Military 'Replicas' in .22LR

[HALODIN]

If it was identical in terms of materials and process, then yes I'm sure it would be OK, but the build materials and process was very specific if memory serves me right.

Oh yeah it did, but it did add everything would be done on its own merits and if the same process was repeated to the text in that document could that then not be considered following guidelines? Especially if the Firearms was an identical clone of the Anglo L1A1 in terms of method of building and parts used?

[Sixshot6]

If it was identical in terms of materials and process, then yes I'm sure it would be OK, but the build materials and process was very specific if memory serves me right.

Oh yeah it did, but it did add everything would be done on its own merits and if the same process was repeated to the text in that document could that then not be considered following guidelines? Especially if the Firearms was an identical clone of the Anglo L1A1 in terms of method of building and parts used?

Hmm, then what guide are the likes of Neal and everyone else using. Are they using the Anglo L1A1 as a precedence? It seems the police, well no police force has objected it being done that way and contrary to what some think the Home Office doesn't put their names to anything these days (though I think the can offer advice). So they must be following something. Its just a question of what?

[HALODIN]

That's incorrect, they do not come with either the piston or the piston spring, they are S5 components.

I'm sure someone mentioned some early Imbel FAL straight pulls actually had gas pistons and rods in them

[Sixshot6]

That's incorrect, they do not come with either the piston or the piston spring, they are S5 components.

I'm sure someone mentioned some early Imbel FAL straight pulls actually had gas pistons and rods in them

true, they are components. I was referring to a story I'd be told, can't remember who, it was definitely some on here though that told me that story about early Imbels. So pistons and pistons springs are S5 components? What is the story with VZ Mars then and SGC 223 lever releases then? Both have pistons but neither are semi autos, they're manual ops. Is this where the difference between components and full rifles comes to be then? One is prohibited while one isnt?

[safetyfirst]

As understand, a section 1 firearm cannot EVER have been a section 5 or other prohibited firearm.

Ditto an upper or lower receiver from an M16 can't ever be used to assemble a UK legal section one rifle.

So if you find a load of L1A1 receivers that have never been assembled into a semi auto centre fire rifle then you can make a straight pull and sell it as section one.

The MARS and SGC guns are made as section one guns from the get go, they are never a part of an assembled section 5.

So taking a section 5 STV40 and converting it from semi auto to straight pull is against the law because some so moments of the resulting straight pull rifle were once components of an assembled prohibited section 5 firearm.

Is that mud any clearer?

[HALODIN]

They're using it as industry guidance.

Hmm, then what guide are the likes of Neal and everyone else using. Are they using the Anglo L1A1 as a precedence? It seems the police, well no police force has objected it being done that way and contrary to what some think the Home Office doesn't put their names to anything these days (though I think the can offer advice). So they must be following something. Its just a question of what?

[Sixshot6]

As understand, a section 1 firearm cannot EVER have been a section 5 or other prohibited firearm.

Ditto an upper or lower receiver from an M16 can't ever be used to assemble a UK legal section one rifle.

So if you find a load of L1A1 receivers that have never been assembled into a semi auto centre fire rifle then you can make a straight pull and sell it as section one.

The MARS and SGC guns are made as section one guns from the get go, they are never a part of an assembled section 5.

So taking a section 5 STV40 and converting it from semi auto to straight pull is against the law because some so moments of the resulting straight pull rifle were once components of an assembled prohibited section 5 firearm.

Is that mud any clearer?

Clearer and muddier. I understand that my MARS has always been a section 1 firearm as has the SGC lever release. What I can't quite understand is how straight pulls like the L1A1 made by Suffolk and others (and my friends has old dates on it) have been made from parts kits. I'm wanting to understand what has been done here?

I understand completely about the MARS and lever releases, but I still want to know for definite what is the answer to the L1A1 straight pulls and being made from parts kits? And yes that is what they're described as being made from.

[HALODIN]

I think you must have misunderstood them, the IMBEL FALS never had those components. The MARS and LR rifles were never S5, but the L1A1's were S5 and certain S5 components (sears, pistons, piston springs + ported barrels) have no rightful place in a S1 rifle.

true, they are components. I was referring to a story I'd be told, can't remember who, it was definitely some on here though that told me that story about early Imbels. So pistons and pistons springs are S5 components? What is the story with VZ Mars then and SGC 223 lever releases then? Both have pistons but neither are semi autos, they're manual ops. Is this where the difference between components and full rifles comes to be then? One is prohibited while one isnt?

[Sixshot6]

I think you must have misunderstood them, the IMBEL FALS never had those components. The MARS and LR rifles were never S5, but the L1A1's were S5 and certain S5 components (sears, pistons, piston springs + ported barrels) have no rightful place in a S1 rifle.

true, they are components. I was referring to a story I'd be told, can't remember who, it was definitely some on here though that told me that story about early Imbels. So pistons and pistons springs are S5 components? What is the story with VZ Mars then and SGC 223 lever releases then? Both have pistons but neither are semi autos, they're manual ops. Is this where the difference between components and full rifles comes to be then? One is prohibited while one isnt?

I understand better now. So if I get this right and this is what was the case with the Anglo rifle. The receivers came from parts. a new unported barrel was put in. All the S5 components were removed and only S1 components used. Is that what happened? I know that something made from the ground up is what is the thing with most firearms we see. But I just want an answer here.

[HALODIN]

It's been discussed here many times, the L1A1's were working S5 rifles, they were NOT parts kits. Once S5 always S5 is very much the law, but if you jumble up loads of receivers and all the other components and as long as the same receiver doesn't end up with the same trigger group, bolt etc... then the "Once S5 always S5" rule doesn't apply any more. You still have S5 components, these are not allowed because they would transform one of these L1A1's back in to a S5 rifle, namely sears, pistons, piston springs, ported barrels and sometimes, gas blocks and regulators.

As understand, a section 1 firearm cannot EVER have been a section 5 or other prohibited firearm.

Ditto an upper or lower receiver from an M16 can't ever be used to assemble a UK legal section one rifle.

So if you find a load of L1A1 receivers that have never been assembled into a semi auto centre fire rifle then you can make a straight pull and sell it as section one.

The MARS and SGC guns are made as section one guns from the get go, they are never a part of an assembled section 5.

So taking a section 5 STV40 and converting it from semi auto to straight pull is against the law because some so moments of the resulting straight pull rifle were once components of an assembled prohibited section 5 firearm.

Is that mud any clearer?