Loaded ammo or just heads

[baldie]

The police have only ever counted loaded rounds. Not s5 bullets. In South yorkshire anyway.

 

Either to a private individual or an rfd.

[1971silversurfer]

The police have only ever counted loaded rounds. Not s5 bullets. In South yorkshire anyway.

 

Either to a private individual or an rfd.

and there partly lie'th the problem, a lack of consistency throughout the uk police forces.

 

Ok then...if you load your s5 bullet into a round, does that get reentered onto your cert as a round even though it appears on your cert as a bullet?

[gbal]

FAC Section2.Ammunition including expanding ammunition and expanding missiles

 

Maximum quantity authorised to be possessed at any one time

Calibre Quantity

308 300

 

Seems quite clear:the maximum is 300,being the sum total of loaded ammunition and expanding missiles in the calibre which can be possessed.

 

 

Some of the 'discussion' seems to be based on variable imperfect reading among FAC holders.

 

(so if an 'expanding missile' eg is loaded it becomes ammunition-but makes no difference to the total,having simply moved from one sub category (expanding missile,which goes down one)to the other sub category (ammunition,which goes up one).

 

It isn't 'silly' etc,but a consequence of the distinctions elsewhere about expanding missiles,which are not silly either,as other posts have made very clear.If you need further clarification,ask your FLO,and if you want another interpretation,ask BASC etc.

Or just go on complaining,to no purpose and with no basis in reality.

 

gbal

 

ps "heads' and other such 'slang'-like 'ticket' for FAC,have been studied.The use is legitimate within and between members of a specified group(military,street gang,Teddy Boys,Cockneys for example,where it is accepted by the group)

The attempted use between individuals who do not form a cohesive group and who have explicitly agreed to such useage and accept and use it,is usually an attempt to give an impression of 'cool'/familiarity/expertness and especially 'inner in group' membership,which is as often as not is without foundation,and can be resented."Wannabe' might suggest itself,though their is no intention to deceive.

Best avoided in conversations where their is not uniform agreement about use-especially where there are perfectly appropriate well understood and completely un -objectionable terms available.

Are we 'cool' on this?

Otherwise,you may be considered to be GOFO challenged,but not ,to be fair,BOLO

 

atb and clear lexicons to all

 

gbal

[DW58]

Let's let the OED have the final word ... ...

 

 

Where does it refer to "head" being an alternative term for bullet/missile/projectile?

[Dalua]

It isn't 'silly' etc,but a consequence of the distinctions elsewhere about expanding missiles,which are not silly either,as other posts have made very clear.If you need further clarification,ask your FLO,and if you want another interpretation,ask BASC etc.

Or just go on complaining,to no purpose and with no basis in reality.

 

gbal

I think we'll have to disagree about the silliness of a law that calls inert lumps of lead and copper 'prohibited ammunition'!

 

Also, as has been pointed out, some FLDs seem to offer 'clarification' that is not altogether accurate, and which as such might lead the FAC-holder into trouble. Certainly a better idea to get advice from a shooting organisation such as BASC, if you're a member of one.

 

Alternatively, just keep in mind that S5 bullets and loaded rounds regardless of bullet-type count towards your total ammunition holding - and stay within it!

[gbal]

DW58-thanks for making the 'clear lexicon' I refered to quite specific-exactly what I ,and the words,mean.

 

Dalua,I have seen much sense and balance in your posts.

Note I did suggest seeking at least two 'authoritative' interpretations-though the FAC is clear,FLO 'errors' seem very much reduced,but not zero yet.Hence get another informed opinion,BASC for example.If it is your FAC,make sure the clarification is agreed by FLO.

 

OK- let's agree that whether 'silly ' applies or not is subjective-that is not of course saying it is unclear that the word is misused,but at least I'd compromise by not using it publically. Good luck with challenging the Geneva Convention,too-which is not dissimilar-in both cases one can see merit in the intentions (and that is not the same as agreeing 100%).

The English language has a richness of terminology,almost always allowing the inappropriate,or ill judged,or needlessly antagonising ,or plain silly,options to be substituted. There is usually no gain to anyone by using terminological inexactitudes,better use one's head (singular ,of course) -as is your usual practice! :-)

atb

gbal

[justin credible]

Well thank you to everyone who commented.

I am not quite sure why there were so many people getting their knickers in a twist over the use of the word 'head' especially as everyone knew what I was refering to anyway.

However the mystery still goes on....the NRA and the local firearms dept have both advised that it is only fully assembled rounds that count.

[Dalua]

 

However the mystery still goes on....the NRA and the local firearms dept have both advised that it is only fully assembled rounds that count.

 

That is not particularly mysterious:

 

As we've already noted, FLDs are not an authoritative source of information on Firearms Law. On the other hand, the advice would be sound in the case of a FAC-holder who does not have S5 ammuntion authority.

 

The NRA does not have a reputation for looking far beyond the particualr target disciplines of which it approves, for which S5 ammuntion authorities are not issued. Their statement is correct if applied to non-S5 bullets.

[gbal]

That is not particularly mysterious:

 

As we've already noted, FLDs are not an authoritative source of information on Firearms Law. On the other hand, the advice would be sound in the case of a FAC-holder who does not have S5 ammuntion authority.

 

The NRA does not have a reputation for looking far beyond the particualr target disciplines of which it approves, for which S5 ammuntion authorities are not issued. Their statement is correct if applied to non-S5 bullets.

 

Well observed,Dalua.Yet again,we have potentially misleading allegations against FLO/Ds when we do not know what they were actually asked.At least,they seem to have been asked.The NRA has No Real Authority for all shooting domains;BASC might provide another ,better informed ,reply.

The FAC is in any case quite clear.

[Dalua]

OK- let's agree that whether 'silly ' applies or not is subjective-that is not of course saying it is unclear that the word is misused,but at least I'd compromise by not using it publically.

The law is not only silly: any measure or rule that restricts freedoms without any commensurate benefit to the public or the peace is at best mischeivous, but in principal actually wicked.

The silliness of this particualr restriction is seen in its hasty and short-sighted introduction, with the outcome that all quarry-shooters now require a S5 authority adding to their FACs: but particularly in its attempt to define the bad, restricted thing not based on how it actually behaves (on the basis that a bullet that expands or disintegrated on impact causes worse wounds - which would be coherent to the intention, although still pointless) but on how it is designed to behave.

 

As far as I'm aware it has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention, or even the Hague Declarations - the latter being, I believe, the source of the restriction of the use of soft-points in war. This is in any case AFAIK a voluntary restriction on warring armies rather than on civilians, and a such does not raise my libertarian hackles in the slightest.

[dylan5588]

I always assumed because of the wording on my certificate that expanding bullets counted towards my total holding, other wise you would be able to purchase as many at any one time as you liked, the fact that you cannot purchase more than your holding limit at any one time, surely means they count towards it? Well that's my take on the subject, Would it not be wise to err on the safe side, especially now with the random inspections?

Adrian

[Finman]

Ok, there's a senario: FLO turns up to your door for an inspection. They want to see your rifles and how you store them as well as how you store your ammo. You promptly show them, the cabinet(s) with all firearms and 30-40 rounds for each as well as a few boxes of 'expanding' ammunition for each one of your calibres. FLO happy you've complied with the conditions of your certificate, apologises for the inconvenience and goes off to his/her merry way...

 

Who's to say you don't have a drawer-full of 'expanding' ammunition somewhere? They are not allowed to search (unless they have a warrant and accompanied by a police officer). Have you broken the law? What about powder? How many tubs are we allowed and when was it the last time anyone was asked how much they have and where it is stored...

 

As I said, it's full of holes and thankful for it...

 

Best wishes

 

Finman

[baldie]

Having had numerous inspections personally and for the rfd, and seen many more at places I,ve worked, I have YET to see a force count bullets. They simply DO NOT DO IT.

 

They count loaded rounds only.

 

These were also RFD renewals, when they turned out a full team of people.

[Dalua]

As I said, it's full of holes and thankful for it...

It really isn't 'full of holes'!

 

If you were in possession of stuff that you weren't meant to have (too many S5 bullets, too many loaded rounds, a submachine-gun, etc.), you'd be commiting a criminal offence, despite the fact that you had managed to conceal the gear from the inspecting officer. No holes there, or at least not more than in other laws which one can break and get away with by some means.

 

As to the powder question, I'm not sure - but is isn't covered AFAIK under the Firearms Act - although last time had I visit, they did ask about the amount I had on hand, which was less that the maximum by a good margin.

[Finman]

Let's be clear here: I, personally, am observing all the conditions of my certificate TO THE LETTER, but I can see a number of situations where this can be INTERPERETED alternatively. And only based on my own limited experience. I've never had an inspection other than when renewing my FAC/SGC, so I may well be proven wrong.

 

Were I to be possessing more S5 bullets than my certificate allows, who's going to find them? And under what authority are they to be able to conduct a search? You heard what Baldie had to say: only loaded rounds...that is my exparience as well (if that...).

 

Interestingly, no one has offered an opinion as to whether one can have as many loaded target rounds as they may wish, given that they can possess as many target bullets as they wish...

 

Your experience shows also the inconsistencies between forces, assuming you don't live in Staffordshire.

 

Best wishes

 

Finman

[mikeroz]

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

[Dalua]

Let's be clear here: I, personally, am observing all the conditions of my certificate TO THE LETTER,

Good chap! So am I.

 

Were I to be possessing more S5 bullets than my certificate allows, who's going to find them? And under what authority are they to be able to conduct a search? You heard what Baldie had to say: only loaded rounds...that is my experience as well (if that...).

 

Who's going to find them? I don't understand what the argument is: everyone knows that it is possible to commit criminal acts without being detected, yet few would argue that on this basis alone, the laws criminalising such acts are flawed.

 

Baldie says that the FLD which inspects his holdings doesn't count his S5 bullets. I'm not aware that they are obliged to count them: indeed, no-one has ever counted any of my ammunition at all.

 

Interestingly, no one has offered an opinion as to whether one can have as many loaded target rounds as they may wish, given that they can possess as many target bullets as they wish...

I thought I had done that in the last line of post 30: A loaded target round is a loaded round.

[gbal]

Dalua-most clear thinkers will accept your last post,and most of those of yours that preceeded it

Mikeroz....you don't have to read them all,there seem to be some important misunderstandings being put forward,wrt the number loaded ammo/expanding missile/bullets allowed.I think it's been sorted,but some seem less convinced.

Daua-sorry,Hague it was-but the substantive point was that 'a lump of lead and copper' needs clarification-explicitly that one designed to expand and inflict more serious wounds is not allowed.The principle is clear and in essence adopted by 'deer ammo' legislation-of course in this case wishing the severe wound channel effect.Both are understandable."Libertarian' seems rather an extreme word-you present the 'utilitarian' argument for legislation(there are others),explicitly some commensurate gain for imposed restrictions.Maybe I don't understand,given the close agreement I have with much of your position..but is not the increased effective humane consequences on deer,and benefits to the shooter,meeting those requirements-more deer humanely dispatched,and 'harvested' by the shooter?

Put the other way ,would things be worse if there were no restrictions (FMJ etc legal?).Surely not...perhaps if you could say what restrictions on the shooter's liberty have been imposed (I think there need be such,the detail might be negotiable.Specifically,what offends your 'libertarian' views here?

(you cannot indeed determine what a specific bullet will do,before it is fired,but it's reasonable to extrapola te from a large data base of how bullets designed in the same way have performed,in similar circumstances.) ..as I understand the rationale,that is why the bullet conditions refer to 'designed'.

Is there a better form of words,that you can suggest?

Mikeroz,sorry-hopefully something more positive than some of the contributions might emerge to end this on a more positive note.

Adrian,you are correct-next round is mine ( clarity and depth don't come that easily even for the articulate -and those that think otherwise (not you) should consider that for every complex issue there is at least one clear and simple solution that is completely wrong. :-)

g

[dylan5588]

Ha! Gbal ref: "next round is mine".....I am actually T.total so mine is milk no sugar if we ever meet!!!!!!!!

Cheers Adrian

[Dalua]

You're right - libertarian is perhaps too-loaded an adjective. However, I would prefer not to be putting a utilitarian case for legislation - rather a utilitarian case for no legislation.

 

To expand a little on the subject...

 

If the hypothesis were that civilians should not be allowed bullets that expand on impact because they produce worse wounds then fired at people, the thing to have done would be simply to have placed into S5 all bullets except what used to be called 'solid patched' or what we know as FMJ. Thus, all the A-Max, light-jacketed target hollowpoints and unjacketed lead bullets would be S5.

As it is some expanding/frangible bullets are in S5, because they are designed to expand - and others are not, because although their design causes them to deform/disintegrate/expand on impact, they were not designed with that end in mind. What difference to someone shot with one? Not much, I imagine.

 

It's a silly bit of law, placing petty obstacles in the way of the purchase and holding of appropriate bullets for taking quarry (no mail order, restrictions on quantities held). There has been no demonstrable benefit to public safety.

 

The use of expanding (though not specifically S5) bullets to shoot deer is mandated not by the Firearms Act, but by other bits legislation (I think Deer Act in E&W, and something else in Scotland). It was to allow stalkers to fulfill their already-existing duties under these rules that the S5 authority on FACs was hastily brought in after most of the appropriate bullets were prohibited.

[tackb]

Were are own worst enemy's ...............

[dylan5588]

Were are own worst enemy's ...............

I used to be my own worst enemy when i had a split personality disorder, but i am cured now.....so am I

[gbal]

Dalua,thanks -maybe its just getting late,but I don't see any gain in the hypothesis about FAC holders shooting people-I assume accidentally?-I don't think that was ever the main driver-much more ,as you add,the Deer Act and relate legislation.

Making 'target' bullets section 5 seems an odd idea,and a bit tough on target shooters etc (who generally don't want the 'less accurate'/lower BC 'expanding missiles)

 

Does your position boil down to the 'silly' rules/law prevents mail order 'expanding missiles' and limits the number possessed?

If so,the 'mail order' is true,though is there really a limit on number that could be made into a credible case of deprivation ( I'd imagine 500 might be possible-seems a fair supply for stalking).

And there is no limit on other designs.

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.

 

Seems it's really 'face to face' requirement for purchase (which becomes a cost issue) that is the 'silly' law.

OK,granted (though many deer shooters will get by quite well with their allowed bullets/ammunition).

[dylan5588]

Lets face it, there are a lot of not so well thought out bit of firearms legislation, for eg: the SAK moderator i have for my .22 rimfire has to be on ticket, and locked away in my gunsafe along with the rifle, But the same model SAK moderator i have for my .22 precharged Air rifle, could be mounted on the bonnet of my Land Rover if i so wished!!! But, to the letter of the law, if i wanted to use that one on my Rimfire I should really get a variation for it!!!! Huuuuum? I am sure these legislators know what they are doing, Whats that? His name is Fred Karno? Really? I would never have guessed.

[gbal]

Lets face it, there are a lot of not so well thought out bit of firearms legislation, for eg: the SAK moderator i have for my .22 rimfire has to be on ticket, and locked away in my gunsafe along with the rifle, But the same model SAK moderator i have for my .22 precharged Air rifle, could be mounted on the bonnet of my Land Rover if i so wished!!! But, to the letter of the law, if i wanted to use that one on my Rimfire I should really get a variation for it!!!! Huuuuum? I am sure these legislators know what they are doing, Whats that? His name is Fred Karno? Really? I would never have guessed.

Split personality,TT ...so that's two milks,no sugar and a couple of custard pies?

 

You have a point-but legislators in general do a decent job with very complex issues in shooting.Obviously we all could write better guidelines,but somehow no-one ever does.Remember too things change-switch barrels,new cartridges,so even the best is temporary...