12 foot pound Law Who's fault is it???

[lensman57]

A.G, don't you think that if capable meant anything other than capable how the airgun is setup and not after modification we would have had a lot more problems since 1969

My concern is more to do with innocent people landing in trouble rather than any miniscule and meaningless increase to the power. Any sane person would have set the law to define the power output of the gun with a certain pellet as a datum, whatever that power limit might be. The way the law is set up is vague to say the least and subject to abuse.
I am not going to get into the details of how much power has to be increased to realistically render an air rifle, particularly dangerous , but it is far more than 50 % of increase. Anyone with access to a ballistics program can test the model for themselves and let their own experience guide them.

I have no particular desire for a more powerful gun either. Last year I pulled my application for FAC at the last second. I however, think that a law that is dealing with firearms, in this case air rifle, should be easy to understand and straight forward to implememnt and adhere to.

Setting a 12 ft.lbs gun to 10.5 ft.lbs just in case it is found to be capable of exceeding the limit on a hot summers day or if the regulator misbehaves, is a rather round about way of dealing with the matter.

Personally I would have prefered a standard pellet ( 8.4 grs Diabolo design ,soft alloy is ideal ) to set the power with and that would be the easiest way of dealing with the matter for all concerned.

If the gun then happend to produce 12.2 ft.lbs with the most efficient pellet then the world really does not come to an end nor will the gun be anymore dangerous or prone to abuse, it is as simple as that.

BTW, the last time the French reviewed their Air rifle power limit they increased it to 20 J , ours is 16.1 J as it satnds, so a review may not always be inclined to a reduction.

Regards,

A.G

[lensman57]

[QUOTE=Steyr;7124028][QUOTE=jameswrx;7122762]^

You can't possibly shoot anything other than a snail with an air rifle old chap, just not Cricket.

Watched a chap on YouTube drop a pig with a .22 pellet from a Brocock Compatto the other day!



As for the FPE law.. what about something like South Africa here for non FAC? i.e. A max of .22 calibre allowed but no power limit and a max grain weight.

Saves any silly FPE limit but you'd be able to have up to 30FPE only self limited by the pellet speed (stability) keeping to circa 900fps. And .177 would be max around 18fpe

That way you couldn't have a .303 100fpe wolverine either (unless applying for FAC)[/QUOTE

Or have a benchmark pelletvwith a percentage of errorvrather than an absolute[ FPE/QUOTE]

This is far too sensible for all concernd.

A.G

[Rob Edge]

Firstly if you don't do anything stupid you are highly unlikely to feel the effect of the law. Secondly the test we currently have is fine and considering the amount of airguns in circulation we hear very few stories relating to it.

[Jerry Cornelius]

Firstly if you don't do anything stupid you are highly unlikely to feel the effect of the law. Secondly the test we currently have is fine and considering the amount of airguns in circulation we hear very few stories relating to it.

Frankly after Brexit and Trump I am a bit less happy than I was in relying on fair play and common sense to mitigate what is potentially a serious offence with effectively no defence.

To be clear, I am still not detuning all my air rifles to 8 ftlbs (and anyway there would be no point, because presumably they would all be "capable" being being tuned back up and who knows over 12 ft lbs). The chance of anyone other than an idiot taking pot shots at streetlights having a rifle tested is still negligible I agree.

But given the fantastically low and getting lower calibre of people running the country, and the forces of evil generally on the march, having a test that is actually fair, rather than one that requires being applied fairly, would be welcome.

[Rob Edge]

Frankly after Brexit and Trump I am a bit less happy than I was in relying on fair play and common sense to mitigate what is potentially a serious offence with effectively no defence.

To be clear, I am still not detuning all my air rifles to 8 ftlbs (and anyway there would be no point, because presumably they would all be "capable" being being tuned back up and who knows over 12 ft lbs). The chance of anyone other than an idiot taking pot shots at streetlights having a rifle tested is still negligible I agree.

But given the fantastically low and getting lower calibre of people running the country, and the forces of evil generally on the march, having a test that is actually fair, rather than one that requires being applied fairly, would be welcome.

The idea of fair is subjective. Some would think that whatever test that was put in place would be unfair because it didn't allow them to do what they want.

[lensman57]

Frankly after Brexit and Trump I am a bit less happy than I was in relying on fair play and common sense to mitigate what is potentially a serious offence with effectively no defence.

To be clear, I am still not detuning all my air rifles to 8 ftlbs (and anyway there would be no point, because presumably they would all be "capable" being being tuned back up and who knows over 12 ft lbs). The chance of anyone other than an idiot taking pot shots at streetlights having a rifle tested is still negligible I agree.

But given the fantastically low and getting lower calibre of people running the country, and the forces of evil generally on the march, having a test that is actually fair, rather than one that requires being applied fairly, would be welcome.

It is not a question of being fair Jerry nor as our friend Robert keeps pointing out of people wanting to do what they wanted.

The power of the gun has to be set with a pllet of a certain weight to produce a certain energy. The law is vague so far as practical application is concerned regarding a matter of great serious consequence if it has got wrong . What exactly is the reason to opposing the power to be set with a 8.4 grs pellet of diabolo design, 90% of the air gunners use these almost exclusively, in .177 for this argument, rather than a none scientific line of " not being capable of exceeding 12 ft.lbs "?

The factory then knows what to set it with, the RFD can test the 2nd hand guns knowing what is legal and what is not and the most important person, the end user would be able to keep the gun legal very easily without confusion or risk.

I really do not understand the pig headedness of just opposing what is the most logical, clear and helpful adjustment of the letter of the law for all concerned.
I would really like to know who came up with that law and what was their education? Subjecting a " firearm " to scientific power test without any datum or defining the parameters except the max ME.

A.G

[Rob Edge]

It is not a question of being fair Jerry nor as our friend Robert keeps pointing out of people wanting to do what they wanted.

The power of the gun has to be set with a pllet of a certain weight to produce a certain energy. The law is vague so far as practical application is concerned regarding a matter of great serious consequence if it has got wrong . What exactly is the reason to opposing the power to be set with a 8.4 grs pellet of diabolo design, 90% of the air gunners use these almost exclusively, in .177 for this argument, rather than a none scientific line of " not being capable of exceeding 12 ft.lbs "?

The factory then knows what to set it with, the RFD can test the 2nd hand guns knowing what is legal and what is not and the most important person, the end user would be able to keep the gun legal very easily without confusion or risk.

I really do not understand the pig headedness of just opposing what is the most logical, clear and helpful adjustment of the letter of the law for all concerned.
I would really like to know who came up with that law and what was their education? Subjecting a " firearm " to scientific power test without any datum or defining the parameters except the max ME.

A.G

Be very careful what you ask for because you might get it in the long run. Currently you can have upto 12ftlb but what if they decided to cover all of the bases and gave it a fixed test at 10 joules using a particular pellet but you can no longer shoot live quarry. The current law has worked well upto now with only 3 high profile cases worth noting but all three got off rather lightly considering what they were charged with. If they set the limit at 30ftlb you would be on here demanding more. Let sleeping dogs lie.

[venoman]

Regarding the PCP anti tampers from what i have been told by someone that is very much in the know of these things, is that a number of the early PCPs were very easy to increase the power. I know that one model could be increase to 19+ ft lbs with just a allen key, i was told that the government new of this and was thinking of banning the sale of PCPs in the UK. So the airgun trade decided to fit the anti tampers to there gun to prevent this happening.
its not my fault im a wealth of information.

[Rob Edge]

Regarding the PCP anti tampers from what i have been told by someone that is very much in the know of these things, is that a number of the early PCPs were very easy to increase the power. I know that one model could be increase to 19+ ft lbs with just a allen key, i was told that the government new of this and was thinking of banning the sale of PCPs in the UK. So the airgun trade decided to fit the anti tampers to there gun to prevent this happening.
its not my fault im a wealth of information.

AT is not a requirement in law it is voluntary by the manuacturer.

[angrybear]

It is not a question of being fair Jerry nor as our friend Robert keeps pointing out of people wanting to do what they wanted.

The power of the gun has to be set with a pllet of a certain weight to produce a certain energy. The law is vague so far as practical application is concerned regarding a matter of great serious consequence if it has got wrong . What exactly is the reason to opposing the power to be set with a 8.4 grs pellet of diabolo design, 90% of the air gunners use these almost exclusively, in .177 for this argument, rather than a none scientific line of " not being capable of exceeding 12 ft.lbs "?

The factory then knows what to set it with, the RFD can test the 2nd hand guns knowing what is legal and what is not and the most important person, the end user would be able to keep the gun legal very easily without confusion or risk.

I really do not understand the pig headedness of just opposing what is the most logical, clear and helpful adjustment of the letter of the law for all concerned.
I would really like to know who came up with that law and what was their education? Subjecting a " firearm " to scientific power test without any datum or defining the parameters except the max ME.

A.G

It's nothing to do with "pig-headedness", to you a shooter that makes perfect sense because it's simple,
but you potentially then have the situation where an 8.4 H&N might be .5ftlb different from a JSB, which is in turn different from a Crossman, which is different from a Gamo etc, etc, etc.
Which then still means you are subject to which is the one the test centre use.

So in practical terms very little has changed except setting the pellet weight hardly worth the effort for the cost of changing the law.

The only certain way is to specify the brand of test pellet but that would be a huge impact on the pellet manufacturers because everyone would be forced to buy that brand to test so the market would be un-fair.

There seems nothing at all wrong with giving a figure 12ftlb & placing the onus on the owner to keep his gun within that legal level, to me it's no different to a driver having to obey a speed limit.

[Powderfinger]

The 12 fpe law seems to have been hurriedly implemented as part of a package of firearms measures in response to reports of various crimes with guns (from the shooting with a pistol of three police officers to animals being shot with newly imported airguns that were more powerful than we were used to. On top of this, the old-fashioned British airgun manufacturers seem to have been in a panic that they would lose sales to the new, more sophisticated imports. I suspect at the time that airguns were still seen as toys, basic-trainers or, at best, handy hederow tools. The civil servants and politicians who put together the new law were not particularly interested in airguns as serious pest-control tools (perhaps had access to a pair of self-opening Purdeys for the game-season and a Rigby rifle for the annual safari!) and hence the law was badly drafted. I agree that a standard weight of projectile would make the law easier to comply with but I cannot see it changing anytime soon.