7.62/.308 or 7.62x39?

[Fedaykin]

Well I didn't want all that empty space on my certificate to go to waste...

[Mattnall]

I have asked, but nobody has yet answered, is there a significant difference between any of the rifles described as "7.62mm" which someone could buy?

YES.

7.62 is basically a .30cal. You could for instance have a .30Carb, 300Savage, 300Whisper (or AAC BLK or whatever it is called this year) 7.62NATO, 30-06, 30-30, 300WINMAG and a host of others

Some are similar to others within the range in regards to energy, velocity and performance, others are very different.

In the past I have had 7.62NATO, 30-30WIN and 300Whisper rifles on a 30cal slot, the powers that be have asked that this practice be stopped. Now I have a spare .308/7.62 slot that will be filled by the .308Win/7.62NATO chambered rifle when I find the right one.

Does that help?

[Andy632]

Will this clear some questions


https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b ... c83a0d69-c

[TRG-22]

You ask what the "spirit" of the law is, but when illustrated to you, you don't grasp the concept. 7.62/308, 223/5.56 and .22RF meaning only short, long and long rifle. You don't get it because your ignorant of the working practices that develop the "spirit' of the law. The spirit of the law is not a handy addendum to legislation, written in list form.

I think I might know why you and I seem to be going round and round, with me keeping asking what you think the spirit of the law is, and you keeping on saying you've answered but I'm not getting it.

When I have talked about the spirit of the law, I meant it's overarching purpose, it's basic raison d'être, i.e. what is it fundamentallt for, what is the spirit of the strategic purpose it has, not what the spirit is of any detailed tactical measure, such as the specification of the calibre of a rifle, which I think is what you've been focusing on?

So if I were asked my question, I'd say something like it's purpose is to stop firearms getting into the hands of the wrong people, and to limit the number, and types, of firearms which people can acquire, to ensure that they have a good reason for each one they have, and so on. So from that POV, can you see that it's reasonable to take the position that if someone has been assessed as having good reason to acquire a "7.62mm" rifle and a quantity of ammunition for it, then the spirit of the law is not contravened if he gets a "7.62mm" rifle and a quantity of ammunition for it which is within the limit he's allowed to buy? - Every purpose and check still works - the spirit of the law has not been flouted because the spirit of the law is to ensure that he is an OK person to have a rifle, he has a valid reason to have a "7.62mm" and ammunition for it. He's allowed to buy a 7.62, not a 76.2, he's allowed to buy 1 rifle not 10, he's allowed to buy 500 rounds not 5000 and so on. None of that changes, nor can change, if at the time of purchase he gets a 7.62x51 rather than a 7.62x54R, or vice versa.

Now, I agree that that reasoning depends on whether there is a significant difference between any of the rifles described as "7.62mm" which someone could buy, significant enough so that the risk assessment and degree of appropriateness would change and an applicant would not be granted a slot for a 7.62 x # if he were to explicitly list it. And that is why I kept asking that question, it wasn't because I'm a troll.

It also depends on what one is talking about when using the term "spirit of the law", which is why I kept asking you what you thought it was, not because I'm a troll.

Speaking of which, since 1968 there has been one Principal Act, two Amendment Acts, thirteen Statutory Instruments, and twenty two other principal Acts that refer or amend, firearms legislation. On top of which, there are nigh on 100 Home Office Instructions and hundreds of pieces of case law. And then stick on top of it the Home Office Guidance to Police on Firearms Law. And none of it is in an easy to find compendium, which is why even a crap barrister can charge 500 quid a day!

And is it why you think you have the right to call people who interpret it's "spirit" differently to you dishonest?

.22 Rimfire actually does illustrate how the "spirit" of the law is formed as opposed to being "my wish to restrict shooters" (you tosser)...

Well, apologies if I'm wrong, but you have been arguing that .22RF means .22short/long/LR, and not .22short/long/LR/WMR, despite .22WMR clearly being a .22" rimfire cartridge, you've expressed displeasure at your certificate being returned with ".22RF" when what you put down was ".22LR", and you've argued that people should restrict themselves, or be restricted to, .22short/long/LR when they ask for .22RF. Sure looks like a wish to restrict shooters to what you think ".22RF" means.

The law exempts rifles and ammo of less than .23", the spirit of the law, exempts short, long and LR. That's it. Working practice, custom, heritage, common knowledge, intention, that's the "spirit" of the law. It does not provide for loop holes or over exaggeration.

Your exposition of the history of miniature rifles etc is, I'm sure, correct, but no matter how much custom and practice and history etc there is which has led .22short/long/LR being the only .22" rimfire cartridges for such a long time, now there is also .22WMR. The way the law is written, as opposed to how you want it to be interpreted is that .22WMR is a .22" rimfire cartridge.

No matter how much you wish people would take note of working practice, custom, heritage, common knowledge, and intention, no matter how much you wish the law was re-worded to enshrine that, no matter how likely or imminent you think such a change is, you really do not have the right to call police and shooters who simply look at what the law says and abide by that dishonest.

You make reference to "shooters" and "certificate holders", you are neither. You are not even a member of a club

Indeed, at the moment I am none of those.

Have we got another "spirit of" clash here? Are you acting in the belief that the spirit of this forum is that people should not join unless they are those things?

where you would have found more than enough knowledge to prevent you looking like either a fool out a troll.

Or I may have found people who are quite OK with having "7.62/.308" on their certificates, with the full blessing of the local licensing people, and with a history of being able to successfully buy ammunition on the basis of it.

You are ignorant of the history and the definitions and you are ignorant of the legislation, law and guidance around all of this.

Something I do not deny.

You mentioned looking like a fool - what would make me a fool would be not asking questions and researching info in order to remedy my ignorance.

I did think that some were a little harsh in their judgement of you, but now I see exactly how they came to that conclusion.

So am I doomed to face repeated accusations of dishonesty and bad faith because people don't want anybody asking questions about anything unless they are active members of a shooting club?

Being wrong does not mean that my purpose is to cause dissent and conflict.

Being ignorant does not mean that my purpose is to cause dissent and conflict.

Asking questions does not mean that my purpose is to cause dissent and conflict.

Challenging people who I think are wrong, as long as I do so without being offensive or rude, does not mean that my purpose is to cause dissent and conflict.

You have no more right to impugn my honesty because you disagree with what I say than you do the classes of people I referred to above.

[Sim G]

You’ve now confused yourself. I’ve never mentioned my FAC or accused anyone of dishonesty.

However, I do now think you’re nuts.

[Fedaykin]

When I have talked about the spirit of the law, I meant it's overarching purpose, it's basic raison d'être, i.e. what is it fundamentallt for, what is the spirit of the strategic purpose it has, not what the spirit is of any detailed tactical measure, such as the specification of the calibre of a rifle, which I think is what you've been focusing on?

I thought I was bad for pithy waffling...

So if I were asked my question, I'd say something like it's purpose is to stop firearms getting into the hands of the wrong people, and to limit the number, and types, of firearms which people can acquire, to ensure that they have a good reason for each one they have, and so on. So from that POV, can you see that it's reasonable to take the position that if someone has been assessed as having good reason to acquire a "7.62mm" rifle and a quantity of ammunition for it, then the spirit of the law is not contravened if he gets a "7.62mm" rifle and a quantity of ammunition for it which is within the limit he's allowed to buy? - Every purpose and check still works - the spirit of the law has not been flouted because the spirit of the law is to ensure that he is an OK person to have a rifle, he has a valid reason to have a "7.62mm" and ammunition for it. He's allowed to buy a 7.62, not a 76.2, he's allowed to buy 1 rifle not 10, he's allowed to buy 500 rounds not 5000 and so on. None of that changes, nor can change, if at the time of purchase he gets a 7.62x51 rather than a 7.62x54R, or vice versa.

Firearms licensing is about managing risk and maintaining public safety, it isn't contrary to belief amongst some here designed to limit how many guns you can buy or the type you buy. No type of gun is actually banned in the UK it is just classified and restricted to S1, S2, S7.1, S.7.3 and S5 (there are probably other sections including 58 as well but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head). You can apply for a certificate for all the above then your local Police Licensing will assess if you have good reason and the risk associated with granting you a Certificate for all of the above. Whatever way you cut it '7.62' is extremely vague, I suggest you go and buy a reloading book to understand the implications here. I'm using Hornady 9th edition, on page 377 you get the data for 30 M1 Carbine whilst on page 479 you get the data for 300 Winchester Magnum. Both of these calibres use a .308 bullet but the latter is classed as a High Muzzle Energy calibre and is light years ahead of the 30 M1 Carbine performance wise, the former I could use at a Gallery range the latter would require an HME test each time I shot it at a range that was suitable. So your argument that .308/7.62 is good enough and near as dammit because the performance will be so similar rather falls over. The Police will assess where you want to use it and what for, if you are hunting is the cartridge requested suitable for the quarry. If you are a member of a small gallery range an HME rifle is not appropriate for your intended venue. These are all risk calculations that are meant to happen. Now the catch is the actual knowledge within Police licensing departments is variable to say the least, things have rolled for a long time that is under increasing scrutiny. Whilst broad calibre definitions on FACs have been a thing over the years this is being tightened up on, this is because it was never meant to be used as a way to get whatever you want and circumvent the risk assessment process about what is appropriate to own for the circumstances that you can shoot under.

Now, I agree that that reasoning depends on whether there is a significant difference between any of the rifles described as "7.62mm" which someone could buy, significant enough so that the risk assessment and degree of appropriateness would change and an applicant would not be granted a slot for a 7.62 x # if he were to explicitly list it. And that is why I kept asking that question, it wasn't because I'm a troll.

Yes there is a significant difference in performance with rifles that sit in the .30/7.62 calibre slot, this includes rifles that are classed as High Muzzle Energy that can only be shot at a limited number of suitable places.

It also depends on what one is talking about when using the term "spirit of the law", which is why I kept asking you what you thought it was, not because I'm a troll.

No I would say you are a contrarian who likes the sound of his own voice, you are talking to people who are FAC holders with many years and decades of experience. It doesn't mean we 100% right but it is tiresome explaining to you the realities of firearms licensing.

And is it why you think you have the right to call people who interpret it's "spirit" differently to you dishonest?

We are not calling you dishonest, nobody has. We are trying to explain to a clear novice what is a very complex subject with many grey areas.

Well, apologies if I'm wrong, but you have been arguing that .22RF means .22short/long/LR, and not .22short/long/LR/WMR, despite .22WMR clearly being a .22" rimfire cartridge, you've expressed displeasure at your certificate being returned with ".22RF" when what you put down was ".22LR", and you've argued that people should restrict themselves, or be restricted to, .22short/long/LR when they ask for .22RF. Sure looks like a wish to restrict shooters to what you think ".22RF" means.

I suggest you spend some time learning the performance profile of .22WMR, .22LR it ain't! Again this is about risk and appropriate use...

Your exposition of the history of miniature rifles etc is, I'm sure, correct, but no matter how much custom and practice and history etc there is which has led .22short/long/LR being the only .22" rimfire cartridges for such a long time, now there is also .22WMR. The way the law is written, as opposed to how you want it to be interpreted is that .22WMR is a .22" rimfire cartridge.

Again come back when you have spent some time learning what the ballistic performance of .22LR is vs .22WMR.

No matter how much you wish people would take note of working practice, custom, heritage, common knowledge, and intention, no matter how much you wish the law was re-worded to enshrine that, no matter how likely or imminent you think such a change is, you really do not have the right to call police and shooters who simply look at what the law says and abide by that dishonest.

Sorry the only person here wishing the law would suit their own interpretation is you TRG-22, we are not calling you dishonest just lacking in knowledge about the subject you have decided to engage in.

Indeed, at the moment I am none of those.

Then stop wasting our time and join one!

Have we got another "spirit of" clash here? Are you acting in the belief that the spirit of this forum is that people should not join unless they are those things?

Not necessarily but by now you should be setting the wheels in motion, there are clubs close to where you live.

Or I may have found people who are quite OK with having "7.62/.308" on their certificates, with the full blessing of the local licensing people, and with a history of being able to successfully buy ammunition on the basis of it.

Yes there are people who have that on their certificates myself included it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Something I do not deny.

Then stop acting so belligerent and actual do some learning.

You mentioned looking like a fool - what would make me a fool would be not asking questions and researching info in order to remedy my ignorance.

If you are not going to take things onboard then yes you are going to look like a fool.

So am I doomed to face repeated accusations of dishonesty and bad faith because people don't want anybody asking questions about anything unless they are active members of a shooting club?

Being wrong does not mean that my purpose is to cause dissent and conflict.

Being ignorant does not mean that my purpose is to cause dissent and conflict.

Asking questions does not mean that my purpose is to cause dissent and conflict.

Challenging people who I think are wrong, as long as I do so without being offensive or rude, does not mean that my purpose is to cause dissent and conflict.

You have no more right to impugn my honesty because you disagree with what I say than you do the classes of people I referred to above.

No we are not calling you dishonest, we are just asking you to join a club, start the process of a FAC application and take onboard what you are being advised rather than act in a constant contrarian manner.

[GeeRam]

[Mattnall]

[snayperskaya]

......

[Fedaykin]

It is very difficult to not scratch the itch