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

Well they've definitely underestimated the compensation bill by just a tad* then.

*[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd6aLnPHqeE&t=28s[/youtube]

Airbrush wrote:I think you've got your calibres wrong, approx 50 .223 SGC LR, well over 1000 9mm LR's.

Around a thousand .223 Lever Release rifles was the figure given to me by SGC. "Thousands" of pistol caliber carbines. Bear in mind that the very first "limited edition" run of .223 Lever Release was for 100 rifles alone.

Looks like someone in the Home Office is going to have to get their calculator out again...

A.J.P. wrote:

Airbrush wrote:I think you've got your calibres wrong, approx 50 .223 SGC LR, well over 1000 9mm LR's.

Around a thousand .223 Lever Release rifles was the figure given to me by SGC. "Thousands" of pistol caliber carbines. Bear in mind that the very first "limited edition" run of .223 Lever Release was for 100 rifles alone.

I was given 50 .223 by SGC, I very much doubt there are 1000 .223's out there, it would be good if there were.

Airbrush wrote:

A.J.P. wrote:I was given 50 .223 by SGC, I very much doubt there are 1000 .223's out there, it would be good if there were.

Agreed. Although I honestly don't see how the figure could be 50 - considering the size of the initial batch. The next time I call SGC, I'll try to get clarification.

Lets face it the compensation thing will be peanuts compared to the money the government wastes or they will get around it by changing the clasification to a 'brocock' type thing

When it comes to the ratio of MARS verses SGC lever Release, I'm going on the fact that I know of 5 other SGC rifles owners apart from myself in two different clubs that I attend on Wednesday and Saturdays. These clubs are open other nights as well so there are likely to be other owners of SCG rifles on those nights that I haven't met. So far, I don't know of anyone within those clubs who owns a MARS rifle.

FCSA Seem to have suggested grandfathering as a possible solotion, but if the government accepts that as an alternative way to deal with this percieved problem, that just goes to show this is utter bollox ban wise, as that means the shooters that have them currently - and who were the scope of this law change, because naughty people might get them somehow - still have them! they can still use them and shoot them, it's just the trading of them that dies. so how does that control the risk?>

all this management type talk of, 'we don't want discussion/criticism, we just want constructive feedback on how we should screw you' is totally out of place, and just reinforces the view that they have already made the decision that they are being banned.

locking things in 4 different cabinets is not a realistic fix. the whole preface of this is naughty people MIGHT use them, even though they haven't so far.

bottom line is people put laws in place and others feel that what we are using is taking the mick on that particular law. and so they call it a loophole, and shout that they want to close it. they just want us to not have these guns, and will do anything they can to make it happen. this includes lying on costs, so the ball gets rolling, then comes in over triple times the budget, like any good government job will.

Is there anyone on here who knows Chris Stevenson?

I don't understand how the Home Office can tell him one thing, but the consultation document says something different. If they are going to add more types of firearms to these proposals, the impact assessment becomes completely invalid. He must have asked them about that surely?

I’ve read the FCSA Facebook post and I couldn’t help think that something will get thrown under a bus in order to try and save the other...