill C-21 and to advocate for evidence-based solutions that address the real challenges related to illegal firearms and criminal activities.
As a responsible citizen, I urge you to oppose the handgun ban in Bill C-21 and instead prioritize comprehensive strategies that effectively combat illegal gun trafficking, enhance community safety, and safeguard the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. Your leadership and support in advocating for balanced and effective firearm legislation will undoubtedly contribute to the safety and well-being of all Canadians.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Subject: Please Pivot C-21 to focus on criminals; stop spending resources going after me!
Dear Senator [Senator's Last Name],
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the spending associated with Bill C-21 and implore you to consider amending the law to refocus its efforts on criminals rather than law-abiding gun owners.
While I understand the need for effective measures to address gun violence, it is troubling to see the government allocating substantial resources towards a bill that disproportionately targets responsible gun owners instead of addressing the real issue at hand - criminal activities involving firearms.
The proposed spending in Bill C-21, which aims to enforce new regulations on law-abiding gun owners, is concerning, as it diverts government resources from combating the root causes of gun violence. Criminals, not law-abiding citizens, are responsible for most gun-related crimes, as indicated by various law enforcement officials and statistics.
Investing in measures that solely target law-abiding gun owners without addressing the illegal possession and use of firearms by criminals, will not reduce gun violence. Instead, it places undue burdens on law-abiding citizens while neglecting to tackle the primary source of the issue.
As a responsible and pragmatic representative, I urge you to consider redirecting government resources and efforts toward strategies focusing on the criminal elements involved in gun violence. By allocating funding and attention to initiatives such as intelligence-led policing, enhanced border control, and targeted interventions, we can more effectively combat the illegal trade and use of firearms by criminals.
Moreover, meaningful collaboration and consultation with law enforcement agencies, legal experts, and stakeholders will provide invaluable insights into developing evidence-based strategies that prioritize public safety without infringing upon the rights of responsible gun owners.
As a concerned citizen, I implore you to take a leading role in amending Bill C-21 to refocus its efforts on criminals rather than law-abiding gun owners. By doing so, we can ensure that our government's resources are utilized wisely and that our communities are safer and more secure.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I trust that you will carefully consider the concerns raised and take the necessary steps to support amendments that genuinely address the core challenges of gun violence in our society.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Subject: Please amend C-21 To Focus on Criminals, not me!
Dear Senator [Senator's Last Name],
I am writing to express my concern about the spending associated with Bill C-21 and urge you to amend the law to prioritize efforts against criminals rather than burdening law-abiding gun owners.
Diverting resources towards regulations on responsible gun owners without addressing the criminal use of firearms, is ineffective in curbing gun violence. I urge you to redirect government resources towards intelligence-led policing and targeted interventions that address the root causes of gun crime.
Meaningful collaboration with law enforcement agencies and stakeholders will ensure evidence-based strategies that prioritize public safety without infringing upon the rights of responsible gun owners.
Please lead in amending Bill C-21 to focus on criminals, not law-abiding citizens, for a safer and more secure society.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Subject: Urgent Appeal to Oppose Bill C-21 and Its Detrimental Impact on Gun Ranges
Dear Senator [Senator's Last Name],
I am writing to you today to express my concern over what I feel may be an understated issue with Bill C-21, should it come to pass; an issue that may give rise to tremendously deleterious effects on our country's public safety.
By no longer allowing restricted firearms to be bought or sold, the number of restricted firearms owners is already declining, as older gun owners pass away and their firearms are destroyed - unable to be inherited by loved ones (but that's another matter). This will lead to the closure of most gun clubs across the country, as most are operating as not-for-profit community associations, and most rely on Restricted firearms owners to stay solvent. Restricted firearms, such as handguns and AR-15s, have only ever been allowed to be used on gun ranges in this country and so their owners form the majority of gun club members.
The closure of gun ranges will have a profoundly detrimental effect on the training of crucial law enforcement personnel, including conservation officers, border guards, corrections employees, and federal and provincial armed staff. Many regions rely on local gun clubs to host training, practice and qualifications. With the impending closure of these clubs, the question arises of how our police officers (and other armed public servants) will maintain their shooting skills to ensure public safety.
Will communities go further underserved by law enforcement when officers can no longer serve due to lapsing firearms qualifications? Or will communities go underserved by law enforcement because every week a new batch of police officers needs to be bussed hours away to qualify or train with a firearm in an adequate setting?
And in which case are Canadians made safer?
The lack of consideration for the practical consequences of this bill, especially its impact on law enforcement and public safety, raises serious doubts about its effectiveness and justification.
As a responsible representative, I implore you to oppose Bill C-21 and advocate for evidence-based solutions that prioritize public safety without jeopardizing the vital training needs of law enforcement professionals.
Please consider the far-reaching implications of this legislation and work towards finding more balanced and effective approaches to address gun violence while preserving the rights and essential training capabilities of law-abiding citizens and law enforcement personnel.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Your leadership in safeguarding the interests of Canadians and our safety is of utmost importance.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Subject: Please remove the handgun ban from Bill C-21, or amend it so at require fair market value, voluntary compensation program for owners
Dear Senator [Senator's Last Name],
I hope this letter finds you in good health. I am writing to express my profound concern about the ramifications of Bill C-21, particularly the lack of compensation being offered to current owners of handguns. As we navigate through these challenging economic times, it is imperative to consider the financial burden imposed on law-abiding citizens by this arbitrary decision.
The government's sudden and unexpected decision to prohibit the legal buying and selling of 1 million handguns without offering any form of financial compensation has exacerbated the hardships faced by citizens already grappling with the economic repercussions of the ongoing pandemic and economic uncertainty. While addressing the issue of gun violence is undeniably important, it is crucial to ensure that legislative actions do not unjustly burden law-abiding gun owners, who have dutifully complied with existing laws and regulations. The lack of financial compensation for these individuals underscores the need for a fair and just approach to firearms legislation.
As we contemplate the potential closure of shooting disciplines and handgun clubs across the country (due to declining membership figures resultant from these bans), it becomes apparent that law-abiding citizens invested in these activities may face significant financial losses, in addition to the restrictions on their legal rights to engage in their chosen sport. This lack of compensation is especially concerning given the economic hardships currently faced by many Canadians, and is only feeding resentment and divisiveness among those directly impacted - all while offering no apparent benefit to public safety.
Legislators need to assess the financial implications of Bill C-21 on Canadians critically. Ensuring fair and reasonable compensation for handgun owners who choose to pursue it can at least help mitigate the economic hardships imposed by the prohibition on buying and selling handguns.
I urge you, as a distinguished representative, to advocate for an equitable and compassionate approach that considers the economic well-being of law-abiding citizens. By addressing the lack of compensation in Bill C-21, we can ensure that the legislation reflects a balanced and socially responsible response to gun violence, while safeguarding the interests and financial security of our citizens.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Your leadership in advocating for a comprehensive and fair approach to firearms legislation will undoubtedly serve the best interests of all Canadians.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Subject: Thank You, Senator Plett
Dear Senator Plett,
As a gun owner who wants their kids to inherit the firearms with which we've made so many memories, thank you for everything you've done to speak against Bill C-21.
It is so very much appreciated, so again, thank you.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Canadian Arsenals Limited – Canada's Post-War Small Arms Experience (Part 1)
"The Armed Services of Canada cannot leave themselves at the mercy of other countries for the quantity and quality of the weapons with which they are supplied. Military units have workshops to take care of their immediate requirements, but the military workshop itself must be backed up by an active weapons factory."
Article in The Rocket The Journal of The Canadian Arsenals Ltd, December 1950
Sometimes firearms history is changed with the stroke of a pen.
On April 11, 1946, Col. Jolley, President and General Manager of Small Arms Limited (SAL), attended the last meeting of the Board of Directors. With their signatures, the board approved the final accounting for Small Arms Limited. As a result, Jolley and the board members sent Small Arms Limited into the history books.
But the legacy created by ordinary men and women who changed firearms history in Canada was to continue. And a new chapter had already started. The transfer of Small Arms Limited assets to a new Crown Corporation, Canadian Arsenals Limited, Small Arms Division, began four months before the Board of Directors signed off on the final accounting.
The Board of Directors for Canadian Arsenals Limited. J.P. Jolley is identified as a Director.
But months before that, Jolley submitted a plan to the government to convert the enormous 212,000 thousand-square-foot facility to peacetime use. The government accepted the plan. In late 1945, layoffs at Small Arms Limited increased, and small arms manufacturing began grinding to a halt. Enfield rifle production ended on August 17, 1945, with the cancellation of an order for 70,000 rifles. During the fourth quarter of 1945, the plant only manufactured 1,100 .22 rifles and 58 sniper rifles.
By late 1945, the enormous plant began the transition to peacetime use. Most of the machinery vital to arming soldiers in World War Two was no longer needed. And neither was the vast plant. Jolley's plan involved leasing 80% of the plant to private industry. Canadian Arsenals Limited, Small Arms Division, would only need 20% of the space for post-war small arms maintenance and rebuild.
There was an immediate commercial demand for rented space at the Small Arms Limited (SAL) plant. The Engineering Department prepared a drawing that showed the partitioning of the plant with the names of the tenants renting space at SAL. Snap On Tools leased the largest area in the facility, but a diverse mix of businesses secured space, including:
Phoenix Engineered Products Limited.
Fisher & Ludlow (Canada) Ltd.
Brand & Millen Limited.
Interiors Limited.
Adam Hats.
Appleby & Co.
Antoine Vanities Ltd.
Dominion Metalware Industries.
Shelley Films Limited.
As the transition to peacetime use continued, SAL leased out the office area of the plant. But, with the deconstruction of the assembly lines, a problem developed: where to store this equipment.
Engineering department drawing of the space allocated for new tenants in the Small Arms
Limited plant.
Management temporarily stored surplus equipment in the areas designated for private enterprise. Technicians identified machinery essential for Canadian Arsenals Limited: workers moved this equipment into the reduced space allocated for CAL. Over 200 personnel still worked in production, cleaning, or organizing equipment for disposal.
The surplus equipment was sold to private buyers or sent to the War Assets Corporation Limited warehouses. The War Assets Corporation solved a pressing problem.
War Assets Corporation
With the end of the war, there were new challenges. What do you do with the mountains of surplus machinery, equipment, munitions, ammunition, parts, and vehicles that are no longer needed? But just as importantly, how do you ensure that the flood of excess equipment does not negatively affect the economic recovery that recently brought Canada out of the great depression? The Canadian government began considering these problems soon after Canada declared war.
The solution was two new Government entities created in 1943 by an Order in Council – Crown Assets Allocation Committee (CAAC) and the War Assets Corporation. The role of these Government entities was complicated. Their function was to liquidate government-owned assets and reignite the post-war private economy. To fully understand the complexity private enterprise faced as the war ended, it is helpful to review the state of manufacturing in the late 1930s.
The great depression decimated Canada's industrial base. War production powered by Government spending fueled a remarkable economic recovery. In 1939, Canada suffered from a severe lack of manufacturing machinery. Economists estimated Canada had only 58 million dollars of industrial manufacturing equipment or 30,000 industrial machines as Canada emerged from the great depression. More than two-thirds of this equipment was over a decade old.
Another view of the CAL plant.
All that changed when the war started. By the war's end, purchases of new industrial machinery totalled over 300 million dollars. In 1944, there were approximately 70,000 industrial machines in use. This inventory was critical for economic recovery. And war surplus equipment was the most modern machinery in the country.
In contrast, by 1945, many private companies – that did not supply the war effort – had worn-out, obsolete equipment. As a result, surplus machinery was valuable since much of the old equipment was at the end of its useful service life. But there was another reason why the sale of surplus equipment was important.
The government allocated revenue from surplus machinery sales to pay down Canada's massive war debt. In other words, Small Arms Limited continued to benefit Canada by using revenue from surplus equipment sales to reduce this deficit. By any measure, Small Arms Limited was an outstanding success. And this success was about to continue.
Canadian Arsenals Limited (CAL) started in a reduced space, with a significantly smaller staff. Management provided office space in the Small Arms Inspection building. CAL was poised to make its mark on small arms history.
CAL Small Arms Division - The New Mission
The plant was only one part of a Crown Corporation created to provide "…industrial planning and development of and for basic development of weapons of warfare for the defence of Canada." Canadian Arsenals Limited consisted of the following plants:
Small Arms Ammunition division, Quebec City and Valcartier - primers, cartridge cases, clips, and small arms ammunition.
Gun Division Longueuil Quebec - carriages, gun mounts, and guns up to 6 inches.
Filling Division St. Paul I'Ermite P.Q. – filling shells, primers, fuses, tracers, and mines.
Explosives Division Valleyfield, P.Q. – high explosives and propellants.
Instrument and Radar Division, Leaside –producing and repairing optical and non-optical devices and radar equipment.
A document created by The Joint Arsenals Planning Board described the mandate of Canadian Arsenals Limited, Small Arms Division: "Manufacture, or repair, all types of small arms including rifles, pistols, machine carbines, etc. up to 30mm caliber, together with ancillary equipment." Further, CAL was responsible for the following:
Developing prototypes as requested by the services.
Providing technical training to members of the armed forces.
Maintaining and modifying existing equipment as required by the military
Maintaining jigs and gauges made for war production for use if necessary.
During the war, two other plants (not including John Inglis) made small arms: Border Cities Industries Ltd. In Windsor (M19 Browning tank gun), and the Ottawa Car and Foundry Limited (Vickers Machine Gun). The manufacturing equipment from these facilities was shipped to Canadian Arsenals Limited at the war's end.
However, equipment is only part of the equation necessary to create an arsenal. Engineering expertise is needed to turn ideas into practical solutions. CAL turned to an existing supply of experienced design personnel.
" Most of the senior staff of the small arms plant and principal design staff from John Inglis Company," an article in the CAL company newsletter stated, "formed the greatest part of the senior personnel of the small arms division." The expertise assembled at CAL was impressive.
Engineering and design personnel in the Small Arms Inspection Building offices after the office
area of the main plant was leased out to private industry.
An article in the long-defunct Canadian gun journal – Canada Gun Sport Journal of Military, Police and Sporting Arms, in August 1976, profiled one of the small arms designers at CAL, Gordon E. Wilson. He was the assistant Division Manager at CAL with "… 37 years of design and development of military small arms". His experience included time spent in England, at Enfield, in 1942.
According to the Canada Gunsport article, one of his assignments at Enfield included solving a production problem with the Sten submachine gun. Wilson also worked with designer Dieudonne Siave on a prototype rifle that would become the new service rifle for Commonwealth forces, including the Canadian military. His experience, like many of CAL's design and production personnel, was critical to future developments at CAL.
So, what happened to Col. Jolley, the former President of Small Arms Limited? Without question, his leadership was critical to the success of SAL. However, his expertise was not lost to small arms history. Volume 1, No. 1 – the first issue of The Rocket – listed the Board of Directors for Canadian Arsenals Limited: there, along with other Directors, is J. P. Jolley, O.B.E. (Most Excellent Order of the British Empire), an honour awarded for his wartime contribution.
Later CAL documents noted that Jolley became the General Manager of Acme Screw & Gear Ltd, a Toronto-based company. But, because of his position on the Board of Directors at CAL, his expertise in small arms manufacturing continued into Canada's next chapter of small arms development.
In Search of a Mission
What does a firearm manufacturing facility do when not manufacturing firearms? This was the dilemma facing CAL. With the war's end, orders for .303 Lee Enfield rifles had disappeared. CAL Small Arms Division became the repair and rebuild center for in-service firearms. Specifically, the company's mandate was to ensure "The work of major repair, modification and reconditioning of such stocks of military equipment would be carried out in the arsenal rather than by scattered shops and repair depots as was the case in Canada before the war."
View of Canadian Arsenals Limited plant. Canadian Arsenals Limited used only 20% of the plant.
But part of the mission for the new corporate entity was to secure outside work as a "jobber." The small arms division bid for work by competing with other Canadian manufacturing companies. CAL made gauges, fixtures, and dies " On a competitive basis with other jobbing shops," as described in an issue of The Rocket newsletter. So who did CAL produce parts or tooling for in the post-1945 era?
Unfortunately, very little documentation details the work they did for other companies. However, an important document recently surfaced that provided information on plant activities from 1945 to 1976. Chief Warrant Officer (retired) Gary Crocker, a firearms expert, discovered the CAL Engineering Log detailing the work carried out at CAL. He also secured the engineering blueprints prepared for bids or as a preliminary step to manufacture items. As a result, it is possible to gain insight into what CAL worked on during this period.
In 1945, for example, CAL made F.N. pistol gauges for John Inglis and a metal stamp for the hammer and ejector. Parts manufactured for Inglis included the firing pin bush for the pistol. CAL also made specialized milling cutters for Inglis. But some of the work carried out by CAL was surprising.
In 1950, CAL made a gauge for manufacturing the handguard for the Lee Enfield Mk. III. In addition, CAL carried out other work for this Lee Enfield rifle. Including:
The band for the stock forend.
Tooling for manufacturing the band.
Cutter blade for the band.
Fixture for No 1 Mk III Lee Enfield
However, since Canada no longer used the Mk III Lee Enfield, who was the customer? Unfortunately, the available documentation does not identify who ordered this work. Gary Crocker says, "Since Australia was still issuing the MK. III rifle, it was probably for them."
But another entry in the engineering log is surprising. One of America's oldest gun makers was also a customer. Records showed that beginning in 1948, CAL made parts for the Harrington & Richardson M48 Topper single-shot shotgun. These parts included:
410 Gauge barrels -1948.
The shotgun frame (receiver) -1948.
Forend – 1950.
Barrel straightening fixture -1950.
Gauges, coning (choke) tool, shoulder screw, hammer, and various fixtures used for manufacturing the shotgun -1948-1950.
Firing Crotch for supporting the shotgun during proof firing -1951.
Interestingly, there are Topper shotguns that have "TOPPER" – M48 H&R Arms Co. LTD. LONG BRANCH ONT MADE IN CANADA stamped on the receiver. The Canadian-made shotguns also had a different serial number system from the US-made shotguns. So did CAL make these shotguns for Harrington & Richardson?
Joe Salter, an east coast dealer of firearms and militaria, told me, "H&R rented space at Canadian Arsenals Limited, " where they assembled shotguns. H&R moved out of CAL to a facility in Drummondville, Quebec, in 1950. But the tooling made at CAL went to the Drummondville plant.
Reviewing the hundreds of entries in the Engineering log provides interesting information. For example, CAL manufactured barrels for the American Experimental T65 in .30 and 7.92 short caliber.
But another pattern emerges at CAL. Of course, the company continued to make parts for in-service firearms and gauges, as directed in their official mandate. For example, in 1950, CAL still made receivers for the #4 Lee Enfield. The records also show that in 1953, they made gauges and parts for the Chinese 8mm Bren machine gun.
Interior of the Small Arms Inspection area. The large floor-to-ceiling windows designed to allow the most amount of light into the room to help with the inspections.
CAL also made complete Bren guns chambered for the 8mm cartridge for the Chinese. Of course, the plant continued building or modifying in-service firearms for the Canadian military, including .22 calibre .303 pattern rifles. But in 1952, CAL received a new assignment.
An item published in the June 1952 edition of the Rocket newsletter revealed a new development at the plant. "Space formerly rented to industry," the report stated," was reclaimed and laid out for the manufacture of the .50 Cal. M. 3 Browning Machine Gun.CAL management enlarged the tool room and facilities set up for the manufacture of precision gauges."
The M3 A.C. Basic was a 61-pound (27.6 kilograms) aircraft version of the .50 Browning machine gun. The M3 didn't have sights, a cocking handle, or spade grips. Instead, the machine gun fired using a solenoid affixed to the side of the receiver.
Visitors arrive at the new offices of Canadian Arsenals Limited.
By 1953, a production line for the M3 was producing completed Browning M3 machine guns. Another production line for the .30 calibre Browning light machine gun was underway at CAL. As the August 1953 issue of the Rocket reported, "the engineering staff devoted considerable time to small arms development for the Department of National Defence." The article further claimed that the "facilities of the tool and gauge room have been fully utilized."
However, this activity was just a preliminary to a new development at Canadian Arsenals Limited. Canada was about to make small arms history.
Canada's New Rifle - The Canadians Make a Bold Move
When WW2 ended, only one country had armed its soldiers with large quantities of semi-automatic firearms: the United States. Over four million M1 Garand rifles were manufactured at Springfield Armories and Winchester by the war's end. But even before 1945, interest in a self-loading rifle had increased.
The Germans issued quantities of the Sturmgewehr, a rifle that fired a reduced-sized (7.92 x 33 cartridge) in both semi-automatic and full auto. By 1944, the German high command planned to arm all soldiers with a selective-fire, lightweight assault rifle, firing this reduced-sized cartridge. However, pressure on the German manufacturing infrastructure made this impossible. As a result, Germany ended the war using bolt-action rifles.
Similarly, the Russians issued quantities of the SVT Tokarev self-loading rifle to their soldiers during the war. However, most Russian soldiers used bolt-action rifles. And the Canadians, British, and other Commonwealth troops were also armed with bolt-action rifles.
Outside view of the Inspection area at the rear of the Small Arms Inspection Building.
Incredibly, at the start of WW2, Canada issued a variation of a rifle (the Lee Enfield) first produced in 1895. Germans soldiers were issued a modified Mauser bolt action rifle created in 1898. Similarly, the Russians used a version of A bolt-action rifle designed in 1898 (the Mosin-Nagant).
With the end of hostilities, attention turned to modernizing the armaments issued to soldiers. One of the most pressing requirements was the selection of a cartridge. All the bolt action rifles used during WW2 fired a full-power, long-range cartridge. The German experiment with the intermediate, reduced-sized (7.92 x 33 cartridge) was a complete break from pre-war thinking.
WW2 involved rapid movement on the battlefield, fighting in built-up areas, and motorized infantry. The reduced-sized 7.92 x 33 cartridge used in the StG pattern MP 42 and 44 assault rifles by the Germans offered significant advantages. The cartridge was more controllable in full auto fire, more lethal than the 9mm round used in submachine guns, and provided the soldier with more firepower in a lighter-weight weapon. One of the most curious episodes in small arms history happened next.
View of the Office Area of the Small Arms Inspection Building 2022. This is where the finalized
design for the FN C1A1 and C2 were created.
In 1945, the British formed The Small Arms Ideal Calibre Panel to determine what cartridge and rifle would best suit the needs of post world war soldiers. By 1946, Canada, the US., and Britain expressed interest in standardizing the weapon and cartridges used by their armed forces. However, there was a failure to reach a consensus. As a result, Canada and the UK. took a different path than the US.
Blake Stevens, the author of North American FALs, provides the entire story of how good intentions became disagreements leading to an inability to standardize. Blake was one of Canada's preeminent firearms writers. His books are the authority on the Canadian small arms experience. Steven's analysis of why the countries failed to reach an agreement is required reading for anyone interested in post-World War Two firearms developments.
By 1951, negotiations had reached a stalemate. The British favoured a reduced-sized cartridge (.280 calibre), while the US wanted a full-power .30 calibre cartridge. The British had developed a radical – for the time –bullpup rifle, the EM2, and chambered it for the .280 cartridge. In addition, the British also ordered an FN-built rifle in .280 calibre. The US. designed the T25 rifle – a full-sized rifle firing the Cal. 30 T65E3 cartridge. When the British learned there were plans by the US to adopt the T25, they requested trials for the competing weapons.
These trials occurred from February to April 1950, at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, in Maryland, USA. The tests were inconclusive. Each rifle suffered from numerous mechanical failures during the extensive live-fire tests. As stated in the report, "No model was free from undesirable features." So what caused this performance problem?
None of the rifles were ready for vigorous trials since they were still in the early stages of development. Nonetheless, the trials went ahead, and it was clear from the start that the U.S. favoured the .30 calibre cartridge.
Another view of the offices in the Small Arms Inspection Building, 2022, where the Canadian version of the FN rifle was designed. The water tower is where the main Small Arms Limited plant was located and the only remaining structure left standing.
The official report confirmed the US preference and stated, " The T25 rifle has the advantages of using a round giving approximately the same ballistics as the present service round." Another official statement released by the US Army was more direct. "The Army is firmly opposed to the adoption of any less effective small calibre cartridge for use in either its present Rifle or new weapons being developed." Another statement explained the logic for the preference for a full-power cartridge."Any new rifle must have wounding power, penetration, performance, and ballistics at least equal to that in use today."
With this official position entrenched in the thinking of the largest ally, the dream of standardization evaporated. So, the next question was, what would the UK and Canada do with the goal of standardization now in ruins?
Britain was the first to react officially to the stalemate: in the spring of 1951, the British Defence Minister, Emanuel Shinwell, announced the UK was formally adopting the EM2 rifle chambered for the .280 cartridge. Surprisingly, Canada intervened in an attempt to mediate a path toward standardization.
The Canadian Defence Minister requested a meeting with Defence – Minister level representatives from the U.S., Canada, the UK, and France. The result was predictable: each side defended their preferred choice of calibre. So what happens when there is no clear choice? The parties request more tests.
Canada Selects a New Rifle
As a result, one clear path emerged. The British abandoned the EM2, and the FN FAL rifle chambered for the .30 round and became the front runner for adoption. There was still the question of calibre. In 1954, at a conference in Ottawa, the parties agreed to adopt an improved .30 calibre round – the 7.62mm Nato. With the ammunition issue settled, a choice of a rifle remained, and Canada became the first country to adopt the FN rifle and the first country to mass produce it.
An article in the Canadian Arsenals Limited journal The Rocket foretold this development in the February 1954 edition. "The announcement that the Nato countries have agreed to standardization of small arms ammunition means that the Canadian Army will soon part company with the .303 Lee Enfield. Its replacement probably will be the Belgian .30 Caliber Fabrique Nationale."
With this announcement, it was clear that a lightweight rifle firing a reduced-sized cartridge – the purpose of the long path to standardization – had ended. Canada, the US, and the UK decided to adopt a full-size battle rifle for military service, firing a full-power cartridge with nearly the same characteristics as issued in World War Two!
In August 1955, the Canadian Department of Defence Production awarded a contract to Canadian Arsenals Limited, Small Arms Division, to manufacture the new FN Canadian military rifle. With this contract, CAL once again became the arsenal for Canada, taking on the role that Small Arms Limited had so competently filled. CAL scheduled production to begin in 1956. However, no one knew that this momentous event in Canadian Small Arms history signaled the beginning of the end for Canadian Arsenals Limited.
And, none of the SAL directors could imagine, when they signed the accounting documents in 1946, that they had set into motion a series of events that included demolishing the huge Long Branch plant.
Ironically, one of the main reasons the government created CAL – to manufacture new weapons for the military – would result in the company closing in 1976. Once more, Canada would be without a government arsenal to manufacture small arms for the military.
In Part 2 of the story of Canadian Arsenals limited, we trace the success of Canadian Arsenals Limited and how this success led to the closure of Canada's small arms manufacturing facility. Thanks to CWO (Retired) Gary Crocker for providing expertise, archival material, and pictures for this article.
