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

redcat wrote:Durham want .44-40

Redcat

LOL - they are unique aren't they!

Of course if you ask for just.44 now it might make it easier to ask for 44/40 as a separate item later, if you want a different one ( and depending on local firearms policy/whim.)

Why would you want to ask for a 44-40 later when 44 is all you need to get a 44-40?

The HO have asked FLDs to stop allowing 'calibre' to be listed and cartridge size is the correct thing to list.

I heard the reason it was listed as 'calibre' on the forms and FACs was the police wanted to design the forms as they were the ones administering licensing and they didn't understand the difference, which is understandable as many use the terms interchangeably, much like 'bullets'/'heads' or 'ammunition'/'bullets'.
Most of us know it is wrong but still it goes on and eventually it becomes right. Not correct, but right.

I am still seeing most FAC's including recent variations with calibre authorisation rather than cartridge.

Mattnall wrote:The HO have asked FLDs to stop allowing 'calibre' to be listed and cartridge size is the correct thing to list.

7.62 is the obvious reason why, as there's at least 3 x 'popular' 7.62 calibre that it could cover, with 7.62x51 & 7.62x54 as well as 7.62x63 although that would usually be referred to here in the UK as 30-06.

I have usually kept variation requests to be as vague as possible as to the actual cartridge I will buy. I usually don't know what the next rifle will be as I am on the lookout for whatever interesting old military rifle turns up. So, if I think a 6.5mm class of rifle would be OK, I will put in a variation for a 6.5MM. Then I could get a 6.5x50 Japanese, a 6.5x52 Carcano, a 6.5x54 Mannlicher or a 6.5x55 Swedish etc. If I put a specific cartridge on the variation, say 6.5x55 and then one of the others turns up first, it will mean my FAC has to go off to to have the x55 bit changed to x52 or x54 etc. That is a waste of police and my time and serves no useful purpose. The actual cartridge bought is advised to the police after purchase so their records have the actual cartridge type. If I have to put in a variation for a specific rifle that I am buying, then I will put the cartridge type on the variation. I have had to change an authority to purchase to change one digit in the past. I had authority to purchase a 7.62mm rifle but a 7.65mm rifle turned up that I wanted so my FAC had to go to the police to change the 2 to a 5. I don't think that is the best use of police resources. The ideal variation should be 'one centre fire rifle'. The actual cartridge is advised after purchase. I think that has been put forward but the Police/Home Office view that as a reduction in firearms controls and they would never allow that. The screw only goes one way.
Regards
Peter.

it's strange, as I have a variation in atm, and I queried whether the .300 slot already on my license was fine for buying a 300blk with as that was what I had requested for that slot in the first place a few years ago. I was told yes, it is still fine, just more straightfoward for them. so it's strange how some forces want looser terms, and some want tighter.

When I free up some slots I shall be putting in for a .44-40 variation as I already have a .44 Marlin.
This way I'll avoid some of the pointless back and forth over already having a .44 on my FAC
I have a .357 Winchester whilst having a .38 / 357 ammo entitlement. So I'll be putting in for a .38/357 again so I can actually shoot .38 special.
I KNOW it makes little sense having to go back and forth over calibres - but that's the sort of bo...cks we have to put up with these days. Lord knows why they should care with thirty years plus as a FAC holder and some twenty-five rifles and revolvers in my cabinets. Clearly I'm a safe bet.

dromia wrote:I am still seeing most FAC's including recent variations with calibre authorisation rather than cartridge.

Yes, old habits die hard, and really it doesn't make much sense. I doubt many who operate the system really understand the difference.
I understand it came under scrutiny a few years ago after a guy bought a 22 centrefire on a '22 rifle' slot. It escalated and the judge said if you meant 22rf you should have put 22rf, which I thought was funny as that is still not a cartridge and could lead to 22short/lr/long/hmr/etc. Since then the HO issued the directive to FLDs but it is not always followed. It is also in the Guidance to Police (para 10.8) but I don't think it is back by a law or amendment, yet.

My father had .30carb and now a .30-30 all on a 30cal slot, although he has had this last one for many years now. I did the same with 7.62NATO and .300whisper - vastly different cartridges as far as performance goes but still .30cal.
It makes things so much easier but as our firearms laws are more about control than safety this will no doubt not be changed for the better.