I fully understand the design aims for a muzzle brake, just wondered if it could be construed as a flash hider?
Classification of sound moderators
- Thread starter BASC Firearms Dept
- Start date
I fully understand the design aims for a muzzle brake, just wondered if it could be construed as a flash hider?
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you can then tell me how I was able to buy a predator P8, from ebay, from a non FAC holder, not on ticket,, and then take it to my rfd to have it added after I got the variation,?
All done with the full blessing and advice of L&B
Doesn`t really fit in with the description above
Oh, and by the way,, you are coming across as a bit arrogant.
All done with the full blessing and advice of L&B
Doesn`t really fit in with the description above
Oh, and by the way,, you are coming across as a bit arrogant.
Construed but it would be wrong to do so. Its ultimately for a court to decide but its design that counts not what the thing happens to do. Its fair to say a muzzle brake will reduce flash but thats an unintended consequence.
illegally!!
as for arrogance, none intended, i dont get much time on here on occasion so i stick to the points, being brief also often prevents ambiguity. It also helps promote people to think about the subject too.
If its an acessory not designed to deminish the noise of a section 1 firearm then its excluded from section 1 control and may be held freely
re'M'ington
Well-Known Member
You are definitely not in the BASC 'PR' Deptartment are you,whoever you are are you?
Martin
please dont take offence, it had a question mark not an explanation mark. As i alluded to earlier i dont always have time to embelish communications to the degree that nobody will pick at whats written. I take your point but the wiki link was to contribute not be unhelpful.
Martin, I reckon the recent amalgamation of respondents replying, from B.A.S.C. Firearms dept, has been due to perceived personality clashes on here,So maybe the tone doesn't quite sound right in some cases, I reckon it's been a good move,
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
BASC - thank you for the post. Its appreciated.
From what I know from my licensing authority they, and many others would be more than happy to have BASC and others sort out these totally ridiculous moderator laws. They waste a huge amount of time and cause massive confusuion, for what?
Surely it's time to get them sorted.
Surely it's time to get them sorted.
That would be a great thing to happen!, but probably not in our lifetime, would they feel a little bit foolish having an outside crew put their house in order?
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
just because the law has not been tested in court does not prove it is infallible or unambiguous.
cue "Fox" vs. "Vermin" and .22lr usage! Never tested in court (to my knowledge)
"Each case must be determined on its merits with regard to the wording of s57(1)(c) and the circumstances in which the moderator is found or required." ((c) any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon"
The mere presence of the statement above implies exactly the opposite, that it is completely ambiguous and does not totally describe all eventualities of red-necks making moderators from oil filters, machinist making ever more advanced muzzle brakes and the ever present issues of serial numbers (or lack thereof), "small bore" vs "full bore" moderators, "to proof or not to proof" and air rifles using moderators clearly designed for rimfire firearms.
I have personally been at the sharp end of a administrative cock up with the authority to purchase and hold a "small bore" moderator (not legally defined) and actually being sold a moderator with a 6.5mm bore capable of being used on my .243 (which I do!)
legal minefield.
the section of Firearms Law is overly complicated in addition to being ambiguous and lacking clarity, in the attempt to control something which is in effect a metal tube not requiring proof
Bewsher, you are dancing across several subjects which are covered in more than one act. The issues with proof are covered in the barrels acts. The improvised moderators you are talking about is covered in the 68 act by the word 'adapated'. The acts are published piecemeal across over a century. It is not published in a single idiots guide.
BASC do sumarise some of this a publish fact sheets, but still people don't want to believe them.
"any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon"
This is brief, clear and I know exactly what I can't do. Not complicated, not ambiguous not lacking clarity. A judge and jury would have no problem testing a particular case against this.
gerarddwatts
Well-Known Member
Additionally, the Act itself does not speak of 'small bore' or 'full bore' moderators. To do so is to fabricate an extra layer of complexity which does not exist. Why make it worse than it already is?
"Each case must be determined on its merits" and "the circumstances in which the moderator is found or required."
speaks for itself surely??
"Each case must be determined on its merits" and "the circumstances in which the moderator is found or required."
speaks for itself surely??
Its only a minefield because certain people want it to be. The act is no ambiguous or lacking clarity, it will never be worded in a way that says "you can have this and you cant have that" in simple terms but that said s57 is clearer than most of the act in the breadth of its scope and what is caught under Section 1. The simple fact of this subject is that we don't like the laws or proof acts and can see other options being better but the current laws are here and we have to abide by them. Bewshers comments about mods not requiring proof are risible and untrue. detailing his ideal situation as fact is unhelpful. he also cites the para on "each case on its merits" this was added as the legal situation is clear however the circumstances in which sound moderators are found needs careful deduction to avoid criminalising a person for owning an air weapon moderator for an air weapon (which is no offence) and to rightly prosecute those who misuse air weapon mods by not bothering to get them on their FAC for use with their .22 (ie they are caught screwed onto their .22) Likewise anyone caught with a full bore mod without an FAC.
as for vermin thats a completely different subject but until the fox changes its predatory dining habits its unlikely you'd get a case to suggest the contrary.
ps thanks for the support of those who have read and understood the fact sheet and posted after bewsher
Last edited:
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
The Act may not but the Firearms Departments do. they regularly try to classify as such without serial number or legal description or dimensions.
My point was not to argue the parts of the system that exist (or not) or to point out "loopholes" it was to highlight that a statement such as above is only added to a legal statement if the latter is not entirely black and white.
I (and I am not alone here or the thread wouldn't exist) merely think that it is an overly complex description to control to something that is poorly classified in law.
The question on the flash hiding properties of a muzzle brake highlight this.
Well on the first part we agree
I didn't actually comment either way on proofing ("to proof or not to proof").
My comments are not a personal attack on your original post or you despite your response. Some people will read the guidance, the act and the fact sheet and still be unclear as to which way is up.
Accepting that will put you in a better position to help people
I merely point out that it is not as clear cut to most people and until FEO's, RFD's and users are all on the same page then there will always be ambiguity and cock ups.
Case in point,
I personally was authorised for a moderator for a multi calibre rimfire,
I was sold and purchased a moderator capable of accepting a .243 bullet (by a very well known builder and RFD,
I used this on a HMR/WMR for several years through renewals and variations
I later then enquired if I could use it on my .243 and "1for1" my "full bore moderator" slot
cue apoplexy in the Firearms Department when they realised I had a "full bore moderator" on a "small bore" allowance.
"How could this happen!?"
"Who sold you a full bore moderator!?"
etc etc
I had to put in a variation to change the wording on my FAC from "Small" to "Full" despite the fact neither has a classification, serial number or product code. I use this moderator outside of their classification on 4 rimfire calibres and 2 centrefire calibres as the system my particular force have in place is ambiguous and unhelpful.
EMcC
Well-Known Member
Of all the years I have been a member of BASC I was under the impression that they were there to sort out any ambiguities and make enquiries on our behalf whenever we had queries with our licencing system.
However this does not seem to be true, all they seem to do is point us in the direction of the relevent legislation.
I have had reason to contact them twice during my very long membership.
Once, back in the eighties, when the Wilts included a form requiring lists of ground on which shotguns were to be used.
All I got was a reply that it was not a legal requirement.
I was in the job at the time and knew this, that was the reason I contacted them.
Had I kicked up, being within the job I could just imagine what sort of problems I would have had on my annual report, (trouble maker) and on renewal, bottom of the pile in the In Tray.
I had expected them to contact Wilts and ask what was going on but they didn't, it was eventually resolved within the Firearms department itself.
The most recent time was when I was refused the quantity of ammunition I had asked for, a quantity I had been authorised to hold for many years, which I voluntarily reduced faily recently during a period of health deteriation.
All I asked for was for the quantities to be re-instated but was refused and told to 'Write in if I was not happy'
All I got from BASC was a reference to the HO Guidelines to The Police, a copy which I have already and where it states quite clearly that 'due consideration should be given to reloaders' of which I am.
I felt as if I was being told nothing more than the average adult and shooter would know already.
Again rather than cause a stir as an individual, I was hoping BASC would make a general enquiry as to why reloaders were not being given due consideration.
I did write 'write in' but have had no reply so far, not that it matters now as all I asked for was to buy 500 and hold 600 of .30 calibre bullets.
As a reloader that is all I wanted but was issued a new FC with authorisation to buy 400 and hold 500 of .308 and 400 to buy and hold 500 30-06 so any RFD should be quite happy to sell me 800 .30 missiles which I could use in either rifle.
Had I been a BASC official and made enquiries I would have mentioned this to them as obviously the new staff do not understand reloaders.
However this does not seem to be true, all they seem to do is point us in the direction of the relevent legislation.
I have had reason to contact them twice during my very long membership.
Once, back in the eighties, when the Wilts included a form requiring lists of ground on which shotguns were to be used.
All I got was a reply that it was not a legal requirement.
I was in the job at the time and knew this, that was the reason I contacted them.
Had I kicked up, being within the job I could just imagine what sort of problems I would have had on my annual report, (trouble maker) and on renewal, bottom of the pile in the In Tray.
I had expected them to contact Wilts and ask what was going on but they didn't, it was eventually resolved within the Firearms department itself.
The most recent time was when I was refused the quantity of ammunition I had asked for, a quantity I had been authorised to hold for many years, which I voluntarily reduced faily recently during a period of health deteriation.
All I asked for was for the quantities to be re-instated but was refused and told to 'Write in if I was not happy'
All I got from BASC was a reference to the HO Guidelines to The Police, a copy which I have already and where it states quite clearly that 'due consideration should be given to reloaders' of which I am.
I felt as if I was being told nothing more than the average adult and shooter would know already.
Again rather than cause a stir as an individual, I was hoping BASC would make a general enquiry as to why reloaders were not being given due consideration.
I did write 'write in' but have had no reply so far, not that it matters now as all I asked for was to buy 500 and hold 600 of .30 calibre bullets.
As a reloader that is all I wanted but was issued a new FC with authorisation to buy 400 and hold 500 of .308 and 400 to buy and hold 500 30-06 so any RFD should be quite happy to sell me 800 .30 missiles which I could use in either rifle.
Had I been a BASC official and made enquiries I would have mentioned this to them as obviously the new staff do not understand reloaders.
Last edited:
badbob
Well-Known Member
bewsher500`s report is typical of problems,
Simple answer.
certificate holders should have a general authorisation to acquire/ possess suitable
sound moderators for each firearm.
(Health and Safety)....whats that I can`t hear you
BASC Firearms department... no smiley AVATAR
but very useful posts
Simple answer.
certificate holders should have a general authorisation to acquire/ possess suitable
sound moderators for each firearm.
(Health and Safety)....whats that I can`t hear you
BASC Firearms department... no smiley AVATAR
but very useful posts
Similar threads
