oki i've spoken to Rich about this thread already, but i'm going to say 2 things.
a) Acturus isn't trying to retail his model, and although it may look similar to the posted model oftenly this comes from the use of similar concepts. And perhaps you may believe that this is just because of a lack of originality or whatever, however Acturus is doing this for the benifit of learning better modelling and when you already have a decent peice of work to aim towards this shows that his visual accuity is actually very good for an artist.
If he was to try and pass off the work as his own and original, then there would be a problem however the fact of the matter is it is simply a learning experience.
they both used totally different modeling programs, and you will find that most artists don't mind this sort of behaviour.
b) on the otherhand we have your blatented theft of acclaim for a piece of work you did not create. There is a huge difference between recreating someone elses work as close as possible, and claming credit for something you did not do.
sorry but the position on this is quite clear, as Act did not claim anything other than the shown work as his own then really what is the difference between what he has done and someone who recreates say a Glock17 as a model?
you have a reference picture as the base sure, but the actual results to accuracy depend on the artists skill.
i don't see a problem with this, and i can bet you that no-one on polycount would either. It is a good recreation, but thats all it is a recreation not plagerism.