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

Fedaykin wrote:I don't quite see what your point is, a variation is a variation.

Sorry - I wasn't clear.

What I meant was (and there is educated (semi??) guessing going on, if someone is looking to buy a rifle, he may well like to have an "overly loose" slot on his FAC so that he can buy something when it turns up, if he isn't bothered which precise chambering he buys. So if he's made to be very precise, and then something different turns up wouldn't he have to get his FAC changed?

'7.62' is an overly loose definition as far as I see it

Which definitions aren't?

.22 rimfire?




"calibres up to .22 RF"?

There is a whole heap of difference between 7.62x25 Tokarev and 7.62x54r for example that certainly would raise questions about appropriate use!

Yes, there's a difference, but assuming, as seems reasonable, that we're talking about legal guns, are there any rifles chambered for 7.62x25 Tokarev?

9x19 could imply inappropriate guns, or it could mean a perfectly legal straight pull AR-15 type. And if there was a market for them, couldn't they too be chambered for 7.62x25?

No if people are keeping to the spirit of the law it should be totally cost neutral. I think putting in for just '7.62 then thinking it gives you carte blanche to buy a rifle in any calibre that includes '7.62' as part of its calibre definition is not in keeping with the system we actually have and the spirit of the law.

Ah - "the spirit of the law".

I'm generally quite keen on people considering that, but I am aware that sticking to it can be a bit like wetting yourself in black trousers - gives you a nice warm feeling but nobody notices. And I've never heard of anybody being convicted of anything where the letter of the law had not been broken but the judge decided that the accused had not acted in accordance with the spirit of it.

With the Firearms Act it is hard, sometimes, to reconcile what the letter says with what most people would agree was the intention, i.e. the spirit, for example the S5-converted-to-S1 rules (and for pity's sake let no-one take that as an excuse to pick the scab off that suppurating sore again).

How do we know, as it does seem reasonable, that the spirit of the law is not to control the number of guns someone has, and their type? Whilst just saying "7.62mm" may indeed cover a wide range of cartridges, if someone is being allowed to buy one legal rifle chambered for one of the 7.62mms, is there such a huge variation between the available types that it could contravene the spirit?

Someone with the right skills and equipment could probably make a gun to accept a .50BMG necked down to take a 7.62mm bullet, and make the ammunition, and describe it as 7.62x99, but that's a very improbable scenario.

It could well be that the practical considerations of explicitly listing all of the types that could tick the box of 7.62mm/.308" would be impractical, but if someone is allowed to buy a rifle, and the reasonable excuse is target shooting, is the spirit of that contravened if he got a 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R or 7.62x53R or 7.62x63?

Going beyond just "7.62" there are probably dozens of calibres which would be considered appropriate for a target rifle, and whilst I know that you couldn't get them all into one slot on an FAC, if you could then that wouldn't automagically mean you could buy dozens of rifles, it would still only be the one, so I do struggle to agree with your interpretation of "the spirit".

7792 wrote: This isn’t how the law works, it has to be specific - and to be clear this isn’t a dig at you, I don’t doubt what you’re saying but to me - but it’s unacceptable to have a situation where something as important as firearms licensing relies on the presumption of knowledge which isn’t referenced anywhere.

If the application form or the FAC stated “for the purposes of this grant .308x7.62 is presumed to refer to the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge unless specified otherwise” or similar that would be enough, or even better not accept any application which doesn’t specify the specific cartridge.

The problem is as Andy632 alluded to there is a lack of knowledge within Police Firearms Licensing departments. The lack of knowledge about guns and their functioning from people employed to administer the issuing of Certificates to the General Public can be woefully low.

Considering .308 Winchester and 7.62x51 are a vary common variation and it is common practice to apply for them into one slot Police licensing departments have got used to putting 7.62/.308 when a ticket is returned. My own ticket lists it that way despite me in my application putting '.308/7.62x51mm' to make my desires clear, going back to the spirit of the law it certainly doesn't mean the Licensing department had told me to "Go ahead and buy whatever you want that has 7.62 as part of the calibre designation".

TRG-22 wrote: Sorry - I wasn't clear.

What I meant was (and there is educated (semi??) guessing going on, if someone is looking to buy a rifle, he may well like to have an "overly loose" slot on his FAC so that he can buy something when it turns up, if he isn't bothered which precise chambering he buys. So if he's made to be very precise, and then something different turns up wouldn't he have to get his FAC changed?

The way our system works however poorly written does not include the concept of catering for the whim of the shooter wanting to be able to put down a vague calibre like '7.62' then using that as an excuse to buy whatever they want because they can't be bothered to be precise. If we were working to a system where a simple broad definition could be used then the whole point of applying for variations makes no sense. In your scenario a FAC holder puts in for a particular calibre then something different turns then he or she should be following normal procedure and applying for a variation not using a work around.

When you put in for a calibre the Police Licensing Office should be risk assessing the appropriateness of the application for that calibre. We as FAC holders should be clear about what we do and don't want.

TRG-22 wrote:
It could well be that the practical considerations of explicitly listing all of the types that could tick the box of 7.62mm/.308" would be impractical, but if someone is allowed to buy a rifle, and the reasonable excuse is target shooting, is the spirit of that contravened if he got a 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R or 7.62x53R or 7.62x63?

Going beyond just "7.62" there are probably dozens of calibres which would be considered appropriate for a target rifle, and whilst I know that you couldn't get them all into one slot on an FAC, if you could then that wouldn't automagically mean you could buy dozens of rifles, it would still only be the one, so I do struggle to agree with your interpretation of "the spirit".

Quite frankly tough, there is plenty of space to list all the calibres you listed on a ticket. There are no such thing as 'Practical Considerations' when applying for a FAC or a Variation. The spirit of the law absolutely is contravened using that form of cheat and using the excuse that they are 'all appropriate for target shooting'. There is nothing to struggle with here, be clear about what you want!

As Andy632 pointed out as an RFD he won't sell ammunition to people unless it is clearly listed on their ticket, I should know...I purchased 200rds of 7.62x39 and 100rds of 7.62x51 off him last week

Sorry - unless you can show that there is a rifle in a particular 7.62 x something that would not be allowed if specifically listed, then it's hard to accept that the spirit of the law is broken if a catch-all designation is used, because it makes no sense.

A catch-all would still not let someone buy more guns.

It would still not let someone buy more ammunition.

It would still not let someone possess more ammunition.

I'm not arguing about the way that the law works, or the way it is widely interpreted, it comes as no surprise that it is illogically worded, but hypothetically, if there were only the five 7.62x# types I mentioned above available, not hundreds (BTW - really? Hundreds?), what would be the spirit of the legislation which would be contravened by just having "7.62" on the FAC instead of listing all the options individually?

Can you explain exactly what that spirit is?

Fedaykin wrote:The spirit of the law absolutely is contravened using that form of cheat

It's not a cheat. If it wouldn't let you end up with more guns, or more ammunition than you could end up with with more precise descriptions on your FAC what would you have cheated?

As Andy632 pointed out as an RFD he won't sell ammunition to people unless it is clearly listed on their ticket, I should know...I purchased 200rds of 7.62x39 and 100rds of 7.62x51 off him last week

What if your ticket had said just "7.62", and Andy was prepared to sell "7.62" to you. And you bought the same amounts of each one, which presumably did not exceed your purchase or possession limits.

How would the end result have been any different in what you bought or what you ended up with in your safe?

If the answer is "there would be no difference whatsoever", what spirit would you have contravened?

7792 wrote:and therein lies the problem...

snayperskaya wrote:"7.62/.308 is seen as being 7.62x51 NATO

‘Seen’ this way by whom?

By a lot of Licensing Departments, gun making companies and the vast majority of the shooting community both here and abroad!.

I'm under West Mercia and my FEO advised me that if I wanted an AK variant or a Mosin I would need to apply for 7.62x39 and 7.62x54r specifically as 7.62/.308 wouldn't cut it for those calibres/chamberings.

To be honest other people can please themselves how they interpret it, I personally know what I want to apply for a variation for so I put the specific calibre/chambering and that way my ass is covered........

TRG-22 wrote:Sorry - unless you can show that there is a rifle in a particular 7.62 x something that would not be allowed if specifically listed, then it's hard to accept that the spirit of the law is broken if a catch-all designation is used, because it makes no sense.

A catch-all would still not let someone buy more guns.

It would still not let someone buy more ammunition.

It would still not let someone possess more ammunition.

I'm not arguing about the way that the law works, or the way it is widely interpreted, it comes as no surprise that it is illogically worded, but hypothetically, if there were only the five 7.62x# types I mentioned above available, not hundreds (BTW - really? Hundreds?), what would be the spirit of the legislation which would be contravened by just having "7.62" on the FAC instead of listing all the options individually?

Can you explain exactly what that spirit is?

This is not about buying more guns with a single variation it is using a cheat to buy whatever you want.

Just putting '7.62' down as a catch all term to get whatever you fancy down the line is not how the system is meant to work.

(Yes hundreds - when you start to consider all the different historic stuff and wildcat cartridges).

Consider this as a process:

Step 1 decide you want a new rifle
Step 2 decide what calibre it is in
Step 3 put in for a variation for that calibre
Step 4 on receiving variation buy rifle in that calibre

The process isn't:
Step 1 decide that you might buy a rifle down the line so I will put in a catch all term to cover several bases
Step 2 maybe buy gun in a calibre that fits into the catch all I submitted

When you apply for a slot on your ticket the intent is for you to then go buy a gun in that calibre and the Police assess the risk of what you have asked for. The Police can and do take away slots if you don't fill them.

snayperskaya wrote:

7792 wrote:and therein lies the problem...

snayperskaya wrote:"7.62/.308 is seen as being 7.62x51 NATO

‘Seen’ this way by whom?

By a lot of Licensing Departments, gun making companies and the vast majority of the shooting community both here and abroad!.

I'm under West Mercia and my FEO advised me that if I wanted an AK variant or a Mosin I would need to apply for 7.62x39 and 7.62x54r specifically as 7.62/.308 wouldn't cut it for those calibres/chamberings.

To be honest other people can please themselves how they interpret it, I personally know what I want to apply for a variation for so I put the specific calibre/chambering and that way my ass is covered........

It is certainly how Police Scotland operate and Leicestershire before when I lived there.

Andy632 wrote:To me the real issue would be ammo. I wouldn't sell 7.62 x39 ammo to someone who had 7.62/.308 on his ticket and didn't already possess a firearm chambered for it.

but would you sell 7.62 x39 ammo to someone who had a 7.62 x39 rifle on their ticket, and who had an ammo allowance for 7.62/.308, but no other rifles? IE ticket only has one gun on it, and only one ammo allowance on it.