Moderators - intersting bit in Irish Shooter's Digest

17HMR

Interesting couple of paragraphs in the current Irish Shooter's Digest on the Irish solution to an Irish problem that is the moderator situation here.

Interesting in that it paraphrases the EU directive 2003/10/EC Article 5 thus:

In essence, European law now REQUIRES every rifle which is used anywhere where people are at "work" to be fitted with a means of reducing the noise "at source".

It further states that there are no national derogations to this directive and that EU directives take precedence over national or regional legislation.

More wasted Garda, shooter and court time ahead I feel......

maglite

workplace= "silencer"
farm=wokplace

farm = silencer

17HMR

Exactly.....

Which is why I believe that moderators should be compulsory (!) on health & safety grounds (and general good neighbourly grounds too) and not shrouded in ninja-assassin myth and superstition.

But then, this is Ireland.....

By the way - anyone know where I could get a professional threading job done on a heavy barrel for a mod...ahem, muzzle brake ?

Vegeta

couldn't agree more with both of you, it saves your hearing, it is less intusive into peoples lives. It effects other wild life less.

There are so many good reasons for it, why exactly do they have to be licensed seperately.

EDIT: its nice to talk about some actual shooting stuff rather than politics. Roll on September and November

Sparks

I was more worried by the few paragraphs before it. I've spoken to Cal about it and he says that the plumber he identifies with the 18% hearing loss in one ear and 11% in the other and who he then says is illegally using a silencer is an amalgamation of lots of different stories from around the country. Which would make me wonder what is and what is not fictional in the column, to be honest.

However, on the topic of health&safety legislation being used to bring in sound moderators, a few things come to mind:

• If they were so good for accuracy, you'd see them in the Olympics
• Health and safety applies to the workplace, which means you must be an employee, not a recreational shooter; which in practical terms means being employed by someone in the government to shoot. That's why students can be given chairs and workstations for computer courses that don't meet H&S ergonomics regulations despite the later health problems incurred - they're not employees.
• The last superintendent asked for a licence for a silencer on H&S grounds, if I recall correctly, said "go buy some earplugs".

It's definitely an interesting approach, but I wouldn't be taking it on my own money I think. I wish Cal all the best in his court case to get a moderator with this approach, but it wouldn't strike me as being the best approach to it.

maglite

bull you dont have to be an employee to be covered by H&S

Sparks

You do if it's workplace H&S.

17HMR

Benchrests improve accuracy but don't feature heavily in the Olympics

Seriously though, I can empathise with Cal's composite character. I bought my .22LR about 10 years ago. It came threaded, there was a cheap and cheerful plastic Parker Hale moderator in the cabinet at the paypoint. I asked the guy if I could buy it and was there any legal issues to worry about and he said "No problem". So I bought it and have used it since. And it does me grand for sub-sonic crow and rabbit shooting.

Now, after all I've seen on here since I signed up this year I can assure you I'm a lot more discrete about showing it in public but I'll be damned if I'm going to try getting paperwork for a plastic tube with some springs and washers in it at risk of loose it and, having stuck my head above the parapet, drawing unnecessary attention my way in the future.

Terrier

Vegeta wrote:

EDIT: its nice to talk about some actual shooting stuff rather than politics. Roll on September and November

You said it..!

Sparks

17HMR wrote:

Benchrests improve accuracy but don't feature heavily in the Olympics

True, but they break the rule about no extra support for the rifle past your arm and the sling! You mightn't be able to use moderators though, now that I check the rulebook:

7.4.2.2 Barrels and extension tubes must not be perforated in any way. Any construction or device inside the barrel or tubes, other than rifling and chambering for the cartridge or pellet, is prohibited.

Now I'm curious - if you took a properly set up and adjusted Anschutz 2013 with batch tested ammo and had it cut for a moderator and fitted one, what effect would you get on accuracy (allowing for re-selecting batch tested ammo, of course, as you've just messed about with the barrel)?

On the rest of your post 17, erm. You've just said that you're guilty of a criminal offence under the firearms act. May I suggest the edit button?

17HMR

Guilty ?
Maybe. Who knows with the law the way it is.
Certainly, I bought the can in good faith having been advised by a prefessional in the field that there were no issues to be considered - and that will be my story if I'm ever challenged.

Can't say the powers that be have ever gone to any great trouble to point out what exactly is and isn't illegal in relation to moderators either.

And anyway - who do the Gardai think buys all that sub-sonic ammunition ?

Sparks

who do the Gardai think buys all that sub-sonic ammunition ?

Target shooters. Who don't use moderators in general.

Quillo

Hope those target shooters are shooting on an "approved range".....

17HMR

'nuff said

Clare gunner

What will a silencer do to accruracy?Nothing if it is set up correctly.Apart from making the gun somwhat more muzzle heavier,and if it is an intergal silencer maybe re mounting the sights on the outside tube.
Ironic that the silencer is being dammed for it's evil purposes when it was designed by Hiram Maxim to be used for exactly it's current purposes of noise pollution reduction.
ASFICS the law here deals with "silencers" not sound suppressors or sound moderators,and it would be best to talk in those terms,as those items dont require liscensing,plus I would be most intrested to see whatthe defination under Irish law a silencer,moderator or suppressor is .

maglite

just talkin with someone else about this can one be called a flash compensator as the flash is dulled when using one the reduction in noise is a by product

CJhaughey

Or a recoil moderator? I know that studies have shown that some reduce recoil by about 20%
of course the reduction in noise is merely a welcome side effect...

17HMR

The "definition" of a silencer seems to be "a silencer".....

See below in red - lifted directly from Sparks fine work at:

http://www.wilkinstowntargetshootingclub.org/Documents/FirearmsActAmended/PostCJB/PreCommittee/FirearmsAct.html

Section 1
Definitions and interpretation.

In the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1990, "firearm" means—

( a ) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which
any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged;

( b ) an air gun (which expression includes an air rifle and an air pistol) or
any other weapon incorporating a barrel from which metal or other slugs can be
discharged;

( c ) a crossbow;

( d ) any type of stun gun or other weapon for causing any shock or other
disablement to a person by means of electricity or any other kind of energy
emission;

( e ) a prohibited weapon as defined in section 1 (1) of the
Firearms Act, 1925;

( f ) any article which would be a firearm under any of the foregoing
paragraphs but for the fact that, owing to the lack of a necessary component
part or parts, or to any other defect or condition, it is incapable of
discharging a shot, bullet or other missile or of causing a shock or other
disablement (as the case may be);

( g ) save where the context otherwise requires, any component part of any
article referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and, for the purposes
of this definition, the following articles shall be deemed to be such
component parts as aforesaid.

(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an
electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device,
designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a),
(b), (c) or (e), and

(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in
paragraph (a), (b) or (e).

civdef

This of course means that the courts get to define what a silencer is, which is not something I'd like to risk my freedom trying to predict the outcome of.

17HMR

Agreed.

Hence the anonymity inspired bravely demonstrated by myself here in discussing the matter......

Actually. On faceless posting....
Two reasons why I keep my personal details to my self on here (I post freely under my own name on other boards):

1. It strikes me that this forum could be used by criminals as an on-line firearms location service... "Ah, John Smith in Dalkey has a Glock19, John Murphy in Macroom has a CZ75" as Jonny Crim ticks off his weekend shopping list.

2. I can openly discuss the sometimes daft legal situation without having the boys in blue come knocking at my door over something possibly self incriminating said here.

civdef

Reason 1 is the very same for me.

Chopperdog

civdef wrote:

Reason 1 is the very same for me.

Exact same for me, I am sure alot of us have bumped into each other on the shooting circuit and it is nice to know who is who, yet self security and safety prevents me from giving too much away on an open forum.

Sparks

Need to point out here, by the way, that I had thought that as Cal was talking about ways to approach a court case to get a licence for a silencer, that he was taking one himself - he's since told me that he isn't. Sorry for the confusion!

maglite

dont think like that once i have your Ip i can do a search for you and find you




all comp details can be read easaly

Sparks

It's not quite that straightforward maglite, though in theory it can be done. However, what if you post from an internet cafe? What if you post from work? It's hard enough to tie sock puppets together - tracing someone from their forum posts back to their home address would be much much harder, and frankly, only the boards.ie admins would have the kind of access needed to do so with any degree of success.

Personally, I'd add a third reason for anonymity to the list - in that it's been my experience that complaints against a club or association have led to the complainant being penalised for complaining rather than the complaint being welcomed as necessary feedback!

Vegeta

maglite wrote:

dont think like that once i have your Ip i can do a search for you and find you




all comp details can be read easaly

that's cool and all, it did get my computer OS and browser correct but my ip aint that

civdef

How exactly would you get my IP?

Now the authorities certainly could, a quick warrant served on the relevant people in charge of the various servers involved (presuming they're all located in jurisdictions where that is possible) would identify where the post came from.

maglite

it is

and sparks i tend to disagree ever heard of hacking
sent you a pm on the subject a while back

Vegeta

maglite wrote:

it is

and sparks i tend to disagree ever heard of hacking
sent you a pm on the subject a while back

seriously man, when i open a terminal window in linux and type the command to show me my ip, its not that. Maybe my computer mental block is stopping me from seing something obvious like the ip you posted is a server here at work that wont let you access my comp directly or something like that

maglite

maybe are any didgets right?

Quillo

Most SME's have one router with a fixed IP and this uses DHCP to dynamically assign IP numbers to users on the network. All you'll see externally is the router IP.

So best guess you can make is some employee in the company posted via that router - Can't see that standing up too well in court

And most home users don't have a static IP - again its dynamically by their service provider.

Not to mention WiFi hotspots and Internet cafes...

Jacobo

Quillo wrote:

Not to mention WiFi hotspots and Internet cafes...

Or anonymizing proxies.

newby.204

Not to be a D!CK

This is a SHOOTING FORUM, as riveting as proxys are etc( im a "geek" by the way before anyone starts), maybe a new thread should be started in the forum or in the computers forum????, just an idea, the mods will prob do it themselves

Its just this isnt about moderators!!!!!

Sparks

No, but it was linked, albiet tenously

Fair point though.
*nudges thread back towards topic*

maglite

so who i sbuyin me a flash compensatior or recoile reducer then???

Clare gunner

Mags,
You are buying a sound suppressor or modifer .Ok
I had this checked out,the big trouble is that a "silencer"under that act is not defined as what it is or it's function is. There is CASE LAW on this in Ireland that an article in Irish law must be defined before it is possible to decide on.There was a case on this in the 80s regarding the defination of what a tractor is.we all know what a generic tractor is,but is a pickup with a weed sprayer on it and baloon tyres a tractor??It is under Irish law,and this case was won on the fact that the law must define what an article is.
All the law says are "silencers" must be registerd with a special permit.Has anyone got one of these BTW,if so please post it minus your vital statistics,I would love to see what it looks like.It says nothing about a suppressor,modifier, moderator flash hider. Example US law defines a silencer as any device desinged to suppress,muffle,modify or silence the report of any firearm.Can that be any clearer???There was a time that US law did not have the modifer defination,so it was possible to circumvent the 1932 NFA,by ordering the modifer from the UK.

Got to breifly read Cal wards article on silencers,he is correct, it is an Irish solution to an Irish problem.Ignore it until somone makes a booboo somwhere.

As for the anynomity on postings;It would be easier for a crook to break into a rural garda station and steal the firearms register,thus giving them a whole catolouge for a district of nickable guns. Than going thru all the computor address trace etc malarkey.

BTW you cannot self incriminate yourself on the internet,at least in the Western world,[apart from the UK as they have the RIP act 2000] due to the difficulty of proving that YOU actually typed the incriminating whatever.
Nor is it that easy to get warrents to demand copies of email.Sounds good in theory,not that easy in practise.OK we could be pulled in our posts via the UK GCHQ monitoring of internet or the US NSAs post in Muswell hill.But belive me folks ,they are REALLY NOT INTRESTED in us.They have more important things to keep an eye on like Al Queida or Iraqui terrorists ,or fanatics in the UK than a bunch of law abiding shooters in Ireland.Not that AQ ,etc use modern technology for having an ol chat about the latest head cutting.As a matter of fact if it was so easy to locate posters etc by means described.AQ and Iraq should be well over by now.AAMOF they are beating the US and UK intell in cyberwarefare.Ok enough Cyber computor babble,back to shooting.

17HMR

Must say I've never seen this "Silencer permit".
Never met anyone that had one or had seen one either.

Seems like Cal has it right in his view that there are a few in use without paperwork !

Gun Shy

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2004/hsl04-01.pdf

Well worth the read and VERY MUCH on topic

Sparks

Very much on topic GS, but I'm not sure it proves the point - it specifically says in the conclusion that moderators don't do much for the noise level caused by the actual bullet, and thus the peak noise forward of the line isn't much affected; so the moderator would seem to be mostly for the shooter's benefit. At which point, the "use earplugs" line comes up again.