Brocock air revolvers : did they become 'illegal' ?

[MikB]

So far as I know, the only legal way to dispose of one that's on FAC is to hand it in for destruction.

I shall have to do that with my Brocock Pietta Navy Colt sometime before I croak to avoid leaving the missus in possession of a Section 5.

When possessed as air weapons prior to the 2005 act, they can be held on FAC by the original owner, as I believe without a Good Reason requirement, and they can be used in any situation where it would be legal to use and air weapon.

As it happens, the Navy Colt would be especially difficult to convert to a live shooter, because there's no recoil plate to contain firearms pressures at casehead and primer, and it would require some very fancy engineering to make and insert one. Some say that criminals don't care how dangerous their weapons are to fire, but I think most would want to protect face and eyesight.

On all Brococks I've seen, the lineup of cylinder chambers and barrel, never especially precise in the first place, has been further compromised by the clearance fit of cartridge nose in the forward part of the chamber, resulting in considerable asymmetric shaving of the .22 pellet and poor accuracy. A couple of thou misalignment counts for more in a small calibre than in the original size, and I've never seen one of these revolvers capable of better than a 1" - 1.5" group at 6 or 8 yards.

They'd've been more of a loss to airgunning if they'd been better made.

[Bazmati2020]

There is the option to have it deactivated if you just wanted it as a wall hanger rather than destroying it should it come to that

[ivortripod]

Regarding accuracy : The guy at Brocock Stratford upon Avon gave me a live demo when I bought my Air Revolver back in the 80s. He was a better shot than me [ duhh ] with it giving him a group of 1/2" at around 10 yds

[jassi]

As it is legal to possess the air cartridges, I wonder how the law would stand if they were used in a weapon that was incapable of live fire - eg a pistol made mainly of plastic that would disintegrate under the pressure of a live round?

From what I have read,air cartridges do not exceed the legal power limit for airguns so would work perfectly well in a plastic weapon.

[Hsing-ee]

As it is legal to possess the air cartridges, I wonder how the law would stand if they were used in a weapon that was incapable of live fire - eg a pistol made mainly of plastic that would disintegrate under the pressure of a live round?

From what I have read,air cartridges do not exceed the legal power limit for airguns so would work perfectly well in a plastic weapon.

The cartridges were pretty awful, requiring annoying charging or pumping up and maintenance as well, and were not that consistent. Even if the system had not been made illegal, they would have probably stopped selling when CO2 was taken off ticket. An Umarex Smith & Wesson revolver is a far more satisfying shooting experience than any of the Brocock revolvers, and far less hassle.

[ashf9999]

Even if the system had not been made illegal, they would have probably stopped selling when CO2 was taken off ticket.

CO2 came off ticket in the 1997 legislation; it wasn't until March 2003 that SCAC legislation occurred.

I disagree re the comparison to CO2 pistols. I own both, and pre-97 shot 'proper' guns. The Brococks, short of Black Powder or LBP, became the next best thing available to pistol shooters. You can't really compare a Brococks to a CO2 revolver, but I agree maintenance is easier with CO2. I use a cylinder to charge 6 TACS at a time, but having to bleed the charging system so often does waste air. Looking after a TAC is no worse than home-loading a powder cartridge. These are all different systems with their own pros and cons.

[gingernut]

I would back the Orion I had against the Umarex Smith.
But I would want someone else to fill the cartridges!