With reference to my earlier email on this subject, it would appear that we
can all "stand easy"!
See below for response to question to NRA.
Cheers, Rob
Dear Member of Council,
There has been much Email traffic about the alleged re-classification by the
Home Office of Hornaday A Max plastic-tipped bullets as Section
5 prohibited projectiles. This is a target bullet in quite widespread use in
the UK.
Please note that the Home Office has made it clear that no such
re-classification has taken place. This rumour appears to have grown out of
a discussion at a local police liaison meeting earlier this year.
Please reassure any enquirer that the status of Hornaday A Max bullets has
not changed and they are not prohibited.
looking around on forums, as you do, I have been struck by the amount of credence given to the original "reporter" of this story. his story has appeared to have been accepted, nay grabbed upon!, by the target shooting fraternity ! yet there has, of yet , been very little backlash against his scaremongering? so why are people so convinced that the NRA (and on some forums BASC) are dragging their feet or not bothering to support the target shooter in his/her hour of need? please I would like to understand this , Ken
kennyc wrote:looking around on forums, as you do, I have been struck by the amount of credence given to the original "reporter" of this story. his story has appeared to have been accepted, nay grabbed upon!, by the target shooting fraternity ! yet there has, of yet , been very little backlash against his scaremongering? so why are people so convinced that the NRA (and on some forums BASC) are dragging their feet or not bothering to support the target shooter in his/her hour of need? please I would like to understand this , Ken
I can't answer for the NRA as I'm not a member. All I know is that BASC (Scotland) was very quick to reply and update me once I had e-mailed them about this. :goodjob:
I would hope that NRA members recieve the same sort of service. I believe that Heather posted about this in good faith and I hope this doesn't spoil her view of the forum. :)
I am more disappointed at how quickly we started to turn on each other and decided that the end was nigh, before ascertaining the facts. :-P
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.”
I am more disappointed at how quickly we started to turn on each other and decided that the end was nigh, before ascertaining the facts.
Well actually I did not I carried on buying them and re loading them and shooting them.
This Saturday I will be on the range shooting the several hundred I re loaded whilst this debate was going on.
Experience tells me that the powers that be would very quickly let me know if I was doing some thing wrong.
My local licencing department being the first to let you know if you need to stop doing some thing because it is now illegal.
You need to get in more range time folks you are spendng to much time staring at a monitor all this forum time is addling your brains.
I am more disappointed at how quickly we started to turn on each other and decided that the end was nigh, before ascertaining the facts.
Well actually I did not I carried on buying them and re loading them and shooting them.
This Saturday I will be on the range shooting the several hundred I re loaded whilst this debate was going on.
Experience tells me that the powers that be would very quickly let me know if I was doing some thing wrong.
My local licencing department being the first to let you know if you need to stop doing some thing because it is now illegal.
You need to get in more range time folks you are spendng to much time staring at a monitor all this forum time is addling your brains.
BANG
I agree - I remember when the whole "expanding" fiasco started - quick letter from FLO, nip in to HQ and get my FAC stamped for "Expanding" and hey presto all sorted.
Section 9 of the 1997 Firearms (Amendment ) Act placed any bullets (referred to as "missiles") "designed or adapted to expand on impact" into Section 5 of the 1968 Act - prohibited. It then qualified that to allow possession of such bullets but only for shooting animals.
It is a fact of physics that ANY bullet will expand on impact, thus the important words of the Act are "designed or adapted" to do so.
"A Max" bullets are manufactured in America where the laws are of course different - there is NO law there which prohibits the use of non-expanding bullets on deer as there is in the UK, and some shooters there will use target bullets - such as "A Max" - on smaller animals.
"A Max" are match bullets - that is to say that they are designed for accurate target shooting. The fact that they may deform in a particular manner on impact is irrelevant - it is the intent of the design which counts for section 9.
Many target shooters use these bullets as they are renowned for their accuracy, and since they are neither designed nor adapted specifically to expand on impact, they are not subject to Section 9 of the 1997 Act."
I know BASC have forwarded evidence rom Hornady that A Max bullets are designed as match bullets for accuracy, rather than expanding bullets for game.
