The old 'Calibre vs Chambering' debate :)

[fcp]

Put in for a variation for a 7.62/.308 recently which was granted quickly enough (open ticket, this is a woodland gun for Roe/ Fallow and use abroad alongside). I had expected it to come back '.308 WIN' (all my other variations have cartridge designation specified), but actually both rifle and ammunition are just listed as '7.62/.308 Rifle'

Looking around for something interesting (not just another bolt gun, maybe a falling block) I've seen a couple of things in 30-06 which is of course otherwise 7.62x63 in metric....

My reading is that my variation covers it, what say you?

 

[long_range_rob]

A bit grey really. You may find most RFD's wouldn't go for a .30-06 on that variation

 

[fcp]

A bit grey really. You may find most RFD's wouldn't go for a .30-06 on that variation

Yes very. Just curious to know whether anyone has actual experience. TBH I'll probably just put a variation in if I want one but interested to know other's take

 

[Brimfire]

Put in for a variation for a 7.62/.308 recently which was granted quickly enough (open ticket, this is a woodland gun for Roe/ Fallow and use abroad alongside). I had expected it to come back '.308 WIN' (all my other variations have cartridge designation specified), but actually both rifle and ammunition are just listed as '7.62/.308 Rifle'

Looking around for something interesting (not just another bolt gun, maybe a falling block) I've seen a couple of things in 30-06 which is of course otherwise 7.62x63 in metric....

My reading is that my variation covers it, what say you?

Don't forget 7.62x67 or 7.62x72, I would bet even if the RFD allowed you to purchase either of those, the FLO would have a complete hissy fit. If it said .30 calibre then there would be a lot more wiggle room on any potential purchase.

 

[fcp]

Don't forget 7.62x67 or 7.62x72, I would bet even if the RFD allowed you to purchase either of those, the FLO would have a complete hissy fit. If it said .30 calibre then there would be a lot more wiggle room on any potential purchase.

Yes they might, and life is too short to make it difficult, but on the technicality of it who knows.. grey indeed!

 

[Heym SR20]

I had a slot to acquire a 7mm for a while - I explained that I was looking for a rifle suitable for a left hander and it would be in 7x57, 7x64 or 7mm-08 or poss rimmed equivalent.

 

[enfieldspares]

With no intent to start a row, or insult the OP, people that misuse a variation for 7.62mm/.308 are being too clever for their own good and that of the wider shooting community.

The applicant will know what was agreed when the variation request was submitted (like Heym would have agreed his 7mm variation to mean he would therefore be allowed to purchase any of 7x57, or 7x64 or 7mm-08) and that is what should be purchased when the then varied FAC returns back.

This "Well 7.62mm means I can get a .30-06 'cos its metric designation is 7.62x63", is childish and, frankly, disengenous. Simply, WHAT was asked for and WHAT was agreed?

An FEO tries to be accomodating so as to allow purchase of a .308W where, on some rifles, it may be stamped as a 7.62mm (think some P-Hale rifles) and that sensible accomodation is then misused to speculate on .30-06...what next? 7.62x54, 7.62x72 or in fact any nominal .30 calibre rifle given some bogus metric designation?

These ingenious abuses of FEOs trying to accomodate FAC holders are what feed the demand...in some police licensing authorities...for not just calibre be listed under an authority to acquire but specific make and serial number of the weapon.

It's a silly game. Stop it. If an applicant wants a .30-06 they should go back and request the variation be changed instead of using supposed or bogus or now long forgotten and so called metric designations. A .30-06 is a .30-06 and looking back to obscure references to it as 7.62x63 or .300 (as used by British Armed Forces in WWII) or .30 US G'ovt (as used also) is, as I've said, an abuse of an FEO's goodwill in trying to be accomodating.

For good our licensing system still works on a trust basis. That we are trusted to acquire what's been agreed. This "metric mischief" to acquire what may NEVER have been part of the discussion when the variation was requested and agreed to is an abuse of that trust.

 

[Brimfire]

With no intent to start a row, or insult the OP, people that misuse a variation for 7.62mm/.308 are being too clever for their own good and that of the wider shooting community.

The applicant will know what was agreed when the variation request was submitted (like Heym would have agreed his 7mm variation to mean he would therefore be allowed to purchase any of 7x57, or 7x64 or 7mm-08) and that is what should be purchased when the then varied FAC returns back.

This "Well 7.62mm means I can get a .30-06 'cos its metric designation is 7.62x63", is childish and, frankly, disengenous. Simply, WHAT was asked for and WHAT was agreed?

An FEO tries to be accomodating so as to allow purchase of a .308W where, on some rifles, it may be stamped as a 7.62mm (think some P-Hale rifles) and that sensible accomodation is then misused to speculate on .30-06...what next? 7.62x54, 7.62x72 or in fact any nominal .30 calibre rifle given some bogus metric designation?

These ingenious abuses of FEOs trying to accomodate FAC holders are what feed the demand...in some police licensing authorities...for not just calibre be listed under an authority to acquire but specific make and serial number of the weapon.

It's a silly game. Stop it. If an applicant wants a .30-06 they should go back and request the variation be changed instead of using supposed or bogus or now long forgotten and so called metric designations. A .30-06 is a .30-06 and looking back to obscure references to it as 7.62x63 or .300 (as used by British Armed Forces in WWII) or .30 US G'ovt (as used also) is, as I've said, an abuse of an FEO's goodwill in trying to be accomodating.

For good our licensing system still works on a trust basis. That we are trusted to acquire what's been agreed. This "metric mischief" to acquire what may NEVER have been part of the discussion when the variation was requested and agreed to is an abuse of that trust.

I doubt that it will start a row. I would think the slot saying 7.62/.308 WIN is just to accommodate the ammunition as it is possible to use 7.62 NATO in the .308WIN, and what you are saying is anyone that tries to procure a .300 WM from that slot is taking the mickey!, which is a fair assumption.

I have a .357 rifle and when the slot was empty, it was .357/.38, the ammunition still states .357/.38 so I can use either or... However I only use 357.

I also had my empty slot for .577/.58 so that I could have either or.

 

[Xtrema]

I had an empty slot recently for a 260/6.5.
I was at a stage were i couldn't make up my mind between 6.5x284, 6.5 Lapua or 260 Remingtom.
My FEO was fine with that and the slot stated 260/6.5mm. i ended up with a 260 which my RFD entered on my FAC.

 

[fcp]

With no intent to start a row, or insult the OP, people that misuse a variation for 7.62mm/.308 are being too clever for their own good and that of the wider shooting community.

The applicant will know what was agreed when the variation request was submitted (like Heym would have agreed his 7mm variation to mean he would therefore be allowed to purchase any of 7x57, or 7x64 or 7mm-08) and that is what should be purchased when the then varied FAC returns back.

This "Well 7.62mm means I can get a .30-06 'cos its metric designation is 7.62x63", is childish and, frankly, disengenous. Simply, WHAT was asked for and WHAT was agreed?

An FEO tries to be accomodating so as to allow purchase of a .308W where, on some rifles, it may be stamped as a 7.62mm (think some P-Hale rifles) and that sensible accomodation is then misused to speculate on .30-06...what next? 7.62x54, 7.62x72 or in fact any nominal .30 calibre rifle given some bogus metric designation?

These ingenious abuses of FEOs trying to accomodate FAC holders are what feed the demand...in some police licensing authorities...for not just calibre be listed under an authority to acquire but specific make and serial number of the weapon.

It's a silly game. Stop it. If an applicant wants a .30-06 they should go back and request the variation be changed instead of using supposed or bogus or now long forgotten and so called metric designations. A .30-06 is a .30-06 and looking back to obscure references to it as 7.62x63 or .300 (as used by British Armed Forces in WWII) or .30 US G'ovt (as used also) is, as I've said, an abuse of an FEO's goodwill in trying to be accomodating.

For good our licensing system still works on a trust basis. That we are trusted to acquire what's been agreed. This "metric mischief" to acquire what may NEVER have been part of the discussion when the variation was requested and agreed to is an abuse of that trust.

I agree with the sentiment - as I said in my second post, life is too short to make it difficult and there will be no issue with having it changed if I go that route. I have never had an issue with my licensing dept who have been professional, timely and perfectly reasonable. As a relevant point here thought, I never discussed the variation with anyone, so possibly that would't come in to it.

That said, I think the subject is worthy of discussion (and more generally anything where there is a qualitative aspect to the condition). If nothing else it reminds us that the law is poorly drafted and leaves things open to interpretation (which can of course work against as well as for our cause - you make a good point about Parker hale for example); in this particular case it was the fact that no 'Win' designation was appended which left it justifiably open to debate I think.

Until we move to a more sensible classification system (bands of ME perhaps?) it will continue to be an obvious gap in the legislation.

 

[enfieldspares]

Thanks for taking my input in the spirit it was intended. Interestingly there IS another .308!

Still current! And not a "wildcat" but a genuine commercial offering offered by a number of makers...once...including Parker Hale who were, at that same time, UK agent for Norma.

An admirable cartridge, powerful, same OAL to fit in a standard long size action bolt rifle and still loaded commercially today. The .308 Norma Magnum that, essentially Winchester "ripped off" by lengthening the body at the cost of decent neck length to create the .300 Winchester Magnum.

The odd but genuinely, from the factory in that "size", P-Hale rifle still.surfaces at auction in that calibre/chambering. Marked, I think .308 NM or .308 Norma, but my memory fails! I did have a small stash of cases. I sold them to an Australian member here. If you maybe post a topic .308 Norma Magnum in Rifles and Calibres.

 

[xavierdoc]

I agree with the sentiment expressed in the above posts.

When I haven't been sure which specific chambering I wanted, I've asked for (and received) "7mm rifle", ".30 rifle", ".284rifle", "6.5mm rifle" etc.

On the occasion my variation for ".45 rifle" came back as "45mm rifle", I didn't rush out and buy an anti-tank gun.

 

[Psyxologos]

Put in for a variation for a 7.62/.308 recently which was granted quickly enough (open ticket, this is a woodland gun for Roe/ Fallow and use abroad alongside). I had expected it to come back '.308 WIN' (all my other variations have cartridge designation specified), but actually both rifle and ammunition are just listed as '7.62/.308 Rifle'

Looking around for something interesting (not just another bolt gun, maybe a falling block) I've seen a couple of things in 30-06 which is of course otherwise 7.62x63 in metric....

My reading is that my variation covers it, what say you?

Mine says .308/7.62 too. You can buy either.

 

[Shootist]

I have been told that when applying for a particular calibre, in the case of .308/7.62 that one or the other must be specified, but not both, because, so goes the argument, they are different. So if seeking to purchase a target rifle for F/TR you have to basically decide which you want before applying. The ammunition granted is given as the mix, i.e. .308/7.62 but the rifle must be one or the other. When I first sought to acquire a military calibre rifle I was undecided and after discussion with the licensing officer was given a slot for 6mm to 8mm! It caused no small amount of consternation when I bought the rifle and a great deal more when I purchased ammunition, which was allowed on the same 6mm to 8mm. When I tried to do the same application several years later I was told that the computer (not the Firearms Act) wouldn't allow it.

I am quite convinced that these little differences are part of the general intention by police forces to discreetly hinder and obstruct the sport of shooting wherever possible.

 

[Xtrema]

I am quite convinced that these little differences are part of the general intention by police forces to discreetly hinder and obstruct the sport of shooting wherever possible.

It seems that way in some parts of the country.
I was lucky with my FEO who allowed 6.5/260, 308/7.62 and 223/5.56 on my FAC.

 

[Sinistral]

Some of these posts are just plain wrong.

For quite a few years now there has been a dual calibre designation which the NFLMS prints on FAC's.

This is '7.62x51mm/.308' and '.223/5.56mmx45'.

It's the standard Home Office calibre description in the same system which all forces use (apart from Police Scotland), so everybody should have this on their tickets by now. There is no dastardly plot.......