What ft/lb would be considered safely legal to set a springer?

[Dave2345678]

Well yes I agree with that.

[gsxrman]

Right, well as you already know that, if you had any sense you would simply set it that those premiers topped out at 11.5-11.6 NOT "right at 12"
that way you could be confident that should it, for any reason, be subject to an official test it would pass.

I'm also intrigued by what law you have read several times that you cannot understand, save that it's pure "bloody mindedness" in that you don't want to understand it

The term "missile" covers any projectile of any type, therefore removing arguments that "it says pellet but that is a "slug" not a pellet" or similar, in the same way that the term "air weapon" covers any air gun/air rifle/air pistol or air anything else.

Heavy premiers copout at 12 but don't go over, but I don't use them and my 7.9 make 11.6. Who is to say there isn't another pellet that it would go over with. Trust me I have tested with a lot of pellets and the heavy prem is the only one I have tested that hits 12, and very close.
Someone else made the comment about "any commercially available pellet", I was implying that the law states "missile".

Sounds like you have read the law too, so explain "capable" so it is crystal clear and what "missile" is used to test.

[angrybear]

Heavy premiers copout at 12 but don't go over, but I don't use them and my 7.9 make 11.6. Who is to say there isn't another pellet that it would go over with. Trust me I have tested with a lot of pellets and the heavy prem is the only one I have tested that hits 12, and very close.
Someone else made the comment about "any commercially available pellet", I was implying that the law states "missile".

Sounds like you have read the law too, so explain "capable" so it is crystal clear and what "missile" is used to test.

Capable means exactly that...capable..able to do whatever it is, without intrusive alteration.
If you can pick it up load a commercially available pellet & have it shoot over 12fpe, that is clearly "capable" of breaking the law,
the fact that you choose to shoot a different pellet, does not change that capability.

There is no predesignated test "missile" because to do so, would open the possibility that with a different commercially available "missile" it might shoot higher still, but it would still pass with the stated test item.

Surely it's not difficult to understand.

[Anothermiss]

Exactly. Capable isn't a difficult word to interpret. Missile will be pellets available over the counter. Readily adjustable will be considered as easy to adjust power, then and there, on the spot.

I'm struggling to understand how this is confusing, really.

If you know that one of the major brand pellets takes your rifle to 12ftlb, on the line, why risk it? Take it to your RFD and get it set slightly lower. Its that easy. It won't make any notable difference to POI.

Any court in the land will observe the requirement to enforce law over your desire to score well on the next round of the pigeon and pest club HFT circuit.

[Muskett]

Also could be argued that just because some obscure pellet, only found in the USA, can take many a UK rifle go above the limit means most UK air rifles are running illegally.
I think any Court would take a view on normal expected everyday pellets, not extreme or special. Why I said resent pellet designs have muddied the water. Exotic pellets are becoming more normal.

People don't have to test their air rifles if they don't want to, nor does the law demand they do. How many £14 tins would be expected to be tested? Ten, Twenty? How much testing equipment should come with every gun sold?
People don't have an MOT Test Centre on their driveway.

If you are an enthusiast, or tuner, then most likely you will have all the kit. For Joe Average they don't require any of it.

The main point is:"If you know". Well, that is intentional and bad, unless you do something about it rapido. Joe Average doesn't know, nor going to make the investment to find out, and importantly shouldn't have to.

[Anothermiss]

Also could be argued that just because some obscure pellet, only found in the USA, can take many a UK rifle go above the limit means most UK air rifles are running illegally.
I think any Court would take a view on normal expected everyday pellets, not extreme or special. Why I said resent pellet designs have muddied the water. Exotic pellets are becoming more normal.

People don't have to test their air rifles if they don't want to, nor does the law demand they do. How many £14 tins would be expected to be tested? Ten, Twenty? How much testing equipment should come with every gun sold?
People don't have an MOT Test Centre on their driveway.

If you are an enthusiast, or tuner, then most likely you will have all the kit. For Joe Average they don't require any of it.

The main point is:"If you know". Well, that is intentional and bad, unless you do something about it rapido. Joe Average doesn't know, nor going to make the investment to find out, and importantly shouldn't have to.

I think mens rea in this instance would simply be the intent to possess the weapon, the actus would be the actual possession and then the failure to maintain the legality of that weapon.

You know you rifle tickles 12ftlb with the exceptionally exotic and rare crosman prem heavies. That's your choice.

[Dave2345678]

Its all a bit piss poor that any pellet the cops have available could see the rifle go over…..then having to second guess what they might use, then requiring a reasonable factor of safety on our already puny 12 ftlbs ..running maybe 11 just to stay safe..
The law should have a standardised slug for the testing.
This test slug could then be shot through the gun at the RFD point of sale and the purchaser given an amount for later checks after tuning, or none std re-fits…
This way everyone could bat of the same hymn sheet.
Cops use something different…nope you didnt use the regulation slug…try again…

[Anothermiss]

Its all a bit piss poor that any pellet the cops have available could see the rifle go over…..then having to second guess what they might use, then requiring a reasonable factor of safety on our already puny 12 ftlbs ..running maybe 11 just to stay safe..
The law should have a standardised slug for the testing.
This test slug could then be shot through the gun at the RFD point of sale and the purchaser given an amount for later checks after tuning, or none std re-fits…
This way everyone could bat of the same hymn sheet.
Cops use something different…nope you didnt use the regulation slug…try again…

Standardised testing would defo be the way forwards. Even FLO practices aren't standardised in the UK. That's weird in itself.

[Muskett]

Yes, but that would be sensible.
Even the Law recognises that not all is sensible, why there are juries to protect Joe Public from some of the worse of it.
One reason the Police don't want standardisation is then they would have to supply and be responsible for that standardisation. Not their job.

If you have a set up with a particular pellet that is very close to legal, do you feel confident you could convince a jury with a strong argument that you were keeping to the Law? If so, go for it. You would be shooting a legal rifle the way you had it. That someone else could make it go over the top is something completely different.
I don't know how any jury might take it all, and I wouldn't want to test that either.

I haven't a clue what my air guns shoot at because I don't play much with their internals and getting top power isn't important to me; I just expect them to be under, nor have anything to suggest they might be above. They were all bought in good faith that they were legal. UK law is there to aid society not to be threatening.

[Bunny-on-Bunnyr]

Capable means exactly that...capable..able to do whatever it is, without intrusive alteration.
If you can pick it up load a commercially available pellet & have it shoot over 12fpe, that is clearly "capable" of breaking the law,
the fact that you choose to shoot a different pellet, does not change that capability.

There is no predesignated test "missile" because to do so, would open the possibility that with a different commercially available "missile" it might shoot higher still, but it would still pass with the stated test item.

Surely it's not difficult to understand.

Acceptance is difficult when the deal is absolute Neo...

[angrybear]

Also could be argued that just because some obscure pellet, only found in the USA, can take many a UK rifle go above the limit means most UK air rifles are running illegally.
I think any Court would take a view on normal expected everyday pellets, not extreme or special. Why I said resent pellet designs have muddied the water. Exotic pellets are becoming more normal.

People don't have to test their air rifles if they don't want to, nor does the law demand they do. How many £14 tins would be expected to be tested? Ten, Twenty? How much testing equipment should come with every gun sold?
People don't have an MOT Test Centre on their driveway.

If you are an enthusiast, or tuner, then most likely you will have all the kit. For Joe Average they don't require any of it.

The main point is:"If you know". Well, that is intentional and bad, unless you do something about it rapido. Joe Average doesn't know, nor going to make the investment to find out, and importantly shouldn't have to.

No, It could not be so argued, unless the said obscure pellet is openly & easily available over here.

ignorance of the law (any law) is not a defence against breaking it.

No, people don't have an MOT test centre on their driveway, but by law they still have to have their vehicle pass the test & get a pass certificate valid for 1 year, then do it again the following year,
the cost of any repair to gain that pass is of no concern to the authorities, so why would the price of pellets be ?

[angrybear]

Its all a bit piss poor that any pellet the cops have available could see the rifle go over…..then having to second guess what they might use, then requiring a reasonable factor of safety on our already puny 12 ftlbs ..running maybe 11 just to stay safe..
The law should have a standardised slug for the testing.
This test slug could then be shot through the gun at the RFD point of sale and the purchaser given an amount for later checks after tuning, or none std re-fits…
This way everyone could bat of the same hymn sheet.
Cops use something different…nope you didnt use the regulation slug…try again…

There are several problems with a standardised projectile, from the commercial arguments over who makes it to the exact size, weight, & shape.
within a week someone would come up with a barrel either to tight or too loose for that pellet to get max power, but they would have their own pellet to match their barrel.

The whole ambiguity of the test is part & parcel of it, if you don't know which light/med/heavy pellets will be used you have to allow more leeway in how you set it up.

The copy of the test procedure I have, lists the pellet weight ranges by calibre for lt/med/heavy but not by brand or pellet shape/size all of which have an effect,
and of course it's only the test procedure for that specific forensic test house, because there is no national standard test,
but
because there is no standard test it would be up to a jury to decide if the testing I have done shows that I am trying to obey the law or not.

It's a whole can of worms, in a firearms act that's as clear as mud.

[gsxrman]

Capable means exactly that...capable..able to do whatever it is, without intrusive alteration.
If you can pick it up load a commercially available pellet & have it shoot over 12fpe, that is clearly "capable" of breaking the law,
the fact that you choose to shoot a different pellet, does not change that capability.

There is no predesignated test "missile" because to do so, would open the possibility that with a different commercially available "missile" it might shoot higher still, but it would still pass with the stated test item.

Surely it's not difficult to understand.

It is very ambiguous, tweaking a power adjuster makes it capable, making it diesel makes it capable, changing the missile can make it capable. Where does it say "without intrusive alteration", now I am not suggesting that the police would adjust the power, change a spring or use ball bearings but test in not clear. You are using your common sense to determine the meaning. Which is what any of us do. My rifle as far as I have tested does not go over 12, but it may with a test carried out by police. So therefore 95% of full power rifles are capable, but not with the chosen ammo you have tested. We are taking about relatively sensible law abiding citizens. Not the idiots shooting without permission and at 14-15ftlb.
There is no predesignated test "missile" because to do so, would open the possibility that with a different commercially available "missile" it might shoot higher still, but it would still pass with the stated test item.
Exactly, so how do you set your "full power " rifle to avoid this. I don't think you can, but you can prove that you have done everything logically possible to stay within the law.

[gsxrman]

Exactly. Capable isn't a difficult word to interpret. Missile will be pellets available over the counter. Readily adjustable will be considered as easy to adjust power, then and there, on the spot.

I'm struggling to understand how this is confusing, really.

If you know that one of the major brand pellets takes your rifle to 12ftlb, on the line, why risk it? Take it to your RFD and get it set slightly lower. Its that easy. It won't make any notable difference to POI.

Any court in the land will observe the requirement to enforce law over your desire to score well on the next round of the pigeon and pest club HFT circuit.

How do you know I haven't tweaked my rifle so that the heavy prem only only makes 11.8. I said earlier that when I was competing I had my rifle set to 11.8 with 7.9 prems. I have stated since then that I have the 7.9 prems set at 11.6. Why? The heavy prems. I am not stupid, but rather looking for actual facts, that just aren't available, only opinion. If we take the letter of the law literally then we should all have rifles running below 9ftlb. The law says capable and missile. Does not explain how you turn the rifle capable or which missile.

So, Mr Muskett yes you are correct, a pellet available in America that would put your rifle beyond 12 makes your rifle "capable" and therefore should be illegal.
Mr Bear, it says no where that only readily available pellets are to be used. Therefore how the law is written you are wrong.

But, again this is only opinion.
Be law abiding, only shoot on a club ground or a perm. Only shoot targets or genuine quarry with good reason. Test your rifle. In my opinion you are well within the law and safe. Again though this is opinion.

[Monster]

It has been proven in court that if you buy a new rifle and it is then tested over the limit the punter who bought it isn't to know, nor has the ability to test that. They bought it in good faith that all was above board.
.....

I would question that view.
Have a read of this case where the defendant was given a conditional discharge, but with the offence being placed on their criminal record they would be unlikely to ever get a SGC or FAC if they applied.