restricted or not lee enfield

rowa

BostonB wrote: »

Whats a battle rifle?

AFAIK, rifles of WWII and after are accurate to far longer distances than an assault rifle. After WWII they realised most combat happens over 200m or less. Where weight of fire is more important.

a lot of armies couldn't be bothered or hadn't the time to teach good shooting and started using the "spray and pray" method of rifle use , i heard that in vietnam it took something like 100,000 rounds fired to cause an enemy fatality and any documentaries i have seen of the fighting seem to back this up , soldiers spraying bullets into the general area of the enemy, not even using the sights .

bazza888

does anyone here have a lee enfield in 303,like the one in link below that they have reliscensed under the new system and know for sure if its restricted or not.theres a good bit of conflicting info here http://www.shoot.ie/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_24&products_id=173

rowa

bazza888 wrote: »

does anyone here have a lee enfield in 303,like the one in link below that they have reliscensed under the new system and know for sure if its restricted or not.theres a good bit of conflicting info here http://www.shoot.ie/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_24&products_id=173

i know plenty of people with them and plenty of shops too , the gardai as far as i know go by whats stamped on the barrel or action , if it says .303 thats less than .308 and they're happy , i don't think there is an issue about this .

TMC121

On the paperwork they ask if it's restricted and under the current legislation a .303 caliber (7.7mm) is restricted.
The Garda ballistics section or FPU will confirm this.

rowa

TMC121 wrote: »

On the paperwork they ask if it's restricted and under the current legislation a .303 caliber (7.7mm) is restricted.
The Garda ballistics section or FPU will confirm this.

i think they could make an exception in this case as its the only round i can think of in the grey area , its popular and less powerful than a .308 , has anyone contacted the ballistcs dept and asked for this to be clarified ?

TMC121

Yep I did and asked that very question, the answer "Under the letter of the law it's restricted"
The additional security required for .003 of a caliber difference.
enfield.jpg
1941 No4 Mk1
1954 No4 Mk2
1955 No4 Mk2

I have to agree with everything you said rowa, but look what happens if you have a restricted rifle on an unrestricted license. It's structured in such away as you have to know what your looking for and where it falls. You will need to know before you apply.

BornToKill

bazza888 wrote: »

does anyone here have a lee enfield in 303,like the one in link below that they have reliscensed under the new system and know for sure if its restricted or not.theres a good bit of conflicting info here http://www.shoot.ie/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_24&products_id=173

TMC121 wrote: »

On the paperwork they ask if it's restricted and under the current legislation a .303 caliber (7.7mm) is restricted.
The Garda ballistics section or FPU will confirm this.

Rifles above .308 inch calibre are restricted. A .303 is not restricted on the basis of calibre. The restricted SI sets it all out.

Edit/ Okay maybe I have it wrong if you've already asked. Where did you call by the way? Was it the FPU or Ballistics.

bazza888

lovely looking rifles there which one is the best of the bunch or is there much diffrence between diffrent years.was just starting to look at them.but if there restricted i wont be able get one

Sparks

TMC121 wrote: »

On the paperwork they ask if it's restricted and under the current legislation a .303 caliber (7.7mm) is restricted.
The Garda ballistics section or FPU will confirm this.

The thing is, it's not restricted.
The restricted list says:

single-shot or repeating rifled centre-fire firearms of a calibre not exceeding 7.62 millimetres (.308 inch) and whose overall length is greater than 90 centimetres,

But here's the thing - nowhere in the SIs and nowhere in the Acts is there anything saying whether we use the standard US system of measuring calibre from groove to groove; or the standard Imperial system of measuring from land to land.
It's not sophistry - both are standard ways of measuring calibre, and it's perfectly correct and legal to say that a 303 cartridge is of calibre .303 inch. That's why, for many years, the largest rifle you could get was .270 Winchester (which had a bullet diameter of .277 inches even when the rule was the maximum allowed calibre was .270 inches).

TMC121

Sorry to contradict you BTK.
The measurement of .303 is an very old way of sizing the caliber of a rifle.
As I said earlier

There are two recognized definitions of caliber that differ slightly. First, there is the factual term caliber that is defined as the internal diameter of the barrel of a firearm land to land measurement. Second, the nominal caliber of a bullet refers to its nominal diameter and the characteristics of the cartridge. In many instances, the numerical value of the nominal caliber corresponds to the factual caliber, but this is not always the case, as some variations might appear.
Rifles of 30 caliber .306 -.312 fire a bullet size of .308 (7.62mm) The name comes from the nominal bullet caliber, however the bullet sizes vary between 7.60mm to 7.69mm.
30 cal, 30-06, .308Win, 30-40Krag, 300mag, Nato 7.62x51, Russian 7.62x39,7.62x54.

The .303 has a larger bullet diameter than the 7.62mm .308 allowed under the SI. Sorry to say the .303 is restricted by .003" or .008mm
The same can also be said about a .308 as they can fire a bullet up to .312 in size.
But as far as I can tell, The nominal diameter measurement is what being implied by the SI

rowa

i had a look on shoot.ie and was suprised to see the no.1 's there and for a very good price , anyone know what makes and years these are ?

bazza888

wonder how much the ammo costs to cant imagine its very easy to get,iv always wanted one but cant afford if have to get new alarm unfortunately

Sparks

TMC121 wrote: »

Sorry to contradict you BTK.
The measurement of .303 is an very old way of sizing the caliber of a rifle.

It's not "old", it's just not american.
And it's not restricted, because nowhere in the law does it say whether we use the US or UK calibre measurement standard. And the FPU and the Ballistics sections can't override the law or add new parts to it (Dunne v Donoghue applies here). So they may well have an opinion on it, but that doesn't make it law.

The .303 has a larger bullet diameter than the 7.62mm .308 allowed under the SI.

The SI does not specify bullet diameter. It specifies rifle calibre, which has two internationally accepted forms of measurement. The SI does not specify which is to be used; and noone else can overrule the SI.

Besides all of which, can you see anyone taking a case to court with a hole that size in it over a 0.003" discrepancy between what they want the SI to say and what it actually says?

Sparks

bazza888 wrote: »

wonder how much the ammo costs to cant imagine its very easy to get,iv always wanted one but cant afford if have to get new alarm unfortunately

Ammo is cheap and cheerful (for fullbore ammo - something around a euro a round?). Talk to the VCRAI about it.

TMC121

I agree Sparks, I can't see any court cases but you would never know.
But this was checked with the people in the park and the answer stood as restricted.

Ammo runs for €70 a 100 rounds last lot I bought.

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

a lot of armies couldn't be bothered or hadn't the time to teach good shooting and started using the "spray and pray" method of rifle use , i heard that in vietnam it took something like 100,000 rounds fired to cause an enemy fatality and any documentaries i have seen of the fighting seem to back this up , soldiers spraying bullets into the general area of the enemy, not even using the sights .

The reason of this was alot to do with the terrain as well.Thick jungle doesnt lend itself to precise marksmanship.Nor does a rifle that was brand new,with faulty ammo and teething trouble and bad instruction lend itself to jungle warfare.What they teach you at boot camp somtimes doesnt translate into the real world of a firefight.Compared to the Brits who in Malaysia used SMGs and shotguns,when they could.They had a higher kill ratio simply because they had the better weapon for jungle warfare.

Sparks

The thing is TMC, the people in the park have often given two different answers to the same question depending on who's on the phone; and they've been taken to court for adding things to the law (Dunne) in the past and the Supreme Court disagreed with the idea that if the Dail doesn't say it's law, that a Garda is allowed fill in the bit he or she thinks they missed!

TMC121

Agreed Sparks, the answers from the park can be contradictory and it would be much better if the humble .303 was not on any restricted list.
Confusions reigns, clarity required.
A lot of people get great enjoyment out of the No4 Mk1/2 and the older SMLE.

BostonB

Dunno if true but I heard the ak round would penetrate further in jungle and trees than the m16 which a bit of a surprise

Sparks

BostonB wrote: »

Dunno if true but I heard the ak round would penetrate further in jungle and trees than the m16 which a bit of a surprise

The M16 fired the 5.56x45mm round, the AK47 the 7.62x39mm. More kinetic energy, larger and less frangible projectile, so it'd make sense it'd go further. Can't see either making their way successfully though a treetrunk of any great size though

BornToKill

rowa wrote: »

i heard that in vietnam it took something like 100,000 rounds fired to cause an enemy fatality

Not for the Vietnamese!

rrpc

TMC121 wrote: »

Agreed Sparks, the answers from the park can be contradictory and it would be much better if the humble .303 was not on any restricted list.
Confusions reigns, clarity required.
A lot of people get great enjoyment out of the No4 Mk1/2 and the older SMLE.

I asked the question generally of the DoJ some time back as to what defines the calibre of a rifle and I was told the nominal calibre is the one that would be adhered to. That is the one that's stamped on the barrel or action.

There always seems to be room for more angels on the head of that pin

bazza888

brilliant i hope it works that way,other wise id have buy rifle 600or more,join range 600,liscene it 80,get eircom installed and a year subcription,iheard over a 1000 from people,applied for a quote now just incase.so the bones of 2500 for a 600 rifle,so hope it not restricted or it is really a richmans sport,my cars not worth that!

BornToKill

bazza888 wrote: »

brilliant i hope it works that way,other wise id have buy rifle 600or more,join range 600,liscene it 80,get eircom installed and a year subcription,iheard over a 1000 from people,applied for a quote now just incase.so the bones of 2500 for a 600 rifle,so hope it not restricted or it is really a richmans sport,my cars not worth that!

It depends on what you already have, but just having one restricted firearm won't mean getting a monitored alarm:

One restricted firearm, or three or fewer non-restricted firearms.
Security standard required
The firearm(s) should be stored in a gun safe which complies with BS 7558 and which shall he securely fixed to a solid structure.

Mr Flibble

You people are giving a good example of the difference between knowledge and wisdom. You're all very clever, but RRPC is the wise one.

The gunmaker says .303
The ammo says .303
.303 is under .308
Not restricted - end of.

The calibre naming anomaly works in our favour here - why not let sleeping dogs lie? Do you think the first person who tries to licence a .309 JDJ is going to get the benefit of all your expert knowledge?

rowa

Mr Flibble wrote: »

You people are giving a good example of the difference between knowledge and wisdom. You're all very clever, but RRPC is the wise one.

The gunmaker says .303
The ammo says .303
.303 is under .308
Not restricted - end of.

The calibre naming anomaly works in our favour here - why not let sleeping dogs lie? Do you think the first person who tries to licence a .309 JDJ is going to get the benefit of all your expert knowledge?

because someone in the firearms dept of the guards has already said its restricted because of it being .311 calibre .:mad:

rrpc

rowa wrote: »

because someone in the firearms dept of the guards has already said its restricted because of it being .311 calibre .:mad:

We have had 'someone' in a Garda station in Kerry saying a .223 is restricted.

There's always 'someone' with an opinion and there's always a judge available to sort opinion out from fact.

Let's leave it until that happens shall we?

chem

The enfield might get put under this heading:

Rifles designed for military/police tactical use or with large magazine capacity are more dangerous and the difference between them and ordinary rifles does not make them any more suited to target and clay shooting.

Will ten rounds of 303 be to much for supers to handle?

rrpc

chem wrote: »

The enfield might get put under this heading:

Rifles designed for military/police tactical use or with large magazine capacity are more dangerous and the difference between them and ordinary rifles does not make them any more suited to target and clay shooting.

Will ten rounds of 303 be to much for supers to handle?

Ten rounds isn't a 'large' capacity and that particular sentence is riven with emotion and very little fact.

Why is a 'military/police tactical rifle' more 'dangerous'? Is it's appearance somehow a contributing factor to panic and therefore could cause heart failure?

And how could a large capacity mag be any more 'dangerous' than (for example) lots of mags?

rowa

rrpc wrote: »

Ten rounds isn't a 'large' capacity and that particular sentence is riven with emotion and very little fact.

Why is a 'military/police tactical rifle' more 'dangerous'? Is it's appearance somehow a contributing factor to panic and therefore could cause heart failure?

And how could a large capacity mag be any more 'dangerous' than (for example) lots of mags?

probabily in the same way as black rifles , pistol grips and folding stocks are more dangerous , its a stupid statement and not backed up by any evidence or figures to explain or prove itself.