Are We Boycotting Wildcat Moderators?

[Dalua]

... the definition of a barrel attachment requiring proof. It is any part of a small arm that contains pressure or through which a load is discharged.

The rules and regs say this:
Barrel Attachment Requiring Proof means a device forming any part of a barrel, removable or otherwise, from or through which any part of the Load would be discharged.

So, to require proof the attachment clearly has to form part of the barrel.

I contend that removable moderators, flash-hiders and brakes do not form part of a barrel, even when fitted to one. It seems likely that the proof authorities think that too - otherwise, as you've pointed out, they would insist on proving these items, and taking people to court if they acted against the regs.

 

[Heym SR20]

The rules and regs say this:
Barrel Attachment Requiring Proof means a device forming any part of a barrel, removable or otherwise, from or through which any part of the Load would be discharged.

So, to require proof the attachment clearly has to form part of the barrel.

I contend that removable moderators, flash-hiders and brakes do not form part of a barrel, even when fitted to one. It seems likely that the proof authorities think that too - otherwise, as you've pointed out, they would insist on proving these items, and taking people to court if they acted against the regs.

but then also have look at definition 3 -

“Barrel includes every Barrel of every Small Arm, and every Breech of every Small Arm, and every Part of every Small Arm which would in the User of the Small Arm contain all or any part of the Charge of the Small Arm, and every Part of every Small Arm in, from, or through which Part in the User of the Small Arm all or any Part of the Charge thereof would be exploded or discharged:

A moderator when it is attached to a Small Arm becomes a part of that Small Arm, and because the charge is discharged through the moderator it is included under every Part within the definition of a Barrel. I have highlighted in Red the key words.

Under the Barrel Attachment Clause you cited the word Device is all encompassing, and will include any object that is attached to the barrel and through which the load is discharged, thus becoming part of the barrel. Choke tubes, flash hiders, muzzle brakes etc are also included. But if you attached a sight or a telescope it would not fall within the proof regulations because it does not have any part of the charge exploded or discharged through it.

And regardless of the Barrel Attachment clause, the definition of Barrel includes every part through which all or any part of the charge would be exploded or discharged.

Given the definitions and the way the regulations are drafted the only way a moderator or any other device that is attached to the barrel is not captured by the proof regulations would be if it was ether not attached to the barrel and / or the load was not discharged through it.

I have run this passed a colleague who is a specialist technology lawyer and in his view the wording is all encompassing. As far as we / I am concerned moderators fall within the proof regulations given the way that the regulations are written.

Why the regulations are not being enforced by the Proof House is another matter entirely.

 

[Dalua]

Under the Barrel Attachment Clause you cited the word Device is all encompassing, and will include any object that is attached to the barrel and through which the load is discharged, thus becoming part of the barrel.

I've put the bit I think you've made up without basis in italics.

And regardless of the Barrel Attachment clause, the definition of Barrel includes every part through which all or any part of the charge would be exploded or discharged.

It includes every part of the barrel through which the charge etc etc. The items under discussion do not at any time plausibly form part of any barrel.

Given the definitions and the way the regulations are drafted the only way a moderator or any other device that is attached to the barrel is not captured by the proof regulations would be if it was ether not attached to the barrel and / or the load was not discharged through it.

No - it is not included in these definitions because it at no point becomes part of the barrel. Choke-tubes do, I think - they need to be in for the firearm to work as intended, and the charge passes through them in a way indistinguishable from the barrel of which they arguably do indeed become part. Completely different scenario, though, I think.

I have run this passed a colleague who is a specialist technology lawyer and in his view the wording is all encompassing. As far as we / I am concerned moderators fall within the proof regulations given the way that the regulations are written.

I don't think he understands it correctly either, in that case...
Your argument seems to be that the detachable moderator needs proof because the charge goes through it - whereas it would additionally need to be part of the barrel or of the small arm for it to need proof.
Then you argue that it is part of the barrel/small arm because the charge goes through it - which doesn't seem to me to make sense in the context of the Rules and Regs.

 

[Heym SR20]

I've put the bit I think you've made up without basis in italics.

It includes every part of the barrel through which the charge etc etc. The items under discussion do not at any time plausibly form part of any barrel.

No - it is not included in these definitions because it at no point becomes part of the barrel. Choke-tubes do, I think - they need to be in for the firearm to work as intended, and the charge passes through them in a way indistinguishable from the barrel of which they arguably do indeed become part. Completely different scenario, though, I think.

I don't think he understands it correctly either, in that case...
Your argument seems to be that the detachable moderator needs proof because the charge goes through it - whereas it would additionally need to be part of the barrel or of the small arm for it to need proof.
Then you argue that it is part of the barrel/small arm because the charge goes through it - which doesn't seem to me to make sense in the context of the Rules and Regs.

Nope, the Barrel is defined as any part of the small arm though which the charge goes.

 

[Dalua]

Nope, the Barrel is defined as any part of the small arm though which the charge goes.

Any part. A barrel is indeed a part of a rifle. The rifle won't work without it.
I don't think a detachable moderator of the kind we're discussing fits that same description.

 

[Sharpie]

It also states in the proof regulations that if a barrel is converted, and it gives the specific example of become a soundoderated barrel that it falls out of proof and needs to be reproofed. They also go onto say that the barrel for reproof needs to delivered with any attachments unless those attachments have independently proofed and so marked.

The thing about the converted sound moderated barrel is just a dig at the well known case of Gunshop Barnet, who were cutting down Ruger 10-22s to 12" then permanently fitting a full length over-barrel reflex mod. Not drilling any porting in the barrel.

This was back in the day when getting a moderator, even for a 22 rimfire, was a bit of a hassle. Whereas a permanently integrally moderated rifle did not need any such paperwork.

The proof houses went random over this (worried about missing out on some re-proofing income I suppose), and prosecuted.

So it was tested in court, and they lost. Jackson Rifles provided some technical consultancy to rubbish the specious claims that somehow shortening a barrel could materially weaken it

As someone else has stated all military weapons with sound moderators and muzzle brakes go to the proof house and are stamped accordingly.

That was me, having observed it being done. And no, these sorts of things don't get proofed at Birmingham or London, I won't go into details because I rather suspect that you are displaying trollish tendencies. Whether you realise it or not.

I really don't understand what mission you think you are on with your OCD argumentation. Maybe go back to your doctor and ask to be put back on the meds.

 

[nCognitos]

I was a bit annoyed with them as I wanted a 5/8x24 bridge for my Evolution, it had mistakenly been sent by the dealer with an 18x1. I thought to avoid the hassle of getting it taken off my ticket and then applying for a 1 for 1 variation, I would just buy the new bridge myself. Lady at Wildcat that I spoke to said because of a shortage of components they were only producing complete moderators now but I might find one in their dealer network, but I couldn't. In the end, I bought a Hausken barrel nut for about £18 to convert down to the required size, my local RFD even had a bag of them. If you are going to get the wrong size thread, make it an 18x1 as you can get Hausken nuts to down convert.

 

[Heym SR20]

The thing about the converted sound moderated barrel is just a dig at the well known case of Gunshop Barnet, who were cutting down Ruger 10-22s to 12" then permanently fitting a full length over-barrel reflex mod. Not drilling any porting in the barrel.

This was back in the day when getting a moderator, even for a 22 rimfire, was a bit of a hassle. Whereas a permanently integrally moderated rifle did not need any such paperwork.

The proof houses went random over this (worried about missing out on some re-proofing income I suppose), and prosecuted.

So it was tested in court, and they lost. Jackson Rifles provided some technical consultancy to rubbish the specious claims that somehow shortening a barrel could materially weaken it



That was me, having observed it being done. And no, these sorts of things don't get proofed at Birmingham or London, I won't go into details because I rather suspect that you are displaying trollish tendencies. Whether you realise it or not.

I really don't understand what mission you think you are on with your OCD argumentation. Maybe go back to your doctor and ask to be put back on the meds.

I am not trolling and for anybody statements such as you are re Medications etc well -

@admin please lock this thread.

 

[Klenchblaize]

Better still remove it as my post was a question not an instruction to boycott.

K

 

[Sharpie]

Better still remove it as my post was a question not an instruction to boycott.

K

Please admin do not remove this thread, it has thrown up some interesting information, as well as some wild notions displaying mixed ideas not necessarily of much relevance in the real world. Nor even to briefing a Barrister

Klenchblaize, you started this off with a deliberately provocatively titled first post. Including the suggestion that "we" do so, "in the hope of bringing the Owners to their senses". The implications of which were perfectly obvious.

Are We Boycotting Wildcat Moderators?​

To which, I'd like to think, most people's sensible reply would simply have been "No". But that's not how it works on this forum, as you of all should know. You tried to set the ball rolling, perhaps you are regretting it now.

You knew what you were doing, and have occasionally since dipped in to stir the pot along the way. Please don't now shed crocodile tears asking for the whole thing to be disappeared or simply locked, cancel culture style, as Heym wants.

It has more than run it's course, and will fizzle out naturally, if indeed it has not already done so. I don't think there is much more to say on the matter.

I would imagine that, by now, Wildcat will be aware of it. When you do actually contact them to ask about whether they can supply you with two bridges for one moderator, such as you desire, maybe let them know your name here, they might be sufficiently impressed to go the extra mile for you. I mean, you have indicated that you are considering buying one, so please do so. with renewed confidence in a British product.

 

[njc110381]

I'd never boycott Wildcat - they've been really helpful over the years and are decent people. I don't believe for a second that they made this decision through choice, so why punish them intentionally?

 

[Drum123]

I am not trolling and for anybody statements such as you are re Medications etc well -

@admin please lock this thread.

Its not actually your thread to lock is it?

 

[gixer1]

Please admin do not remove this thread, it has thrown up some interesting information, as well as some wild notions displaying mixed ideas not necessarily of much relevance in the real world. Nor even to briefing a Barrister

Klenchblaize, you started this off with a deliberately provocatively titled first post. Including the suggestion that "we" do so, "in the hope of bringing the Owners to their senses". The implications of which were perfectly obvious.

Are We Boycotting Wildcat Moderators?​

To which, I'd like to think, most people's sensible reply would simply have been "No". But that's not how it works on this forum, as you of all should know. You tried to set the ball rolling, perhaps you are regretting it now.

You knew what you were doing, and have occasionally since dipped in to stir the pot along the way. Please don't now shed crocodile tears asking for the whole thing to be disappeared or simply locked, cancel culture style, as Heym wants.

It has more than run it's course, and will fizzle out naturally, if indeed it has not already done so. I don't think there is much more to say on the matter.

I would imagine that, by now, Wildcat will be aware of it. When you do actually contact them to ask about whether they can supply you with two bridges for one moderator, such as you desire, maybe let them know your name here, they might be sufficiently impressed to go the extra mile for you. I mean, you have indicated that you are considering buying one, so please do so. with renewed confidence in a British product.

Have to say - I agree with this, trying to get the thread locked or posts deleted just showed that your point of view is not correct - it’s an opinion, which we all have!

To me, a mod is not part of the barrel, it’s an accessory. I do feel they are pressure containing although would be interested to see how much pressure as it won’t be anywhere near what the barrel is containing so the level of proof should be nothing more than inspection.

Moderators should not be as closely controlled as they are and should not cost what they do -
Anyone with competence on a decent lathe could knock one up in a few hours.

It’s about time they were treated in respect to what they are - glorified bean tins!

 

[Klenchblaize]

I’m going to keep this brief as it’s clear Sharpie is upset by this thread and my comments. His coherent and passionate summery in post #90 demonstrates this even though it contains a number of assertions I do not accept. That said its clear the thread title and my initial post might have been better worded.

The only reason I started this thread was in the hope Wildcat would find a way to address a situation - as I understand it - that must be impacting the sale of their products and long before I came along and made clear I wished to purchase what I consider the most aesthetically pleasing moderator on the market today but couldn’t bring myself to due to their position on the supply of replacement parts. At my reading what I am asking them to do is not breach Home Office guidance on moderator sales but rather find a way whereby if I lost or damaged a component such as a baffle I could get such replaced. Hence my suggestion they consider a repairs/refurbishment branch of the company that would enable one to submit, via an RFD if required, the whole assembly to have the new part installed by the manufacturer. Surely this is not too much to ask on an item costing c£300.00?

If Wildcat can offer some assurance that if one of their moderators were purchased today and the owner lost a baffle tomorrow the customer would not have to purchase a further unit and scrap the day-old unit, I will place an order for a .25 Evo once PRS have confirmed the appropriate thread size & pitch for my Krieger barrel.

That’s all from me on the subject

K

 

[aris]

Yes they were. They didn't help themselves either by selling all the individual parts separately, no ticket required, just posted, at prices that added up to exactly the same price as buying a fully assembled one (requiring a ticket, RFD-RFD transfer etc. Even at one point provided a handy list of all the components that added up to a complete one.

Goodness knows how many "Wild" Wildcats are out there, built up this way.

I don't think this was the case. I have a Wildcat myself and when researching found that there was one component you could not buy online - so could not make a complete moderator from parts. Of course my memory could be failing me - but this is how I recall it.

 

[Rewulf]

I don't think this was the case. I have a Wildcat myself and when researching found that there was one component you could not buy online - so could not make a complete moderator from parts. Of course my memory could be failing me - but this is how I recall it.

Absolutely correct.

 

[wytonpjs]

I don't think this was the case. I have a Wildcat myself and when researching found that there was one component you could not buy online - so could not make a complete moderator from parts. Of course my memory could be failing me - but this is how I recall it.

Diffuser cover - the dimpled bit.

 

[Klenchblaize]

I indicated I wouldn’t comment further and I’ll not in terms wheather or not to purchase a Wildcat. However, yesterday I took the opportunity to be ‘educated’ in these moderators by an RFD in a;- the design & assembly of the Wildcat Evolution; I hadn’t realised they are not designed with a rear over-barrel support bushing but rather an extended bridge, and b;- how they were sold by many RFD’s prior to the change.

What became most clear is Wildcat’s RFD based sales have also been massively impacted. This arises from the fact that shops use to keep a healthy supply of components in all their varied forms and sizes so they could assemble a moderator in accordence with a customer’s preferences and dimensional requirements in less than 2-minutes. The RFD went on to confirm that they were ordering top-up component stock all but weekly but since the changes can’t recall when they last sold a Wildcat.

K

 

[nCognitos]

That chimes with my feelings. I think I got a mod that was sitting on a shelf regardless of thread size, if I knew then what I know now, I'd have got something different. Saying that, I'm very happy with my Evolution, it is very quiet and certainly looks the part.

 

[Greenmist]

Moderators will be coming off the licensing system. No date yet but soon hopefully

I'm sure they will, probably the same day we get 10 year certificates