Home Office Opinion - Hornady A-Max

[Gunsgobang88]

Hi All,

 

There has been debate on this forum as to whether A-Max bullets should be classed as section 5 even though they are intended as target bullets. This issue was raised on a Devon & Cornwall Police consultative commitee by a local dealer. My own force's opinion (Surrey)was that as they are marketed and sold as target bullets the issue did not arise. However, at a Home Office meeting yesterday the matter was brought up by the D&C representative. The Home Office Lawyer was of the opinion that A-Max were section 5 and would need to be licensed accordingly, this issue has not been tested in law but the police could make a case of unlawful possession under this ruling if a persons FAC is not conditioned for expanding bullets. Apparently the Home Office will be informing the GTA, various sporting bodies and the press of the situation. The importers have been informed and may well challenge this decision,

 

Alan

[brown dog]

Hi All,

 

There has been debate on this forum as to whether A-Max bullets should be classed as section 5 even though they are intended as target bullets. This issue was raised on a Devon & Cornwall Police consultative commitee by a local dealer. My own force's opinion (Surrey)was that as they are marketed and sold as target bullets the issue did not arise. However, at a Home Office meeting yesterday the matter was brought up by the D&C representative. The Home Office Lawyer was of the opinion that A-Max were section 5 and would need to be licensed accordingly, this issue has not been tested in law but the police could make a case of unlawful possession under this ruling if a persons FAC is not conditioned for expanding bullets. Apparently the Home Office will be informing the GTA, various sporting bodies and the press of the situation. The importers have been informed and may well challenge this decision,

 

Alan

 

Thanks Alan. Very clear.

 

Can't help but think what an utter utter utter 'muppet' (for want of a better word) the Cornish RFD is to have turned a non-issue into an issue. I wonder what on Earth was his motivation?

[tackb]

Thanks Alan. Very clear.

 

Can't help but think what an utter utter utter 'muppet' (for want of a better word) the Cornish RFD is to have turned a non-issue into an issue. I wonder what on Earth was his motivation?

 

yet again some self appointed expert (read knob end) has hammered another nail in the coffin of shooting sports!

 

two sayings jump to mind , divide and conquer and death of a thousand cuts !

 

the sensible thing to do would be to declassify bullets back to there pre nonsense status , it would make no difference to safety but would simplify things massively?

 

final point, can we name and shame the rfd ? it would be up to local people then wether they supported him and if his business survived? just a thought.......

[rabbit fingers]

The Home Office Lawyer was of the opinion that A-Max were section 5

Do you know what evidence was provided for him to reach his 'opinion'? I presume anyone with a quantity of amax in excess of their expanding ammo quota on their fac is also open to prosecution.

[Gunsgobang88]

Do you know what evidence was provided for him to reach his 'opinion'? I presume anyone with a quantity of amax in excess of their expanding ammo quota on their fac is also open to prosecution.

 

Hi rabbit fingers,

 

The 'evidence' is the views of the D&C representative presented at the meeting. In turn, these views were based on the opinions raised by the local RFD on the D&C firearms committee. I gather that this may well be challenged by the importers as A-Max are not designed to expand in a controlled manner like a bullet intended for game. In theory, a case could be made under this legal interpretation that anyone without expanding bullets or ammo on their FAC or holding more A-Max than their limit allows could be acting unlawfully. Also, dealers could be acting unlawfully if they do not enter A-Max on to a customer's ticket. A sorry state of affairs that could have been avoided had someone not aired their personal opinion. If I receive any further news on this development I will post it here first,

 

Alan

[tackb]

does this mean that we can use amax for deer without upsetting everyone or breaking the deer act now?

[NoEntry]

Do you know what evidence was provided for him to reach his 'opinion'?

 

 

According to the minutes of the meeting that D&C publish. The Dealer took it upon himself

to 'Section' a, AMAX bullet and then formed the opinion that they were expanding bullets. This of course was

leapt on by the D&C firearms committee who immediatly declared them as such.

I dont believe any real scientific opinion has been brought to bear on this issue. Its just an interfering

nobody who has an over inflated opinion of his own importance who is sitting on a committee.

Unfortunately with the current state of affairs it will probably take an act of God to reverse this decision.

 

Mike

 

What worries me about this decision is how it will affect me personally. I use amax bullets in my 223 for target shooting and have around 200 loaded

rounds plus another 250 ish bullets. Wheere do I go. Am I now in unlawful posession of both the heads and ammunition??

[Gunsgobang88]

does this mean that we can use amax for deer without upsetting everyone or breaking the deer act now?

 

Hi tackb,

 

A-Max were not designed for use on game. They were originally intended for metallic targets where they would deform or disintegrate to avoid excessive target damage and richochets. We owe it to quarry species to use correct projectiles that are designed for use on game and hopefully expand in a controlled fashion appropriate to the game hunted. For more information go to the earlier postings on this subject on this forum. As for the legalities and the Deer Act lets wait and see what happens with this situation over the coming weeks,

 

Alan

[garyw]

From where i see it they[amax] only become "illegal" if some one[f.l.o-plod etc]turns up at your house and demands to see your"stash"-but being one step ahead we the shooter have "shot"all our amax last saturday at the range.so nothing to see here gents.cmon guys we all know the ropes by now -get real i for one cannot see anyone with half a brain getting into hot water over this we just have to be cute!

[tackb]

Hi tackb,

 

A-Max were not designed for use on game. They were originally intended for metallic targets where they would deform or disintegrate to avoid excessive target damage and richochets. We owe it to quarry species to use correct projectiles that are designed for use on game and hopefully expand in a controlled fashion appropriate to the game hunted. For more information go to the earlier postings on this subject on this forum. As for the legalities and the Deer Act lets wait and see what happens with this situation over the coming weeks,

 

Alan

 

It was a tongue in cheek comment to highlight the nonsense being thrown about over this whole subject !

 

for the record i have shot many quarry species with various calibres and bullets and touch wood to date have had no lost beasts , i'm sure it will happen one day but so far i'm ok.

 

i will make one comment , the law needs to change about using expanding in competitions. what better way of improving your ability with a rifle is there than practice practice practice ? surely if you shoot targets and quarry with the same set up you would be a far better shot and know your equipment/abilities far better?

 

Russ

[Gunsgobang88]

It was a tongue in cheek comment to highlight the nonsense being thrown about over this whole subject !

 

for the record i have shot many quarry species with various calibres and bullets and touch wood to date have had no lost beasts , i'm sure it will happen one day but so far i'm ok.

 

i will make one comment , the law needs to change about using expanding in competitions. what better way of improving your ability with a rifle is there than practice practice practice ? surely if you shoot targets and quarry with the same set up you would be a far better shot and know your equipment/abilities far better?

 

Russ

 

Hi Russ,

 

Point taken, it wasn't intended as a lecture! I heartily agree with your comments regarding zeroing and training with the same outfit used for hunting. Another advantage would in theory be a reduced richochet danger compared to a FMJ for range use. One can only hope that the distinction between expanding and non-expanding bullets will be dropped as a result of the latest Select Committee review,

 

Alan

[rabbit fingers]

One can only hope that the distinction between expanding and non-expanding bullets will be dropped as a result of the latest Select Committee review,

It depends which way they jump. I would be pleasantly surprised if, as a result of the review, we would be able to buy expanding ammo through the post without the need for entry on ticket. As a confirmed Cynic I'm expecting tighter controls not a relaxing of them. Time to up my expanding ammo allowance I think.

[tony]

I for one will not be purchasing anything from the RFD involved:angry:

[terryh]

Gents,

 

It was I who first herd of this and I did all that I could at the time to put fwd all the logical and exact information, quoting controlled expanding against disintegrating etc. but it was too late, it had already been put to the scheduled HO meeting.

 

I pointed out the rather pathetic points raised by the original RFD on the D&C liason committee (BTW his e-mail address and phone number is published on the D&C plod web site) and his rather unscientific test methods.

 

The D&C senios FEO, Barry Collacott was not on the RFD's side so asked his GTA contact who, in barry's words, normally poo-poo's anything liie this in favour of the shooter - but he came back and agreed hence the refferral to the HO committee.

 

If it is retrospective than there's a bunch of shooters out there now breaking the law and it will no doubt be brought to the NRA's and MOD attention so places like Bisley will be 'looking'.

 

The RFD as far as I can make out is a small local 'jobber' gun smith, cannot even find his shop listed.

 

Personally I feel like putting a letter together asking for him to be removed from the committee!

 

Brgds Terry

[David Hancock]

Are you referring to Mike Squire ????

 

 

Interesting how the "old School" fail to understand the power of this new fangled thing called the internet or the simple law of physics that every action has a reaction !!!!

 

Sxxt and doorstep come to mind.

[terryh]

David,

 

Yes it was Mike Squire, I'm in the Devon/cormwall area and have never heard of him! Do you know of him?

 

Terry

[John MH]

I'm in the D&C area as well and also have never heard of the RFD mentioned above.

[brown dog]

I'm in the D&C area as well and also have never heard of the RFD mentioned above.

 

Methinks you chaps should be mustering to get him off the committee as being unrepresentative.

[The_Dogge]

I recently read "THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE THIRD REPORT FROM THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE SESSION 2010-11 HC 447"

 

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm81/8155/8155.pdf

 

The outcome of this appears to be: nothing. They are going to update the home office guidance to the police. There will be no new firearms act. So if we were all waiting for some new legislation to make all this expanding bullet stupidity go away, dont hold your breath.

 

If I was buying a new rifle with a particular bullet for a particular purpose in mind I'd have to assume it would be under the same restrictions we are working within now.

[TSG]

Would this be the same Mike Squire who was heavily involved with the BDS in the past.(training officer)? Silly decision and Mr Collicott is a decent chap.

[terryh]

Gents,

 

Update as far as I can ascertain as of 11:00 today.

 

HO decision and now national policy is A-Max bullets are classed as section 5 expanding.

 

This is derived from information gathered by Mark Mestaglio (government forensics guy, who it is believed to have visited Hornady), the GTA’s response/research (c/o John Batley) and Hornadys statements to HO enquiries.

 

Dealers and clubs will be informed in writing.

 

HO stated categorically no compensation.

 

Brgds Terry

[Davy]

BASC firearms department email:

 

Please note that the Home Office has made it clear today that no such re-classification has taken place. This is not surprising as no legislation amendments have come through parliament. This rumour appears to have grown out of a discussion at a local police liaison meeting earlier this year where a dealer/deer consultant raised an issue that he had no legal understanding of. On average this subject raises itself about every 2 years in one form or another! It has been confirmed that certain enquiry officers are also fuelling the myth with their bigoted opinions. The forums have also been active.

 

In essence the law has not changed and the words “designed to expand on impact” still exists as the measure for between prohibited (expanding) and match bullets. Regardless of the fact Hornady match bullets look identical to their expanding ones, that US companies also advocate the use of match bullets on vermin (as well as those specifically designed to expand on impact) and that any bullet will expand or fragment to some degree ….. it is the manufacturers “design” that counts in UK law as to whether a bullet is classified as prohibited or not.

[Laurie]

it is the manufacturers “design” that counts in UK law as to whether a bullet is classified as prohibited or not. [Davy]

 

Good news! Re the above quote, that has always been my understanding of how a bullet is classified as expanding or non-expanding. On that basis the AMax cannot be an expanding bullet in a legal sense as it was not designed by the manufacturer to provide expansion in a controlled and predictable manner or marketed and sold as such. These are the key words.

 

This raises two issues now.

 

One: in the light of clarification from the HO will D&C now advise its FAC holders, estate managers and RFDs that the status quo ante now applies and the sale of these bullets may resume to all and sundry? (or will we end up with a typical British firearms regulations mess where one force says you can and the one next door says you can't?)

 

Two: if the HO really has clarified the situation that the AMax is NOT an expanding bullet as defined in the Firearms Amendment Acts (as opposed to this being yet another unfounded rumour of which we've suffered several to date) the flip side of this particular coin is that deerstalking AMax users by definition are breaking the law! Will the HO and local constabularies remind RFD and shooters of this inconvenient fact one wonders?

[brown dog]

BASC firearms department email:

 

Please note that the Home Office has made it clear today that no such re-classification has taken place. This is not surprising as no legislation amendments have come through parliament. This rumour appears to have grown out of a discussion at a local police liaison meeting earlier this year where a dealer/deer consultant raised an issue that he had no legal understanding of. On average this subject raises itself about every 2 years in one form or another! It has been confirmed that certain enquiry officers are also fuelling the myth with their bigoted opinions. The forums have also been active.

 

In essence the law has not changed and the words “designed to expand on impact” still exists as the measure for between prohibited (expanding) and match bullets. Regardless of the fact Hornady match bullets look identical to their expanding ones, that US companies also advocate the use of match bullets on vermin (as well as those specifically designed to expand on impact) and that any bullet will expand or fragment to some degree ….. it is the manufacturers “design” that counts in UK law as to whether a bullet is classified as prohibited or not.

 

Blimey, we're getting into "send three and fourpence we're going to a dance" territory.

 

Davy, would it be possible to post that BASC Email in full with date and originator? (Or get the originator to join this thread?)

 

Also keen to know precisely who BASC mean (name and appointment) when the BASC source uses the words "the Home Office has made it clear that...." -

Who at the Home Office?

What post do they hold at the Home Office?

Exactly what did they say?

 

(I have to say, this also looks like 'gossip',

but this time from BASC!

- the comment about legislation change is non sequitur - this is about a bullet being marketed differently and therefore reclassified under existing legislation.)

 

[baldie]

I will continue to sell A-max as section one until the home office tell me otherwise.