largest calibre

tommyboy26

what is the largest calibre a civilian can own in ireland?



tommy

CJhaughey

Whatever your super will grant you. Above .308 cal is restricted.
If he/she will grant you a .338 then you can have one.
I don't know of any upper limit.

Tackleberrywho

tommyboy26 wrote: »

what is the largest calibre a civilian can own in ireland?



tommy

anything 7.62 mm in a rifle bolt action or under holding no more than 5 rounds.
Anything else is Restricted and a purpose has to be shown to DOJ/gardaí for reason for having.

Svetti Arss

According to today's news its whatever calibre fits in a rocket launcher.

rowa

caliber isn't everything and calibre isn't proportional to muzzle energy, i think it was very short sighted of the minister and doj to restrict calibres over .308, it means relatively low powered pistol rounds e.g..38spl and .44 etc used in lever actioned rifles with around 1000ft/lbs are restricted , while if you shoot target rifle or deer you can buy a .300 win/weatherby mag with over 3500 ft/lbs and thats not restricted , doesn't make sense. irish logic again !
a better system would have been to have an upper limit on kinetic energy.

Tackleberrywho

rowa wrote: »

caliber isn't everything and calibre isn't proportional to muzzle energy, i think it was very short sighted of the minister and doj to ban calibres over .308, it means relatively low powered pistol rounds e.g..38spl and .44 etc used in lever actioned rifles with around 1000ft/lbs are restricted , while if you shoot target rifle or deer you can buy a .300 win/weatherby mag with over 3500 ft/lbs and thats not restricted , doesn't make sense. irish logic again !
a better system would have been to have an upper limit on kinetic energy.

Where is this story printed so I can have a read?

rowa

what do you mean ?

BornToKill

rowa wrote: »

i think it was very short sighted of the miniser and doj to ban calibres over .308 ... doesn't make sense. irish logic again !

Did I miss something? When were these banned?

Tackleberrywho

BornToKill wrote: »

Did I miss something? When were these banned?

restricted is not banned, moderators are restricted but not banned etc.

So to in agreement with BTK when where this info coming from??

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

i think it was very short sighted of the minister and doj to ban calibres over .308

Er, what now? Calibres over .308 aren't banned!

edit: Ha! That'll teach me to not refresh the page before replying

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Er, what now? Calibres over .308 aren't banned!

edit: Ha! That'll teach me to not refresh the page before replying

my fault slip of the tongue , but with a chief super like we have in my area , yeah its a ban :rolleyes:

Cass

rowa wrote: »

caliber isn't everything and calibre isn't proportional to muzzle energy

Strictly speaking i don't think thats correct. The larger the caliber the larger the bullet. The larger the bullet the heavier the bullet. The heavier the bullet the higher the muzzle energy produced.

Someone with a higher knowledge of ballistics can either confirm or refute this statement.

rowa wrote: »

............. while if you shoot target rifle or deer you can buy a .300 win/weatherby mag with over 3500 ft/lbs and thats not restricted , doesn't make sense. irish logic again !
a better system would have been to have an upper limit on kinetic energy.

I would say that target rifle and more so deer caliber rifles need a higher energy (ft/lb) to ensure a clean/quick dispatch of the animal. If you limited this it would mean all current deer shooters and alot of vermin shooters would need restricted licenses. Thats madness.

You couldn't ask someone shooting deer and such to give a clean/quick dispatch of an animal with a firearm that provides >1,200ft/lb energy (example only) at the muzzle and dramatically less at the point of impact. As the minimum ft/lb set out by the NPWS is 1700, where do you start and stop the limit.

Any limits imposed would have a knock on effect on caliber choice. Can't go for the .300 WSM now because its restricted. Certain .243 rounds don't provide for enough muzzle energy/impact energy so they are out. Now its all down to the .270. Enough energy and under the limit, hence unrestricted. Now everyone MUST buy a .270. Thats creating a monopoly and i'm sure there is a law/rule/regulation on such things.

Sparks

ezridax wrote: »

Strictly speaking i don't think thats correct. The larger the caliber the larger the bullet. The larger the bullet the heavier the bullet. The heavier the bullet the higher the muzzle energy produced.

For a constant velocity only.

Technically, calibre and muzzle energy have no relationship in physics; muzzle energy is kinetic energy and is equal to half the mass times the velocity squared. The size of the projectile is not a factor there.

In "the real world", a higher calibre round has a higher muzzle energy some of the time, but definitely not all the time. For example, a .45ACP pistol round has less muzzle energy than most centerfire rifle rounds despite their smaller calibre. And even when you're only looking at rifle rounds, well, the .204 has a higher muzzle energy than the .223 - but again, as the talk on the .22-250 and deer hunting showed the other day, that can vary with bullet weights.

Basicly, we don't have any easy rules of thumb.

rowa

what i am trying to get across is that relatively low powered large calibre rifles , like the lever actions used for gallery shooting , and the older black powder firearms are restricted while some of the much more powerful modern centrefire rifle are not ,
i can't presume to know what ahern was thinking when he decided to restrict certain types of rifles and calibres , but i suppose he didn't want shooters buying "dangerous" rifles such as the .338 lapua and .50 bmg and the like , but as usual the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.

Cass

sparks wrote:

muzzle energy is kinetic energy and is equal to half the mass times the velocity squared. The size of the projectile is not a factor there.

Eh............... give me that bit again........3...........carry the 4............ hold on the socks are coming off............. 19.............. yeah i'll get back to you on that.:D:confused:

ezridax wrote:

Someone with a higher knowledge of ballistics ...........

Kinda opened the door for that one.;):D

rowa wrote:

i can't presume to know what ahern was thinking when he decided to restrict certain types of rifles and calibres , but i suppose he didn't want shooters buying "dangerous" rifles such as the .338 lapua and .50 bmg and the like , but as usual the baby got thrown out with the bathwater

Not arguing that point with you. I don't understand it myself. Honestly i cannot see the need for a restricted list. All it seems to be useful for is making a refusal easier, as in the eyes of most authorities, restricted = dangerous.

There does not seem to be a common factor or easy/safe way to determine restricted from unrestricted. To suggest any other method other than the one in place only opens the door to more limited control of all firearms/calibers and each method will have its cons, but some more so than others. Generally speaking they are not obvious until put into practice.

jwshooter

but i suppose he didn't want shooters buying "dangerous" rifles such as the .338 lapua and .50 bmg and the like , but as usual the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.[/QUOTE]


from my experience ,the cal with the most potential danger is a .22 sub with solid "non expanding "head on the land.

doyle61

i was always told that if you can justify it you can fire it does that not mean that if you can justify .50 you can have one:D

Sparks

Justify it and use it safely, and one or two others too like storing it safely. It's not as straightforward as you were told doyle61.

It wasn't me!

And of course if your Super or CS is happy to give you the licence. There are a few big game rifles in the country. Biggest I know of is a .458 Lott. If you're spending time in Africa hunting big game, and your licensing authorities know this, then you've a decent argument for a rifle like that. If you want it for plinking at the range, then you may not have such a good argument (as you'll have to satisfy the CS that an unrestricted firearm won't do the same job). In theory, once you've satisfied them that you need a restricted rifle for the job (Minimum of .375 H&H Mag for most big five hunting in most of Africa) then you have some leeway for choice within that - so you could elect for the .458 Lott over the .375 H&H if you wanted, and are both hard enough and wealthy enough to shoot it! 6000 ft/lbs makes just about everything else feel a little watery...

Sparks

I would have said that 6000 ft/lb would make just about everything feel in pain myself, but then I cry like a little girl from the recoil of an SMLE...

It wasn't me!

Sparks wrote: »

I would have said that 6000 ft/lb would make just about everything feel in pain myself, but then I cry like a little girl from the recoil of an SMLE...

Yeah, it's something that takes quite a big to get used to from my reading. Would love to try one sometime, just not feed it! For comparison, my .25-06 is about 2300-2400 ft/lbs. .303 British is about 2400 ft/lbs, and a .300 Win Mag, which is very noticeable, if not quite painful, is about 3500 ft/lbs, so yeah, the .458 Lott would get your attention in a hurry!

Double Barrel

It wasn't me! wrote: »

6000 ft/lbs makes just about everything else feel a little watery...

The shooter as the object of the abuse may be a bit watery also.
A stiff double will ease the pain.

xesse

dont bleedin talk to me
i lost a .38 lever action rifle to the same irish logic
1894CB marlin
a fine rifle:mad::mad::mad:

rowa wrote: »

caliber isn't everything and calibre isn't proportional to muzzle energy, i think it was very short sighted of the minister and doj to restrict calibres over .308, it means relatively low powered pistol rounds e.g..38spl and .44 etc used in lever actioned rifles with around 1000ft/lbs are restricted , while if you shoot target rifle or deer you can buy a .300 win/weatherby mag with over 3500 ft/lbs and thats not restricted , doesn't make sense. irish logic again !
a better system would have been to have an upper limit on kinetic energy.

xesse

Now come on...
Are you trying to tell me that a .38 special fired from a marlin lever action rifle has more kinetic that a .303 or .308

ezridax wrote: »

Strictly speaking i don't think thats correct. The larger the caliber the larger the bullet. The larger the bullet the heavier the bullet. The heavier the bullet the higher the muzzle energy produced.

Someone with a higher knowledge of ballistics can either confirm or refute this statement.



I would say that target rifle and more so deer caliber rifles need a higher energy (ft/lb) to ensure a clean/quick dispatch of the animal. If you limited this it would mean all current deer shooters and alot of vermin shooters would need restricted licenses. Thats madness.

You couldn't ask someone shooting deer and such to give a clean/quick dispatch of an animal with a firearm that provides >1,200ft/lb energy (example only) at the muzzle and dramatically less at the point of impact. As the minimum ft/lb set out by the NPWS is 1700, where do you start and stop the limit.

Any limits imposed would have a knock on effect on caliber choice. Can't go for the .300 WSM now because its restricted. Certain .243 rounds don't provide for enough muzzle energy/impact energy so they are out. Now its all down to the .270. Enough energy and under the limit, hence unrestricted. Now everyone MUST buy a .270. Thats creating a monopoly and i'm sure there is a law/rule/regulation on such things.

rowa

xesse wrote: »

dont bleedin talk to me
i lost a .38 lever action rifle to the same irish logic
1894CB marlin
a fine rifle:mad::mad::mad:

even in very anti-gun britain they did ban or restrict a lot but didn't bring in calibre restrictions as far as i am aware, and if you look through a copy of gun mart magazine its amazing whats for sale and being used.

have you , or are you going to appeal xesse ?

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Yeah, it's something that takes quite a big to get used to from my reading. Would love to try one sometime, just not feed it! For comparison, my .25-06 is about 2300-2400 ft/lbs. .303 British is about 2400 ft/lbs, and a .300 Win Mag, which is very noticeable, if not quite painful, is about 3500 ft/lbs, so yeah, the .458 Lott would get your attention in a hurry!

Try firing 50 rounds of .44mag out of a short action revolver. NEVER again; Only that there was a hot chick watchin me at the time in Texas and I wanted to look :cool::cool: Hurt like a bitch and not accurate as a result of short barrel and very sore hands. I learned after thats why the boys over there wear shooting gloves:D

I'd love to see the shooters eye after firing a scoped 6000ft/lb job.
i fired .303 smle and swedish mauser. I would not rate the as OTT, but a 6000ft/lb that Buffalo better be worth it!
That and the £6kstg to shoot him!

jwshooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Try firing 50 rounds of .44mag out of a short action revolver. NEVER again; Only that there was a hot chick watchin me at the time in Texas and I wanted to look :cool::cool: .


did it work , did u drill a test hole .

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

even in very anti-gun britain they did ban or restrict a lot but didn't bring in calibre restrictions as far as i am aware

Pretty sure they did - the first FCP conference had a presentation by a chief constable from the area around bisley on this point. If the round is designed for things you can't shoot in the UK, there's a per-calibre ban on it.

Plus, there are energy and velocity limits imposed by MoD regulations for ranges so things like the .50bmg and .338 lap mag can't be used. And if they can't be used, you can't get a licence for them.

Tackleberrywho

jwshooter wrote: »

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Try firing 50 rounds of .44mag out of a short action revolver. NEVER again; Only that there was a hot chick watchin me at the time in Texas and I wanted to look :cool::cool: .


did it work , did u drill a test hole .

I went to the Blue clay as they say around these parts!

Seriously though, I have seen several guys get a tip down the years using light barreled heavy calibres, particularly if they were used to .22 or shooting .22 for the day and then switched over!

Cass

xesse wrote: »

Now come on...
Are you trying to tell me that a .38 special fired from a marlin lever action rifle has more kinetic that a .303 or .308

No.

Hence the reason i said " i think" and "someone with a higher knowledge of ballistics".

Grizzly 45

Plus, there are energy and velocity limits imposed by MoD regulations for ranges so things like the .50bmg and .338 lap mag can't be used. And if they can't be used, you can't get a licence for them.

Ahem.......http://www.antitank.co.uk/uk_suppliers.htm
http://www.fcsa.co.uk/
They might beg to differ.:D