Modular Rifle Systems / Gunsmithing Issues With legislation...

[Jamoy1993]

Hi folks, this is somewhat of a rant, the story goes: Got off the phone with the gunsmith today. I am getting a .300 Blackout AR-15 Upper Receiver built. I have just got my variation back for the SECOND time upon guidance from my FLD to break my AR-15 Down into individual components as it has become a Modular Rifle System.

My rifle went from being a single Straight Pull .223/5.56x45mm Rifle on my ticket to 4 parts:

Modular Rifle System Trigger Group
Modular Rifle System Upper Receiver
.223/5,56x45mm Barrel
.223/5.56x45mm Bolt

This is my original Straight Pull Ar-15

And my .300 Blackout Upper Receiver marked on my ticket is as the following components:

Modular Rifle System Upper Receiver
.300 Barrel
.223/5.56x45mm Bolt (Technically, this caliber uses the same bolt)

I have had the Gunsmith say that they cannot get this proofed as the bolt has to be marked as .300 and that the whole thing should be marked as a .300 Upper Assembly rather than being broken down into component parts. He also claims that this is resembling what an RFD would have on their ticket as there has been legislation in place to stop mixing and matching of rifle components (What good is that going to do, criminals will do criminal stuff)

Why is there differing information between police departments? Has anyone got any advice? I can-not-be-arsed with another damn variation, especially since i will have to pay for this one. Its the fact that the lady at the FLD said this is the way they do this sort of rifle now. Of course, went along with it trusting their judgement. It appears that people in these departments do not know legislation nor do they know very much about firearms either. Having to explain what i wanted to a gun-illiterate person was hard enough. Initially i had just asked for a .300 Blackout Upper Assembly. Now its ersed beyond belief. And the gunsmith did say that they expect it to be writen as a ".300 Upper Assembly" on my ticket.

Cant i just have a like for like on the .223/5.56x45mm bolt and call it a day? Does anyone have experience with this?

 

[Donkey Basher]

Just write back to the FLD with a copy of what the RFD has told you & ask them to amend the authority to acquire. Shouldn’t cost you anything as it’s a correction of their error.

 

[Jamoy1993]

Just write back to the FLD with a copy of what the RFD has told you & ask them to amend the authority to acquire. Shouldn’t cost you anything as it’s a correction of their error.

I have asked for someone knowledgable to give me a call so I can fix it. It's the dreaded wait I am annoyed about. I will ask them to give the Gunsmith a call as well to clear things up.

 

[Greenmist]

I have asked for someone knowledgable to give me a call so I can fix it. It's the dreaded wait I am annoyed about. I will ask them to give the Gunsmith a call as well to clear things up.

Might be easier to ask the gunsmith to call them

 

[Jamoy1993]

Might be easier to ask the gunsmith to call them

Perhaps, il give them another hour, then il phone them again and ask if I can get the smith to call them.

I just want it fixed :/

 

[Heym SR20]

The idea of a modular system is sound in theory. But in practice our whole legal, licensing system is geared towards individual rifles for each different calibre. I wanted a liner barrel for my combination gun to turn it into a double rifle. My FEO had never seen such a thing and initially thought it would classify as a semi automatic as two shots from the same trigger without reloading. I did point it was a double trigger

Any reason why the bolt cannot be used and proofed in both 5.56 and 300 blackout?
And regards the ladies in Firearms Department, they are admin support staff acting on the instruction of FEOs and probably not paid very much.

 

[Jamoy1993]

The idea of a modular system is sound in theory. But in practice our whole legal, licensing system is geared towards individual rifles for each different calibre. I wanted a liner barrel for my combination gun to turn it into a double rifle. My FEO had never seen such a thing and initially thought it would classify as a semi automatic as two shots from the same trigger without reloading. I did point it was a double trigger

Any reason why the bolt cannot be used and proofed in both 5.56 and 300 blackout?
And regards the ladies in Firearms Department, they are admin support staff acting on the instruction of FEOs and probably not paid very much.

Aye i understand they are only admin staff however i do believe if they had more knowledgeable people it would be a better less bottle necked process.

I am hoping the bolt can be changed to .300 Blackout on my ticket as it would be like for like and much faster and that we can make it work.

According to the gunsmith there is some legal gray area bout bolts being mixed for different calibers. Im not sure if its misunderstanding or if its a case of their local constabulary having differing rules to us up here in Scotland.

Either way its frustrating. They talk about the system being inefficient, but none of it has any common sense. Another thing they talk about.

 

[Jamoy1993]

Also note i do have the conditions on my ticket claiming that the combination of any of my modular rifle parts are legal:

So is this just a misunderstanding on the smiths part?

 

[Rutland lad]

I have a Mauser MO3 with various barrels.
The difference is I think that all pressure bearing parts on mine are numbered, and are therefore shown on the FAC.
The stock, is not such a part and has no number. There’s also no ‘action’ as such as the breech forms the lower part of the barrel and therefore is not in the action/reciever.
The FAC reflects this - is shows a rifle in one calibre with a serial number, then bolt heads and other barrels with the relevant serial numbers shown beside.
It did take the licensing dept some time to get their heads around it, but they did it well in the end and in a logical way too.

 

[Jamoy1993]

I have a Mauser MO3 with various barrels.
The difference is I think that all pressure bearing parts on mine are numbered, and are therefore shown on the FAC.
The stock, is not such a part and has no number. There’s also no ‘action’ as such as the breech forms the lower part of the barrel and therefore is not in the action/reciever.
The FAC reflects this - is shows a rifle in one calibre with a serial number, then bolt heads and other barrels with the relevant serial numbers shown beside.
It did take the licensing dept some time to get their heads around it, but they did it well in the end and in a logical way too.

Yea, this is the way that it was told to me that it needed to work. All 4 Parts of my AR-15 are marked with the same Serial (Lower, Upper, Barrel, Bolt).

As a result my Secondary Upper assembly for 300 blackout (Upper, Bolt, Barrel) was added as 3 additional parts.

The issue is with proofing these parts in the current configuration on the ticket. And on top, they said that the .223/5.56 bolt (even though thats 100% exactly what it is) cannot be used as it needs to be proofed for the caliber its going to fire so it should be marked as .300 cal thusly. Despite the 300 blackout being lower pressure than a .223/5.56 round.

Insanely annoying legislation. The gunsmith seems to suggest that he would be comfortable proceeding if it was marked as a complete .223/5.56 bolt action and .300 blackout Upper Assembly. I would rather just get a like for like for the bolt as i cannot be arsed waiting another 4 weeks for yet another full approval when it was literally what i asked for in the first place (3 guns, .303, 7.62x54mm and a .300 blackout upper) I would rather they moved to digital as the paper system is too damn slow.

 

[Rutland lad]

Yea, this is the way that it was told to me that it needed to work. All 4 Parts of my AR-15 are marked with the same Serial (Lower, Upper, Barrel, Bolt).

As a result my Secondary Upper assembly for 300 blackout (Upper, Bolt, Barrel) was added as 3 additional parts.

The issue is with proofing these parts in the current configuration on the ticket. And on top, they said that the .223/5.56 bolt (even though thats 100% exactly what it is) cannot be used as it needs to be proofed for the caliber its going to fire so it should be marked as .300 cal thusly. Despite the 300 blackout being lower pressure than a .223/5.56 round.

Insanely annoying legislation. The gunsmith seems to suggest that he would be comfortable proceeding if it was marked as a complete .223/5.56 bolt action and .300 blackout Upper Assembly. I would rather just get a like for like for the bolt as i cannot be arsed waiting another 4 weeks for yet another full approval when it was literally what i asked for in the first place (3 guns, .303, 7.62x54mm and a .300 blackout upper) I would rather they moved to digital as the paper system is too damn slow.

Yours does seem unduly complicated.

 

[Jamoy1993]

Yours does seem unduly complicated.

Yea, i think what needs to happen is it needs to be recombined into 3 items. Lower Trigger Group, Upper 5.56x45mm/.223 Assembly and Upper .300 Blackout Assembly.

It seems to be what the gunsmith wants. **** thing is il need to wait another 4 - 6 weeks for re-re-re-approval...

 

[Demetrius]

I have 2 barrels for my CG-RPA, 6x47 and 6BR........no numbers on those.

D

 

[Jamoy1993]

I have 2 barrels for my CG-RPA, 6x47 and 6BR........no numbers on those.

D

Think it is a relatively new thing. How long ago did you get those Barrels?

 

[Demetrius]

A couple of years ago....the rifle was in 6BR, and I applied for an additional 6x47 barrel for it, bought a blank, and had Hut 60 at Bisley do the rest.
The original 6BR barrel was replaced last year, again by Hut 60.
Neither barrel has any serial number, and the 6x47 barrel is entered on my FAC as a 6x47 Lapua spare barrel.
When I applied for the variation, I stated that the barrel was for the RPA, but this isn't shown on the cert.

D.

 

[Jamoy1993]

A couple of years ago....the rifle was in 6BR, and I applied for an additional 6x47 barrel for it, bought a blank, and had Hut 60 at Bisley do the rest.
The original 6BR barrel was replaced last year, again by Hut 60.
Neither barrel has any serial number, and the 6x47 barrel is entered on my FAC as a 6x47 Lapua spare barrel.
When I applied for the variation, I stated that the barrel was for the RPA, but this isn't shown on the cert.

D.

Nice, i think the serial number thing is retarded as it doesnt really solve the issue it is trying to solve.

Criminals will shockingly still do criminal stuff.

 

[cjm1066]

Does the lower receiver have any preassure bearing parts?

 

[Dalua]

I have a Mauser MO3 with various barrels.
The difference is I think that all pressure bearing parts on mine are numbered, and are therefore shown on the FAC.
The stock, is not such a part and has no number. There’s also no ‘action’ as such as the breech forms the lower part of the barrel and therefore is not in the action/reciever.
The FAC reflects this - is shows a rifle in one calibre with a serial number, then bolt heads and other barrels with the relevant serial numbers shown beside.
It did take the licensing dept some time to get their heads around it, but they did it well in the end and in a logical way too.

My understanding is that this no longer has anything to do with 'pressure-bearing', and has never had anything to do with what is or isn't numbered.

In accordance with current legislation, I think a whole Mauser M03 would be four FAC-items:
Barrel (always has a number on these, AFAIK)
Bolt-head (later ones have a number, earlier ones not)
Bolt body
Receiver

These are the certificate-worthy parts according to the Act:
a) a barrel, chamber or cylinder,
(b) a frame, body or receiver,
(c) a breech block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the pressure of discharge at the rear of a chamber

 

[Jamoy1993]

Does the lower receiver have any preassure bearing parts?

Nope, but stupid EU rules even though we havnt been a part of the EU for about 5 years. Common sense!!!

My understanding is that this no longer has anything to do with 'pressure-bearing', and has never had anything to do with what is or isn't numbered.

In accordance with current legislation, I think a whole Mauser M03 would be four FAC-items:
Barrel (always has a number on these, AFAIK)
Bolt-head (later ones have a number, earlier ones not)
Bolt body
Receiver

These are the certificate-worthy parts according to the Act:
a) a barrel, chamber or cylinder,
(b) a frame, body or receiver,
(c) a breech block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the pressure of discharge at the rear of a chamber

This is what the police beleived they had to do with mine. But i dont think its nescessary to be honest. The FLD are happy with my AR-15 being broken down into barreled actions and a lower receiver.

They still have to have matching serial numbers.

 

[doric_prince]

Fwiw, years ago, during a variation for an unrelated calibre/ rifle, police Scotland asked that I document all my modular blaser components individually across 2 rifles, bolt, barrel, action. I asked how this would be easily identified by customs when I travel abroad with a hybrid rifle of components from 2 rifles. Police Scotland couldn’t give me an answer to that question and instead said I could leave it until my renewal, which I opted to do. Fast forward renewal time- my 2 blaser rifles are still down as per the serial number on the barrels. I think they make it up as They go along, with little consistency across feos.