.22 added to the FAC, no rimfire etc

Discussion in 'Shooting, Hunting and Fishing' started by sunnoficarus, Feb 13, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Asked plod to stick an extra slot on the FAC for another rifle.
    Comes back, just says '.22 rifle', no rimfire/centrefire specified.

    This normal?
  2. Yes, I've seen a few like that and sold centrefire rifles to those with that slot. Time to get that .220 Swift you've always had a hard-on for.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. .220 Swift? Ooooh! Thats a rather sporty round!
  4. It probably states that you can use your '.22 rifle' for vermin.

  5. Only asked for this one for target shooting.
  6. You ought to be ashamed of yourself :)
  7. All I did was put '.22 rifle' in the box like the nice FEO enquiries man tolded me.:blank:

    Last time, I had to specify calibre, rf or cf and type of action.

    Do you think if I out down '7.62 rifle', I could get away with 'that' rifle?
  8. That is not what the law says and constabularies that demand it are acting ultra vires.

    I recently had many entries on my FAC amended by my local plod because they were inconsistent with the law and even with themselves- for example .303 was just .303, rather than .303 British. Now they all (bar one) simply say: .22, .38, 303, etc. The only one that still refers to a "chambering" (rather than calibre) is .45 ACP. (Only because I can't be bothered to send my FAC away again.)

    While I was at it I got them to correct MOST of the makers names. Although I still have one P08 referred to as DWM (correct) and another as Luger - even though it is also a DWM. Plus a BSA No.4(T) down as Enfield, even though, other than a few trials rifles, Enfield did not make No.4s.
  9. When I was getting a variation I had been specific about the cal I wanted, 6,5x55. The girl from licensing phoned up and asked if it was OK just to put 6,5 as that would give me greater choice rather than limit myself to one very specific cal.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. When she tried to enter "6.5X55" the National Firearms Database would probably only allow her to enter 6.5. Although other chamberings are allowed by it.

    The inconstancy is caused by the database itself, which is inconsistent. (It took years to implement and its still a pile of sh1t. I am soooo glad that I do not have to deal with Government IT departments any more.)
  11. Thats rather interesting to know BH. Might be useful for someone in the future.
  12. I think theres at least one Police force that allows ".30" to mean practically anything "close enough" - .30-06, 7.62x51, 7.62x54R, .303, .30 carbine, etc. On the other hand, IIRC Kent tried to prosecute someone for owning a 7.62mmx51 on a .308W slot.

    Its the Police' own fault for trying to regulate a subject they understand so poorly. Remember the "good old days" when an FAC would just say authorised to acquire "three small bore rifles, six full-bore rifles"? (oh... and "five full-bore pistols"....)
    • Like Like x 1

  13. Interesting.

    So how do they determine wether you're down for a rimfire or centre fire rifle, or is that old decrimination between the two natures no longer of interest to the Police?

    Contacted a gun plumber mate of mine about this last night and he was of the opinion that '.22 rifle' would technically allow me to buy a .22 centrefire rifle, he saw nothing illegal in buying such, but thought the ammunition entered might be a stumbling block, did it say what chambering, rather than just 'Ammunition permitted to purchase: 'x thousand' .22' as my ticket specifies currently.
  14. Unless they actually specified .22"RF for rifle and ammo, you'd be able to legally acquire either in a centrefire calibre. They'd probably give you sh*t the next time you asked for a variation though...