Expanding ammunition
- Thread starter Old melv
- Start date
8x57
Distinguished Member
IF the proposed changes pass through all stages of parliamentary process the date that they set for them to become effective could be any time in the near or distant future.
49ERIC
Well-Known Member
That all so includes AMAX
That all so includes AMAX
Because Amax are non-expanding
A site I've used is Kulor - Komponenter - Handladdning - Staffansvapen.se
Great service and very cheap for woodleighs compared to the UK.
FMJ's for .270 too
Kulor - Komponenter - Handladdning - Staffansvapen.se
Kulor - Komponenter - Handladdning - Staffansvapen.se
8x57
Distinguished Member
Harry mac
Well-Known Member
How did you place the order with Arms24? I just went to checkout on their on-line order page and there's no option in the "country" box for UK or Gross Britanien.
Vipa
Well-Known Member
Tried to order from them and received an email to say they don't ship to the UK!
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
The backstory is that some "knobhead" in the Home Office (like some knobheads on this Forum) referred to loaded ammunition in official drafts on changes to the law proposed as "BULLETS" and so, unfortunately, it stuck. Whereas what was meant to be in the changes proposed was "AMMUNITION". Still it might all be urban myth. Yet I go, now, into some gunshops and ask if they any expanding .270" BULLETS to have them then pull out packets of loaded ammunition thinking that is what I've wanted to buy.
If you mean the 1997 changes to the law, that's incorrect. The background is that Hamilton used some expanding bulleted 9mm ammo in his rampage. A trio or quartet of 'red-tops' got to hear of this and started a populist press campaign to have such 'bullets' banned - the usual 'Dum Dum' and 'no place for these flesh-tearing bullets in a civilised society' emotive cr*p, and not for the first time that they'd raised it. (Even the 'broadsheets' weren't immune - the gossip column in The Times said in one issue pre Dunblane that friends of the Rt. Hon. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx said 'he was a cad' as he used 'Dum Dum' bullets in his deerstalking ........... and had to print an apology and explanation in the following day's edition.)
Anyway, a group of Labour MPs jumped on the newspapers' populist bandwagon and demanded a ban during the amendment Bill's second reading. Gaining permission to interrupt Michael Howard's peroration on the legislation and changes that the government now proposed, their leader asked The Rt Hon member for wherever (ie Howard) whether he 'would give this house an assurance that these bullets and ammunition loaded with them would be banned and that would be included as an amendment in the Bill' or words to that effect.
Michael Howard without hesitation gave the MP and the House this assurance. When he came out of the chamber, he found his H.O. officials were appalled by the blunder. (A nasty rumour has it that his Permanent Secretary asked Howard how he, Howard, was going to explain to HRH that he had just proposed making her deerstalking illegal.) The P.S suggested to Howard he would have to grovel to Parliament and admit that he had spoken too hastily in the absence of the full facts, and that it was essential to continue to allow expanding bullet ammo to be used so there would be no such amendment.
Howard refused point - blank to admit to any such mistake and suffer a major loss of face. He told his officials to come up with a mechanism whereby he could be seen to have kept his promise ... but to somehow not keep it in the application of the law. Hence the present dog's breakfast. I doubt very much if there was any doubt amongst H.O. officials that with handloading becoming ever more popular, if you created this special quasi-prohibited status for ammunition, you had to do the same for bullets.
After the Tories lost the next election and John Major resigned as head of the Conservative party, Mr. Howard was one of the leading contenders in the subsequent leadership elections. I remember feeling cold at the time at the thought that this man might win them and potentially become Prime Minister.
Orion
Well-Known Member
Laurie is spot on with his detailed reply.
I thought it also had something to do with the EU Weapons Directive being implemented, whereby expanding pistol ammo was categorised as prohibited and our Government went further and lumped in hunting ammo, but his account is correct.
I thought it also had something to do with the EU Weapons Directive being implemented, whereby expanding pistol ammo was categorised as prohibited and our Government went further and lumped in hunting ammo, but his account is correct.
Uncle Norm
Well-Known Member
Well done Laurie. Spot on.
We also have Mr Howard to thank for increasing the validity of firearm/shotgun certificates from three to five years (hurrah) but not allowing a transitional period to level out the amount of renewals per year(Boo).
We are still suffering from a two year low followed by a three year high, all these years later and the consequent delays during the high years. Mr Howard would not listen then and it never was his strong point.
Whilst I am no fan of Anne Widdecome, I had to smile when she dubbed Mr Howard as 'something of the night',(or similar).
We also have Mr Howard to thank for increasing the validity of firearm/shotgun certificates from three to five years (hurrah) but not allowing a transitional period to level out the amount of renewals per year(Boo).
We are still suffering from a two year low followed by a three year high, all these years later and the consequent delays during the high years. Mr Howard would not listen then and it never was his strong point.
Whilst I am no fan of Anne Widdecome, I had to smile when she dubbed Mr Howard as 'something of the night',(or similar).
8x57
Distinguished Member
The European Weapons Directive 91/477/EEC of the 18th June 1991 requiring member nations to impose severe controls of expanding PISTOL ammunition and expanding projectiles predates the Cullen Report of Dunblane (1996) by some years.
The government response to the Cullen report https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/276636/3392.pdf actually says at the very end of the report-
The Government also proposes to take action on four additional matters they are
- a ban on expanding ammunition, except for the purposes of shooting deer;
Last edited:
Orion
Well-Known Member
It'll be Vereinigtes Königreich (United Kingdom)
Uncle Norm
Well-Known Member
There were no renewals in 1998 and 1999 but 2000.2001 and 2002 were the first 'high' years. 2003 and 2004 were 'low'.
We are currently in the midst of the 2015, 2016, 2017 'high' period, which is one of the reasons for the current backlogs in some areas.
When this problem was pointed out to the politicians they blithely replied, 'Oh, it will all sort itself out in five years'. 'No not five years, more like five times five years i.e. twenty five years, with all the consequent chaos', we responded. Which fell on deaf ears and was duly ignored.
The 'highs' and 'lows' are very gradually being evened out but will probably take another two or three renewal cycles (10 to 15 years) to complete.
This was a classic example of arrogant politician's, refusal to listen to common sense.
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
Too true.
My first FAC was 1983 so renewals were in ’86, ’89, ’92, ’95, but the ’98 didn’t happen until 2000 because of the extra 2-year duration.
3 years worth of applicants had to be done in 2000. The same hump re-occurs in 2005, 2010, and 2015. The grim reaper is levelling the score a bit now.
My first FAC was 1983 so renewals were in ’86, ’89, ’92, ’95, but the ’98 didn’t happen until 2000 because of the extra 2-year duration.
3 years worth of applicants had to be done in 2000. The same hump re-occurs in 2005, 2010, and 2015. The grim reaper is levelling the score a bit now.
Harry mac
Well-Known Member
Cheers, I'll have another bash at it soon.
Similar threads
