M1 Carbine Straight Pull

[snayperskaya]

... submitted to the Home Office for Section 1 approval...

I don't believe the HO 'approve' designs.
When I've spoken to them in the past about this they offer guidance and finally say any definitive decision will be made in court, if it comes to it.

It's my understanding they are tested/approved by the Home Office Forensic Science Service.

[Mattnall]

It's my understanding they are tested/approved by the Home Office Forensic Science Service.

The HO don't investigate items unless there is an issue brought up.

That's how I understand it. I have had items I've made seized and tested by FSS in the past (FSS don't exist now as a .gov organisation and the HO has to sub the work out if they need it). Also I had something I wanted to produce and sought clarification from the HO first, I was told then that they will not routinely approve a design and the final answer was 'we trust you to make a legal item but if a subsequent investigation finds otherwise you'll be prosecuted accordingly'.

[WelshShooter]

Wow, Mattnall, that's unbelievable. You try and do things by the book and do the right thing by seeking "approval" but they would much rather just sue you in court and jail you later on.

If that's their logic, why not just skip the whole proofing idea altogether? Cause you know, you should just accept that manufacturers make a legal, compliant firearm, no need to verify that it does. (I know that this is likely preaching to the converted).

[Mattnall]

Wow, Mattnall, that's unbelievable. You try and do things by the book and do the right thing by seeking "approval" but they would much rather just sue you in court and jail you later on.

You're right, it does seem daft, but where would approval stop? Who would check every single firearm made conforms to the approval? Unless they approve every firearm it is pointless.

[Mattnall]

If that's their logic, why not just skip the whole proofing idea altogether? Cause you know, you should just accept that manufacturers make a legal, compliant firearm, no need to verify that it does. (I know that this is likely preaching to the converted).

Proofing and HO approval *if it existed) would be two totally different things carried out by different authorities to different rules.

It was pointed out to me last might that there already is an approval of sorts - the legal framework we go by.
You can make and have firearms that conform to the law, if any subsequent investigation suggests you've possibly broken that law (made something that doesn't meet the rules, i.e. is not approved) then you are prosecuted accordingly.

You cannot approve a type any further than that as even an individual rifle of a 'type' can be altered quite simply without affecting its operation and make it illegal.

[ovenpaa]

Bedfordshire were the same, make it and we will tell you if it is lawful or not.

I discussed a project with another licensing team who advised me they would not give me lawful authority to continue with the design, let alone build of the project, which was interesting as that was not what I had asked for... I will build it one day just to prove the concept, the trick is to built it within the law :)

Later on we discussed another project which is confidential and they said great, go for it. So I was staggered when I sat in on a meeting with other people and a member of the firearms team very clearly and concisely outlined the project we had discussed thus putting it into the public domain.

[MistAgain]

There's one on this site, if it's the one I have seen it was in good nick.
A long way up country though.
http://sedbergh-shooting-club.com/sales/

In 1979 unused M1's could be bought for £78.00 plus VAT .

And they were great to shoot .

[WelshShooter]

If that's their logic, why not just skip the whole proofing idea altogether? Cause you know, you should just accept that manufacturers make a legal, compliant firearm, no need to verify that it does. (I know that this is likely preaching to the converted).

Proofing and HO approval *if it existed) would be two totally different things carried out by different authorities to different rules.

It was pointed out to me last might that there already is an approval of sorts - the legal framework we go by.
You can make and have firearms that conform to the law, if any subsequent investigation suggests you've possibly broken that law (made something that doesn't meet the rules, i.e. is not approved) then you are prosecuted accordingly.

You cannot approve a type any further than that as even an individual rifle of a 'type' can be altered quite simply without affecting its operation and make it illegal.

The reason I brought it up is due to MARS rifles. They were compliant with Section 1 laws yet you have the likes of the HO saying that went against the "spirit of the law". That's completely unacceptable and why I believe they should approve of a design rather than let the courts decide later on.

People could be investing a lot of time and resources into new designs which isn't going to help if they just simply change their minds later on down the road and say that the design isn't S1 legal.

[walesdave]

Get an Erma EM1 and just pretend

Cheaper on ammo as well

[Mattnall]

The reason I brought it up is due to MARS rifles. They were compliant with Section 1 laws yet you have the likes of the HO saying that went against the "spirit of the law". That's completely unacceptable and why I believe they should approve of a design rather than let the courts decide later on.

People could be investing a lot of time and resources into new designs which isn't going to help if they just simply change their minds later on down the road and say that the design isn't S1 legal.

I think the MARS and SGC LR types were investigated because the police had expressed concerns, no doubt fuelled by the idiots posting videos of how fast they could spray a full mag down range.

It could happen with .22LR semi-autos as well if too many fast shooting crazies make videos that are/appear dangerous and post them online.