leaving bolts in rifle when in cabinet

[buckup]

No bolt is so similar to another that they are likely to get mixed up

I beg to differ Dalua. I own two Saur's both 202 models. First a .243, the second a 7x64. The only difference in the bolts is one has three lugs and the other six. I remove the rifles pretty much in the dark before a morning stalk. the safe is situated in the bedrooom, so turning the light on a sleeping wife is very unpopular. I'm afraid once is enough to arrive in the dark and find I have a .243 bolt and the 7x64 rifle.

Be as safe and secure as is "practically" possible is my rule.

Best regards,

Mark

 

[Dalua]

I beg to differ Dalua

You're not differing.
I think if you read again the post you've partially quoted, you'll find that I am giving my reasons for not leaving my bolts in, for the bolts of my rifles are indeed all entirely different.

Further, the rest of the post seems to me entirely to support your position: or at least, that was my intention.

 

[Milligan]

Agreed - does the insurance company believe that a thief (having broken into a securely locked cabinet) would look at the rifle and decide not to steal it because it had no bolt. Or is it that they believe that saving the bolt means that it would be less expensive for them because they can just replace the stolen rifle from a supply of boltless rifles (presumably stolen from other cabinets...

Like I said, insurance companies repudiate claims on principle. It's their business model, take premium, avoid paying out.

Even if the policy stated that bolts must be removed and they weren't, I would challenge the materiality of it as it no way changes the value of the claim or the risk of loss.

Finbear, as for your quote - it compounds my belief that these 'rules' are developed and perpetuated through a lack of understand on what is guidance and what is legislation.
In fact I would point you to para 1.4 of the very same document you posted
"It is not a statement of the law but aims to provide general guidelines for the
security of firearms."

 

[finnbear270]

Agreed, I have not said it is a legal requirement, I refer you to my statement that I would have difficulty explaining why a fully functional firearm was obtained, purely because I could not be bothered to separate the actuating parts.

 

[reiver]

Bloody hell!! Next thing you know we will have to take the keys out of the cabbinet door lock after we lock it

 

[finnbear270]