Shooting Show, 2014

[HALODIN]

I think the argument is you only have S5 firearms not components. So if you take several complete S5 firearms, dismantle them, jumble them up and reassemble them from random parts then it's technically S1, assuming the newly assembled firearm adheres to S1 guidelines.

[Sim G]

Well a couple have beaten me to it. Exactly the concept that has seen things arrive on the market such as L1A1's, VZ58's, Garand's, M1 carbines and I've seen advertised a UK spec, S1, Beretta BM59!

Also, what what I've heard, it's not S&W per se that is preventing their revolvers, well some of them anyway, from being brought up to UK spec, especially within their Performance Centre, but actually the bloke that still has the import rights to their handguns. Allegedly he was expecting big things from the British Army pistol trial.....

But, it can be done, other such kit has shown it can. There are even S&W LBR's in the country, albeit from Germany and for a cart load of cash!

And, if semantics is the order of the day, why cannot an S&W revolver not be imported into the Isle of Man or Northern Ireland as a S1, then made to comply with mainland S1 status and then brought into the mainland?

How much would people pay for an S&W as the new Alfa, I reckon a grand to 1100 quid and old pistol shooters will make an orderly queue far in excess of Armscor or Alfa offerings.....

[HALODIN]

I contacted the Home Office about this - does everyone think it would be OK to post their response here? I presume it's OK, as anyone contacting the HO on a similar basis would presumably receive the same reply. What do you think?

[ovenpaa]

I think that would be OK

[HALODIN]

There was more to the letter, but the following excerpt is the only relevant part to this thread. My query specifically related to the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group (FELWG) minutes of 16th February 2011.

As you know, members of the FELWG were invited to consider the report issued by Mr Mark Mastaglio, a forensic firearms examiner, where it was decided that the rifle appeared to fall under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).

However, you will note that at point 12.3 of the minutes it states “It doesn’t necessarily follow, however, that all items of a similar nature would be section 1, each requiring individual assessment”. This means that although the firearm that was examined by Mr Mastaglio was assessed to fall under section 1 by the Working Group, it does not mean that all other firearms manufactured using the same process would be so classed.

We would therefore advise that if you were to manufacture a firearm using a similar process that you seek your own expert technical and legal advice at your own cost. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine whether the weapon manufactured falls within or outside of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).

[HALODIN]

12. CLASSIFICATION OF STRAIGHT PULL RIFLES ASSEMBLED USING SOME
COMPONENTS FROM S5(1)(AB) RIFLES
12.1 Members gave careful consideration to the paper submitted by Mark Mastaglio and
spent some time considering a wide range of relevant issues.

12.2 Within the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 ‘weapon’ is different from ‘firearm’ and
particularly in the light of the guidance around s5(1)(ab) component parts being treated
as s1 because of the wording.

12.3 A similar argument applies in this case bearing in mind a significant number of
component parts were originally s1 and given the nature of the s5 that the other
components are taken from as a gas operated system, it would appear this item is s1.
Should that not be the case, however, members agreed that there is no additional
increased risk of public harm as similar items are already available. It doesn’t
necessarily follow, however, that all items of a similar nature would be s1, each
requiring individual assessment.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/cri ... WGMins.pdf

[Gaz]

Fascinating, thanks Halodin.

So really, all you need to do is pay a bloke to follow the same examination process as this Mastaglio character did, come up with the same "it's legal" result (shouldn't be a problem now it's been done successfully, money aside) and there you go.

[HALODIN]

No worries. In terms of muzzle loading revolvers, converting a revolver from S5 --> S1 must be quite a simple process compared with an L1A1, given there's no gas system to inhibit. So with this as a precedent, having a S5 revolver sanctioned as a S1 MLR seems little more than a formality.

[NoEntry]

As a matter of interest what would forum users be prepared to pay for an ML pistol of S&W quality? The Armscor was affordable at £500 and sold quite well. The latest one will be around £800.

Having shot an Alfa LBR and owned a Taurus LBR. I would willingly pay up around £800 for a ML ALFA. BUT it all depends on the cost of the extra cylinders needed to shoot Police/Service matches.
The last time I enquired Alan was asking around £180 per cylinder. It made the cost of the Taurus ML plus 4 extra cylinders in the region of £2200....way out of my price range.

Mike

[The Gun Pimp]

Originally, Alan made all his own cylinders the hard way - lathe and milling machine. The new ones for the Alpha are CNC'd - they could be realistically priced if there is enough demand.