New firearms Laws: Standard pellets to be used in power checks?

[POK!]

Originally posted by figjam
campaign for the the testing of the pellets your caught with!

But what if you're caught with no pellets?

[figjam]

tell the ignorant copper what you set it up and shoot with!

[figjam]

Originally posted by rabbitman
Yes Adrian very astutely put.
The upcomming firearms review is expected to extend to air guns which could be modified above the the 6ftlb and 12ftlb limits.Rumours within the trade suggest that mechanisms will be required to be tamper proof to prevent people winding up the power.eg hardened pins limiting transfer port dimensions ,sealed regulators,after market sales of springs.
The most worrying suggestion is that having avoided paying compensation to self contained gas cartridge weapon holders by offering them the opportunity to apply for an FAC at £58 and cabinet at £100 that all the older guns which are not tamper proof may have the same thing done to them.ie if you want to keep it pay up.
Legalised theft really!

but how many of us out there have bought a rifle from new or a shop and it chrono'd well over 12ft/lb


who's to blame there!


in the eyes of the law its the owner!

you cant argue with the courts!

its YOUR weapon, its YOUR responsibility!

how can we dictate what happens when we cant even agree amongst ourselves whats best!


GIVE IT 3-5 YRS AND ALL WEAPONS WILL BE ON TICKET UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING NOW! AS A SINGLE BODY!

rgds

kenny

[Russ6357]

They don't want anyone but the Police and army to have guns.

At a push they will recognize that gamekeepers and the like have to have them as a tool of the trade.

Other than that they want them all.

To go to prison for 5 years because someone tested your gun on a hot day and it dieseled is outrageous but it is what it is.

I suspect that if one was to talk to the Police that it is unlikely that your gun is going to be confiscated and tested unless you are caught comitting another offence (tresspass for example).

[Terry D]

Originally posted by figjam
tell the ignorant copper what you set it up and shoot with!

Mate, please tell me you're just having a wind-up.

We need a standard, mid-weight, test projectile - and we've campaigned for an 'official' lead ball as it happens - so that the limit is not open to 'flexibility' of any kind. As stated, we have offered to fund the development, purchase and distribution of this official projectile, and the debate goes on.

Figjam, you stated;
' sorry but there is no way you could possibly be prosecuted for possessing a tin of pellets that are capable of exceeding the air rifle limit!

any lawyer would laugh this out of court!


its a bit like 'doing' somebody for owning a subaru wrx!(or any other car)

its capable of exceeding the 70 mph limit but unless your actually caught breaking the law with it, im sorry i dont agree with your principle!

1. Nobody said anyone would be prosecuted for owning a tin of pellets, mate. As already stated - it's the GUN that gets you done. The 'capability' issue refers to the gun.

2. It's not MY principle - it's the law of the land and people HAVE been prosecuted because of it. Please don't confuse that which seems logical and fair to you, with the letter of the law. These are often two very different things. Airguns ARE treated differently to cars under law. Fact. You don't have to be caught speeding with an airgun - it only needs to be 'capable' of speeding, ok?

Some aspects of the firearms laws certainly need to be addressed, but until changes are made there's no point in ignoring legislation or putting our own, albeit sensible, interpretations on them. It ain't fair at times - but it IS the law, and we're law-abiding people.

Terry

[Trav]

This is my take on the argument. I'm not completely conversant with british legislation on this (however the education is coming REAL fast) but I am somewhat conversant with the way courts of law think and proceed.

Just saying to the policeman "But I use Crosman pellets" is no good. The courts look at the letter of the law and the letter of the law states "Capable of exceeding". It is true that most people wouldn't use the ultra fast pellets because their rifle either isn't suited for them or because they themselves aren't suited to the purpose of the shooter. However, as the law stands, the testers can and will use the ultra fast pellet to try to catch the shooter out.

Campaigning for an official test pellet/weight/testing condition is pointless from my view. The courts will look at the letter of the law yes, but they also try to base themselves (haphazardly I admit) in the real world. They will see that the rifle needs to be tested in at least somewhat real world conditions.

The solution though is fairly simple. If the testers want to test the rifle using a multitude of pellets and a chrono, let them. However, campaign for the wording of the law so that LOTS of pellets of different types are put through your gun. If all the chrono times are put together then averaged, a fairly accurate picture of whether someone is trying to exceed the legal limit will emerge.

From my experience, when campaigning for changes to a difficult law, just identifying a problem area isn't enough. A solution must be presented as well. Not only that, but the solution must be one which doesn't on the face of it reduce the legislators powers. It has to look fair to them, because - particularly on an issue like this - there is a lot of ego and face at stake. For a politician to be able to say "I stopped all those eeevil airgunners from blahblahblah" is a big thing politically because at heart, most of the population is ignorant of the issues. They will simply see the politician as having removed guns from the street.

A solution like the one I've outlined above though, can be explained simply, can be implemented easily, wouldn't cost much and has the outrageous property of being fair. Its hard to argue against.

cheers,

Trav

(Edited because of a misspell)

[Simon Clarke]

Originally posted by Terry D
We need a standard, mid-weight, test projectile
Terry

Should we call this a "testicle"?

Sorry, I'll get me coat.

Simon.

[Beer Hunter]

I like the idea of using a pure lead ball as fair test.
A .22 would weigh 16 grains and a .177 would be 8 grain.

TER...

[Terry D]

Originally posted by Simon Clarke
Should we call this a "testicle"?

Sorry, I'll get me coat.

Simon.

Bally new-generation BASC wallas! (Harumph, harumph!)

Wouldn't have had such flippancy in the WAGBI days....(more harumphing....)

Terry

[Rob M]

I think that it has to be a diabolo pellet or a slug, lead balls would be a problem for some mag or bolt fed guns, and lead balls might not seal well enough in the barrels of some springers to cushion the piston effectively.

I think that we should petition the government to nominate (or commission the manufacture of) a medium-weight British-made diabolo pellet that is reasonably well made to a consistent weight, available in all calibres, then all police tests should be conducted with that pellet alone. I am sure that Lincoln Jefferies, Lane's, Milbro, Cammell's or Rothery's would be happy to make these 'British Standard Pellets'.

You could buy in a few for testing or tuning your gun, get it below the legal limit with the 'Standards', then if it happens to be running at 12.1 ft/lbs with Bisley Magnums, or Hobbys, or Prometheus, it wouldn't be a problem as long as it's still running sub-12 with the standard pellets.

That's how I'd like the law set up anyway, and that's what I'll be asking for when I write in with my suggestions for the new laws (along with my request that airguns aren't referred to as weapons any more!! )

Rob M

[marcusj]

Would those standard pellets be used with or without a squirt of WD40 up the transfer port for springers?

If they want to nick you, they will.

[Beer Hunter]

Rob,

I completely agree with your logic, but the problem would be ensuring the long term availability of the nominated ammo. Brands are discontinued and manufacturers go out of business. Test projectile availability doubts would probably result in the authorities rejecting our request.

It is much easier for (many) manufacturers to produce a “standard” ball mould than is a pellet mould.
As a repeatable test, I think the solid lead ball is hard to beat.

TER…

[Rob M]

Ter said: "Anyway, my point still stands – I still have faith in the BASC and believe that they are best placed to protect our sport. Supplying the BASC with our opinions and asking them for action must be more effective than individual members lobbying.

TER…"

I agree there, we should all let BASC know our opinions, but this should be in addition to writing to the Home Office ourselves, not 'instead of'.

The address to write to is in the PDF:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/c...n_firearms.pdf

The testing of guns should obviously be done without WD40 in the transfer port, that goes without saying, any policeman or forensic science officer tampering with evidence like that would be in serious breach of the law.

Quote: "I completely agree with your logic, but the problem would be ensuring the long term availability of the nominated ammo. Brands are discontinued and manufacturers go out of business. Test projectile availability doubts would probably result in the authorities rejecting our request."

The government should be responsible in some way for the supply of the standard pellets. If the design was created as a British Standard, any manufacturer could make them. All the firms I mentioned have been going for many decades, Lincoln Jefferies and Lane's have been going well over a hundred years, so there should be scope there for the production of a steady supply. If it was the law that airguns had to be tested at the factory with them, and shooters could buy them for their own testing, plus the police had to use them, there's enough demand there to guarantee a steady supply surely?

Rob M

[Ray J]

For some unknown reason I can't bring up the doccument.

On the subject of mandatory sentences, didn't the Law Society recently successfully resist the government wishes to implement this.

Ray

[Beer Hunter]

The government should be responsible in some way for the supply of the standard pellets.

Like any other organisation, the government want an easy life. There is a big difference to agreeing to a standard projectile and becoming responsible for their supply.

TER..