Finally... An Australia-legal G36...
http://www.hksystems.com.au/r8.htm
The HK R8 is a bolt-action version of the HK SL8, which in turn is a semi-automatic sporter version of the HK G36. It not only has the unique appeal of the appearance of a semi-auto, it's also apparently a real tack-driver.
Anyone here have any hands-on experience with this rifle?
The HK R8 is a bolt-action version of the HK SL8, which in turn is a semi-automatic sporter version of the HK G36. It not only has the unique appeal of the appearance of a semi-auto, it's also apparently a real tack-driver.
Anyone here have any hands-on experience with this rifle?
0
-
I would about get one, if it wasn't for that ugly-azz scope rail thing. 0 -
I actually like the look of the scope rail... Its position is reminiscent of the G36's carry handle. To each his own, I guess. 0 -
With a accessory rail of that size you would probably have enough room to mount another rifle up there. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by CeeWhy
http://www.hksystems.com.au/r8.htm
The HK R8 is a bolt-action version of the HK SL8, which in turn is a semi-automatic sporter version of the HK G36. It not only has the unique appeal of the appearance of a semi-auto, it's also apparently a real tack-driver.
Anyone here have any hands-on experience with this rifle?
I have shot the SL8, the "legal" version of the G36 in the USA.
I prefer an AR15..and the AR is cheaper.
I feel sorry for you, you guys had to turnh in all your semi-auto rifles, didn't you?
Socialism is a wonderful thing...isn't it?
Too bad..wasn't there a civilian legal version of your L1A1 available??
IF I was restricted to a bolt action rifle, I don't think this would be my choice, but considering what your choices are, got for it and good luck0 -
quote:Originally posted by PBJloaf
I have shot the SL8, the "legal" version of the G36 in the USA.
I prefer an AR15..and the AR is cheaper.
I feel sorry for you, you guys had to turnh in all your semi-auto rifles, didn't you?
Not as bad as it's often made out to be. When they made all the LAFOs (law-abiding firearm-owners) sell their semi-auto longarms to the gov't so they could destroy them, the affected individuals often used the buyback money from the gov't to buy one or two lever-actions or bolt-actions to replace their confiscated semi-auto firearms.
quote:Originally posted by PBJloaf
Socialism is a wonderful thing...isn't it?
The 1996 gun ban was instituted by our conservative party. Our socialist party had been kicked out of power merely months earlier. The socialist party, however, recently got back into power. And, fortunately for us firearm enthusiasts, their current leader is a "gun nut" by the name of Kevin Rudd.
quote:Originally posted by PBJloaf
Too bad..wasn't there a civilian legal version of your L1A1 available??
Not that I know of, but I might look into it.Originally posted by PBJloaf
IF I was restricted to a bolt action rifle, I don't think this would be my choice, but considering what your choices are, got for it and good luck
Before I even think of gettimg my hands on this firearm, though, I'd need to look around to find the usual going price. It's a limited-edition firearm, and the site itself doesn't mention any sort of price, so I can assume it's probably going to be pricey...0 -
I guss what I'm getting at is that Austrailia is a socailist country by American standards...
IIRC the L1A1 was available in NZ, I might be wrong about Austrailia...and that came to a scrreching halt to with the whackjob who commited a mass shooting in NZ a few years back.0 -
You know, I really don't like it when the word "socialist" is thrown around like that. I lean a little leftward politically myself, so it irks me a bit to hear the word "socialism" thrown around in such a negative manner.
Anyway, I don't think the L1A1 could be legal in Australia, unless there's some sort of bolt-action version available. As for New Zealand, they're allowed to legally buy semi-auto longarms, but, much like in the US in the 90s, you can't get "military-style semi-automatics", which are defined as:
quote:...any "self-loading" (semi-automatic) rifle or shotgun (longer than 762mm (30 inches), and fired two-handed) that has any of the following features:
* Folding or telescopic butt
* Bayonet lug
* Free-standing "military-style" pistol grip
* Flash suppressor
* A magazine that holds (or looks like it could hold) more than 15 rounds of .22 rimfire or 7 rounds of any other cartridge
So, a New Zealander could hypothetically buy an L1Ai, so long as it had a low-capacity magazine, thumbhole stock without pistol grip, bayonet lug removed and flash-suppressor removed. Hmm, this reminds me of California for some reason...0 -
quote:Originally posted by CeeWhy
it irks me a bit to hear the word "socialism" thrown around in such a negative manner.
Is there a positive manner to throw the word "socialism" around?0 -
quote:Originally posted by sav99
quote:Originally posted by CeeWhy
it irks me a bit to hear the word "socialism" thrown around in such a negative manner.
Is there a positive manner to throw the word "socialism" around?
Eh... sometimes. I think I should clarify my position on social and economic issues, though. My views are quite similar to the leader of Australia's (currently ruling) socialist party, Kevin Rudd. While I do acknowledge that competitive markets are quite efficient generators of wealth and should therefore have a central place in the management of an economy, markets sometimes fail. This may necessitate direct government intervention through instruments such as industrial policy or the introduction of new legislation relating to the economy. Additionally, it should be noted that there are also certain areas where, for one reason or another, the public good dictates there should be no market at all.
But I'm not here to discuss economics, I'm just here to chat about the HK R8 rifle which I posted about earlier. If I wanted to talk economics, I'd have posted a topic debating the pros and cons of different economic theories.0 -
I don't know about Australia being a socialist country but I do know they have more marsupial's than I would be willing to shake a stick at. Err, is it still legal to shake a stick in Australia or has that right been taken away also? 0 -
Not as far as I know. Stick-shaking rights are well and good in this nation.
Anyway, our gun law situation isn't nearly as bad as your nation's pro-gun propaganda tries to make it out to be. Take this website, for instance:
http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/guns/the-australian-gun-ban/
At first glance, this page is reasonable. However, upon closer inspection, it is a rather paranoid interpretation which ignores and misstates many facts. The linked article references no reliable sources of statistics and makes no fact-based argument. Essentially, it is rubbish.
First off, we weren't "systematically disarmed". About 5% of Australians are gun owners and about 5% were before the ban - the gun laws didn't affect the rate of firearm ownership that much. Shooting enthusiasts STILL have guns, just more paperwork and not the types we want. .22 caliber pistols weren't affected at all by this ban; indeed, most semi-automatic pistols are still legal.
The crime rate did not explode. This was spin from a US RKBA propandadist perspective. Murder and suicide rates were falling before the ban and continued along this downward trend afterwards. Armed robbery (non-firearm) rose a lot for a while, however, the reasons for this are pretty damned difficult to link to the gun laws from a statistical perspective. Also, the stats quoted to Dr Miguel Faria were taken from sensational news reports and do not reflect figures over longer time frames by reliable sources at all.
Most importantly, the whole argument about deterring criminals is not relevant to Australian facts because civilian self-defense with firearms was so rare in Australia BEFORE the new laws that it is not considered a serious threat by criminals. So, really, it's quite an irrelevant argument.0 -
One more thing: there are ways in which the Australian laws are in fact less stringent than US laws. Take AOWs, for example. Sticking a foregrip or buttstock on that Glock of yours requires a $200 tax stamp in the US, but here, our "Category H" licence covers not only handguns, but any firearms less than 75 centimetres in length, including AOWs and SBRs, so sticking accessories like those on your handgun won't land you in jail. Hooray for technicalities! 0 -
What is this letter from an australian policeman if everything is hunky dory down under?? This letter appeared after the gun confiscation..
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 6:05 AM
Subject: Worth repeating
From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.
Hi Yanks,
I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.
biding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's to late!0 -
Because it's getting late at night where I live and I'm starting to feel really lazy, I'm just going to rebut that argument by linking you to Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
Again, statistical manipulation and propaganda.0 -
Only 5% have guns? Sounds pretty disarmed to me. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by thunderbolt
Only 5% have guns? Sounds pretty disarmed to me.
Only 5% of us had guns in the first place. That's the point - we were never "disarmed", the vast majority of us just never bothered to arm ourselves in the first place.0 -
ive been reading the stories about this, and as an australian i can tell you that armed crime has increased, at least in the state i`m from...pre `96 the crime of armed home invasion was unheard of here...it isnt now..especially as far as older people are concerned...the crooks know full well that the older people are most likely law abading and if they do own a gun it will be locked up in a safe, with the bolt and magazine and the ammo stored in a seperate locked part of the safe, therefore it would take them too long to get it out to defend themselves!!..pre`96 the crooks didnt know if that little old man had a loaded 12g beside his bed, and they didnt want to find out either!!!every state here sets its own laws still, but they have to meet national minimum standards(no semi auto long arms, unless you are a farmer, no pump shotguns either)there is only 1 reason for registration of firearms....so the government knows who has what so they can take them any time they want!!and the sad part is, we were punished because of what 1 nutter did! and there isnt 1 thing in the "new" laws that will stop another nutter from doing it again...the "assult rifle" martin brynt used was handed in in victoria in a state buy back and it was supposed to have been destroyed!!! so how did it end up in tasmania??? at the time of the killings my cousin was a member of the lower house of parliment here in tasmania and a very close family friend was an upper house member, they both told me that the upper house was all set to reject the national laws and go it alone with their own gun laws and that EVERY upper house member received a personal phone call and was told that if tasmania rejected the national laws all federal funding would be cut off!!!!...yeah, we sure live in a great democracy dont we?..there was never an enquiry into the massacre, the government said it was to protect the victims and their familys...rubbish!!! it was so the government wouldnt be embarrassed!!! martin bryant was a very rich person, he was a lotto heir, he got hundreds of thousands of $ a year....he could afford to buy what he wanted...he was also left a farm on the tasman peninsula not all that far from port arthur where he killed all those people,...his neighbours went there to pick blackberries and he pointed a gun at them and threatened to shoot them if they ever went back there...they reported this to the police, and the police checked and saw he didnt have a gun licence, and they did nothing!!! if did their damned job they would have got a warrant and searched for a gun and taken it off him, the media were told this by the neighbours, and 1 tv station reported it, once only, then it was never mentioned again!!!..."cover up"!!!..i dont believe the conspiracy theories about the massacre for a minute, but i do know there was a major cover up after the event!!..the media here refuses point blank to print or show anything that could be interperted as being "pro gun"..so much for freedom of speech!!!as a gun owner here im listed on the national police data base as a "know person to police" ..right alongside rapists, murderers and every piece of slime you want to mention!!!!...i`m treated as a crimminal because i own guns, and it stinks!!!!the # of guns handed in has never been released..the govt. knows roughly how many were impoted and how many were built here, a % would have been lost or destroyed over the years...some used for spare parts etc. so they would have had a fair idea of how many were here, but they wouldnt release how many were handed back because there is a lot that arent accounted for and they dont want to admit that they failed with their buy back...how stupid are we??? we worked to pay for these guns, then our tax $ were used to buy them back...we bought our own guns!!!!as you people in the U S know, gun bans dont stop crime, unless you get 100% compliance it fails!!!...and yes, law abiding citizens complied and handed them in, but crimminals didnt!!..the very guns that needed to be removed are still out there and get used against us, the law abiding citizen!!!..i do agree that people bought other legal guns after the buy back, and indeed here in tasmania there are more gun owners than in any other state, and a hell of a lot more guns now, at least that is what the cops are saying...it was estimated in the 1980`s that for every man woman and child here there were 3 firearms, and now they say it is more...of coarse before `96 we didnt have registration for long arms...anything with a barrel over 16 inches had to be registered, it was classed as a handgun.they have been tightly controlled since 1923.and yet all over australia crimes with hand guns is increasing every year, and they arent legally owned...ive tried to give a good argument here, but if you are interested do a web searcg on ...port arthur massacre....or....martin bryant....or tasmanian firearms act.....i`m not sure what you would have to type in to look at our actual firearms laws, i tried looking up the regulations but couldnt find them anywhere...i know enough to realise that you have your fair share of anti gun "do gooders" in the U S so just be loud about defending your RIGHTS fellers, because once you loose them you wont get them back...and our "socialist government " of the day wont change these damned laws anymore than the conservatives will...we have lost something that will never be given back, not ever!!!....when i was 11 or 12 i actually met an old timer who was involved in drawing up our constitution and i asked him why they didnt put it in that we had the right to bear arms like in the U S and he said they didnt think of it...it was already taken as a right to own and use guns...indeed the govt. at great expense set up firing ranges all over the country, a lot of small towns even had them, and subsidised the cost of 303 ammo to encourage people to learn how to shoot...then in times of war they already had people who knew how to use a rirle so it wasnt neccessary to spend a lot of time training them to....our laws are wrong, and i`ll debate anyone anytime about it..and as far as them being introduced to save lives, get real, if the govt. wanted to save lives they would clamp down on vehicles and ban high speed cars and make it damned harder to get a drivers licence!!..i wonder what people would say if they lost their driving licence because they commited a crime, like drunk driving or speeding..2 things that DO take lives every day and their care were crushed or melted down...because that is whar happens if you loose your gun licence...your guns are "STOLEN" by the police and they get melted down!..its enough to make you either get super angry or just plain old cry with frustration...and i`m man enought o admit i`ve done both!...sorty for ranting on, but everything i`ve said here is the truth!!whether the anti gun brigade here in australia like it or not..i`m past caring about them. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
17 comments