Straight Pull Tokarevs being seized

Anything shooting related including law and procedure questions.

Moderator: dromia

Forum rules
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Message
Author
HALODIN

Re: Straight Pull Tokarevs being seized

#21 Post by HALODIN »

I agree with all of that and fully appreciate the .223 lever release and MARS rifles have gas ports, but the barrels from previously assembled S5 rifles remain S5 components AFAIK. If RFD's are using Mr Mastaglio's expert analysis as industry guidance, they should be more respectful of how the L1A1's achieved their S1 status IMO. IIRC, a new unported barrel was explicitly requested by the Home Office.
Mattnall wrote:Early Olympic Arms AR15s had ported barrels, a gas port in itself is not illegal or S5, it is the readily convertible nature of the rifle that is the problem. Of the Olympics I have worked on some had gas tubes crimped, one had a ball bearing jammed in the gas port and another had something rammed and glued (I think) in the gas block.

Also standard 1:12" M16 barrels were used on the Cam rifles, complete with gas port.

There are no S5 parts, only parts of S5 firearms (from the HO).
Apparently, when broken down, S5 weapons' parts can become S1 parts in certain circumstances.
HALODIN

Re: Straight Pull Tokarevs being seized

#22 Post by HALODIN »

The idea is if you jumble up the parts of a previously S5 rifle and exclude certain parts like the piston, piston spring, the ported barrel and possibly a few other components, chuck them in a box, mix them up and reassemble the rifles in to a straight pull, then they're theoretically legal S1 rifles. The Home Office concluded their letter to me with the following:
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).
Robert303 wrote:Interesting. The explanation I heard some years ago was that if they were made from parts 'That had never been made into Sec 5 Firearms' then they were OK. BUT if they were made from parts from taken down Sec 5 firearms then they were NOT OK. I was told that you had to have some pretty good evidence that you were using fresh unassembelled / newly made parts to get Sec 1 status for the finished article. It will be interesting to see 1) If we ever find out the true story behind this and 2) If the Home Office clarify A) The rules and B) Who issues the 'Approval'.
User avatar
Mattnall
Full-Bore UK Supporter
Posts: 2940
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:32 pm
Home club or Range: NRA, Redricks TSC, BS1944RC, HRA
Location: East Herts
Contact:

Re: Straight Pull Tokarevs being seized

#23 Post by Mattnall »

saddler wrote:
Mattnall wrote:
HALODIN wrote:That can mean only one thing, they're gas port blocked S5 barrels, which is an absolute no-no.
Also standard 1:12" M16 barrels were used on the Cam rifles, complete with gas port.
Que??

Both my CAM's have 1:8 barrels
I will check the barrels I have here that came off Cams but that doesn't really matter in this instance. The point was that they were (are) ported for gas. I have re-barrelled a few Cams now.
Arming the Country, one gun at a time.

Good deals with Paul101, Charlotte the flyer, majordisorder, Charlie Muggins, among others. Thanks everybody.
huntervixen

Re: Straight Pull Tokarevs being seized

#24 Post by huntervixen »

Any updates on this disturbing turn of events chaps??
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests