Nothing to see.

[Stormchaser]

Tag for interest

 

[Mirk]

A variant is horizontal - There is a "master", and different versions are made out of it, which are the "variants".

Remember the Steyr TMP? The OIC prohibs the semi automatic version of TMP, which is the SPP. TMP is the "master", SPP is a version of TMP. TMP came before everyone else.

The B&T MP9 is a direct descendant of TMP. From MP9, a new version of the "master' MP9 is made. You can agrue that both TP9 and MP9 are variants of TMP, but they are not variants of SPP (banned).

The argument here is whether the SIG 540 is the "master", or that the SIG 550 is the "master". SIG 550 is a descendant of the SIG540. Is PE90 a descendant of the semi automatic version of SIG540, or a variant derived from SIG550?

This is a question that needs to be answered by Swiss Arms and I think it is exactly what RCMP is looking for in the official answer. Mechanical similarities are irrelevant. It is how the design linkage that matters. Our speculation is useless. It is an answer that needs to be answered by the manufacturer who make and design these things over the last 40 years. They have to look up at their documentation and have to come up with a straight answer. They had given the answer 12 years ago, so we will see what they have to say when asked the same question again 12 years after.

Personally, I think our focus should be put on something we can influence, which is to influence our politicians to remove the roots of the problems, that are, the ambiguity in the OICs and the OICs themselves. Our speculation on the "true" answer of this "variant game" will just end up harming our own cause and diverting valuable engery from things that we can influence.

Excellent post, although I think the thing is they are sceptical of this “master” “variant” paradigm considering the development dates. The SG540 was developed from 1971 to 1977 and the SG550 was designed from 1981 to 1984 as the SG541 according to the email from William Etter. They have essentially determined that the SG541 was classified the Stgw 90 and that the PE90, SG550 and SG551 are just versions of the same rifle. Subsequently the production dates of the SG540 are 1977-2002 and the SG550 are 1986-present. Now, supposedly the Swiss Arms Classic Green was designed and produced in 2001 to JR’s specifications.

So, a rifle designed and produced in 2001 supposedly overlooked the rifle designed and produced in the 80’s and used the rifle designed and produced in the 70’s as its Master. Although, it has a number of features similar if not the same as the rifle designed and produced in the 80’s. Coupled with the fact that “variant” has no true definition it does not look good for this rifle.

Think about it, the RCMP were sent 3 nearly identical rifles and were told one of them used to be fully auto at one point in its life, ie: an SG550. So now they are looking at 3 rifles that are nearly identical and are essentially being told one of them is an SG550 (a named prohib) and the other 2 are non-res.

 

[stickhunter]

All the speculation and picture showing do nothing to further our cause. It satisfies curiosity but it is also giving ammo to other people with opposite agenda who is also reading these public forums.

I disagree with this comment. Some legitimate arguments for preserving our ability to keep the Swiss Arms (and subsequently other black rifles if you think this is only one step in a larger agenda), have also included claims that the Classic Greens are "clearly" not variants of the 550. As you and others have pointed out, this may not be the essential argument --- that we need to be fighting to rework the Firearms Act and the arbitrary/unfounded prohibition OICs. I agree, that's the approach that needs to be taken, but when you argue from a questionable standpoint (i.e., that the Classic Greens are not variants), it diminishes further arguments (i.e., that the Firearms Act is a botched piece of legislature).

As I mentioned in the previous thread to KevinB's response, I believe any and all facts in this and other cases are important to know and understand. While I appreciate that the antis troll these forums, I'm not naïve to think that the RCMP's Firearms Lab doesn't have the capability do the same research and find these resources by themselves. I don't think my "assistance" to them is significant in any way. I just want to know the truth so that I can base my arguments on fact and maintain credibility. While looking at pictures may be speculation, it helps me form a realistic view of the current situation. I'd rather move forward with a defence based on knowledge instead of hopeful ignorance.

 

[Steve Janes]

Think about it

Or you could stop thinking about it, write your letter's and do your part, and wait and see what is actually going to happen instead of continuing to speculate.

There's no point in continuing the circle jerk in this thread, the other SAN threads going, and the new one's bound to pop up in the near future. It's not helping our case to keep doing this. All these Swiss Arms threads need to go away. New information will come to light, and it WILL be made public. If not by the parties involved, then by the guys who dig, just like was done to leak the info we already have.

Until then, the constant back and forth banter and speculation is only making things worse, and I really mean it......The stuff you people keep posting and saying on these open threads is being read by all parties involved, and it's having a negative impact. They all want the constant Swiss talk to stop for now. If you want to help the situation, stop posting about it....

LOCK IT DOWN

 

[Mirk]

I hope you honestly don’t think I haven’t fully considered that… everything I posted is rather easy to find and most of it is included in William Etter’s email. The thing is, stickhunter probably put it better than me, there is too much misinformation or a lack there of which I believe does nothing to help us. Especially when people are writing letters based on that information, I would prefer them to be rightfully informed and not blatantly inaccurate.

Sorry if you don’t like what I said, but they are the facts as I see them, if you would like to correct them or add to them feel free. They are not a secret from what I see.