SHOT SHOW 2010 - ISSC MSR MK22 - SCAR 16 look-alike .22 LR

FrankieT said:
In 1998, scary looks would be enough, but that ship has sailed... for now.... although the CFC/RCMP seem to define things as they see fit, there are limits.
Click to expand...


There are supposed to be limits, but it's apparent that the RCMP feels that their mandate allows/requires them to test and push those limits to the ultimate.

I want one of these guns. It will occupy the space next to my SIG522 in my safe.

John
 
There is a very good chance that they will prohib it. They prohib'd the GSG5 and the Mk22 is basically a GSG in a Scar-like shell. And yes, the GSG5 was completely prohib'd on looks, just the like SIG522.
 
ESQ said:
There is a very good chance that they will prohib it. They prohib'd the GSG5 and the Mk22 is basically a GSG in a Scar-like shell. And yes, the GSG5 was completely prohib'd on looks, just the like SIG522.
Click to expand...

MP5 prohib = GSG prohib
Sig 552 prohib = Sig 522 prohib

SCAR is non restricted if the barrel is over 18". You can get an export from the DofS but there's no issue with them here.

There is no reason other than RCMP whimsy that the SCAR 22 should be prohib.
 
incorrigible said:
MP5 prohib = GSG prohib
Sig 552 prohib = Sig 522 prohib

SCAR is non restricted if the barrel is over 18". You can get an export from the DofS but there's no issue with them here.

There is no reason other than RCMP whimsy that the SCAR 22 should be prohib.
Click to expand...

You aren't following.

The ISSC Mk22 is built on the guts of the GSG5. Look at the shot show thread. Soooo if the RCMP wants to prohibit it with its own twisted, circular logic, then it can.

Nevermind that there was no basis to prohibit the GSG5 upon, nor was there a basis to prohibit the SIG522. They did anyway. The GSG5 and the MP5 have no operational similarity other than looks just as the SIG522 has no operational similarity with the SG55X rifle series. Pure RCMP bull####.
 
ESQ said:
You aren't following.

The ISSC Mk22 is built on the guts of the GSG5. Look at the shot show thread. Soooo if the RCMP wants to prohibit it with its own twisted, circular logic, then it can.

Nevermind that there was no basis to prohibit the GSG5 upon, nor was there a basis to prohibit the SIG522. They did anyway. The GSG5 and the MP5 have no operational similarity other than looks just as the SIG522 has no operational similarity with the SG55X rifle series. Pure RCMP bulls**t.
Click to expand...


are you serious? the GSG looks like a MP5. sold as a copy of a MP5. they don't give a sh!t what is in it, they just stretch the VARIANT clause. prohib!

the SIG522 looks like a SIG55X gun and the ads from Sig say that it is a 55X gun. easy prohib.

where is the SCAR semiauto prohib? it isn't. restricted by barrel length or not restricted by barrel length.
 
P0WERWAGON said:
are you serious? the GSG looks like a MP5. sold as a copy of a MP5. they don't give a sh!t what is in it, they just stretch the VARIANT clause. prohib!

the SIG522 looks like a SIG55X gun and the ads from Sig say that it is a 55X gun. easy prohib.

where is the SCAR semiauto prohib? it isn't. restricted by barrel length or not restricted by barrel length.
Click to expand...

The definition of variant is the problem here. My understanding of a variant is that it must be a direct adaptation of the action. But that is just me and no definition yet exists.

You are right, the RCMP do something completely different (when and where it suits them). The RCMP simply choose advertising literature or an outward similarity in appearance in order to make their flawed decisions.

There is no way that a rational person would consider either the GSG5 nor the SIG522 (both simple blow back rim fire actions) to be the 'variants' of a delayed roller blowback system or a rotating bolt gas operated system, respectively. No matter what cosmetics or clothes that they wear.

Another nitpick, the 522 is a SIG522 and the SG55X is SG for Sturmgewehr, not SIG. So I'm not sure that the SIG522 as an extension of the SG55X series argument can even be made without a lot of hand wringing and allusion.
 
ESQ said:
The definition of variant is the problem here. My understanding of a variant is that it must be a direct adaptation of the action. But that is just me and no definition yet exists.

You are right, the RCMP do something completely different (when and where it suits them). The RCMP simply choose advertising literature or an outward similarity in appearance in order to make their flawed decisions.

There is no way that a rational person would consider either the GSG5 nor the SIG522 (both simple blow back rim fire actions) to be the 'variants' of a delayed roller blowback system or a rotating bolt gas operated system, respectively. No matter what cosmetics or clothes that they wear.

Another nitpick, the 522 is a SIG522 and the SG55X is SG for Sturmgewehr, not SIG. So I'm not sure that the SIG522 as an extension of the SG55X series argument can even be made without a lot of hand wringing and allusion.
Click to expand...

You using limited logic. Mechanically they are not variants clearly, but they don't have to be. It simply has to look like it to be a deemed by a reasonable person to be. That's why airsoft, as replicas, are prohibited weapons by law.

It has nothing to do with the innards be similiar or different. Its, in this case, how it looks. As the SCAR clone doesn't visually resemble a prohibited weapon there's no case to be reasonably made.
 
f:P:
ESQ said:
The definition of variant is the problem here. My understanding of a variant is that it must be a direct adaptation of the action. But that is just me and no definition yet exists.

You are right, the RCMP do something completely different (when and where it suits them). The RCMP simply choose advertising literature or an outward similarity in appearance in order to make their flawed decisions.

There is no way that a rational person would consider either the GSG5 nor the SIG522 (both simple blow back rim fire actions) to be the 'variants' of a delayed roller blowback system or a rotating bolt gas operated system, respectively. No matter what cosmetics or clothes that they wear.

Another nitpick, the 522 is a SIG522 and the SG55X is SG for Sturmgewehr, not SIG. So I'm not sure that the SIG522 as an extension of the SG55X series argument can even be made without a lot of hand wringing and allusion.
Click to expand...


f:P:
 
incorrigible said:
You using limited logic. Mechanically they are not variants clearly, but they don't have to be. It simply has to look like it to be a deemed by a reasonable person to be. That's why airsoft, as replicas, are prohibited weapons by law.

It has nothing to do with the innards be similiar or different. Its, in this case, how it looks. As the SCAR clone doesn't visually resemble a prohibited weapon there's no case to be reasonably made.
Click to expand...

A firearm is a mechanical device. You really believe that one firearm can be a variant of another and yet be mechanically completely different and derived from different actions? I don't buy it. It isn't reasonable.

What is with all the facepalms bfiles??? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom