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

Afternoon all,

I heard on the jungle drums over the weekend that the London Proof House recently refused to handle a batch of SP L1's.

Is this just " a bloke in the pub said" rumour or an ominous sign of things to come fact?

If true, anyone know the reason?

If it is something that concerns/worries you, why don't you contact the proof house your self and establish the facts, as rumours are usually just that. I'm sure that they don't bite.

Or speak with the GTA if you are a member, it just looks like gossip at present.

As such I won't give it any oxygen.

huntervixen wrote:Afternoon all,

I heard on the jungle drums over the weekend that the London Proof House recently refused to handle a batch of SP L1's.

Is this just " a bloke in the pub said" rumour or an ominous sign of things to come fact?

If true, anyone know the reason?

HV

The proof house may have refused to handle a batch but it shouldn't be for what they are or look like.

As far as I understand it, their remit when proofing firearms is to check the ability of a barrel to withstand overcharged rounds ensuring that the barrel is safe. It is not to decide if a straight pull might be sailing too close to the S5 wind.

I think that is the remit of the Home Office (forensics department?) and for some reason ACPO?

The only time that the proof house makes a decision as to what Section of the Firearms Acts a particular gun fits is with de-acts.

All this may have changed of course......

Cheers

PaulR

Nothing further appears to be coming out of the woodwork, so it looks like an "official rumor control statement " to me.

Nobody has yet explained to me how an L1A1 conversion is legally possible. Genuinely interested in what the difference is.

SevenSixTwo wrote:Nobody has yet explained to me how an L1A1 conversion is legally possible. Genuinely interested in what the difference is.

lots of talk about it on various forums, but the bottom line is it is legal, Gavin at Anglo Custom Rifles released about 40 of them IIRC after running the design and manufacturing process's past ACPO and others for approval.

SevenSixTwo wrote:Nobody has yet explained to me how an L1A1 conversion is legally possible. Genuinely interested in what the difference is.

I am told it works like this:

A complete firearm can be either section 1 or section 5.
Pressure-bearing component parts of firearms are controlled under Section 1 only.
Therefore, if you take a section 5 firearm and dismantle it, you then have:
a) Destroyed (legally) that section 5 firearm - it no longer exists as a single licensable unit.
b) Created a pile of section 1 components.
If you then assemble a firearm from those parts, which is built so as not to fall into section 5, you then have a section 1 firearm and some leftover bits.

Apparently the Home Office gets a bit anal about closing off gas ports and details of trigger sear operation, but that's the basics. Rather nifty lateral thinking there!

Fair one. That makes sense now.

Gaz wrote:

SevenSixTwo wrote:Nobody has yet explained to me how an L1A1 conversion is legally possible. Genuinely interested in what the difference is.

I am told it works like this:

A complete firearm can be either section 1 or section 5.
Pressure-bearing component parts of firearms are controlled under Section 1 only.
Therefore, if you take a section 5 firearm and dismantle it, you then have:
a) Destroyed (legally) that section 5 firearm - it no longer exists as a single licensable unit.
b) Created a pile of section 1 components.
If you then assemble a firearm from those parts, which is built so as not to fall into section 5, you then have a section 1 firearm and some leftover bits.

Apparently the Home Office gets a bit anal about closing off gas ports and details of trigger sear operation, but that's the basics. Rather nifty lateral thinking there!

if I remember the conversation correctly, Gavin also had the receivers made so that they were not compatible with the original parts, I have fired one of his and it worked very well, so it was a successful project.