ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by ugly

Hmm it does again seem that its down to how persuasive you are with your own force manager. I know a certain member who collects stuff that would get him locked away in almost every other constabulary however he has created (thanfully) a presedent for this.

Yep, that's the 'problem' albeit with the nazi GP35's they were submitted to the panel. Problem is, they don't curculate these things. A bit of left and right hand. Still, if he's got what he wants, fair play to him.

There was a case a while ago with someone wearing out the barrel of one of their 7's at Bisley. Didn't go down to well

Originally Posted by scalieback

There was a case a while ago with someone wearing out the barrel of one of their 7's at Bisley. Didn't go down to well

That shouldnt cause any stir at all, did his force have an independant gunsmiths report of the purchase with an estimate of barrel life when originally done?
I thought not, firing fmjs through older pistols can cause wear as can some powders, its part of life, they are sect 7 for one of 2 reasons and if its the shooting one then tough!

Originally Posted by ugly

That shouldnt cause any stir at all, did his force have an independant gunsmiths report of the purchase with an estimate of barrel life when originally done?
I thought not, firing fmjs through older pistols can cause wear as can some powders, its part of life, they are sect 7 for one of 2 reasons and if its the shooting one then tough!

That's not what the law says:

(3) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection 1(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a firearm which -
(a) is of particular rarity, aesthetic quality or technical interest; or
(b) is of historical importance.

if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have the firearm in his possession subject to a condition requiring it to be kept and used only at a place designated for the purposes of this subsection by the Secretary of State.

After all, if the barrel is worn out and he needs a replacement because of the number of rounds fired from it, it throws into doubt in some circles whether it is "of particular rarity, aesthetic quality or technical interest or is of historical importance."

Last I heard he was given a gypsy's

I'm not saying it isnt but what I'm saying is with a pistol that could be almost 100 years old how good was the barrel when it was bought/transferred onto sec 7 and how much evidence if any would the plod have about the condition of the barrel and rounds fired through it annually? Very little I suspect and as you can make the ammo there and then just because a weapon is aesth fuck it pretty to look at it doesnt stop the use of it on a range as allowed in the law to further the study. That study could quite legimately be to determine reliability against another make in a similar calibre or another countrioes weapon and involve replicating original trials. Nothing to stop that in law!
Again how can the plod say it is overshot if they dont/cant prove its condition when acquired. I have sold some horrors with the proviso that they would be better deactivated than shot if only for safety reasons!

Sect 7 covers collecting for study including shooting and also for collecting sake alone hence the two seperate categories which some areas still cant agree on!

Originally Posted by ugly

I'm not saying it isnt but what I'm saying is with a pistol that could be almost 100 years old how good was the barrel when it was bought/transferred onto sec 7 and how much evidence if any would the plod have about the condition of the barrel and rounds fired through it annually? Very little I suspect and as you can make the ammo there and then just because a weapon is aesth fuck it pretty to look at it doesnt stop the use of it on a range as allowed in the law to further the study. That study could quite legimately be to determine reliability against another make in a similar calibre or another countrioes weapon and involve replicating original trials. Nothing to stop that in law!

If you test something to destruction, is that really "of particular rarity, aesthetic quality or technical interest or is of historical importance." Not in my view and I daresay a lot of Courts would agree.

Originally Posted by ugly

Again how can the plod say it is overshot if they dont/cant prove its condition when acquired. I have sold some horrors with the proviso that they would be better deactivated than shot if only for safety reasons!

It was 9mm x 19 from memory and he being a dealer brought the ammo to the range. It was quite new as well and had extensive discussion about whether it actually fitted the aesthetic quality. Most dealers imx have sold stuff with caveats

Originally Posted by ugly

Sect 7 covers collecting for study including shooting and also for collecting sake alone hence the two seperate categories which some areas still cant agree on!

Collecting, keep at home. Shooting and "of particular rarity, aesthetic quality or technical interest or is of historical importance" at Bisley or the other five or so locations.

The man (who I know) with about twelve or so 7.63 Mausers probably would be able to shoot one or two to destruction to compare the various marks. Why he would want to, I don't know. Not the same as some bloke just taking a thousand rounds of 9 milly down the range and blatting it off imo.

Then again, I just want my Browning and SIG back, so it may be sour grapes from me

Originally Posted by scalieback

The rules or HO guidance was different in those days. You didn't need to be a 'full and active member of a gun club.' I know of plenty of people who had certs prior to '88 who weren't full members of clubs and is one of the reasons why Section 15 of the '88 Act came about.

I am sure that you did but at, the time, I was a Club Secretary and I can assure that in order to accept Target Shooting as a good reason, at least three local Police forces required the applicant to be a Full Member (no mention of active) of a Rifle/Pistol Club. (Gun Club is usually accepted as a club for shotgunners.) In those days, Guidance to the Police was secret but I got the impression from the local plods that this was the guidance from the HO.

Originally Posted by scalieback

There was a case a while ago with someone wearing out the barrel of one of their 7's at Bisley. Didn't go down to well

I don't remember that and I am regular 7(3) there.

As to "modern" guns, there is no reason at all why one shouldn't have one one on 7(3) given historical justification. I personally know some one with a very modern SIG - it was a trials gun.

Nothing in the law says that a pistol is no longer pretty if the rifling is worn out! Wear and tear happens, what would be the verdict if a double charge blew it too bits?