Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rifles Hot or Not - Show us yer kit!

HE117

LE
looks like the rules have changed. You can shoot with one and you don’t have to inform them
It's still under discussion.. They need to know so that they don't put you next to someone else on the firing point.. at the moment there are only some ranges in use so it isn't an issue..

I think they are looking at some form of baffle box to see if they can mitigate the blast a bit..!
 
Please forgive my ignorance, , but would the barrel shape of the old pre 1944 Bren help on that, or would it act simply as a bell ?
 

4(T)

LE
Please forgive my ignorance, , but would the barrel shape of the old pre 1944 Bren help on that, or would it act simply as a bell ?



The Bren thing is designed to hide muzzle flash from the firer. Its side-effect with sound is to direct most of it forward. Ergo it would help reduce rearward noise on a rifle, but its not actually doing the function of a muzzle brake.

Modern muzzle brakes are designed to redirect muzzle gas blast (usually to the sides and to the rear) to help offset recoil. The social problem on a range is that the gas blast, shock-wave and noise are thus directed towards the unfortunates on the firing points to the left and right of the shooter.

I don't use a muzzle brake on my AW or other rifles out of consideration for other shooters. Some shooters, however, seem oblivious to the discomfort their rifles cause to others (esp under the tin roof on Short Siberia!).
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
A small point to note is that moderators and muzzle breaks are legal, flash eliminators are prohibited to us mere civilians
 
It shoots really well and the suit makes a world of difference as I'm sure you can imagine. 300m with iron sights was a bit of a lark given the aperture on the rear sight feels about the size of ten pence piece when you look down the range through it.

I was worried about the straight pull as it was as stiff as **** for the first 100 rds and an absolute bugger to cock (and extract). It was absolute murder, to the extent that I was concluding I'd just torched £2k on a piece of junk, which is a lot to burn for a few memories. As I say though, after the first 100 rds, it is now a gem - cocks, extracts & chambers with no problem what so ever, and with ease + with the suit, I'm landing the rounds in a nice tight grouping slap bang in the centre of the target at 300m. Really pleased I bought it.

I wished I'd caught the reg NCOs drooling on Wednesday, if I'd seen them I'd have been tempted to have a wander over. Looking at their ages though, I suspect the nearest any of them will have been to an SLR was in their regimental museum looking at it through a pane of glass. Still - I'm sure the sharp shooter is cracking weapon now they finally have something to blat with a bit of stopping power.
I see you were using GGG in your pic , that cant be a bastard to extract where as Norma Jaktmatch is easy , glad to hear its run in now , what ammo are you using generally ?
 
A small point to note is that moderators and muzzle breaks are legal, flash eliminators are prohibited to us mere civilians
Unless they they cant be removed from the barrel ie welded or riveted on , the S&W AR15 .22LR looky likeys have had a few RFD`s scratching their heads and they unscrew.
 
I see you were using GGG in your pic , that cant be a bastard to extract where as Norma Jaktmatch is easy , glad to hear its run in now , what ammo are you using generally ?
I have both. The GGG extracts perfectly Interestingly enough.

shooting this Saturday
 
I have both. The GGG extracts perfectly Interestingly enough.

shooting this Saturday
I test fired one last week , all good with Norma and my mate threw me some GGG , worked fine as well , a bit tight though , when these rifles are new everything is as tight as fcuk , the bolt springs loosen up after a while which makes things easier.
 

HE117

LE
A small point to note is that moderators and muzzle breaks are legal, flash eliminators are prohibited to us mere civilians
Yeah... well, mebbe yes, mebby no...

The whole flash eliminator thing is, like lock knives, a bit of judicial muppetry, and IMHO should not have happened. It came about because the Police lifted a guy for possession of a couple of flash eliminators that he had designed. The judge decided that they were controlled components and he changed his plea to guilty. The appeal was rejected. HTF a perforated nozzle can claim to be a firearm is way beyond stupid, but there we are..!

The question is not "are they legal" rather that the Firearms Act wording treats flash hiders in the same way as sound moderators. If you wish to add one to a rifle, you need to get a variation and technically the gun should be re-proofed and the hider marked up. This does not apply if the hider is an intrinsic part of the original firearm. You would need to have your FAC conditioned if you want to add a flash hider. I cannot see why the Police would want to prevent you having a flash hider, but equally I cannot see why you would want one either!

The whole thing with bits to screw on a rifle is a mess IMHO, and yet another reason for a proper informed redrafting of the firearms acts. The Police are also up to their usual tricks, making up the rules and generally missing the point! For example, some forces are conditioning FACs to limit a moderator to only one nominated firearm, and not allowing one to be used with a number of firearms. There is nothing in law to require this!

There are of course safety issues with screwing things on the ends of barrels, and really this should not be done by folk who are not equipped or aware of how to do this. I am getting quite concerned about the number of knicked moderators I have seen in the past few years. As I understand the rules, you should really have anything pressure affected proof tested.. if only to make sure nothing flies off the barrel! I certainly would not accept a firearm for sale unless any such addons were proof stamped..!
 
As I understand the rules, you should really have anything pressure affected proof tested.. if only to make sure nothing flies off the barrel! I certainly would not accept a firearm for sale unless any such addons were proof stamped..!
Yet all the distributors sell unproofed moderators to the trade , and as far as I know no CIP country proofs moderators where permitted.
 

HE117

LE
Yet all the distributors sell unproofed moderators to the trade , and as far as I know no CIP country proofs moderators where permitted.
Oh, I know..

But just wait until until someone gets hit from an exploding moderator.. (not an ARRSE Moderator you understand... although....?) it WILL happen at some point!
 
Oh, I know..

But just wait until until someone gets hit from an exploding moderator.. (not an ARRSE Moderator you understand... although....?) it WILL happen at some point!
I guess you`ve read Jackson Rifles take on it ?

edit I think a few Arrse moderators are constantly at risk of exploding.
 
Last edited:
The whole "muzzle devices need proofing" is a UK proof house invention of their own, and isn't in the CIP rules and no other CIP country does it. The idea that a flash suppressor is a "pressure bearing part" is quite laughable. And if one fails, it goes in the same direction as the bullet which is by definition a safe failure.

There's a massive conflict of interest in letting decide the people who get paid to proof things, but then due to the ancient laws under which the Proof Houses operate, they're outside the normal legal framework for such things until they p*ss off some top barrister who drags them through the courts on his own time, which will be about the only way that situation gets corrected.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
The whole "muzzle devices need proofing" is a UK proof house invention of their own, and isn't in the CIP rules and no other CIP country does it. The idea that a flash suppressor is a "pressure bearing part" is quite laughable. And if one fails, it goes in the same direction as the bullet which is by definition a safe failure.

There's a massive conflict of interest in letting decide the people who get paid to proof things, but then due to the ancient laws under which the Proof Houses operate, they're outside the normal legal framework for such things until they p*ss off some top barrister who drags them through the courts on his own time, which will be about the only way that situation gets corrected.
Thanks for saving me from typing all that on a knackered Kindle... Absolutely agree. Laws and regulations which are self serving and ignore physics are bad laws.
 

HE117

LE
I guess you`ve read Jackson Rifles take on it ?

edit I think a few Arrse moderators are consonantly at risk of exploding.
I hadn't as a matter of fact...! Thanks for that.

It still however goes back to "what is it we are trying to do..", and Peter getting a Silk involved really does not deal with the matter apart from illustrating the mess we are in with this. The Proof Acts are a mess and are still operating in the context of muzzle loading (..hence the concentration on "barrels".. they are just getting their heads around the concept of breech loading!)

The problem is that in many ways, firearms legislation has not really been addressing the core issues, and has simply been pecked away at by a number of interested parties.. the Police being the main one...!

The whole point of Proof is to protect the end user from what is a potentially very dangerous bit of machinery. The reason that the Proof acts were introduced was because of problems caused by back door gunsmiths making guns in their sheds without any need for competency or testing. As engineering practice improved over the centuries, it can be argued that objective proof testing is less necessary because materials and methods are more predictable and better understood.

However.. modern materials and methods are only predictable when implemented correctly, and subjective assessment of quality only works when the rest of the system works.. I give you Grenfell as an example! The problem we have in UK is that the core competency of the gunsmithing business has all but collapsed with the breakup of the established firms and the fragmentation of the skills base. I am seeing significant numbers of firearms which have been modified by individuals who clearly have no idea what they are doing! If you own a crane over a certain weight, you need to test it at regular intervals by hanging a weight off the end of it and seeing if it collapses..!

Despite what my learned friend says in his document, if you put a drunken thread on a barrel or do not ensure the lineup of whatever you bolt on the end, there is a significant risk of an avoidable event which could result in an injury. A bullet, particularly a monometallic one, striking a badly fitted muzzle attachment will follow a significantly deviant flight path, and if used on a limited danger area range, may not be captured by the designed butt stop...!

I am trying to be objective about this.. the whole thing is a bloody mess with narrow interests driving issues down some really deep rabbit holes....!

Grrrr
 
And there are a number of major firearm-producing nations that don't have compulsory proof: US, Switzerland and China being 3.

IIRC the original point of proof was to protect the British gun trade's commercial interests (hence it being the Worshipful Company of Gunmakers who have the Royal Charter to run the Proof Houses), to prevent English firearms of inferior quality being sold abroad thereby damaging the industry's repuation, and to protect the domestic market from competition from cheap, inferior foreign guns (which would fail proof, oh dear how sad so sorry Señor Alvarez...). Hence the requirement for a valid proof at point-of-sale/transfer and point-of-exportation rather than being a universal requirement (even though people normally treat it as such in order to avoid argument.)
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
I hadn't as a matter of fact...! Thanks for that.

It still however goes back to "what is it we are trying to do..", and Peter getting a Silk involved really does not deal with the matter apart from illustrating the mess we are in with this. The Proof Acts are a mess and are still operating in the context of muzzle loading (..hence the concentration on "barrels".. they are just getting their heads around the concept of breech loading!)

The problem is that in many ways, firearms legislation has not really been addressing the core issues, and has simply been pecked away at by a number of interested parties.. the Police being the main one...!

The whole point of Proof is to protect the end user from what is a potentially very dangerous bit of machinery. The reason that the Proof acts were introduced was because of problems caused by back door gunsmiths making guns in their sheds without any need for competency or testing. As engineering practice improved over the centuries, it can be argued that objective proof testing is less necessary because materials and methods are more predictable and better understood.

However.. modern materials and methods are only predictable when implemented correctly, and subjective assessment of quality only works when the rest of the system works.. I give you Grenfell as an example! The problem we have in UK is that the core competency of the gunsmithing business has all but collapsed with the breakup of the established firms and the fragmentation of the skills base. I am seeing significant numbers of firearms which have been modified by individuals who clearly have no idea what they are doing! If you own a crane over a certain weight, you need to test it at regular intervals by hanging a weight off the end of it and seeing if it collapses..!

Despite what my learned friend says in his document, if you put a drunken thread on a barrel or do not ensure the lineup of whatever you bolt on the end, there is a significant risk of an avoidable event which could result in an injury. A bullet, particularly a monometallic one, striking a badly fitted muzzle attachment will follow a significantly deviant flight path, and if used on a limited danger area range, may not be captured by the designed butt stop...!

I am trying to be objective about this.. the whole thing is a bloody mess with narrow interests driving issues down some really deep rabbit holes....!

Grrrr
I think the example you give of a misaligned thread allowing the bullet to impact on a "muzzle attachment" is vanishingly unlikely.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top