Beretta brx1 failure

How's that going to work with an overstretched police force? "Excuse me, I am considering a civil dispute with a foreign firearms manufacturer, their importer and a shop. Please go and seize a broken firearm then await my expert to collect it from or examine it within your secure store".
Get real, triggertrix. Get the hospital to document injuries? I respectfully suggest your concern should be about getting the injuries treated. You come across as wanting someone to pay rather than preventing a reoccurrence.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but you can’t enter onto an FAC then cross it out 5 mins later.
Why not?
It makes perfect sense.
You've got 7 days grace before having to notify police.
So, enter on FAC, try it out, find it's not for you (or it's faulty), return rifle within 7 days, cross out entry on FAC and write "error" alongside it, or words to that effect.
I don't see any reason why that can't be done, and it appears that Essex police are of the same opinion.
 
Why not?
It makes perfect sense.
You've got 7 days grace before having to notify police.
So, enter on FAC, try it out, find it's not for you (or it's faulty), return rifle within 7 days, cross out entry on FAC and write "error" alongside it, or words to that effect.
I don't see any reason why that can't be done, and it appears that Essex police are of the same opinion.

There must be some leeway to crossing things out as well - what happens if you make a mistake/typo?

Or heaven forbid genuinely actually enter down the wrong rifle's details (can see it going along the lines of - "Hi in to buy that Tikka in 308" - "Aye, no bother, here we are *starts filling out the FAC*" - "Oh hang on, it was supposed to be a 24" barrel, not a 20"!")

Very disappointing about Beretta's response though... (Although I guess on their part, they have an importer that deals with these issues for that very reason)

But I'm 100% with Triggertrix on this - very negligent, and it could have ended even worse... Would be wanting them hung out to dry if it was to happen to me, especially as there was an active product recall out on these things.
 
There must be some leeway to crossing things out as well - what happens if you make a mistake/typo?

Or heaven forbid genuinely actually enter down the wrong rifle's details (can see it going along the lines of - "Hi in to buy that Tikka in 308" - "Aye, no bother, here we are *starts filling out the FAC*" - "Oh hang on, it was supposed to be a 24" barrel, not a 20"!")
Sure. I had a moderator listed on my FAC with incorrect details (wrong calibre). It was about a year before I noticed. I pointed out the error to the RFD, and he picked up a pen and corrected it. The ground didn't open up and swallow me down to the depths of hell, and there's been no issues at subsequent renewals.
 
Last edited:
Why not?
It makes perfect sense.
You've got 7 days grace before having to notify police.
So, enter on FAC, try it out, find it's not for you (or it's faulty), return rifle within 7 days, cross out entry on FAC and write "error" alongside it, or words to that effect.
I don't see any reason why that can't be done, and it appears that Essex police are of the same opinion.
You're into the realms of being able to lend section 1 firearms then at this point, which you specifically can't do.

If it was widely accepted then I would expect people to be doing this more often and you could do away with the estate rifle clause in some situations.

Whilst in this situation Essex FLD have said it's ok I bet plenty of other FLDs would not accept this. A legal challenge would be interesting to see where the decision went.
 
I'm sure there was a recall for this reason a couple of years ago. I bought one off melbourne last year and they checked the serial number wasn't one of them before I purchased it. Would have thought GMK have massively ****ed up by letting it slip through the net.
 
I'm sure there was a recall for this reason a couple of years ago. I bought one off melbourne last year and they checked the serial number wasn't one of them before I purchased it. Would have thought GMK have massively ****ed up by letting it slip through the net.
Yes there was a major recall that was widely publicised by Berretta and GMK. Any stock sitting on dealers shelves should have been sent back and rectified.

It will be very easy to see if this rifle had been upgraded or not.
 
Yes there was a major recall that was widely publicised by Berretta and GMK. Any stock sitting on dealers shelves should have been sent back and rectified.

It will be very easy to see if this rifle had been upgraded or not.
Hmmm. I just wonder if an earlier trial included a disassembly and incorrect reassembly? Still unbelievably stupid manufacturing by Beretta.
We will never know…
🦊🦊
 
Hmmm. I just wonder if an earlier trial included a disassembly and incorrect reassembly? Still unbelievably stupid manufacturing by Beretta.
We will never know…
🦊🦊
From memory it was a situation where if the bolt handle was pushed all the way in it would sit on the end of the firing pin allowing it to product so it would fire if you slammed the bolt closed.

I suspect it was one of those faults that anybody who new about guns would never come across - why would you reassemble a bolt incorrectly type view.

It’s only when you put it the hands of “i know exactly what I am doing and never need to look at a manual” that these sorts of issues are found out.

It happens with many many products, and it’s only when they are in use that these sorts of things get discovered. It’s how the handle it that is the big question.
 
Recall of a firearm with all the traceability in licensing isnt something that should have been voluntarily
Sounds like the importer didn’t ensure all items were actually recalled…..

The factory replacement upgrade should have been mandatory

Same happened with Blaser Silence Moderators
 
As the incident happened on commercial premises, was an accident report taken?
This would normally be taken to ensure that the business took all due care
and all bases covered, and satisfying the insurance cover.
You would thought that RFD shops allowing the public to use/test stock firearms on their premises would ensure that the firearms are 100%, and they are covered by insurance for this purpose, or a sign suggesting otherwise.
If not....
 
As the incident happened on commercial premises, was an accident report taken?
This would normally be taken to ensure that the business took all due care
and all bases covered, and satisfying the insurance cover.
You would thought that RFD shops allowing the public to use/test stock firearms on their premises would ensure that the firearms are 100%, and they are covered by insurance for this purpose, or a sign suggesting otherwise.
If not....
In fairness reporting this to the HSE is probably the best way for this to be sorted.

If this was a poorly maintained power tool on a building site then the HSE would swoop in and start dishing out the bollockings and fines in pretty short order.


 
Back
Top