Military 'Replicas' in .22LR

[huntervixen]

Guy Savage liked to push boundaries, but I've never heard this before... Is this hearsay or do you have first hand knowledge of this?

.... And the first few did come with pistons too!

Yep, seen a few, you have to remember Imbel was asked to build a batch up in straight pulls, so they did everything bar port the barrel, (as the cutomer had paid for all the parts after all) most of the early batch came compete, but had the pistons removed when clients noticed them in position and handed back to Guy for destruction, but some still retain them!

All the Imbals have unmodified gas blocks, plugs and tubes. Now my Suffolk Rifles L1A1's have a deactivated gas block, and cut gas plug along with no gas tube.....so what's the issue really.

As for gas tubes.....well, they are still left untouched in most deac L1A1's to this day, so the Home Office clearly doesn't have an issue with them, or they would be cut/removed via mandate.

[HALODIN]

Thanks, I'm surprised they haven't confiscated the pistons by now.

The difference is one was made of S5 components and the other wasn't. ACR's gas cylinders were cut as well IIRC.

Yep, seen a few, you have to remember Imbel was asked to build a batch up in straight pulls, so they did everything bar port the barrel, (as the cutomer had paid for all the parts after all) most of the early batch came compete, but had the pistons removed when clients noticed them in position and handed back to Guy for destruction, but some still retain them!

All the Imbals have unmodified gas blocks, plugs and tubes. Now my Suffolk Rifles L1A1's have a deactivated gas block, and cut gas plug along with no gas tube.....so what's the issue really.

As for gas tubes.....well, they are still left untouched in most deac L1A1's to this day, so the Home Office clearly doesn't have an issue with them, or they would be cut/removed via mandate.

[HALODIN]

I found my excerpt:

As you know, members of the FELWG were invited to consider the report issued by Mr Mark Mastaglio, a forensic firearms examiner, where it was decided that the rifle appeared to fall under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).

However, you will note that at point 12.3 of the minutes it states “It doesn’t necessarily follow, however, that all items of a similar nature would be section 1, each requiring individual assessment”. This means that although the firearm that was examined by Mr Mastaglio was assessed to fall under section 1 by the Working Group, it does not mean that all other firearms manufactured using the same process would be so classed.

We would therefore advise that if you were to manufacture a firearm using a similar process that you seek your own expert technical and legal advice at your own cost. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine whether the weapon manufactured falls within or outside of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).

Also...

12. CLASSIFICATION OF STRAIGHT PULL RIFLES ASSEMBLED USING SOME
COMPONENTS FROM S5(1)(AB) RIFLES
12.1 Members gave careful consideration to the paper submitted by Mark Mastaglio and
spent some time considering a wide range of relevant issues.

12.2 Within the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 ‘weapon’ is different from ‘firearm’ and
particularly in the light of the guidance around s5(1)(ab) component parts being treated
as s1 because of the wording.

12.3 A similar argument applies in this case bearing in mind a significant number of
component parts were originally s1 and given the nature of the s5 that the other
components are taken from as a gas operated system, it would appear this item is s1.
Should that not be the case, however, members agreed that there is no additional
increased risk of public harm as similar items are already available. It doesn’t
necessarily follow, however, that all items of a similar nature would be s1, each
requiring individual assessment.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/cri ... WGMins.pdf

[Sixshot6]

I found my excerpt:

As you know, members of the FELWG were invited to consider the report issued by Mr Mark Mastaglio, a forensic firearms examiner, where it was decided that the rifle appeared to fall under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).

However, you will note that at point 12.3 of the minutes it states “It doesn’t necessarily follow, however, that all items of a similar nature would be section 1, each requiring individual assessment”. This means that although the firearm that was examined by Mr Mastaglio was assessed to fall under section 1 by the Working Group, it does not mean that all other firearms manufactured using the same process would be so classed.

We would therefore advise that if you were to manufacture a firearm using a similar process that you seek your own expert technical and legal advice at your own cost. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine whether the weapon manufactured falls within or outside of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended).

Also...

12. CLASSIFICATION OF STRAIGHT PULL RIFLES ASSEMBLED USING SOME
COMPONENTS FROM S5(1)(AB) RIFLES
12.1 Members gave careful consideration to the paper submitted by Mark Mastaglio and
spent some time considering a wide range of relevant issues.

12.2 Within the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 ‘weapon’ is different from ‘firearm’ and
particularly in the light of the guidance around s5(1)(ab) component parts being treated
as s1 because of the wording.

12.3 A similar argument applies in this case bearing in mind a significant number of
component parts were originally s1 and given the nature of the s5 that the other
components are taken from as a gas operated system, it would appear this item is s1.
Should that not be the case, however, members agreed that there is no additional
increased risk of public harm as similar items are already available. It doesn’t
necessarily follow, however, that all items of a similar nature would be s1, each
requiring individual assessment.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/cri ... WGMins.pdf

Thanks so its that bit of paper. I do wonder though if the ACPO at the time didn't seem aware that precedence is precedence regardless of intentions. Anyway its gone on a bit. Can we just a agree there is a way to do it legally using mixed bits, some work done and its a section 1? That and actually building from the ground up are the same in the eyes of the powers that be?

[HALODIN]

It's only "gone on a bit" because you said you wanted to know, I would have preferred it if you'd used the search personally.

Anyway its gone on a bit. Can we just a agree there is a way to do it legally using mixed bits, some work done and its a section 1? That and actually building from the ground up are the same in the eyes of the powers that be?

[Sixshot6]

It's only "gone on a bit" because you said you wanted to know, I would have preferred it if you'd used the search personally.

Anyway its gone on a bit. Can we just a agree there is a way to do it legally using mixed bits, some work done and its a section 1? That and actually building from the ground up are the same in the eyes of the powers that be?

My bad, I'm sorry. I was taught however that if I didn't know to ask politely. On a more positive note any ideas for shooting related fathers day's gifts for my dad (and no suggestions for 22 semi's, he'd rather have a beat up BSA sport 15 shot bolt action )?

[safetyfirst]

How about a nice day out shooting? With lunch and a pint to follow. You're driving of course

[Sixshot6]

How about a nice day out shooting? With lunch and a pint to follow. You're driving of course

Its a weekend thing our shooting, plus he's away working as a car transporter most of the week, you think he wants to be out and about, plus sunday is when we go for lunch at the pub (its cheaper than actually cooking it ourselves and less hassle). So that is out. I'll just pick something nice like a book on some subject he likes or a I love rotweiler T-Shirts (our's has gotten to the ripe old age of 10, he's active. Active in his dreams mostly).