FAC application time

[billgatese30]

The time has arrived and I have the forms in front of me (well, they're amongst my stack of bills/mortgage docs ready to be filed)

I was thinking about applying for the following, is there anything I've missed, or overshot on (no pun intended).

.22lr target shooting + mod (recoil reduction)
.22lr target shooting + mod (recoil reduction)
.303/7.7x56R target shooting
7.62x54R target shooting
.308/7.62x51 target shooting + mod (recoil reduction)

Ammo buy/hold

.22lr - 1000/1200
.303/7.7x56R - 250/300
7.62x54R - 250/300
.308/7.62x51 - 250/300

Anything I appear to have missed?

Also, I have just scored a great deal on a month old Sightron 8-32x56 :shakeshout:

[ovenpaa]

I would suggest using the term 'noise reduction' not recoil reduction, especially given a further choice of 7,62x54R..

For the centre fire ammunition I would suggest 500/600

[mr smith]

For the centre fire ammunition I would suggest 500/600

I would agree and perhaps 1500 to hold on the .22.

[Tower75]

The only thing I would add is, I wouldn't list the cartridge, only the calibre. There's no need to list .303/7.7mm, also, if you list 7.62x54R then you can only purchase a rifle in that cartridge, but if you list 7.62mm, you're open to all 7.62 calibres; 7.62x51mm, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x54R, etc.

For whatever reason, arguable or not, police services, or at least Essex, don't really like to issue a brand new FAC with more then, say, five slots on it. You might, and I say might, have to talk your way around all of the moderators, as they take up an FAC slot on their own.

[ovenpaa]

Moderators although listed should not count against the number of firearms held, same applies to spare barrels. A lot of FEO's will not accept 7,62 on it's own and would require the application to be more specific as may some RFD's, same goes for listing as .30Cal these days.

[billgatese30]

My FEO is a nice enough guy, I'll give him a call at some point this week and ask regarding whether to specify calibre or cartridge, personally it doesn't affect me too much as the 54R will be a Nagant and the .303 will be a No4 of some description so being specific doesn't really cut down my options.

[IainWR]

Please do not put moderators down for noise reduction in target shooting (particularly on a .22" for goodness sake!). Once licensing authorities get the idea that this may be appropriate, pretty soon someone will want to make it compulsory.

[dromia]

Please do not put moderators down for noise reduction in target shooting (particularly on a .22" for goodness sake!). Once licensing authorities get the idea that this may be appropriate, pretty soon someone will want to make it compulsory.

Concur.

Hearing protection is mandatory on ranges anyway.

Moderators do have there place in the pursuit of live quarry and can be useful for hearing protection when stalking as muffs can be awkward. I prefer plugs rather than carry the extra weight of a moderator.

Recoil reduction on a 22rf wtfwtf

If you need recoil reduction on a 308 then maybe you should be looking for a different calibre.

[ovenpaa]

Disagree, put moderators down for noise reduction which is something many indoor club ranges are becoming more aware of. Same goes for centre fire. If it makes you more comfortable whilst shooting then get it done. Just remember it may not be accepted at competition level.

[billgatese30]

Perhaps some better wording than "reduction" is required. Effectively, be it .22 or .50bmg, reducing position disturbance/muzzle flip or however you wish to describe it, is of benefit, and muzzle breaks tend to not be very popular, after being on the receiving end, I'd much prefer a mod (and wish everyone else did too!)

I think this one is done to death on just about every forum (UK based at least) that I'll include it in the email to the FEO to check the official stance from Northumbria's point of view. At the end of the day, the ball is ultimately in their court regarding the decision, may as well get it from the horse's mouth so to speak.

Thanks for the input sign92