Loaded ammo or just heads

[tisme]

A few weeks ago I was asked at our local club, how he could measure head space. I tried to explain but the poor chap just couldn't get his head (pun intended) around it. After quite a long time he picked up a round and said "head space is this end" pointing at the bullet!

[Dalua]

I'll concede no obvious benefit to public safety-but the FAC restrictions are more down to the Deer Act legislation,though bullet numbers (rather than design) are not Deer Act.

I wonder whether you have quite the same view that I have?

The prohibition of (some types of) expanding bullets has nothing at all to do with the Deer Act.

The attempt to 'outlaw' expanding ammuntion was passed as (silly?) law, and subsequently the S5 authorities had to be introduced to allow stalkers to comply with the Deer Act, and other quarry-shooter to access the full range of expanding bullets suitable for their quarry.

 

I certainly am not suggesting placing target bullets in S5 - but that would be the logical thing to do with target bullets that happen to expand (A-max, hollowpoints of all kinds) if the intention of the legislators was to prohibit expanding ammunition.

 

As the law was not sensibly thought through, the result of it was that many kinds of expanding bullets are not prohibited, and others are.

 

So to clarify, the law restricts the law-abiding with no benefit for anyone else. It is therefore a bad, and even wicked, law.

A more trivial (or silly) effect is to prevent mail-order of stalking bullets and to restrict numbers of them possessed - but the big problem to me is that laws of this sort bring parliament and the law itself into disrepute.

[Dalua]

A few weeks ago I was asked at our local club, how he could measure head space. I tried to explain but the poor chap just couldn't get his head (pun intended) around it. After quite a long time he picked up a round and said "head space is this end" pointing at the bullet!

Something for those folk to consider who believe that calling things by incorrect names is a harmless occupation.

[marty]

Can we kill this thread, it's boring the hell out of me. Please, please, please moderators pull the plug on it!

wot he said ^^^^^^^^^^ same old crap going round and round .

 

 

[Dalua]

Did George Orwell really say that?

[gbal]

Dalua,thank you for that clarification-if so,then it's not a Deer Act compromise in its initiation.

What still isn't clear to me is the motivation to prevent shooters access to 'expanding missiles'.I can't see any general reason to possess such as have come under section5 (broadly missiles designed to expand,though of course hunters need them,hence the changes to come in line with Deer Act (and by extension,other lawful quarry.) Target shooters don't prefer them.

If the argument is that legislators failed to take into account that some 'target' bullets,despite not being designed to expand ,in fact did so ( hollow point mainly,but not exclusively-especially as other designs came into production.) such that in effect,they were not dissimilar to 'hunting' designs.(though Berger eg have tried to discourage the usage,and now specifically label uses for different bullets.)

Then OK,it is quite difficult to get perfect legislation,in any somewhat complex domain,and shooting is that.(there was,I imagine,no intention not to allow sub 22 calibre rim fire ammo in self loading rifles-there just weren't any around,so legislation was not needed..That is not

to deny that widespread usage (of 22rf,also not deemed quite such a threat))might have been politically

difficult .

Nor could we reasonably insist that legislation could anticipate trigger or lever release mechanisms.(legislation of course could be added).

The somewhat lamentable ignorance sometimes evident among shooters indices the complexity-though of course the shooters are not responsible for any legislation.I readily agree that the legislation was rather rushed-lever action cfs being allowed,but not pump action-rather a surprising one there.

So imperfect legislation,yes.

With some anomalies...yes.

Generally addressing what was considered the issue...yes,imperfectly

Bringing the law into disrepute...not for me

"silly" ....no,imperfect..yes

Unique in all this ...hardly!

Wicked...no,that implies an intention,against decent morality,and I can't see anything like that.

Bit inconvenient...yes,though 'face to face' purchase,and I have no evidence of bullet numbers being unreasonably restricted.Some might have.

 

Could we have more consistent legislation...probably

Would it benefit shooters....doubtful,unless almost all restrictions were removed,and that is hard to reconcile with perceived 'public safety',and we are all also 'members of the public',so need that hat on too.

 

What are these better legislative guidlines/law (near foolproof enough not to be 'silly','wicked',etc).Incompletely thought through policies can result in unintended consequences,which dyke holes might need ad hoc plugging-not ideal.

The most effective criticism of theory or legislation is better theory,or legislation.I'm all for that,on it's merits.There are several models for firearm legislation-in several societies-none seem to me to be ideal,again suggesting it isn't that easy-I rather doubt if shooters themselves would agree 100%,though that is not the criterion.

 

g

 

gbal

[Dalua]

The fact is, of course, that most of the bullets used by target-shooters are quite likely to deform quite dramatically on impact. Big hollow-points seem to make for good ballistic properties.

 

The bit of law that put bullets 'designed to expand' into S5 is a bit of ill-considered knee-jerk legislation (I think from the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997) the repeal of which would not do anyone any harm and which would relieve lawful shooting-folk of a small, but significant, pointless restriction.

 

I'm not suggesting that we need perfect legislation - far less that anyone tries to improve the legislation, since that almost always makes things worse:

just that we need less legislation that pointlessly restricts the law-abiding. I really can't imagine that anyone who loves liberty should regard such law as anything less than disreputable.

[gbal]

OK,I would not want to be against equal liberty-doing your thing does not intrude on others doing theirs-and Dylans point of ill considered legislation seems agreed.

It would be better if the FAC distinction on possession of expanding missiles and not expanding were removed,though of course 'expanding missiles' should remain mandatory under the Deer Act.

We would then be authorised to possess a specified total of ammunition,including missiles (per calibre).

And purchase etc would be as is current with non expanding missiles,thus removing the current user inconvenience serving no public purpose,and any disrepute for this part of the legislation.

 

However,that's civil rights and liberties. Any attempt to justify calling these bullets "h***s" is taking a liberty with language,and that is something up with which we should not put!

 

Mikeroz,Marty (et al?) peaceful bliss, I hope ,is now restored.If only you had sorted it earlier,I could have been assembling some missiles into ammunition instead ! :-)

 

gbal