restricted or not lee enfield

BornToKill

PJ Hunter wrote: »

http://www.icpsa.ie/notices/631-Firearms-Consultative-Panel.html

What is restricted: (This is not an exhaustive list)

Rifles with magazines which carry more than 10 cartridges.

Single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds.


the guidelines have it a bit muddy .:rolleyes:

Those aren't the guidelines. These are the guidelines.

rrpc

PJ Hunter wrote: »

Single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds.

the guidelines have it a bit muddy .:rolleyes:

That's the restricted SI PJ. The original one from Feb 2008.

What you might not have noticed is that bolt action .22 rifles with a magazine capacity of greater than 10 rounds are restricted whereas bolt action centre fire rifles of up to .308" calibre with magazine capacities of greater than 10 rounds are not restricted.

PJ Hunter

rrpc wrote: »

That's the restricted SI PJ. The original one from Feb 2008.

What you might not have noticed is that bolt action .22 rifles with a magazine capacity of greater than 10 rounds are restricted whereas bolt action centre fire rifles of up to .308" calibre with magazine capacities of greater than 10 rounds are not restricted.

i can't find that bit rrpc:(

is this the one off the guidelines BornToKill

Rifles

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Rifles should be single shot or bolt action with calibres up to .308 inch. (7.62mm). There can be cross-over between rifles used for hunting or those for target shooting. 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. The same applies to rifles which are variants of military assault rifles, bullpups with folding or telescopic stocks or semi-automatic centrefire calibres. Rifles to be safe should have a barrel length of more than 50cm.
[/FONT][/FONT]

rrpc

PJ Hunter wrote: »

i can't find that bit rrpc:(

Restricted SI:

the following long firearms (not being assault rifles or bullpup rifles):
(i) 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,
(ii) single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds,

The above are not restricted, so the ones I mentioned are.

ivanthehunter

These guideline IMO seem to be a cause of confusion. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone here, far from it- but i am highlighting the fact that these guile lines which are already the cause confusion here in the shooting forum will inevitably cause confusion when used by the licencing authorities or what ever powers that be who might use them.

In relation to the 303 cal., it is simple that a 303 cal. it is know as this by both the applicant and by the FAC1 processes and its caliber is it caliber and thats that.


Anyway there are far more powerful rounds available to the Irish citizen which are smaller than the so called "303"

Does anyone know what the next highest popular cartridge is after the SI limit of 308? is it the 338 iirc
Well IMO it seems that this limit (.308) was set in order to restrict the proliferation of .338 or similar sized rifles into the Irish Republic and this limit is not concerned with such academic nonsense.
As far as the reasonable man is concerned you write down what is stamped on the barrel.. End of.

BornToKill

ivanthehunter wrote: »

These guideline IMO seem to be a cause of confusion.

Go on then, Ivan, I'll play the straight man - what's so confusing in the guidelines? And is there more or less confusion than before there were guidelines?

If you can afford the time, admittedly unlikely, I challenge you to write 40 pages on firearms law, licensing, calibres, etc. and post it up here. Would you expect general acclaim and consensus or do you reckon someone would disagree with parts of what you wrote?

I, for one, welcome our Guidelines Overlords. It just can't be a bad thing that we all know what the rules are even if there are bound to be a few questions about them.

Mr Flibble

BornToKill wrote: »

If you can afford the time, admittedly unlikely, I challenge you to write 40 pages on firearms law, licensing, calibres, etc. and post it up here. Would you expect general acclaim and consensus or do you reckon someone would disagree with parts of what you wrote?

Not a fair challenge, because the people who did the existing guidelines could afford the time. After all we paid for it. Whatever about Ivan I'd say that, if paid the same as whatever it actually cost, someone like Sparks or RRPC - or you if it comes to that - could do a much better job. Not to say someone wouldn't disagree with parts - there are people on here who would disagree with anything - but it would be better than what we now have.

Mellor

Mr Flibble wrote: »

there are people on here who would disagree with anything

I disagree.

Sikamick

Mellor wrote: »

I disagree.

I agree with Mellor:)

Sikamick