Firearms renewal question.

kay 9

Lads...I'm just after looking at my gun licence for the 223 and it says in the middle of the page under condition B "The holder of this certificate holds a certificate in respect of another shotgun" I know it aint funny, but to me it sounds like they r calling a 223 a shotgun and I would appreciate any information as to how to ammend this blunder as I dont hold a certificate for a shotgun and never have. It also states under condition C that "The holder being a member of GUN CLUB" ... This isn't true either as i have never been a member of a gun club. Seems i could have some trouble rectifying this one lads, what ye think?
Will appreciate any advice or different opions or ppl with similar problems contributing:) And yes it did take me nearly a whole year to notice these mistakes funnily enough.. I took the boys in blues technical experience for granted maybe.

Yours
Kay....

IRLConor

kay 9 wrote: »

Lads...I'm just after looking at my gun licence for the 223 and it says in the middle of the page under condition B "The holder of this certificate holds a certificate in respect of another shotgun" I know it aint funny, but to me it sounds like they r calling a 223 a shotgun and I would appreciate any information as to how to ammend this blunder as I dont hold a certificate for a shotgun and never have. It also states under condition C that "The holder being a member of GUN CLUB" ... This isn't true either as i have never been a member of a gun club. Seems i could have some trouble rectifying this one lads, what ye think?
Will appreciate any advice or different opions or ppl with similar problems contributing:) And yes it did take me nearly a whole year to notice these mistakes funnily enough.. I took the boys in blues technical experience for granted maybe.

Yours
Kay....

Short answer: they all look roughly like that.

Long answer:

Here's a photo of an old firearm certificate of mine:



The red, green and blue segments define what conditions A, B and C are, the yellow segment shows what conditions apply and the orange segment defines the ammunition limits.

If you had a shotgun for clays and then got another shotgun for vermin control on your farm, the cert for the second shotgun would say something like "Subject to conditions B & C listed below" in the yellow area.

The cert is a mess, I only hope that the new version makes fewer mistakes.

kay 9

Yeah agree, what a mess...
Thanks for the heads up on that though Irl...appreciate it. Thought I had a bit of a problem with it but it looks ok then:)

burke08

hi all,
im applying for first lisence. o/u shotgun. planing to shot clays and vermin the odd day.

how many rounds do yous think i should apply for??

thanks in advance

Cass

Originally posted by burke08

how many rounds do yous think i should apply for??

Depends on how much shooting you intend to do. 250 would be enough if you are doing the odd weekend of clays and a bit of vermin shooting in between. 500 if you want to go more into the clays. It gives you a good stock of clay cartridges and a few boxes of game ones. Have a think before you fill in the application as you can't change it later (well not for a while)

burke08

thanks ezridax.

I wasent sure if they would allow me that may rounds as it my first lisence and im only 17.

Think ill go for 400 as i already do quite a bit of clay shooting with my uncle.

thanks again.

pedroeibar

Hi,
I’ve been a lurker for ages and despite reading many posts am only now getting the sense of the renewals. Started on the FCA1’s and ran into a problem.
One of my guns is a Marlin 65, a semi-auto rimfire with a tube mag holding 18 rounds. On my current licence it is described as a “bolt rifle” (original form was completed by a FO):rolleyes:
In Section 3 of the new Act we have:
[FONT=&quot]“semi-automatic firearms” means firearms that reload automatically from a[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]magazine or cylinder each time a round is discharged but can fire not more than[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]one round with a single pull on the trigger;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Then, in [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Section 4. (1) Firearms other than those to which subparagraph (2) relates are[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]declared to be restricted firearms for the purposes of the Act:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]so in that subparagraph we read:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. (2) (c) (ii) single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]from which I infer the Marlin is restricted (because it holds 18 rounds) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BUT, in Section[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. (2) (e) (ii) the following short firearms designed for use in connection with competitions[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]governed by International Olympic Committee regulations:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](ii) firearms using .22 inch rim-fire percussion ammunition[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I know nothing about IOC regs., are there any grounds on which I can argue the Marlin fits the last category?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do I say nothing and fill new FCA1 describing gun as “bolt action? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Views?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks,[/FONT]
P.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I also guess that the pistol-grip reference on the shotgun would refer to a stockless gun, rather than one with a pistol grip stock. [/FONT]

Sparks

Sorry Pedro, but no, there's no way the Marlin would be considered an ISSF pistol. However, you can just stick a dowel in the magazine or get it crimped so it won't take more than 10 and then you're good.

rrpc

pedroeibar wrote: »

I know nothing about IOC regs., are there any grounds on which I can argue the Marlin fits the last category?

Do I say nothing and fill new FCA1 describing gun as “bolt action?
Views?

Thanks,
P.

It's not that short is it?

As Sparks said, that section is for pistols. There's been some discussion on here about the very machine you have and the proper way to unrestrict it is to dowel it (¼" dowel should fit in the tube) or crimp it.

You could also licence it as a restricted firearm if you wanted.

I also guess that the pistol-grip reference on the shotgun would refer to a stockless gun, rather than one with a pistol grip stock.

Below is the kind of pistol grip that makes a shottie restricted.

pedroeibar

Sparks wrote: »

Sorry Pedro, but no, there's no way the Marlin would be considered an ISSF pistol. However, you can just stick a dowel in the magazine or get it crimped so it won't take more than 10 and then you're good.

Just shows what blue in the face reading does to you. Missed the word "short." Thanks Sparks, good idea, but the configuration of the tube would not allow for a dowel or crimping.

It's a really crap form, very badly designed (e.g "Have you ever been found guilty etc of any offence etc " technically any speeding ticket, illegal parking, etc, should be declared -why did the stupid clerks not include the word "criminal"???) - I'm dreading the whole process, I've moved around quite a bit as I lived/worked overseas and have had about 10 addresses in as many years .....Section 2.1 's concluding question could really screw things up if I'm too honest, would take them years to check me out!
Rs
P.

ranger4

I intend to shoot f-class and was wondering how many rounds to apply for on application, thanks.

Sparks

As many as you'll need ranger.
If you don't know how many that is, talk to some f-class shooters who are shooting at just above your level in competition.
But it really does tend to be a piece of string question because it depends on how much you'll train, how often, and a dozen other factors you didn't mention.

Grizzly 45

On the description of the form a box for "breech loader".
Well all modern firearms that we use[,bar BP muzzle loaders& Xbows andpaint ball]] load at the breech.So what exactly was the "thinking" on this one??:eek:

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

On the description of the form a box for "breech loader".
Well all modern firearms that we use[,bar BP muzzle loaders& Xbows andpaint ball]] load at the breech.So what exactly was the "thinking" on this one??:eek:

Martini action perhaps?

Sparks

I thought it was more towards break-barrel rifles and the like, but grizzly has a point - not too many firearms these days load the round into the barrel at any point bar the breech.

dimebag249

I've a question about the restricted list, sorry if it's been asked already.

Firearms with tubular magazines can often fire cartridges of varying lengths interchangeably. Some .22 rimfire rifles can fire short, long and long rifle cartridges. Pump action or automatic shotguns can fire anything from 2" to 3.5" shells, depending on the gun. The capacity will be different depending on which length cartridge is used.

How will the authorities decide what the capacity of a firearm is if it can hold only 10 .22lr cartridges, but 12 .22 short cartridges? Same for a shotgun that can hold only 2 3.5" shells in the magazine. If it's licenced as unrestricted, whats to stop a guard from saying that it can hold 3 (or whatever it is) 2" shells, and arresting for an unlicenced unrestricted firearm?

Sorry if my question is pedantic or seems like silly nit-picking, i'm curious as much as anything else.

Sparks

I wouldn't have thought that a .22lr chamber would take a .22short or .22magnum safely myself...

Grizzly 45

No probs with .22 shorts.But wether they would feed well in a .22 semi tube or mag is another question.

Sparks

I wouldn't say no probs grizzly, they're grossly different in size:


There are rifles stamped for use with .22short, .22long and .22lr; but they're not terribly accurate when you load in the .22short; and if you loaded a .22short into a .22lr rifle, the bullet won't engage with the lands as nicely as it should.

It wouldn't explode in your face or anything, but you're not doing a good rifle any favours doing that kind of thing to it.

johngalway

dimebag249 wrote: »

Same for a shotgun that can hold only 2 3.5" shells in the magazine. If it's licenced as unrestricted, whats to stop a guard from saying that it can hold 3 (or whatever it is) 2" shells, and arresting for an unlicenced unrestricted firearm?

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Until that's defined and written down someplace I would make sure the gun could only hold two of the least sized carts, that way no jobsworth can do ya for something like that.

I keep referring to the UK, but, there was something there a while back about sub 12ftlbs air rifles. The particular rifle was under the limit using the pellet the shooter was using, anyway there was a "mishap" involving the law. So, they tested the rifle, with a different pellet, and guess what...

:eek:

Some would say they were doing their job within it's limits. Others would say they were being pedantic over enthusiastic jobsworths.

So err on the side of caution until the situation is better defined.

Sparks

John, it doesn't matter what pellet you use in an air rifle, if it's sub-12 ft/lb with one, it will be sub-12 with all of them. The speed of the pellet at the muzzle will assuredly vary, but the muzzle energy will always be the same.

Rovi

Sparks wrote: »

There are rifles stamped for use with .22short, .22long and .22lr; but they're not terribly accurate when you load in the .22short; and if you loaded a .22short into a .22lr rifle, the bullet won't engage with the lands as nicely as it should.

Accuracy is irrelevant in this particular circumstance, the mere fact that .22 Short, .22 Long, and .22 Long Rifle (and .22 BB Cap & .22 CB Cap) will all chamber and fire in a .22 Long Rifle firearm is all that matters.
As they're all the same diameter, you'll still only fit 10 of any of them in a 10 round box magazine (whether they'll actually stack or feed properly are separate questions), but you'll certainly fit varying numbers in a tubular magazine.
10 rounds of .22 Long Rifle is around 250mm long; that's space enough for 12 .22 Long, 14 .22 Short or 28 .22 BB Cap! :eek:
And the .22 Short and .22 Long WILL feed pretty reliably in many pump and lever action .22 Long Rifle firearms.

I'm willing to concede that the above scenarios were not the intention of our masters and betters when they put together their lovely shiny legislation and statutory instruments, and what they MEANT was the magazine capacity with 'ordinary' ammunition (ie. .22 Long Rifle), but if they're going to differentiate between types of firearms and base security arrangements and potential legal consequences for firearm owners on the technical details of particular firearms and ammunition, they REALLY need to get the technical details right, AND explain those details without ambiguity.

Otherwise, we're back to "Yerra, that'll be all right" territory again, exactly what this brave new world was supposed to NOT be.

dimebag249

Ok, here is an example of a rifle that will fire the three types of 22. rimfire ammunition mentioned above interchangeably:

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/rimfire_rifles/model_552_speedmaster.asp

Here's an example of a shotgun that will fire from 2" to 3.5" shells interchaneably (though i understand that it's not that reliable with the 2" inch shells, the winchester and mossberg pumps work better with those, better extractors i think):

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/shotguns/model_870/model_870_express_super_magnum_specs.asp

Thanks Rovi, that's what I was getting at. These kind of things need to be clarified, cos they'll inevitably become a problem down the line if they don't. We'll end up with a situation where every tube fed firearm in the country is an unlicenced restricted firearm, and that's after people have gone to the trouble of crimping or plugging their magazines.

More than anything the issue points out just how retarded and futile all this classification of firearms into arbitrarily defined "good" and "bad" categories is. A firearm is a firearm. And a firearm is just a tube that's closed at one end.

rrpc

Without getting too pedantic about things, the onus is on the license holder to decide whether his firearm is restricted or not.

It's not down to the Gardai, but if you're taking the p*ss, then it's your funeral if you're caught.

All of the .22's that can take more than 10 .22 shorts can also take more than 10 .22lr's. If you don't want it restricted then make sure it can only take ten or less rounds of the ammo it's chambered for (and you're going to use in it).

If you want to use more, or think you might, then declare it as restricted and deal with it that way.

It's not rocket science. :rolleyes:

sfakiaman

From a practical point of view a firearm is stamped with the caliber it is chambered for eg .22LR, 12-70 etc. Even in this country I doubt if a judge would convict because 'you could squeeze more little ones in'.

On Spark's point on using .22 short or .22 magnum in a .22LR it should be noted that the magnum is both longer and slightly thicker and hopefully would not chamber.

foxshooter243

sfakiaman wrote: »

From a practical point of view a firearm is stamped with the caliber it is chambered for eg .22LR, 12-70 etc. Even in this country I doubt if a judge would convict because 'you could squeeze more little ones in'.

On Spark's point on using .22 short or .22 magnum in a .22LR it should be noted that the magnum is both longer and slightly thicker and hopefully would not chamber.

22 magnum doesnt chamber in 22 lr..:)

dimebag249

rrpc wrote: »

All of the .22's that can take more than 10 .22 shorts can also take more than 10 .22lr's. If you don't want it restricted then make sure it can only take ten or less rounds of the ammo it's chambered for (and you're going to use in it).

It's not rocket science. :rolleyes:

Wrong rrpc, read Rovi's post again. A firearm that can take more than 10 22. shorts cannot necessarily take more than 10 .22 lr, the SHORT is shorter than the LONG RIFLE. That means that you can fit more of them into a tubular magazine.

Correct, it's not rocket science, it's the law. And it's a law that has us all guessing, because it isn't clear on this point.

ayapatrick

foxshooter243 wrote: »

22 magnum doesnt chamber in 22 lr..:)

but the .22lr will go in the magnum, which is not a good idea. relative fired a 22lr in a magnum and bulged it, ground it down on the outside and continued on usin it to fire magnums:eek:

dimebag249

sfakiaman wrote: »

From a practical point of view a firearm is stamped with the caliber it is chambered for eg .22LR, 12-70 etc. Even in this country I doubt if a judge would convict because 'you could squeeze more little ones in'.

The point is that some firearms are chambered for different cartridges of the same caliber and of different lengths. These things are 'pedantic' and 'taking the piss' until someone gets done for it. Then it becomes a problem for everyone with a tube fed gun. It would be better if the Department clarified this now, I think.

Cass

Okay i'm assuming (taking life in hand) that people are steering away from restricted class firearms because of the extra security costs involved. Open to correction on that.

Quick question on that subject, are some people trying to avoid the restricted classification, because of some inherent fear of being regarded as a restricted firearms holder, fear of being too intensely scrutinised on the application process. I'm just curious as alot of people i know or meet are trying to restrict/alter/curtail a firearm they own so as it falls into the unrestricted classification.

Opinions or thoughts please.