Buying Bullets

Peter Eaton

Well-Known Member
When buying bullets be they complete or components ie expanding for reloading, is the shop supposed to put them on your certificate? I know they register the sale in their log but does that information go to the relevant police force of the purchaser. My reason for asking is I have had instances where a shop hasn't written the information on my certificate but others have. Therefore would it be possible to be in a situation when you come to renew your certificate the police turn round and say you dont need so many bullets on your cetificate as its clear you dont shoot as you havent purchased that many.....even though you may be buying a using hundreds in the lifetime of your certificate?
 
Please don't start this old arguement all over again it's been done to death several times over.

Don't enter the information yourself.
The simple answer is that some forces require dealers to make an entry on the certificate for the purchase of bullets, others are quite happy for the dealer to simply record it in his register.
 
Please don't start this old arguement all over again it's been done to death several times over


8 x 57 Im sorry I havent had the time to read every thread on here so bow to your superior wisdom in these matters
 
chickenman, sorry but it's one of those subjects that people seem to have very strong opinions on, and before you know it they are one anothers throats. I've simply tried to give the simple answer.
 
Bullets (noobs call them heads) when classed as non expanding, so 'hollow points', 'match' or anything that implies target purpose do not need to be put on your certificate and can be bought without a ticket. Expanding bullets which are described as 'expanding' or for 'Hunting' should be only sold to persons with the correct authorisation to buy expanding ammo although there's be issues recently where some police forces have said to supplying gun shops that they no longer need to write the transfer onto an individuals ticket.

A further complication is that although some forces class expanding bullets as a 'round' others do not. Always best to clarify with your issuing force.
 
Bullets (noobs call them heads) when classed as non expanding, so 'hollow points', 'match' or anything that implies target purpose do not need to be put on your certificate and can be bought without a ticket. Expanding bullets which are described as 'expanding' or for 'Hunting' should be only sold to persons with the correct authorisation to buy expanding ammo although there's be issues recently where some police forces have said to supplying gun shops that they no longer need to write the transfer onto an individuals ticket.

A further complication is that although some forces class expanding bullets as a 'round' others do not. Always best to clarify with your issuing force.

Is there no hard or fast rule on this - my force apparently does require expanding bullets to be entered onto my ticket, although the shop I just went to didn't know as they said it had all changed since 10 years ago when they used to do a lot of reloading!

Are stealthy changes being made to legislation on such things that we're not being made aware of? I notice primers now require a licence, yet I can still go and buy fireworks and exploding clay targets without a licence?!
 
Is there no hard or fast rule on this

Actually, it seems the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) says that S5 bullets must be entered onto the purchaser's FAC by the vendor.

So there is a hard and fast rule.

No stealthy changes have caused this, I think. Just a stealthy retreat by the Home Office from their misinterpretation of the original law. The 202 HO Guidance clearly states that S5 bullets need not be entered onto the FAC - but this is not, as it has turned out, correct.
 
Actually, it seems the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) says that S5 bullets must be entered onto the purchaser's FAC by the vendor.

So there is a hard and fast rule.

No stealthy changes have caused this, I think. Just a stealthy retreat by the Home Office from their misinterpretation of the original law. The 202 HO Guidance clearly states that S5 bullets need not be entered onto the FAC - but this is not, as it has turned out, correct.

Section 1 and Section 5 are totally different though right? - Sorry I should have said Section 1 (243 rifle bullets) - Also have section 5 and I get the rules are a lot more strict, just seems weird considering you could make your own bullets with the right equipment!

Guess I do have to go home (to get my licence), then come back into town... to buy some inert peices of metail and lead :(
 
Expanding factory ammunition or controlled components (Which can only be S5 expanding bullets) will always be entered on your ticket by the person you buy them from. I have never known otherwise.

You should never write on your ticket apart from when you sign it.

Target bullets are not controlled however as has been said its useful to get them entered as well in order to prove usage.

I had a situation recently where the FLO where unwilling to extend my holding of .22Lr now I am a member of a club because I still have a significant stock of my batch bought .22 Subs from years ago. Historic usage didnt carry my arguement and more recently bought stuff at the club I used on site and never entered because I did. Cant use the expanding subs for target work so rather catch 22.

Easily resolved when I had the club enter the 100/200 rounds a week I blow down range and sent my certificate back for something unrelated. I had used in a few weeks what amounted to my holding of subs for the last 5 years. Once you have established need/ usage then the FLO can work with you withing their guidelines.
 
Actually, it seems the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) says that S5 bullets must be entered onto the purchaser's FAC by the vendor.

So there is a hard and fast rule.

No wish to add fuel to the fire, but I'd be grateful if you could cut & paste the text of the statute you're quoting - then this will DEFINITELY be the last word on this topic. Assurances from BASC need Home Office (HOG) backing for me.

Much seems to depend on what the individual County FLD instructs their tied RFD's. Cambridgeshire tells their RFD's to enter Expanding on the person's FAC, but Thames Valley do not (that's what Reloading Solutions told me 2 years back). If that was the case with TVP control area then the queues at Aftab's counter at the Gamefair counter would be even longer.
That's still what I'm seeing at the GF, but if that's changed recently somebody will be along to put me right.

Repeated entries for bullets for reloading also clutter up the ammunition section of the FAC causing frequent reprints/reissues, so maybe this is another FLD motive?

I'm not sure I see Bunnydoom's point about going back for his FAC, as he won't be able to get Expanding bullets without it in the first instance.:-| :(
 
Target bullets are not controlled

Afternoon ND: Minor point: club-approved hollow-point for target use are controlled, different from FMJ which are not.

Different police authorities are issuing different guidelines to RFDs in their areas, although even this is not showing consistency or the firearms team simply haven’t visited all the RFDs in our area yet.

My local RFD1 has been advised to enter powder onto FACs which he did when I last bought powder; RFD2 who I bought powder from since then, did not enter onto my FAC. Both have entered bullets for reloading onto my FAC without question; Hollow-point (but not designed to expand) varmint for target work from RFD1 and the other was soft-point designed to expand from RFD2.
 
No wish to add fuel to the fire, but I'd be grateful if you could cut & paste the text of the statute you're quoting - then this will DEFINITELY be the last word on this topic. Assurances from BASC need Home Office (HOG) backing for me.

I'd have a read of Mr Perring's thread on the subject. He outlines his dealings with the HO on this, as well as giving the bits of statute.
The statute don't actually say 'the RFD must enter S5 bullets on your FAC when you buy them', but it is clear that that's the result of what it does say.
The HOG, in this case, is telling porkies.

Enjoy!
 
Afternoon ND: Minor point: club-approved hollow-point for target use are controlled, different from FMJ which are not.

Different police authorities are issuing different guidelines to RFDs in their areas, although even this is not showing consistency or the firearms team simply haven’t visited all the RFDs in our area yet.

My local RFD1 has been advised to enter powder onto FACs which he did when I last bought powder; RFD2 who I bought powder from since then, did not enter onto my FAC. Both have entered bullets for reloading onto my FAC without question; Hollow-point (but not designed to expand) varmint for target work from RFD1 and the other was soft-point designed to expand from RFD2.


Im not seeing that in practice with anything not specifically designed to expand.

Very Interesting Veribus. I bought some bullets for target work from Kranks last month. Both FMJ in .303 and some .25-06 100g Sierra Matchkings which are hollow point. All done by post. No sign or sight of my certificate.
 
Im not seeing that in practice with anything not specifically designed to expand.

Very Interesting Veribus. I bought some bullets for target work from Kranks last month. Both FMJ in .303 and some .25-06 100g Sierra Matchkings which are hollow point. All done by post. No sign or sight of my certificate.

Quite. Non-S5 bullets are not controlled in any way, as far as I'm aware.
 
I'd have a read of Mr Perring's thread on the subject. He outlines his dealings with the HO on this, as well as giving the bits of statute.
The statute don't actually say 'the RFD must enter S5 bullets on your FAC when you buy them', but it is clear that that's the result of what it does say.
The HOG, in this case, is telling porkies.

Enjoy!

Thanks, Dalua. I have read this.

We're discussing an RFD's obligatory record keeping on ammunition. Unless the 1968 Act, and it's Amendments explicitly state that expanding bullets have the same status in every way as expanding ammunition & 'standard' ammunition (my term) then there's an area of doubt. The legal provisions don't say this, so are open to interpretation. I don't see the corollary that BASC apparently does, so don't accept their conclusions.

That's up to me. When I see the change in the HOG that we're assured is coming soon then their view and yours will be vindicated.
 
Thanks, Dalua. I have read this.

We're discussing an RFD's obligatory record keeping on ammunition. Unless the 1968 Act, and it's Amendments explicitly state that expanding bullets have the same status in every way as expanding ammunition & 'standard' ammunition (my term) then there's an area of doubt. The legal provisions don't say this, so are open to interpretation. I don't see the corollary that BASC apparently does, so don't accept their conclusions.

That's up to me. When I see the change in the HOG that we're assured is coming soon then their view and yours will be vindicated.

It is an odd business. My current view is that the HO in their relatively recent look at this (assisted, but not lead, by BASC et al.) have appraised the area of unclarity, and decided on their current position on the basis that the balance tips in favour of S5 bullets being recorded by RFDs on our FACs.

I'm not an enthusiast for more recording, controls, paperwork and so on: but there it is.

As you say, we shall see.
 
Thanks, Dalua. I have read this.

We're discussing an RFD's obligatory record keeping on ammunition. Unless the 1968 Act, and it's Amendments explicitly state that expanding bullets have the same status in every way as expanding ammunition & 'standard' ammunition (my term) then there's an area of doubt. The legal provisions don't say this, so are open to interpretation. I don't see the corollary that BASC apparently does, so don't accept their conclusions.

That's up to me. When I see the change in the HOG that we're assured is coming soon then their view and yours will be vindicated.

The Act supersedes the HOG and therefore they (expanding bullets) should by law be entered onto the individual's certificate as well as recorded in the RFD's register.

The HOG (current note does not state this and says they only have to be recorded in the RFD's register) however I am told that the revised Guidance note which is estimated to be released Q2 next year will correspond with the Act.

Hope that helps.
 
Thanks, Dalua. I have read this.

We're discussing an RFD's obligatory record keeping on ammunition. Unless the 1968 Act, and it's Amendments explicitly state that expanding bullets have the same status in every way as expanding ammunition & 'standard' ammunition (my term) then there's an area of doubt. The legal provisions don't say this, so are open to interpretation. I don't see the corollary that BASC apparently does, so don't accept their conclusions.

That's up to me. When I see the change in the HOG that we're assured is coming soon then their view and yours will be vindicated.

I can't believe people are still refusing to believe the law.

the definition of ammunition in section 57 of the act includes "prohibited ammunition", the definition of prohibited ammunition in the same section include missiles of prohibited ammunition.

so ammunition when mentioned in the act means prohibited ammunition and their component missiles.

so wherever ammunition is mentioned in the act it refers to all items caught by the definition of ammunition.

There is a requirement on RFDs and FACs to make sure "ammunition" is transferred with an apporiate entry in the RFD register and FAC table by the transferor.

its not rocket science and anybody who disbelieved this should ask the home office if they don't believe the leading organisation

ACPO and ACPO Scotland are happy with BASC's fact sheet after lengthy discussion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top