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

No these are match bullets and are not designed to expand. The small hole at the nose of the bullet is just the way that this particular bullet is made and finished.

CDM5 wrote:Sorry to thread hijack but a quick question.

I went to an RFD earlier today to buy some ammo and reloading components.
I bought some some FMJ .303 bullets and what I thought was FMJ .308, however upon getting home I noticed that the .308 bullets are hollow point boat tailed (Privi HPBT Match 168gr). Does that mean it's classed as expanding ammunition?

Match bullets are hollow point due to reasons of ballistics - a bullet is more stable when the mass is further from the tip - so they are NOT section 5 or restricted.

IF the bullets had a hollow point FOR reasons of better expansion, then you'd be looking at a different scenario

Thanks for clearing that up. Will stop worrying now

saddler wrote:

Blackstuff wrote:Those RFD's/FLD's don't appear to understand the difference between the words 'own' and 'possess' and which of them relates to FAC/SGC's??

I own an AR-15 lower receiver, which is languishing at an RFD as i don't have the authority to possess it (Although its debatable as to whether i actually require FAC authority for hat - currently being hammered out with my FLD), the part is still my property, not the RFD's.

As to the lower receiver...IF the gun in question had been a de-act, what part of the lower receiver would have been drilled/blow-torched/angle-ground, etc.??

NONE of it...to whit, the lower receiver is NOT a pressure bearing part, it has no Proof House stamps on it, etc.

To all intents & purposes, it is a stock that the working pressure bearing parts fit onto

Had an email from Durham FLD this morning saying that they still consider AR lowers as 'component parts' and therefore licenseable. There was no reference to a Firearms Act, only the 2002 guidance;

"Chapter 13 paragraph 13.70 page 76;

The term “component part” may be held to include (i) the barrel, chamber, cylinder, (ii) frame, body or receiver, (iii) breech, block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the charge at rear of the chamber (iv), any other part of the firearm upon which pressure caused by firing the weapon impinges directly. Magazines, sights and furniture are not considered component parts.’ "

IMO this is iffy, but its not something i'm willing to press for the sake of getting a better price for the lower

Reading that it appears (to me) that you are correct, the lower receiver is not a pressure bearing part so is not included.

phaedra1106 wrote:Reading that it appears (to me) that you are correct, the lower receiver is not a pressure bearing part so is not included.

That's how it appears to me as well.

I pretty sure that AR lowers are not controlled. i don't know if there has been a test case or "expert opinion" sought, but, IIRC, Luger pistol fames have been the subject of a court ruling that they were not a controlled pressure-bearing component as a rifle receiver would be.

This serves to show why there is so much confusion: like many aspects of firearms law, the RFD system was set up decades ago (pre-WW1?). As there were hardly any controls on firearms then, there were hardly any statutory requirements placed on RFDs. Despite introducing raft after raft of new regulations and restrictions, neither the Police nor the government has made any effort to set up a system that officially notifies RFDs (or FAC holders) of changes in the law - or of the outcomes of things like court test cases. Hence any new RFD simply has to learn the ropes by research or by consulting more experienced RFDs - who often repeat the same bo...cks they heard from some else, and so on...

You summed it up there nicely Rearlugs though I'm not sure about when RFD's first came about.

Speaking as an "new" RFD of five years who assumes he is ignorant of a lot of the intricacies and interpretations of firearms law in the this country I have found my membership of the Gun Trade Association invaluable in advising me on issues that I am uncertain on.

Rearlugs wrote:Despite introducing raft after raft of new regulations and restrictions, neither the Police nor the government has made any effort to set up a system that officially notifies RFDs (or FAC holders) of changes in the law - or of the outcomes of things like court test cases. Hence any new RFD simply has to learn the ropes by research or by consulting more experienced RFDs - who often repeat the same bo...cks they heard from some else, and so on...

Very well put and this is probably why there is confusion even between RFDs and their interpretation of the law. The obvious problem is if enough of us hear/say something then we will all come to believe it. My primary area as an RFD is the manufacture of pressure bearing components, I ended up speaking to the Home Office on one particular point and the young lady I spoke to had a very different take on what she considered to be 'pressure bearing parts' versus the term 'component parts' of a firearm and when they became such items during the manufacturing process and have to be recorded as such.

Bottom line, it was a nightmare conversation and I decided to work on the safe side for record keeping. The bad news is my FEO has a very different take on this area. It gets even harder when you have to export things that are to be used as part of a firearm and I am positive many people are shipping outside of the UK in direct contravention of the law, and this includes odds and ends shipped within the EU...