7.3 Heritage?

[Smokeless Coal]

I know someone with eight webleys, they are a collection. Go visit some places of herritage, museums and the like, they may have hundreds of the same gun.

What you have to realise is that the people who have them often built up an encylopedic knowledge of them, you may have one with a serial number x but also a later one just because it shows a difference in the machining marks or change of proof house or even because they dont show a difference. I keep trying to emphasise they are not held for the purpose of shooting thats just a sub topic of their appreciation and study.

[markH]

It's quite simple, if you look at the home office Obsolete calibers list they give a list of the calibers which are treated as antiques, they also give a list of old guns "Which should not benefit from exemption as antiques". The .455 is on the second list.... thereby they are "on the list that is not on the list"

http://www.david-squires.org.uk/Antiques.htm

[tacfoley]

It's quite simple, if you look at the home office Obsolete calibers list they give a list of the calibers which are treated as antiques, they also give a list of old guns "Which should not benefit from exemption as antiques". The .455 is on the second list.... thereby they are "on the list that is not on the list"

http://www.david-squires.org.uk/Antiques.htm

Pardon me for sounding like a complete plork, but wouldn't it have been easier not to mention them at all in the document? The very omission of this calibre from the Obsolete Calibre list should tell you all you need to know, rather than the yesnoyesitisn't attempt at even more issue-clouding.

Sigh....

tac

[Jim McArthur]

OK, now: to clarify or confuse even further:

Section 7.3, you can shoot, but only at certain clubs designated as permissible for the purpose, and under a lot of restrictions. 7.3 pistols, and ammo suitable for same, must be stored at such a club. Correct?

Whereas 7.1, you're not allowed to shoot, but they can be kept at your home. Correct?

But then, I've also heard that 7.3 is for pistols for which ammo is commercially available, and 7.1 is for those for which ammo is not commercially available. (?)

This makes sense. But then, there's also Section 58, for obsolete calibers.

So my question is: what's the difference between Section 58, obsolete caliber, vs. Section 7.1, ammo is not commercially available?

Jim

[markH]

Jim, have a read through the obsolete calibers list. They are not simply saying that any caliber which is no longer in commercial production is antique. They do actually stress that the ammunition should be "Long obsolete" and go as far as to say:-

"The chances of the survival of more than a tiny number of most of these cartridges - or of the arms which they fit - are very low indeed."

If you look at the list which is NOT classed as antique (e.g. .455 webley), then, although the ammo is no longer in current production there is probably still quite a lot around. I can't quite see the logic behind it because if the pistol is held on 7(1), even if you could find ammo for it, you wouldn't have the authority to buy it as the certificate doesn't cover ammo. But there it is, I don't write the rules.

The list is revised from time to time and as the "Obsolete calibers" become "Long obsolete" then they get added to the list.

[Jim McArthur]

So then, 7.1 is for guns who's ammo is out of production: and 58 is for guns who's ammo is way-long-time-ago out of production. This makes sense.

I suppose the legal distinction then, and the reason for the more stringent 7.1 controls, is that, even though a 7.1 license doesn't allow you to buy ammo for the gun, nevertheless there's greater potential for the gun to be criminally abused.

Sell me your .32 rimfire, and it's not likely I can ever shoot anyone with it, even if I feel inclined to do so, since I'll never find ammo to fit it.

Sell me your .455 centerfire, and I can probably find ammo for it if I look around.


Jim

[majex45]

So then, 7.1 is for guns who's ammo is out of production: and 58 is for guns who's ammo is way-long-time-ago out of production. This makes sense.

I suppose the legal distinction then, and the reason for the more stringent 7.1 controls, is that, even though a 7.1 license doesn't allow you to buy ammo for the gun, nevertheless there's greater potential for the gun to be criminally abused.

Sell me your .32 rimfire, and it's not likely I can ever shoot anyone with it, even if I feel inclined to do so, since I'll never find ammo to fit it.

Sell me your .455 centerfire, and I can probably find ammo for it if I look around.


Jim

You're right Jim.
Section 58(2) is for firearms chambered for long obsolete calibres, ones that it unlikely that you will be able to find ammo for. It applies to rifles, shotguns and pistols although some rounds are considered obsolete in rifles but not pistols.
Section 7(1) is for pistols that fire ammunition that is probably no longer made but some may turn up. Therefore you have to have the pistols on your certificate, so they powers that be can vet who has them. We are trusted not to obtain the ammo and not to shoot them. The reason .455 and it's lookalikes (.450 etc) are included is that they were our service cartridges and the government don't trust themselves not to have mislaid some. The same for .303. However the big Henry cartridges are 58(2) as they are long obsolete. .38/200 (similar to 38 S&W but with a 200 grain bullet) is not allowed on 7(1).
Section 7(3) has no restriction on calibre (contrary to what some people say, you may have 9mm) and is for pistols only. There is no cut-off date either but it gets harder to justify owning the pistols the newer they are. The only restriction is that you may not have an aesthetic quality pistol made after 1998 as it could have been made especially to beat the ban.
There are modern revolvers and pistols in the collection, all because of technical merit, historical interest or rarity, depending on the pistol.
If your primary interest is in collecting then Section 7 is for you, if you just want to shoot pistols again, it is most definitely not.

[tacfoley]

...you may have one with a serial number x but also a later one just because it shows a difference in the machining marks or change of proof house or even because they dont show a difference.

That's a very interesting concept there, Mr Coal - 'My collection is of extreme historical interest because all the guns in it are exactly the same'.

That's a reason to collect historically significant handguns that I must admit had thus far escaped me utterly.

tac