Jump to content

JonathanL

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    333

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by JonathanL

  1. JonathanL
    You could handload but the fact of the matter is that a .223 bullet isn't very heavy so you're going to get ballistics not much better (if any) than a .22LR. That being the case, you may as well use a .22 LR. A .223 with a good mod should be fairly quiet. It isn't going to be as quiet as a subsonic .22LR but you should easily be able to shoot it without hearing protection. J.
  2. JonathanL
    Quite correct. I think there's something mentioning that the occupier of the land has to be present (and has to be the one with the FAC) but I'm sure that a person who has permission to shoot over the land is treated as an occupier for these purposes in any event. This provision was put into the 1987 amendment Act by Douglass Hogg (who was at the Home Office at the time) in order to legalise his possession of rifles whist out stalking on his mates estate. Nice to see that politicians take care of them selves first. J.
  3. JonathanL
    If it's a sec.2 shotgun (ie; not more than 3 shot) then there is no requirement to have land. There isn't even any requirement to have any intention to use it. J.
  4. JonathanL
    whys that then mate ? how come the sound moderator has got to be on seprate line A sound mod is, techncally speaking, a firearm in it's own right so you need it specified separately on the form and you have to privide good reason for it. The above only applies to a mod which is an "accessory" to a firearm - ie; one you can take on and off. If the gun has in intergral mod you then it doesn't need to be specified as a silenced gun on your ticket. J.
  5. JonathanL
    Just depends what each individual force will accept really. Strictly speaking you just need to put the calibre down. I have three .22 rifles, two rimfire's and a Hornet and all were only ever described as ".22 rifle" on my cert when I acquired them and still are. J.
  6. JonathanL
    You'll be fine - don't stress it. You have to remember that you aren't expected to provide security that would put the bank of England to shame. You are expected to have reasonable security, nothing more, nothing less. There isn't even any actual requirement in law for a cabinet - in fact, there is no specific criteria laid down in law, other than "reasonable" which is a condition appended to the cert. Cabinets of a particular construction are specified in the guidance because it's easy, inexpensive and consistent. However, if you want to put a strong door on your cellar, for instance, there i
  7. JonathanL
    I found this puzzling too. I've never, ever, heard of people being visited for a variation. A land inspection maybe - if you are applying for something very different to what you already have - but why a home visit? The home visit is essentially to check your security but that will have already been done when you first applied. Juse seems like another waste of money and resources to me. J.
  8. JonathanL
    It doesnt matter whats written on it as long as it is secure , the BS standard or kite mark is not a legal requirement Very true. I believe that some companies don't use the BS KiteMark as their products far exceed the requirement needed to get it so see it as detrimental to their product. J.
  9. JonathanL
    The core shouldn't be lose to start with but it can happen from time to time. When the bullet is made the lead core is pressed into the jacket inside a die, the core stretches the jacket to the shape of the die and the elasticity of the copper grips the core holding it in place inside the jacket. It's pretty much sure to be lose after you've filed the tip off though as you are removing all if the tension in the jacket. You may well get the jacket stuck in the bore but I think it's not that likely given how much pressure is generated by a .223 round. Jackets left in the bore is more likely
  10. JonathanL
    It will be a waste of time. You will end up losening the core as the jacket is a stress-fit over it and being open at the base already will release all the tension which keeps the bullet together. Even if that doesn't happen then the ballistic properties will be awful with a bullet that shape - even if you can get them all to the same dimensions, which you won't. J.
  11. JonathanL
    Well, the problem is that you commit the offence if you actually cause soemone to be injured, interrupted or endangered. So, shooting at night may result in less of a risk through fewer people being around to be injured, interrupted or endangered but if you do then you are guilty. It's a ridiculous clause. If you are 51 feet from the centre of a highway and you injure, interrupt or endager someone then you don't commit the offence. If you are 49 feet away and it's a foot path and someone is injured, interrupted or endangered then you don't commit the offence. Bizzare, to say the least!
  12. JonathanL
    Well, the problem is that you commit the offence if you actually cause soemone to be injured, interrupted or endangered. So, shooting at night may result in less of a risk through fewer people being around to be injured, interrupted or endangered but if you do then you are guilty. It's a ridiculous clause. If you are 51 feet from the centre of a highway and you injure, interrupt or endager someone then you don't commit the offence. If you are 49 feet away and it's a foot path and someone is injured, interrupted or endangered then you don't commit the offence. Bizzare, to say the least!
  13. JonathanL
    Well, the problem is that you commit the offence if you actually cause soemone to be injured, interrupted or endangered. So, shooting at night may result in less of a risk through fewer people being around to be injured, interrupted or endangered but if you do then you are guilty. It's a ridiculous clause. If you are 51 feet from the centre of a highway and you injure, interrupt or endager someone then you don't commit the offence. If you are 49 feet away and it's a foot path and someone is injured, interrupted or endangered then you don't commit the offence. Bizzare, to say the least!
  14. JonathanL
    He's talking bollox, quite frankly. There is no limit in the number of firearms you are allowed to possess. You have to show that you have "good reason" to possess each firearm you apply for. If you can do that then the cops cannot refuse you. My personal opinion would be to stick with your original application and don't let him talk you into taking one off. Tell him to refuse you officially - which has to be done in writing in the prescribed manner. I very much doubt that he will do this as if he does then it has to be defended at court should you decide to challenge it. The decision,
  15. JonathanL
    Well, the problem is that you commit the offence if you actually cause soemone to be injured, interrupted or endangered. So, shooting at night may result in less of a risk through fewer people being around to be injured, interrupted or endangered but if you do then you are guilty. It's a ridiculous clause. If you are 51 feet from the centre of a highway and you injure, interrupt or endager someone then you don't commit the offence. If you are 49 feet away and it's a foot path and someone is injured, interrupted or endangered then you don't commit the offence. Bizzare, to say the least!
  16. JonathanL
    The .44 Magnum was designed basically as a big revolver round. It's used for hunting in the US. It's been used to take some big game in it's time - I think it's been used to take a Polar Bear or two! It was famously used by it's designer, Elmer Keith, to take a deer at about 600 yards that had been previously wounded with a rifle. J.
  17. JonathanL
    Unfortunately the Geneva convention forbids the use of the round that would make sense! There's no reason an expanding round will do much more damage than a jacketed round fired down an oversized bore so that it tumbles! The Hague Convention. The Hague Accord. J.
  18. JonathanL
    He's wrong about the .17 cal. There is no requirement to have an alarm fitted and I'd imagine he'd have trouble forcing one on you after 15 years without. Personally, I don't really see the point in playing games with the police. Tell him to send you an official letter of refusal and that you will appeal it at court. Chances are they'll cave in as I can't see how they'll win from what you've told us. J.
  19. JonathanL
    Yes he can. People get done all the time for doing things which many people would se in the public interest. As I say though, on the facts as described in the original post I very much doubt there would be a prosecution. Actually, thinking about it, I think the defence of neccessity would be a very good one in this case as a wounded deer is a grave potential risk to human life if it's near a road. J.
  20. JonathanL
    This is curious statement and, to my mind, can only be interpreted two ways. They are have either been giving them out when they shouldn't - naughty - or; they've decided that some "good reasons" are no longer good enough! Personally, it just sounds like waffle to put you off. Bottom line - if you have "good reason" they cannot refuse you. J.
  21. JonathanL
    I'd take issue that it's not illegal. If your FAC says something like "the xxx rifle is to be used only for shooting foxes" (or similar) and you use it to shoot a deer then you are in breach of that condition. You may have a defence of necessity (doing something wrong in order to prevent a greater wrong) but, technically, you are still in breach of the conditions. As for following onto other land. You are trespassing if you go onto land without permission or the honestly held belief that permission would be granted even though it hadn't been. That is not the same as knowing that permissio
  22. JonathanL
    I forget where the offence of discharging a firearm near a highway is but it's only an offence to discharge it within fifty feet of the centre of a highway if it causes alarm, distres or interruption to users of the highway. Interestingly, if you use it fifty one feet from the centre of a highway and cause alarm, distress or interruption to users of the highway you don't commit an offence. Depends how the chaps cert is worded. If it allows him to use it for "humane dispatch" then it would be difficult to see what offence he'd committed. J.
  23. JonathanL
    Sorry to hijack the tread. I've been thinking of getting a BP pistol for a while now. Can you use Pyrodex? Is it hard to get a BP certificate? Are the guns fun to shoot or just plain hassle? Any info would be great because the only venture I ever had in to BP guns was a Harrington & Richards muzzle loading shotgun, didn't work out that well to be honest. John Muzzle-loaders are fun to shoot, you just have to like cleaning guns afterwards. Don't have a BP cert but I don't think it's too troublesome to get. Probably the best powder to use is Hogdon 777 as it's easy to clean.
  24. JonathanL
    Thats about the size of it, but as already said if this is your first FAC application you will need to put a strong case for them to give you 3 x .22lr on first grant! I'd say you did well, especially as a .22lr Semi is hardly known as a target tool, but you have not attempted to get 3 x .22lr.. ATB!! .22 Semi-auto's are commonly used for target shooting. Granted, maybe not in his particular club from the sounds of it but they are common. Three .22's is no problem. As another poster has said, if you have a good reason for each then you'll get it. I have three .
  25. JonathanL
    Let's have a think of what offences you could have committed. Sec.19 © A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) he has with him in a public place (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm,....... So, doubtful that you have committed an offence here as it's unlikely that putting an injured animal out of its misery would not be seen as "reasonable excuse". There's various laws relating to what calibres you have to use to shoot deer but I think they pretty much all contain exe
×
×
  • Create New...