Wise Lite Arms Sterling Carbine Classification

Dillinger022

Dillinger022

CGN Regular
EE REVOKED
Rating - 100%
157   0   0
Location
Aylmer, QC
What is the legal classification of the US-made Wise Lite Arms Sterling semi-auto carbines in Canada? They use a closed bolt design due to the NFA rules down there. I've seen them in SBR (Short-Barreled Rifle) and non-SBR configuration. They seem to be made with British milsurp parts, apart from the receiver, barrel, and maybe a few other parts. Since only the Mk.7 Para Police (C4 & C8) and Mk.6 appear in the OIC prohib lists (the other Sterling versions all being prohibited based on their full-auto feature), would the Wise Lites be considered variants of the Mk.6? I know that the Mk.8 is considered a variant of the Mk.6 as it's the same carbine only with a 7.8" barrel instead of the Mk.6's 16.1". The Mk.6/8 are both closed-bolt designs as opposed to the open bolt design of the Mk.4 Police, which makes me think that the Wise Lites would get labeled as "variants" of the Mk.6/Mk.8 (depending on barrel length).

Am I correct with my assumptions and in effect answered my own question?
 
as long as its prohib because of FA and NOT by name you could import one for classification so spend your $$ import one wait at least a year or longer for the rcmp to decide prohib or no and if prohib you lose the gun and your $$
 
Sterlings are named prohibs, with the exception of the Mk.IV Police Carbine, which is named as restricted.
I suspect that the Wise Lites would be deemed to be varaints of the prohibs, and therefore also prohibited as a result.
An attempt was made to reproduce a SPC, but it was classified as prohibited.
Perhaps this is a situation parallel to the non-restricted Valmets. The classification applies only to the named firearms originally exempted, and not to a similar firearm made by other than the original manufacturer.
 
I agree that it would likely be classed as a variation of the closed bolt Sterlings, which are prohibited. But also, based on the pattern of the RCMP lab determining that the magwells are the registered part, if Wiselite is recycling the original magwells then the gun would be considered a converted auto up here. In the US it's the tube that is considered the receiver so that's not an issue down there.

The RCMP techs do not seem to make many favorable rulings these days, especially after a few of their early works got thrown in their faces, so the chances for the Sterlings may be poor.
 
stencollector said:
I agree that it would likely be classed as a variation of the closed bolt Sterlings, which are prohibited. But also, based on the pattern of the RCMP lab determining that the magwells are the registered part, if Wiselite is recycling the original magwells then the gun would be considered a converted auto up here. In the US it's the tube that is considered the receiver so that's not an issue down there.

The RCMP techs do not seem to make many favorable rulings these days, especially after a few of their early works got thrown in their faces, so the chances for the Sterlings may be poor.
Click to expand...

After the successful? Reclassification of a shotgun which was NAMED as a restricted in the legislation into a deemed prohibited firearm, the tech lab appears to be able to over-rule Parliament. That should scare the crap out of the p.m.o. and all the rest of us.
 
The Sterling Mk. 4 Police is NOT a named restricted firearm in the 'Former Restricted Weapons Order' in SOR/98-462.
Also, only the Mk.6, Para Police Mk.7 C4, and Para Police Mk.7 C8 variants of the Sterling family are prohibited by name in SOR/98-462. The Mk.7 appears in the 'Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 11' and the Mk.6 in the 'Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 12'. Therefore, the Mk.7 is prohibited without grandfathering and the Mk.6 prohibited with grandfathering in section 12(4). The Mk.8 is a variant of the Mk.6 and thus falls in the same category.

The Mk.2 (L2A1), Mk.3 (L2A2), Mk.4 (L2A3), Mk.5 (L34A1), Para Mk.7 A4, and Para Mk.7 A8 are all prohibited with grandfathering as full-autos or converted autos in either sections 12(2) or 12(3) respectively. They are NOT named in any of the Former Prohibited Weapons Orders.
The Canadian (C1) and Indian-made (1A1 and 2A1) licensed copies are also s.12(2) or s.12(3) grandfathered prohibs.

I'm not aware of any other copies of the Sterling or Sterling-made variants.

Can you please provide more information on the repro Police Mk.4 that was evaluated by the RCMP?
 
They are indeed recycling the mag wells of full-auto Sterlings, specifically the Mk.4 variant. So it would be doubly prohibited. For it to be deemed a copy of the Police Mk.4, the mag well would have to be newly manufactured and the receiver made with an open bolt. Put a PC name on it preferably tying it to the original (like PC-MK4 Sportsman Companion or similar) and I'm sure it would get approved.

The RCMP goes by the letter of the law. To 'beat' them, one simply has to play by the same set of rules (Firearms Act) they do.
 
Incorrect. Only the stock was deemed to be a prohibited device as described in section 2 of the 'Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 9' in SOR/98-462. As there's no grandfathering provision for this 'Order', the stocks were confiscated. If you actually read section 2, you'll realize that the RCMP was acting within the law. Section 2 reads 'Any rifle, shotgun or carbine stock of the type known as the “bull-pup” design, being a stock that, when combined with a firearm, reduces the overall length of the firearm such that a substantial part of the reloading action or the magazine-well is located behind the trigger of the firearm when it is held in the normal firing position.'

The shotgun's receiver (which is the actual firearm) is still classified as a restricted firearm. The RCMP did NOT overrule Parliament. The stock was prohibited ever since 'Order, No. 9' came into law in the early 1990's. Why they didn't act on this issue sooner is an enigma.
 
Last edited:
Dillinger022 said:
The Sterling Mk. 4 Police is NOT a named restricted firearm in the 'Former Restricted Weapons Order' in SOR/98-462......
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was refering to the FRT entry for the SPC, where it is clearly identified as restricted.
Only Sterling smg type so classified.
 
Last edited:
tiriaq said:
Sorry, I was refering to the FRT entry for the SPC, where it is clearly identified as restricted.
Only Sterling smg type so classified.
Click to expand...

I sure wish I had a digital copy of the mythical FRT as that would answer a lot of my questions. Can you check the Mk.8 entry and report back? It would be greatly appreciated.
 
Dillinger022 said:
I sure wish I had a digital copy of the mythical FRT as that would answer a lot of my questions. Can you check the Mk.8 entry and report back? It would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Mark 8, commercial version, prohibited, PFR Part 1, para 58. FRT 71002.
 
In addition to the various Sterling smgs, there are the following, all prohibited:
Mk. 5, FA & CA 31120.
Mk. 5 Police Carbine (suppressed) 31128
Mk. 6 CV 26428
MK. 7 CV 31140
MK. 7 CA 119152
Mk. 7 FA 31137
Mk. 8 CV 71002
Mk. 9 CV 71013
 
Thanks for the info. I found a thread on another forum about the Mk. 9. Didn't know it even existed.

Were the Police Mk. 5s factory-made by Sterling or put together in the US? It doesn't make sense that Sterling would've actually made these. What would've been the point?
 
The Mk. 5 Police Carbine is a standard silenced Sterling smg with the semi auto Police Carbine trigger group.
 
Dillinger022 said:
They are indeed recycling the mag wells of full-auto Sterlings, specifically the Mk.4 variant. So it would be doubly prohibited. For it to be deemed a copy of the Police Mk.4, the mag well would have to be newly manufactured and the receiver made with an open bolt. Put a PC name on it preferably tying it to the original (like PC-MK4 Sportsman Companion or similar) and I'm sure it would get approved.

The RCMP goes by the letter of the law. To 'beat' them, one simply has to play by the same set of rules (Firearms Act) they do.
Click to expand...

Yes - Wiselite would be a converted auto since full auto Mk4 recycled casing parts are used. Ironic that the Police carbine casing was is identical to and pulled from the full auto Mk4 production line to get a trigger pack with a selector and differnt model engraving on the mag well - that's it! I have long wondered if that Indian factory still in production would ever do a special run of Indian SAF 1A PC's for the Canada market htt p://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/8.htm
 
The parallel would be the Valmet rifles. A few specific Valmets are not prohibited. Only Valmet made these; similar guns made by other makers are prohibited AK variants.
The Sterling made Sterling Police Carbine is not prohibited. A similar gun made by another manufacturer would likely be rejected, because it is not a Sterling Police Carbine.

The Indians might make such a gun; but without having prior RCMP acceptance, it would be a waste of time to even ask the Indians.
 
tiriaq said:
The parallel would be the Valmet rifles. A few specific Valmets are not prohibited. Only Valmet made these; similar guns made by other makers are prohibited AK variants.
The Sterling made Sterling Police Carbine is not prohibited. A similar gun made by another manufacturer would likely be rejected, because it is not a Sterling Police Carbine.

The Indians might make such a gun; but without having prior RCMP acceptance, it would be a waste of time to even ask the Indians.
Click to expand...

and thats what we need to challenge IE a german K98 rifle made bu factory 1 is the SAME as the one made in factory 2 two different companies same rifle

SO if sombody reversed engineered the valmet (or sterling) and manufactured them to the SAME specs as the orig they would be the same how can the rcmp deny that thier the "same gun"....of course these are the same guys who claimed the .22 blowback ak's were varients of the ak47........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom