Section 5

[enfieldspares]

If i got a 2 rnd mag Glock 17 I already own a 17rnd mag which is not a licensable part ?

I think the attitude of the Courts is that possession of a multi shot magazine (even though subject to no control) together with a "two shot" pistol capable of using it will put you in breach of the law. You will then be prosecuted for unlawful possession s5 weapon as the Court will hold that it is no longer in compliance with the terms of your possession.

Ditto if you legally hold, say, one .450-577 Martini-Henry and ammunition for it and then purchase a second .450-577 Martini Henry and seek to benefit from s58 exemption. Possession of any element, ammunition, magazine, that will enable the weapon to all into a higher category of control will be fatal to holding it under a lesser degree of control.

 

[FGYT]

I think the attitude of the Courts is that possession of a multi shot magazine (even though subject to no control) together with a "two shot" pistol capable of using it will put you in breach of the law. You will then be prosecuted for unlawful possession s5 weapon as the Court will hold that it is no longer in compliance with the terms of your possession.

Ditto if you legally hold, say, one .450-577 Martini-Henry and ammunition for it and then purchase a second .450-577 Martini Henry and seek to benefit from s58 exemption. Possession of any element, ammunition, magazine, that will enable the weapon to all into a higher category of control will be fatal to holding it under a lesser degree of control.

Daft as usual

so why not a S2 shotgun and ok if you only Own 2shot mags or have a USA style tube limiter ok unless you remove it .

once again a law totally reliant on the Good will / Honour of the Licence holder Like not making Slug ammo without a S1 etc

 

[jamross65]

There is no requirement for particular barrel length as a condition generally either

 

[J4se0]

The pistol is a snub nosed .357 magnum and is unrestricted. Rest assured it is legally held and has been for the last three years. It was obtained for humane dispatch. I would be pretty stupid asking about restricting it on here if it wasn't legally held wouldn't I!!!

 

[Whitebeard]

Thanks for the clarification J4se0 but why restrict?
Wouldnt it be a modification which could detract from the original function and form of the revolver?

Ian.

 

[geordieh]

I think the attitude of the Courts is that possession of a multi shot magazine (even though subject to no control) together with a "two shot" pistol capable of using it will put you in breach of the law. You will then be prosecuted for unlawful possession s5 weapon as the Court will hold that it is no longer in compliance with the terms of your possession.

Ditto if you legally hold, say, one .450-577 Martini-Henry and ammunition for it and then purchase a second .450-577 Martini Henry and seek to benefit from s58 exemption. Possession of any element, ammunition, magazine, that will enable the weapon to all into a higher category of control will be fatal to holding it under a lesser degree of control.

I was told by Wilts Firearms you can legally hold a 16 shot magazine but you are only in breach of your conditions if you actually put them together

 

[pheasant sniper 1]

If you dont mind pheasant sniper a slight correction


I dont class pistols with a minimum barrel length of 12" and an permenantly attached wrist brace to bring the overall length to over 24" as "unrestricted handguns" what i had the pleasure of owning and using before the 1997 ban were unrestricted firearms.

Please dont alter my original post and then choose to reply to what youve added...

You and me both, but instead of throwing the towel in and ****in n moaning i got on with what was left, and continue to enjoy to this day...

 

[chrisc]

Please dont alter my original post and then choose to reply to what youve added...

You and me both, but instead of throwing the towel in and ****in n moaning i got on with what was left, and continue to enjoy to this day...

 

[Whitebeard]

Please dont alter my original post and then choose to reply to what youve added...

You and me both, but instead of throwing the towel in and ****in n moaning i got on with what was left, and continue to enjoy to this day...

Sorry if i offended you pheasant sniper it was unintentional.
To this day i still lament the loss of my pistols, rifle shooting will always be second best for me but i honestly cannot bring myself to take up shooting with long barrelled pistols/revolvers, not that i have not tried, its just was not the same.

Ian.

 

[bewsher500]

I think the attitude of the Courts is that possession of a multi shot magazine (even though subject to no control) together with a "two shot" pistol capable of using it will put you in breach of the law. You will then be prosecuted for unlawful possession s5 weapon as the Court will hold that it is no longer in compliance with the terms of your possession.

Ditto if you legally hold, say, one .450-577 Martini-Henry and ammunition for it and then purchase a second .450-577 Martini Henry and seek to benefit from s58 exemption. Possession of any element, ammunition, magazine, that will enable the weapon to all into a higher category of control will be fatal to holding it under a lesser degree of control.

Cant comment on the latter but the former scenario is unlikely and any trainee lawyer would drive a coach and horses through that attempted prosecution as a sole offence

no more of an issue than someone with a threaded rifle and no moderator a lot owning an air rifle moderator
until they become attached to one another no offence has been committed

 

[paultap]

Why does it need to be proofed?... The chambers in the cylinder are being effectively blanked off, no ammunition can be inserted into these chambers, the cylinder restrictions are installed with the cylinder removed from the revolver so the timing of the revolver (effectively the alignment of the cylinder to the bore) will not have changed. So why the need for a reproof? Also if you look at adverts for new handguns available in the UK for humane dispatch they can generally be provided either restricted or unrestricted for the same price.

Can I ask the question, if you already hold the pistol legally in its original unrestricted form, why would you want to get it restricted ?

 

[enfieldspares]

Timing won't change as that is off the ejector star on any modern swing out revolver. Or top break. Only on an old Colt 1873 or a Nagant will it be part of the cylinder.

I am guessing (why also my estimate of cost was high) is that the "spec" demanded of the OP requires that the chambers be permanently rendered unusable by either machining oversize a small amount or by slight threading and the inserts be screwed in or driven in frozen whilst the cylinder is heated?

In which case as metal has been removed then then the cylinder must be subject to re-proof.

 

[FGYT]

Why does it need to be proofed?... The chambers in the cylinder are being effectively blanked off, no ammunition can be inserted into these chambers, the cylinder restrictions are installed with the cylinder removed from the revolver so the timing of the revolver (effectively the alignment of the cylinder to the bore) will not have changed. So why the need for a reproof? Also if you look at adverts for new handguns available in the UK for humane dispatch they can generally be provided either restricted or unrestricted for the same price.

Can I ask the question, if you already hold the pistol legally in its original unrestricted form, why would you want to get it restricted ?

Depends it is a pressure Bearing part and if you weld the other 4 Chambers up you have put a massive amount of heat and stress into the metal just next to the 2 Chambers left personally as an engineer i wouldn't really be that happy even if proofed as the Overpressure proof shots may just push it closer to the Limit ready for it to fail when you get it back in the future unfortunately Proof house is still stuck in the past 2 hundred years on how they test things

 

[jamross65]

Gluing steel rods into the chambers does not effect the integrity of the gun and requires no proofing. It also means that should legislation change or conditions alter, they can be removed by tapping them out and glue residue cleaned up with solvents. If you have a gun adapted in such a way, and your stupid enough to alter it and get caught, then your obviously in breach of your conditions of possession.

 

[paultap]

Gluing steel rods into the chambers does not effect the integrity of the gun and requires no proofing. It also means that should legislation change or conditions alter, they can be removed by tapping them out and glue residue cleaned up with solvents. If you have a gun adapted in such a way, and your stupid enough to alter it and get caught, then your obviously in breach of your conditions of possession.

This is the process I have observed being carried out to restrict a revolvers capacity to two shots. I certainly would not be compliant in having the capacity restricted by welding the chambers up if I owned the pistol. This process is sufficient. As Has been stated in the above post, you don't need to get the chambers welded up and reproofed.

 

[FGYT]

This is the process I have observed being carried out to restrict a revolvers capacity to two shots. I certainly would not be compliant in having the capacity restricted by welding the chambers up if I owned the pistol. This process is sufficient. As Has been stated in the above post, you don't need to get the chambers welded up and reproofed.

you shouldn't need to have the chambers blocked in the first place im fairly certain its not a legal requirement just a police Instance

and pointless to block it in a easily reversible way ??????????????? makes the whole point of it useless ie stopping Public access to pistols of more than 2 shots for illegal reasons
Trusting the FAC holder not to change it and use it so might as well trust tem not to use the full pistol

 

[palmer_mike]

and pointless to block it in a easily reversible way ??????????????? makes the whole point of it useless ie stopping Public access to pistols of more than 2 shots for illegal reasons
Trusting the FAC holder not to change it and use it so might as well trust tem not to use the full pistol

However fld's grant semi auto pistols for HD as long as the mag is restricted. As we know mags are freely available on the Internet and unrestricted. Therefore the holder of such a 'restricted' semi auto is in just such a position of trust.......

 

[Laurie]

I believe the two-shot condition is in the HO guidance on applying the firearms laws somewhere. It goes back to the House of Lords amendments stage of the lergislative process. The Lords undertook a great deal of work to improve the Act as it came from 'the other place', and as originally drafted a whole host of legitimate uses for what are legally pistols wouldn't have been allowed, slaughtermens' captive bolt guns a glaring example.

The .32 calibre guidance and 2-shot capability came fgrom the slaughtermen's trade association who were asked to say what was reasonable for the humane and safe despatch of large wounded animals. This was by no means a deer management issue alone, primary users being vets and racecourse staff having to put down injured large domestic animals in potentially dangerous situations. Whether one agrees or disagrees with .32 / 2-shots as being sufficient 'cover' for someone having to take on an injured and enraged bull say isn't the issue - that was the formal advice from the 'professionals' and was accepted by the House of Lords, later the Home Office.

Since that time, guidance on calibre, number of chambers, and use of semi-auto pistols have all been overtaken by legal challenges where the courts have created precedence which in at least some cases and circumstances have overridden the calibre / cylinder capacity etc restrictions. A deer manager in the Grampian Region who spent his time split between South Africa and Scotland and who owned a .44 Magnum revolver legally in SA challenged the former Grampian Police force refusal to issue a variation for it in the UK and won in court with BASC support for instance.

Going back to the OP's question re S5 gunsmiths in the Midlands, I'd suggest Norman Clark in Rugby who is an S5 RFD, a good gunsmith, and who builds S1 pistols mostly from old Webley type break-open revolvers.

 

[jamross65]

you shouldn't need to have the chambers blocked in the first place im fairly certain its not a legal requirement just a police Instance

and pointless to block it in a easily reversible way ??????????????? makes the whole point of it useless ie stopping Public access to pistols of more than 2 shots for illegal reasons
Trusting the FAC holder not to change it and use it so might as well trust tem not to use the full pistol

You can fight the police insistence if you wish through an appeal. I doubt BASC or any other insurance policy would offer cover for that legal cost though, especially as they are in fact granting permission, albeit a restricted 2 shot.

The issue is all about trust. I think it's a reasonable assumption that as a person fit and entrusted to possess a firearm in the first place, you won't be tempted to risk prosecution and revocation of your certificates by adapting the firearm effectively to an illegally possessed one by removing the rods restricting the chambers. It's no different than possessing a restricted automatic shotgun. Very easy to convert back to multi shot thereby making it a Sect 1 firearm, but again don't think I've heard of anyone doing that????

 

[Selous]

+1 on Norman Clark in Rugby. He knows his stuff regarding HD