Notice to S&W M&P 15-22 Rifle Owners

I was about to buy one, but don't want a piddly 10 round mag. Are there any aftermarket other options besides the $100+ that the Blackdog drums cost?

Also, hypothetically speaking, what would happen if S&W shipped the rifles with, or made, 25 round magazines stamped with "M&P15-22 Rifle"? Would that be sufficient to end this stupidity?
 
Silver_Back said:
long and short of it is that it simply will not work/solve the problem

But Dude, seriously...
the thread is not the long.
Look back and read it.
Click to expand...

Actually it would solve the problem....... (read back yourself)

But I seriously doubt that S&W Will bother as they do offer 10rnd mags for us poor bast**ds here in Canuckistan as well as the fellas in California.
 
I was leafing through the Criminal Code (it's a rainy day) on the subject of prohibited devices and discovered these gems:

"S.91(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses....a prohibited device...without being the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it. "

The penalty can be imprisonment for up to five years.

Subsection (4) makes an exception if the person "lawfully disposes of it" or obtains a licence (which of course is impossible.)

"S.106(1) Every person commits an offence who
(a) after destroying any...prohibited device..or
(b) on becoming aware of the destruction of any...prohibited device...that was in the person's possession before its destruction,
does not with reasonable despatch report the destruction to a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer.

Once again the penalty can be imprisonment for up to five years.

On the other hand the Regulations, Part 4, 3(4) & (5) permit an otherwise prohibited magazine if it is permanently altered to accept only 10 (in this case) cartridges.

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to me like everyone who owns a 25rnd S&W 15-22 magazine must:
a) destroy or permanently pin it and;
b) report the destruction (and/or report the alteration? that's not clear)
or risk 5 to 10 years in the slammer.

If anyone knows whether the government is required to notify owners of a change in status of some device that makes them subject to these penalties I'd like to hear about it. I rather suspect that we are expected to become aware of these developments via mental telepathy or daily perusal of the RCMP prohibited lists.

Anyway, I offer these cheery bits of info in case you were having a nice day :)
 
wtf

got bored after reading about 15 pages so sorry if this is in this thread already.... if the magazine has no identifying numbers on it how will the rcmp know if the prohibition order refers to that particular mag.
are there other 25 rounders for sale??
 
Mr Niceguy said:
What makes the Bulldog mag legal? Will it not fit in the pistol version?
Click to expand...

I think the Black Dog slips through on a subtle nuance of the regulations, i.e. it was not "designed" for the pistol. That probably accounts for the continued legality of 3rd party Ruger 25 rounders, even though they will obviously fit in the Ruger Charger, which is deemed a pistol. This is a slender thread which is still holding, so far. It may also be that the CFC classification section has just not thought of an interpretation yet which would prohibit these devices.

Anyone buying a Black Dog or other mag should also not fail to write Vic Toews demanding compensation for their original S&W magazine. Since the classification was made retroactively there is a very good case for reimbursement (and some small, but finite, possibility that you will actually get it!)
 
CompBoy said:
This is part that is bothering me it's just not based of logic or safety it's like in the playground. We almost take out their beloved LGR and boom another limitation.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly the marketing. Part 4, S.3 (1)(b) of the Regulations makes any cartridge magazine prohibited "that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada."

The marketing itself is only relevant insofar as it permitted the RCMP to deem that the magazine had been designed for the pistol. The marketing in question was a S&W catalogue which showed the 25 rnd mag in the 15-22 pistol and the 10 rnd mag as an accessory. (The fact that the rifle was introduced about a year before the pistol was not considered relevant. Which, by the way, makes further decisions of this nature not unlikely.)

So there's really nothing new about this. The RCMP just made an extremely strict and questionable interpretation of the existing regulations.

You are right that it has nothing to do with safety, and it is logical only in the context of the absurd twisted mess that make up Canadian firearms law.
 
JimV said:
It's not exactly the marketing. Part 4, S.3 (1)(b) of the Regulations makes any cartridge magazine prohibited "that is capable of containing more than 10 cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in a semi-automatic handgun that is commonly available in Canada."

The marketing itself is only relevant insofar as it permitted the RCMP to deem that the magazine had been designed for the pistol. The marketing in question was a S&W catalogue which showed the 25 rnd mag in the 15-22 pistol and the 10 rnd mag as an accessory. (The fact that the rifle was introduced about a year before the pistol was not considered relevant. Which, by the way, makes further decisions of this nature not unlikely.)

So there's really nothing new about this. The RCMP just made an extremely strict and questionable interpretation of the existing regulations.

You are right that it has nothing to do with safety, and it is logical only in the context of the absurd twisted mess that make up Canadian firearms law.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. It is obvious that BOTH guns existed right from the start and were BOTH planned by S&W and the magazines were made for BOTH... this is supported by the fact that S&W produced the catalogue before either of the guns was announced to the public or released for sale. Thus the interpretation by RCMP is that the magazine was a "Dual Purpose" magazine that was designed and manufactured to be used in BOTH firearms. The fact that S&W released the Rifle before the Pistol is irrelevant... they designed them both at the same time and announced them both together. That is very different than other situations where a rifle is designed and magazines are built for it... then some time later a pistol version is designed and release.

All S&W has to do is produce a version of the magazine that is manufactured specifically for the rifle (same as the way Beretta produced a magazine that was specifically for their CX4 Storm rifle)... RCMP already ruled previously that such a magazine would in fact be a "rifle magazine" and under our laws a rimfire rifle magazine has unlimited capacity.

Mark
 
I gave the RCMP a call myself to clarify this internet "rumor" I quickly got transferred to a firearms tech in Ottawa.

I asked her to verify what I've been reading on the net and without hesitation she said yes they are prohibited due to the dual purpose nature of the magazine. She then went on to tell me that my options were to get them pinned properly to 10 rounds or turn them in for destruction.

Now I'm trying to figure out why owners haven't been notified directly? Not everybody reads msg boards. How else would they know? Also that dealers still seem to be advertising them with 25 round magazines. Shouldn't they, like the owners, be properly notified?
 
Questar said:
I would disagree. It is obvious that BOTH guns existed right from the start and were BOTH planned by S&W and the magazines were made for BOTH... this is supported by the fact that S&W produced the catalogue before either of the guns was announced to the public or released for sale. Thus the interpretation by RCMP is that the magazine was a "Dual Purpose" magazine that was designed and manufactured to be used in BOTH firearms. The fact that S&W released the Rifle before the Pistol is irrelevant... they designed them both at the same time and announced them both together. That is very different than other situations where a rifle is designed and magazines are built for it... then some time later a pistol version is designed and release.

All S&W has to do is produce a version of the magazine that is manufactured specifically for the rifle (same as the way Beretta produced a magazine that was specifically for their CX4 Storm rifle)... RCMP already ruled previously that such a magazine would in fact be a "rifle magazine" and under our laws a rimfire rifle magazine has unlimited capacity.

Mark
Click to expand...

Your comments are not inconsistent with mine. The rifle was introduced in 2009, the pistol in 2010. Therefore the prior existence of the rifle was not considered relevant in the classification. The decisive factor, as you point out, was that the mag was deemed to have been "designed" for both versions. (Of course, it could hardly have been otherwise since the rifle and pistol are the same gun except for different stock and barrel lengths.) The fact that the rifle physically existed first, and that so much turns on how the magazine was described in the catalogue certainly permits the possibility that this could happen again with another firearm.

I would be very surprised (though pleased) if Smith produces another 25 rnd mag for the "rifle only" and that this would pass RCMP muster. I don't see any financial incentive for them since the high cap mags are legal in most states and the 10 rounders are available where they're not. The Canadian market for 25 rnd "rifle" mags is minuscule in comparison. Not to mention they're having to negotiate all the little landmines in the arcane Canadian regulatory system. I wouldn't give even money on that happening.
 
dammit! i havent been on this site in forever and thought this thread was going be about non-restricting this rifle but then finding out i have to fix my gun to new regulations! If I wasn't going be a cop i wouldnt give a crap and would just keep shooting the way I am before getting caught. All my stores around me are still selling 25 round mags not pinned. I just ordered 10 round restrictors for mine.
 
I just heard about this issue today and I've spent the last hour going through all 36 pages in this thread. Thanks to Mark at Questar for providing so much useful info. I'm one of your many loyal customers.

Despite some of the negative comments about the rifle, I've found it to be fun and accurate little gun. It feels very similar to an AR-15 carbine, just a lot lighter. Unlike the magazine on the 10-22, the M&P magazine handles more like the real thing. And the bolt locks open on an empty mag. Overall a great training platform.

The Canadian Army Cadets are considering upgrading their training rifles from the old Lee Enfield C9s to the M&P-22, at least they were. My son spent some time with the M&P-22 before Cadet summer training this year and found that when they shot the real thing during their C7 training he felt very comfortable and familiar with the controls (they used CF issue 30 round mags loaded with 5 rounds). Just a bit more noise and recoil. ;)

Dumb question, if we pin the mags ourselves, do we need to have them certified by the CFO to be no longer prohibited, or does a dealer that does re-classifications have the ability to certify them? Or do we have to destroy them? I certainly don't want the police showing up at my door over a few rimfire magazines.

And yes I am puzzled as well that dealers are today still advertising 25 round mags.

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom