The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Outsider wrote:

bradaz11 wrote:

phaedra1106 wrote: Their latest one is showing all SGC applicants a diagram of a shotgun cartridge and then asking them to name all 8 of its component parts.

shell/hull
head
powder
primer
shot
wad

what are the other two??

Does it matter? The whole point is to try and stop people from getting through by giving them arbitrary tests so they can fail them because for some reason legal gun ownership is bad (thanks McKay...).

If people were able to name 8 components, they'd move it up to 9.

i totally agree with what you are saying, and for the most part if you are just busting clays on a sunday, with over the counter shells, why would you even need to know?? they introduced a similar thing on the driving test a few years ago, where the learner has to open the bonnet, and point out ten things the examiner lists. this just seems to be a play on that train of thought.

But, what i was meaning was, if they are actually being asked to name 8 parts, and 8 wasn't just an arbitrary number from phedera, i'm saying, I can't name 8 parts. So I would fail this. but if it was actually 6 then fair enough.

Nope, not from me, from the FEO, two members on another forum in the Durham area have both had this now.

My list would be,
Case with Head pointed out
Primer
Powder
Shot
Wad
Over-Powder Card
Obturator Disk

But then again for 12g slugs all I have is,
Case
Primer
Powder
Slug (has its own wad attached)

Knowing the components of a shotgun cartridge would be pretty useless if say you were applying for a SGC so you could own a matchlock musket for English civil war re-enactment.

The naming the parts of the cartridge was on the written part of the BASC "Safe shot" programme that I took at college, I think a few authorities are getting ideas from the shooting associations.
When I had my First SGC interview my FEO bought round a set of barrels from side by side 12 bore which had one barrel blown out and took off 3 of the owners fingers, the owner had accidently put 20 bore cartridges in front of his 12s and fired the gun. He would show these barrels to first time grants to reinforce that safety in shooting is paramount. I thought that was quite a good idea.

Swamp Donkey wrote:[quote="snayperskaya"

Head???[/quote]

Yep, that's the brass bit[/quote]

Thank you.......wasn't sure what it was

Demonic69 wrote:Does anyone think it would be useful to have a bunch of example certs scanned in, with only the non-sensitive information obviously? Or just small sections.
We get a lot of questions about slots, calibre requests etc, if there were some examples of what people have on theirs, calibre, ammo, restrictions, land wording etc I think it could be handy.
It may also help towards getting our varying forces in line if we're all adding for the same thing.
I don't mind scanning sections of mine for reference . I'm sure it's all legal.......
Whaddya think?

I can't see how this would be any better than what already exists.
Examples of standard conditions are already given in the online H.O. guidance to police document, which being a live document is regularly updated. Therefore anyone accessing it will have current information and not examples of outdated conditions.

I can't really see it being a good idea .... we've had nearly two pages already talking about the component parts of a shotgun shell, so gawd knows what would happen if something really important crops up!

At risk of dragging the thread further off topic ... it is not the place of the police to start demanding things without a basis in law. There is no basis in law for them to administer a questionnaire about ammunition and it would be improper for them to use any such questionnaire's results to make any input into whether a person is fit and proper, in the criminal law sense.

And at the risk of stating the obvious we all know that, unfortunately some police forces just do what they want regardless.

Even more worrying there seems to be no concerted effort by our national bodies to hold them to account on our behalf either.

Perhaps just as well considering how their appeasement approach let us down so badly on the fees issue.