Taurus .357 ML Revolver

ugly

LE
Moderator
#2
Its interesting if its a true nitro ML how it could be called a specific cartridge when its really not chambered but bored?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#4
I know a chap who uses a normal 5 shot cartridge one for humane despatch!
 
#6
I know a chap who uses a normal 5 shot cartridge one for humane despatch!
Yep there are sect 5 exemptions for vets, stalkers and the likes BUT I think they should be 2 shot only nowadays ,ie a revolver would have all but 2 chambers welded up and a s/a would have it mag welded so to only accept 1 (2 ) rounds , there was a big case about this recently .


http://www.sportsmansassociation.co.uk/?page_id=370
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#7
thrown out I believe as the law doesnt stipulate capacity only purpose, its a Plod imposed rule and not legal!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#8
Although having read that case law is to be judged a case at a time!
 
#9
thrown out I believe as the law doesnt stipulate capacity only purpose, its a Plod imposed rule and not legal!
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Anyway, it's guidance from the Home Office;

http://www.police.homeoffice.gov.uk...cing/HO-Firearms-Guidance2835.pdf?view=Binary
For pistols and slaughtering
instruments under section 3 of the 1997 Act,
a .32 single (or two) shot pistol is suitable for
most circumstances, though larger calibres
may be considered if the applicant has to
deal regularly with large or dangerous animals
(for example, horses, water buffalo, bison,
Highland cattle or larger deer species).
 
#10
Although having read that case law is to be judged a case at a time!
It's not case law, it's one Crown Courts opinion, which should be taken on a case by case basis.

Case law is directing but not final eg two drink drives, wave goodbye to your certificate (Germaine), but there may in extremis be a reason why you wouldn't lose your certificate.
 
#11
Anyone got/used one of these ? Looks very pretty and being a muzzle loader its UK legal.
I've never used or owned one. However, some people I have had contact with over the past few years either love it or hate it. At the end of the day, do you like wheel guns and do you like loading chambers from the wrong direction? If so, try one out. Go to Westlake and ask to have a test fire. It was touted as the answer for pistol shooting but I'm (currently) not aware of anyone who uses them in a great deal of competition, other than Alan himself. Most seem to be acquired in the belief that they will use it as they did pre-'97. Unfortuntely, like last years Christmas present they are gathering dust imx.

As I don't like wheel guns particularly and have only an interest in loading from the wrong end with things like three band Enfields, it's not for me.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#12
It's not case law, it's one Crown Courts opinion, which should be taken on a case by case basis.

Case law is directing but not final eg two drink drives, wave goodbye to your certificate (Germaine), but there may in extremis be a reason why you wouldn't lose your certificate.
OK still no wiser, advice from G Wallace at the NGO who wrote the guidance for despatch states its only a guide and not definitive ergo anything really goes and in my case the ole bill arent giving me the service I have paid them for and they are wrong to deny me a moderated single shot .17 Hmr just because they arent mentioned specifically in the guidance. the issue is that cartridges are often invented long after laws were written making the laws obsolete and its the individual persons need which should be the plods view followed by security and safety (in my case not an issue as I have other calibres already) and the police finally can look to guidance. My force went upstairs to the HO who couldnt give guidance yet agreed the need was justified but still couldnt disagree with plod. This should run until I am retired but I will win as long as Mr Wallace doesnt pop his clogs first!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#14
Case in point: I know someone who has a variation for a Glock 17 for humane despatch!
In fact it depends upon which plod you have down to the individual plod and some can be great especially the civilain workers and some can be ccomplete cnuts. I liked Ash who as a retired traffic plod only saw the law in black and white and brooked no interpretation from his staff!
You can work with a bloke like that!
 
#15
OK still no wiser, advice from G Wallace at the NGO who wrote the guidance for despatch states its only a guide and not definitive ergo anything really goes
George is good and I still owe him a pint despite being Merchant Marine :)

As I said, it's not case law ie it hasn't been appealed to the Queens Bench Division of the High Court, Court of Appeal etc. It is one Crown Courts finding and can be used, but it's not binding (okay, clear direction) unlike case law such as Germaine, Kavenagh, Oldfield etc. The prosecution can refer to it in criminal cases and firearms licensing can refer to it. However, unlike decided cases (case law) it isn't binding on any other Court finding a completely different result.

and in my case the ole bill arent giving me the service I have paid them for and they are wrong to deny me a moderated single shot .17 Hmr just because they arent mentioned specifically in the guidance. the issue is that cartridges are often invented long after laws were written making the laws obsolete and its the individual persons need which should be the plods view followed by security and safety (in my case not an issue as I have other calibres already) and the police finally can look to guidance.
A moderated single shot .17HMR pistol? Err, why? It used to be commonly .32 but as the expanding ammo wasn't readily available, people moved on to .38. Trying to sound obective (and failing miserably) why would you want a .17 HMR s/s pistol with a mod when a .38 revolver would do the job fine? Normally mods for handguns are only issued for race courses and the like imx.

My force went upstairs to the HO who couldnt give guidance yet agreed the need was justified but still couldnt disagree with plod. This should run until I am retired but I will win as long as Mr Wallace doesnt pop his clogs first!
Good old Home Office, sitting on the fence ;-) I'm afraid to say that George isn't as good (imho) as he was in his BASC days but still a decent bloke who I would trust. NGO, SAGBNI, BASC etc will always say that you can have what you want. they don't issue certs though.

Has he tried the 'police are not to view the application from the point of why?' argument? That's case law.

I reckon George will be retiring soon in any case.
 
#16
gun nut said:
Case in point: I know someone who has a variation for a Glock 17 for humane despatch!
How does that happen? He can have an open authority for a 9mm (9x19/para) pistol, but not something saying he can only have a Glock 17.

In fact it depends upon which plod you have down to the individual plod and some can be great especially the civilain workers and some can be ccomplete cnuts. I liked Ash who as a retired traffic plod only saw the law in black and white and brooked no interpretation from his staff!
You can work with a bloke like that!
Rodney was a great guy. Sad to see him go
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#17
Its solely for trapped foxes, I do a lot of urban fox trapping and my existing pistols are too noisy and too much bang. I started taking the .17HMr along in a rifle and it really does ever so well at about 6 inches, rarely exiting and causing no damage to clients decking etc and I get little to no risk of ricochet!
Only problem is being called out carrying a guncase around Balham can be interesting!
GW and Sussex Polis both agreed I had need and good reason but thats where they ceased to agree, Sussex fell back on guidance sespite us both proving and them agreeing that a .410 pistol is too loud and too much risk of damage to use they still insisted that I ask for a moderated .410 pistol.
We will win, .17 Hmr is ideal and I have plenty of parts to build a nice single shot from an old BSA Martini or 3 I have in stock.
 
#18
Its solely for trapped foxes, I do a lot of urban fox trapping and my existing pistols are too noisy and too much bang. I started taking the .17HMr along in a rifle and it really does ever so well at about 6 inches, rarely exiting and causing no damage to clients decking etc and I get little to no risk of ricochet!
Only problem is being called out carrying a guncase around Balham can be interesting!
GW and Sussex Polis both agreed I had need and good reason but thats where they ceased to agree, Sussex fell back on guidance sespite us both proving and them agreeing that a .410 pistol is too loud and too much risk of damage to use they still insisted that I ask for a moderated .410 pistol.
We will win, .17 Hmr is ideal and I have plenty of parts to build a nice single shot from an old BSA Martini or 3 I have in stock.
Okay, don't hang your hat on them going for .17HMR. Get them to agree to .22RF. Once you've got them on that and there is no reason why they shouldn't, push for .17HMR. More than one way to skin a cat.

If they don't agree, get them to refuse the variation, preferably on renewal and take it to Crown Court if their only argument is that the guidance is silent on it. It's silent on lots of things and each case must be taken on it's own individual merits (Oldfield, case law 8))
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#19
I went for the .17 as they specifically push that over the .22 in regards to safety. I will get them over safety in the end, my personal security and safety and also H&S which is what should swing the deal. Its hardly a fit person argument as I'm an RFD and pest controller with pistols already! In fact they ask me to mentor new FAC holders for stalking FFS so it cant be a fit person argument!
 
#20
I went for the .17 as they specifically push that over the .22 in regards to safety. I will get them over safety in the end, my personal security and safety and also H&S which is what should swing the deal. Its hardly a fit person argument as I'm an RFD and pest controller with pistols already! In fact they ask me to mentor new FAC holders for stalking FFS so it cant be a fit person argument!
It's nothing to do with 'fit to be entrusted' or 'danger to public safety or to the peace' they are solely hanging it on Section 27 'good reason.' Shooters often think it's that. It's not, Section 27 has three criteria:

A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied— .

(a)that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm; .

(b)that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and .

(c)that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace.

It's all (b) above in this case.

As I quoted at post #9 above, they look initially at a .32. They've now moved onto .38 because of ammo supply (which again isn't in the guidance). You want a 'lesser' calibre in any case and moderated presumably so you don't frighten the neighbours when you pop reynard's clogs as he's trapped under the sh3d.

They push .17HMR over .22RF as the rounds more often than not disintegrate in the corpse and there's little chance of ricochet. Personally, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. When are you due for FAC renewal? Makes it easier than applying for the variation imx.

The H&S angle will work, but don't use it as your sole argument imo. It's the safest round to use, it's 'one shot', it allows a clean kill for humane despatch and you'd rather carry that around than the .38 you use for despatching wounded bambi's.

Have you tried speaking with Carol?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top