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

This went off track, thought it was about Revolvers and now its lever release rifles.

James K wrote:This went off track, thought it was about Revolvers and now its lever release rifles.

Well it got mentioning Sig Sauer lever releases and I got thinking my own thing and I ended up blabbing about something I know and I'd look a real arsehole not telling what I know. But at the very least we know that you have three choices for a LBR. The last Taurus's, Alfa's and Europas. Where have I heard that before. Something about May 7th.... hmmm. That and their allegedly being only two real choices. Let me think.... Its gone .

Alternately https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

bradaz11 wrote:what makes you think he does not hold a patent?

What makes me think, its Bob himself didn't design it. Every time Pete Moore talks about it, he mentions the two guys with the SVI LBP 1911 they never bothered to try and release. Also possibly someone else may have been working on it. Plus the fact that a few people seem interested in jumping on it seem to make it seem like it isn't. Even making something be gas system other than blowback or gas piston wouldn't get around a patent. Plus people have checked. I've checked a little bit. I'm not expert on patent law, but it seems likely that if something has been released into the public domain which is the possibility that these two guys did when they lost interest that is difficult if damn near impossible to to claim any legal right on it. There was a thing about copyright in the US regarding films like Metropolis but that seemed to rest on the basis on treaties the US had signed on Copyright. Patent law is different from Copyright as are trademarks.

The crux of it is, if it was released in the public domain and Bob used information found in the public domain, he has no legal recourse to claim it as his own.

The incredulity is amazing

James K wrote:The incredulity is amazing

It was just me answering a question and giving the answer. And to be fair, it is just between the Taurus and the Europa. However if you can find a Ruger Super Redhawk for sale, that is another possibility (and one is on here for sale in 44 somewhere). I kept meaning to add that Richard Wilson who used to do the tricked up revolvers tried to get some frames imported to build his own, but it fell through. I was hyped for what he was doing and then he wasn't able to do it.

I don't know how we could do it, but to build a decent LBP for the UK market. We either need clarfication from the Home office about importing a normally section 5 pistol and being able to build an LBR from the bits like has been done with parts kits L1A1's and the like or invest cash in the machinery to make a decent LBR. That or find someone willing to selling partially made frames (its how Westlake gets away with his nitro muzzle loading Alfas). And since the Home office doesn't do any rulings or anything, someone might end up going to court, so its risky, too risky.

Anyone got any other ideas they want to add at this stage?

Used lbr you can look for a ruger srh or an Andy Holden smith. But both are way too heavy for me personally.
most likely looking at 1200 plus for either anyway. And the ruger trigger will never go as light as the smith in my experience.

Tony-c wrote:Used lbr you can look for a ruger srh or an Andy Holden smith. But both are way too heavy for me personally.
most likely looking at 1200 plus for either anyway. And the ruger trigger will never go as light as the smith in my experience.

Who was Andy Holden and when did he work on Smiths? Are these the same as the Merkel ones or different? I think it might be possible to make a Ruger lighter if barrel tuning was done, ala the Browning buckmark and the two Taurus's Westlake worked on (one of which was strangely on here for sale).

To clarify Wilson told me his local police force and uk border force said bringing in dissembled parts were ok, its just what other police forces and the courts would say sadly. Part of it seems to be the, LBP's are long guns (no they're not, cue pantomime back chat).

Building or "converting" a centre Fire lbp would be same as .22lr lbp ie if icon arms bring in dismantled frames and parts minus the barrel then build anything they want
Unless a secret memo from the homeoffice have warned that any RFD making a centre Fire lbp is going too far and going against the spirit of the ban and will be punished very harhly :(

joe wrote:Building or "converting" a centre Fire lbp would be same as .22lr lbp ie if icon arms bring in dismantled frames and parts minus the barrel then build anything they want
Unless a secret memo from the homeoffice have warned that any RFD making a centre Fire lbp is going too far and going against the spirit of the ban and will be punished very harhly :(

Well Richard Wilson gave the impression that virgin frames i.e. frames never assembled into it fully (Westlake brings in his nitro muzzle loaders minus a cylinder so it seems for a revolver, up to having a barrel and the rest but no cylinder and the yoke is considered to still be a frame, someone with more knowledge will have to clarify this, but to date Westlake is a free man as is anyone who has bought one).

The memo wouldn't be secret, it would be public knowledge. I think the test there is to ensure its not easily convertible to semi auto.

Apparently the first LBP lever release 1911 failed on this, the two SVI guys might have succeeded but lost interest. I don't know. All I can say is a not fully assembled frame seems the best bet. Some police forces and the border force will give their blessing to actually assembled pistols being taken apart and used to build an LBP, but its the ones that might object that are the problem. In essence, the existence of centrefire LBR's shows that it is not a problem to build and sell a centrefire. Its how a gun derived from a semi auto design can be legal. Have you called and asked Scott yet? I keep meaning to ask him everytime I've saw him but always forget. I think he might be a bit busy at the moment though.

Sixshot6 wrote:

joe wrote:Building or "converting" a centre Fire lbp would be same as .22lr lbp ie if icon arms bring in dismantled frames and parts minus the barrel then build anything they want
Unless a secret memo from the homeoffice have warned that any RFD making a centre Fire lbp is going too far and going against the spirit of the ban and will be punished very harhly :(

Well Richard Wilson gave the impression that virgin frames i.e. frames never assembled into it fully (Westlake brings in his nitro muzzle loaders minus a cylinder so it seems for a revolver, up to having a barrel and the rest but no cylinder and the yoke is considered to still be a frame, someone with more knowledge will have to clarify this, but to date Westlake is a free man as is anyone who has bought one).

The memo wouldn't be secret, it would be public knowledge. I think the test there is to ensure its not easily convertible to semi auto.

Apparently the first LBP lever release 1911 failed on this, the two SVI guys might have succeeded but lost interest. I don't know. All I can say is a not fully assembled frame seems the best bet. Some police forces and the border force will give their blessing to actually assembled pistols being taken apart and used to build an LBP, but its the ones that might object that are the problem. In essence, the existence of centrefire LBR's shows that it is not a problem to build and sell a centrefire. Its how a gun derived from a semi auto design can be legal. Have you called and asked Scott yet? I keep meaning to ask him everytime I've saw him but always forget. I think he might be a bit busy at the moment though.

Scott ? Is that guy at icon ? I have only emailed him he did reply that he might consider it ! Hopfully he will be at the Phonix ! I like the idea of grand power MARS lbp but don't like idea of not having a slide release on the pistol though