Policy question regarding 'antique' status on firearms.

[u/Spread-Hour]

Why do antique models of firearms (m1861 springfield rifle and colt m1861 navy for example) made before 1898 qualify as 'antique', while the exact same models produced in 1899 or later qualify as non restricted and restricted firearms? Sorry if this sounds dumb, but I dont understand the logic here. I would understand if they weren't muzzleloaders, which load, shoot, and preform nearly the same as every other type (flint/wheel/match/serpentine-lock), but unlike the rest, cant be antique while being repros. why?

(P.S this is a repost of my post from r/canadianlaw)

[u/Tough-Air-4765]

Same reason why why a reproduction flint lock pistol is restricted all hand guns are to be restricted due to some definition of been operated with a single hand. It doesn't make any sense based on the idea that "antique" firearms are not firearms except the ones we decide are for hand guns if it is chambered in 45Long Colt no matter the age is a restricted handgun, the same applies to rifles you could have a martini action rebarreled in 1890 to .303 british and it is consider a "modern" firearms that tou need your PAL to own since iirc the caliber has to be above 8.6 mm and made before December 31 1897 to be considered a antique. Most of this goes out the window when talking about long guns that operate on a flint/wheel lock or match/fuse operation of ignition they are not considered "firearms" for general use and ownership purposes. You can if you had the money or machinery and knowledge could make a 42pdr Naval gun like on HMS Victory and have it fully functional because it meets all the criteria to be considered a non firearm and I own a small cannon and other people own and trade in cannons of significant size so it is possible.