7.62/.308 or 7.62x39?

[Fedaykin]

However the HO have written to police forces (and I believe it is in the new guidance) that broad cartridge choices based on a calibre should be discouraged and the practice stopped.

Do they have any evidence to show that crimes will be prevented by tightening it up?

From how I see it crime prevention or reduction is not the issue here, the issue is safety and the system is setup in a way where you have to make an active decision then apply for a particular calibre and its usage be it target shooting or hunting. By using overly broad designations you end up in a situation where people might be using a rifle in an inappropriate calibre for the task in hand.

This is one of the few areas where I think tightening up of process and guidance is actually beneficial to us all and will make our dealings with the FEO and licensing office easier.

[TRG-22]

From how I see it crime prevention or reduction is not the issue here, the issue is safety and the system is setup in a way where you have to make an active decision then apply for a particular calibre and its usage be it target shooting or hunting. By using overly broad designations you end up in a situation where people might be using a rifle in an inappropriate calibre for the task in hand.

Not sure how making you apply for a variation if you swap from a 7.62 to a .308 stops you using either one inappropriately.

This is one of the few areas where I think tightening up of process and guidance is actually beneficial to us all and will make our dealings with the FEO and licensing office easier.

And more expensive?

[Fedaykin]

Not sure how making you apply for a variation if you swap from a 7.62 to a .308 stops you using either one inappropriately.

I don't quite see what your point is, a variation is a variation. '7.62' is an overly loose definition as far as I see it (and going on recent Guidance how the Police see it as well). If you own a rifle that is chambered in '7.62x51' and want to sell it and buy a rifle that is chambered in .308 then you are performing a variation regardless. I would suggest on the variation putting in for 7.62x51/.308 to avoid confusion in the future. There is a whole heap of difference between 7.62x25 Tokarev and 7.62x54r for example that certainly would raise questions about appropriate use!

And more expensive?

No if people are keeping to the spirit of the law it should be totally cost neutral. I think putting in for just '7.62 then thinking it gives you carte blanche to buy a rifle in any calibre that includes '7.62' as part of its calibre definition is not in keeping with the system we actually have and the spirit of the law.

[GeeRam]

BUT if my firearms permission says ".308/7.62" as recorded by the firearms licencing dept. themselves then why is the onus on me to 'interpret' that there are *some* 7.62 rifles I can buy, and *some* 7.62 rifles I can't buy? They didn't ask me to specify before giving me the 'broad' permission.

Of course, once I have a rifle under that permission I would expect to only be able to purchase the ammunition designed to be fired in that rifle.

One of our members when putting in for his FAC wanted a slot for an underlever in .44mag, and was told by a few of us to make sure he wrote .44mag/.44 special on the application so he could buy both .44mag and .44special ammo. He forgot or didn't listen, and only put down .44mag.
When he got his ticket and bought the rifle, when he then tried to buy some .44special 'cowboy action' ammo to try, he was refused by 3 different RFD's as his FAC slot only specified .44mag.
Now maybe if he had just put .44 he would have been OK, maybe not, as .44 could also be 44-40?

[Fedaykin]

BUT if my firearms permission says ".308/7.62" as recorded by the firearms licencing dept. themselves then why is the onus on me to 'interpret' that there are *some* 7.62 rifles I can buy, and *some* 7.62 rifles I can't buy? They didn't ask me to specify before giving me the 'broad' permission.

Put simply the onus IS on you to be clear about what you want to have on your ticket! There should be no interpretation involved by you or the Police licensing office. '7.62' covers many hundreds of different calibres with wildly different ballistic characteristics! So if you get a hankering for a rifle in 7.62×40mm WT then I would say putting .308/7.62 would be the wrong variation despite it being a 7.62x40 round that uses a .308 diameter bullet!

I should also further point out that not all 7.62 calibres use a .308 diameter bullet if you really want to go down the Rabbit hole!

[7792]

Put simply the onus IS on you to be clear about what you want to have on your ticket! There should be no interpretation involved by you or the Police licensing office. '7.62' covers many hundreds of different calibres with wildly different ballistic characteristics!

But in that case why wasn’t my application returned with an instruction to be more specific?

The FEO has given me a ticket with “.308x7.62” written on it, if that is an overly broad definition outside the spirit of the law then they shouldn’t have granted it. But they have granted it, that is their choice so now I have the option to choose any rifle/ammunition that fits within that broad definition?

If I was told ‘no, that’s too broad, please be more specific’ then I would have resubmitted “7.62x39” or whatever.

Additionally if this is the new guidance and the spirit of the law why isn’t it referenced in any of the supporting documentation you’re given? Nor is it on the application or ever mentioned in the face to face interview.

I’m not saying anyone is wrong here, if that’s the guidance and the spirit of the law then so be it, I have no issue with that. But to not tell me any of that when I applied and THEN issue my FAC with the broad ‘.308/7.62” slot they’ve gone against that guidance themselves?!

I emailed my FEO the other week anyway to ask his opinion on this so I’ll see what he says!

[snayperskaya]

Put simply the onus IS on you to be clear about what you want to have on your ticket! There should be no interpretation involved by you or the Police licensing office. '7.62' covers many hundreds of different calibres with wildly different ballistic characteristics!

But in that case why wasn’t my application returned with an instruction to be more specific?

The FEO has given me a ticket with “.308x7.62” written on it, if that is an overly broad definition outside the spirit of the law then they shouldn’t have granted it. But they have granted it, that is their choice so now I have the option to choose any rifle/ammunition that fits within that broad definition?

If I was told ‘no, that’s too broad, please be more specific’ then I would have resubmitted “7.62x39” or whatever.

Additionally if this is the new guidance and the spirit of the law why isn’t it referenced in any of the supporting documentation you’re given? Nor is it on the application or ever mentioned in the face to face interview.

I’m not saying anyone is wrong here, if that’s the guidance and the spirit of the law then so be it, I have no issue with that. But to not tell me any of that when I applied and THEN issue my FAC with the broad ‘.308/7.62” slot they’ve gone against that guidance themselves?!

I emailed my FEO the other week anyway to ask his opinion on this so I’ll see what he says!

And around we go again........"7.62/.308 is seen as being 7.62x51 NATO and/or it's .308 Winchester commercial variant, same as 5.56/.223 is 5.56x45 NATO and/or .223 Remington.

If you put "7.62/.308" into Google you'll see that 7.62 NATO/.308 Winchester go hand-in-hand and that's what, in most people's views is meant by a slot/variation for 7.62/.308

[7792]

and therein lies the problem...

"7.62/.308 is seen as being 7.62x51 NATO

‘Seen’ this way by whom? Because as a new licence holder all of this is new to me and the FEO went to great lengths during our face to face to detail lots of other points of law and practices that applied and never mentioned this at all.

This isn’t how the law works, it has to be specific - and to be clear this isn’t a dig at you, I don’t doubt what you’re saying but to me - but it’s unacceptable to have a situation where something as important as firearms licensing relies on the presumption of knowledge which isn’t referenced anywhere.

If the application form or the FAC stated “for the purposes of this grant .308x7.62 is presumed to refer to the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge unless specified otherwise” or similar that would be enough, or even better not accept any application which doesn’t specify the specific cartridge.

If it’s the law I should know it, but it if it’s guidance from the HO to the police that they don’t let FAC holders know then the onus is surely on the police to make us aware and raise it durong the application process.

*shrug*

[Andy632]

If it's just "guidance" from the H O then the Police can make their own decisions as to whether to follow it or do their own thing, as many police farces do!

[Andy632]

To me the real issue would be ammo. I wouldn't sell 7.62 x39 ammo to someone who had 7.62/.308 on his ticket and didn't already possess a firearm chambered for it.