Crossman trapmaster co2 shotgun

[Garvin]

I'm not sure why anyone would calculate energy based on the total weight of projectiles rather than individual ones. The 1969 secondary legislation is very clear when it says "capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has... kinetic energy in excess... of 12 ft. lb" (my italics etc).

Dust shot can do little damage, which after all is the unstated objective of the law (notwithstanding preventing US competition to UK airgun manufacturers, which was the real reason...).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
1969 No. 47

ARMS AND AMMUNITION
The Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969

Made

13th January 1969

Coming into Operation

1st May 1969

In pursuance of sections 1(3) and 53 of the Firearms Act 1968, I hereby make the following Rules:—

1.—(1) These Rules may be cited as the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969.(2) These Rules shall not extend to Scotland.(3) The Interpretation Act 1889 applies for the interpretation of these Rules as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.(4) These Rules shall come into operation on 1st May 1969.2.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, Rule 3 of these Rules applies to an air weapon (that is to say, an air rifle, air gun or air pistol) capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has, on being discharged from the muzzle of the weapon, kinetic energy in excess, in the case of an air pistol, of 6 ft. lb. or, in the case of an air weapon other than an air pistol, of 12 ft. lb.(2) Rule 3 of these Rules does not apply to a weapon designed for use only when submerged in water.3. An air weapon to which this Rule applies is hereby declared to be specially dangerous.

James CallaghanOne of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of StateHome Office

Whitehall
13th January 1969

[WebleyWombler]

I'm not sure why anyone would calculate energy based on the total weight of projectiles rather than individual ones. The 1969 secondary legislation is very clear when it says "capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has... kinetic energy in excess... of 12 ft. lb" (my italics etc).

Dust shot can do little damage, which after all is the unstated objective of the law (notwithstanding preventing US competition to UK airgun manufacturers, which was the real reason...).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
1969 No. 47

ARMS AND AMMUNITION
The Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969

Made

13th January 1969

Coming into Operation

1st May 1969

In pursuance of sections 1(3) and 53 of the Firearms Act 1968, I hereby make the following Rules:—

1.—(1) These Rules may be cited as the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969.(2) These Rules shall not extend to Scotland.(3) The Interpretation Act 1889 applies for the interpretation of these Rules as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.(4) These Rules shall come into operation on 1st May 1969.2.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, Rule 3 of these Rules applies to an air weapon (that is to say, an air rifle, air gun or air pistol) capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has, on being discharged from the muzzle of the weapon, kinetic energy in excess, in the case of an air pistol, of 6 ft. lb. or, in the case of an air weapon other than an air pistol, of 12 ft. lb.(2) Rule 3 of these Rules does not apply to a weapon designed for use only when submerged in water.3. An air weapon to which this Rule applies is hereby declared to be specially dangerous.

James CallaghanOne of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of StateHome Office

Whitehall
13th January 1969

The guns are sold as primarily as shotguns but Crosman advertised and sold both shot and solid ball for them. whilst shot cartridges are almost unobtainium, .375 ball can be easily obtained from Muzzle loaders suppliers. Another point is the word 'Capable' . if the shot energy is tested As a 'DISCHARGE FROM THE MUZZLE' then the shot will not have time to spread and will be treated as a solid missile. Would you take your chance at getting hit by a charge of small shot at 6" range?

There is no escaping the fact that the muzzle energy exceeds the limit, the missile is almost irrelevant as the gun is not designed for or ever advertised as suitable for use with non lethal ammunition .

EDIT. The word 'CAPABLE' in the legislation is the reason it is almost impossible to get a S1 air rifle downgraded to non FAC. Once it is deemed capable . That is final as far as the authorities are concerned.

[greenwayjames]

Yes sorry for the misspelling

Thanks. The remark wasnt aimed at you in particular but it seems to be the most misspelled word in the collecting world

[keith66]

A club member had an FAC air rifle, he was told the only way it could be downgraded was by going the full deactivation route.
However an antique (shotgun at least) can be removed from your ticket & this is simply a matter of telling your feo that you want it off your ticket as you no longer wish to shoot it.

[harvey_s]

I'm not sure why anyone would calculate energy based on the total weight of projectiles rather than individual ones. The 1969 secondary legislation is very clear when it says "capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has... kinetic energy in excess... of 12 ft. lb" (my italics etc).

Dust shot can do little damage, which after all is the unstated objective of the law (notwithstanding preventing US competition to UK airgun manufacturers, which was the real reason...).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
1969 No. 47

ARMS AND AMMUNITION
The Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969

Made

13th January 1969

Coming into Operation

1st May 1969

In pursuance of sections 1(3) and 53 of the Firearms Act 1968, I hereby make the following Rules:—

1.—(1) These Rules may be cited as the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969.(2) These Rules shall not extend to Scotland.(3) The Interpretation Act 1889 applies for the interpretation of these Rules as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.(4) These Rules shall come into operation on 1st May 1969.2.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, Rule 3 of these Rules applies to an air weapon (that is to say, an air rifle, air gun or air pistol) capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has, on being discharged from the muzzle of the weapon, kinetic energy in excess, in the case of an air pistol, of 6 ft. lb. or, in the case of an air weapon other than an air pistol, of 12 ft. lb.(2) Rule 3 of these Rules does not apply to a weapon designed for use only when submerged in water.3. An air weapon to which this Rule applies is hereby declared to be specially dangerous.

James CallaghanOne of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of StateHome Office

Whitehall
13th January 1969

Surely you've covered the answer in the section you've quoted?.... In that the kinetic energy is a calculation of what is discharged from the muzzle and if there is more than one missile discharged then it's the TOTAL energy of the discharge.

[Garvin]

Surely you've covered the answer in the section you've quoted?.... In that the kinetic energy is a calculation of what is discharged from the muzzle and if there is more than one missile discharged then it's the TOTAL energy of the discharge.

That's your interpretation Harvey, surely? The law says a missile, singular, like a bullet.

Dust shot individually are pretty harmless at range. Obviously if you fire a single, solid mass you may put it over the limit and render it illegal - just like owning a functioning air cane is legal until you actually use it.

Don't forget, the law tolerates all kinds of devices that deliver missiles of high KE but generally low accuracy, like a catapult, slingshot, or even a throwing hammer! The reason guns are singled out for restrictions is that they can potentially deliver destructive missiles with accuracy at range.

[Jerry Cornelius]

I wouldn’t put my liberty at risk to test that interpretation myself. What might seem sensible and what is regulated under the firearms Act are not necessarily the same thing. After all an air pistol that fires a pellet is defined as “lethal” (really?), and yet is in some ways less tightly regulated than a less powerful airsoft gun that is not “lethal”

But this is going off topic.

[Garvin]

I wouldn’t put my liberty at risk to test that interpretation myself. What might seem sensible and what is regulated under the firearms Act are not necessarily the same thing. After all an air pistol that fires a pellet is defined as “lethal” (really?), and yet is in some ways less tightly regulated than a less powerful airsoft gun that is not “lethal”

But this is going off topic.

No, I agree! But erring on the side of caution individually means we never assert our rights collectively.

The BASC has a legally-qualified team that specialises in this sort of question and has the muscle to argue it out in court. Maybe they should weigh in?

Perhaps a BASC member on here could ask this very question, specifically in relation to the legality of air/CO2-powered shotguns, which, let's face it, in the case of the Crosman is a lot less lethal than the powder-burner variety?

[WebleyWombler]

That's your interpretation Harvey, surely? The law says a missile, singular, like a bullet.

Dust shot individually are pretty harmless at range. Obviously if you fire a single, solid mass you may put it over the limit and render it illegal - just like owning a functioning air cane is legal until you actually use it.

So what would you class a gun that is CAPABLE of firing a commonly available .375" diameter 71gr spherical ball ? ( I believe that produces about 40fpe from the Crosman 1100) bearing in mind that the gun was made post WWII and does not benefit from section 58 or pre 1939 exemptions. Measurements are taken at the muzzle for legal purposes, that is the only range that matters under these circumstances.

Air canes manufactured after WWII are actually prohibited weapons . Ones made before the war are classed as antiques and can be held as collectors items in the same way that Giffard shotguns or rifles can be held.

It is the capability and 1960's heritage that puts the Crosman under section 1 and age takes a big part it the authorities decision

[Garvin]

So what would you class a gun that is CAPABLE of firing a commonly available .375" diameter 71gr spherical ball ? ( I believe that produces about 40fpe from the Crosman 1100) bearing in mind that the gun was made post WWII and does not benefit from section 58 or pre 1939 exemptions. Measurements are taken at the muzzle for legal purposes, that is the only range that matters under these circumstances.

Air canes manufactured after WWII are actually prohibited weapons . Ones made before the war are classed as antiques and can be held as collectors items in the same way that Giffard shotguns or rifles can be held.

It is the capability and 1960's heritage that puts the Crosman under section 1 and age takes a big part it the authorities decision

With respect, you've made your views clear but we need a lawyer expert in these matters to give their opinion.

[harvey_s]

That's your interpretation Harvey, surely? The law says a missile, singular, like a bullet.
.

Precisely, only in this case the 'missile' is composed of multiple projectiles all in a single discharge.
The law doesn't specify the missile has to consist of a single projectile.

It's all a bit moot though as to my knowledge no-one can selectively measure the velocity of a single piece of shot from a multiple discharge.
But the Trapmasters standard ammo manufactured and marketed by Crosman also consisted of .375 lead ball which at say 79 grains a pop would only need to attain 262 fps to become a section 1 firearm.

[hellsquad]

So, a couple of questions:
1 does anyone here actually have one on a FAC ? because if they do that is a precedent
2 What was the outcome of the one at Micks guns? surely during the case that was questioned ? precedent again..

Nice to see an outcome on this 100% solid

[Unframed Dave]

2 What was the outcome of the one at Micks guns? surely during the case that was questioned ? precedent again..

No reply received.

Dave

[hellsquad]

No reply received.

Dave

Shame I could waffle on for ages, but can not be arsed today LOL. Silly as it is all about "capability" , It is a well know fact that a lot of sub 12 fpe PCP's for example are more than capable of way over 12 fpe, with pellet/settings adjusted, so in that case we are trusted to check and reg our guns with no questions? same as this trapmaster issue, capable yes.. with pellet/settings adjusted.
Please someone explain the difference to me??

[Lee5159]

Shame I could waffle on for ages, but can not be arsed today LOL. Silly as it is all about "capability" , It is a well know fact that a lot of sub 12 fpe PCP's for example are more than capable of way over 12 fpe, with pellet/settings adjusted, so in that case we are trusted to check and reg our guns with no questions? same as this trapmaster issue, capable yes.. with pellet/settings adjusted.
Please someone explain the difference to me??