Restricted?? Pistol Grip and adjustable Butts!! Why???

ivanthehunter

Can any one tell be why these devices are restricted, when in reality they make shooting safer.

I know that restricted does not mean banned, but it will have an effect on the availability of firearms offered to punters. In essence it will mean a smaller range of firearm types to choose from, which in turn will only add to the suffocation of the sport through restriction after restriction. Its an insult to the Irish shooting community that re loading is still denied but it is pure madness that legitimate shooters are being corralled into choosing one firearm type over another.
Why dont the doj buzz off and fight some real criminals and leave normal folk alone....
I bet that these restriction are thought up by people that have never shot much in their lives. in fact i would bet the house on it..:mad::mad::mad:

IRLConor

Moved from Hunting.

I have no idea why they'd restrict shotguns with those features. Smells like an attempt to restrict "assault" shotguns à la the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban though.

Sparks

The original restriction was on all firearms with pistol grips and collapsable/detachable butts. I know the NTSA went in to the DoJ (this was before the FCP was ever floated) and pointed out that this would mean that olympic air and smallbore rifles would be restricted. The restriction was changed as a result. You'd have to ask the shotgun groups (the IFA, the NARGC, the ICPSA) as to why shotguns are still on the restriction though - they would have met with the DoJ as well on the matter.

BornToKill

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Can any one tell be why these devices are restricted, when in reality they make shooting safer.

Adjustable butts are not restricted. This is an extract from the SI:

'shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them
incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns—
(i) with a detached, folding or telescopic stock, or
(ii) with a pistol grip, or
(iii) whose barrel is less than 60.9 centimetres (24 inches) in length'

If you want to read the whole thing here is the link:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB08000290

patbundy

BornToKill wrote: »

Adjustable butts are not restricted. This is an extract from the SI:

'shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them
incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns—
(i) with a detached, folding or telescopic stock, or
(ii) with a pistol grip, or
(iii) whose barrel is less than 60.9 centimetres (24 inches) in length'

If you want to read the whole thing here is the link:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB08000290

btk i think ivan wants to why they are restricted

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Probably more of the domain of the practical boys ?

They might be in there as well (along with the NASRPC) but they'd be bit players in comparison to the above three.
Actually, we're all bit players compared to the IFA, but we tend to brush over that a lot...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Yes.
They might be in there as well (along with the NASRPC) but they'd be bit players in comparison to the above three.
Actually, we're all bit players compared to the IFA, but we tend to brush over that a lot...

What I'm getting at is I can't see IFA, NARGC, ICPSA being too bothered about pistol gripped shotguns being restricted as they aren't that popular in their respective areas.

patbundy

this is getting off thread. ivan wants to know why they are restricted:p

IRLConor

patbundy wrote: »

this is getting off thread. ivan wants to know why they are restricted:p

• Nobody knows for sure since the DoJ haven't published reasons why.
• The restriction on pistol grips and adjustable butts was originally to cover rifles too, but the NTSA pointed out to the DoJ how that would cover almost all ISSF rifles.
• Nobody complained about the restriction in relation to shotguns or if they did, that complaint was ignored.

thehair

mmm i see we are back in la la land:rolleyes:

patbundy

IRLConor wrote: »

• Nobody knows for sure since the DoJ haven't published reasons why.
• The restriction on pistol grips and adjustable butts was originally to cover rifles too, but the NTSA pointed out to the DoJ how that would cover almost all ISSF rifles.
• Nobody complained about the restriction in relation to shotguns or if they did, that complaint was ignored.

maybe their experts are watching too many hollywood films:rolleyes:

IRLConor

patbundy wrote: »

maybe their experts are watching too many hollywood films:rolleyes:

That's one of several potential reasons.

Maybe they were trying to make a distinction between "guns that are primarily designed for sporting use" and "guns that are primarily designed for police/military use" out of a mistaken belief that a) they can be distinguished clearly from each other and b) the latter is more dangerous than the former.

Maybe they were trying to restrict guns that, if shortened, were still properly usable.

Whatever they were trying to do, basing the restriction on components that don't make the firearm any more dangerous is silly at the very least.

patbundy

IRLConor wrote: »

That's one of several potential reasons.

Maybe they were trying to make a distinction between "guns that are primarily designed for sporting use" and "guns that are primarily designed for police/military use" out of a mistaken belief that a) they can be distinguished clearly from each other and b) the latter is more dangerous than the former.

Maybe they were trying to restrict guns that, if shortened, were still properly usable.

Whatever they were trying to do, basing the restriction on components that don't make the firearm any more dangerous is silly at the very least.

conor you know and i know and millions of firearms owners know all shotguns can be shorten and a few good rifles. when will the doj stop putting us in with crimanals

IRLConor

patbundy wrote: »

conor you know and i know and millions of firearms owners know all shotguns can be shorten and a few good rifles. when will the doj stop putting us in with crimanals

Well, their concern would be firearms stolen from their rightful owners.

And yes, we all know that a huge proportion of guns can be shortened, but they may have been trying to make it harder. After all, sawing a chunk off a shotgun is harder than just folding that bit away.

Of course, if they really wanted to improve the situation with regard to stolen firearms they'd do two things:

1. Make it mandatory to have a safe and require it to be up to a certain standard.
2. Provide more funding for the Gardai to investigate thefts of firearms.

kowloon

The pistol grip makes it easier for people to shoot one handed meaning the terrorists could shoot two guns at once. Lets just hope they get in the restriction on bayonet lugs and aggressively styled bandanas before the carnage kicks off.

patbundy

yes conor they are trying to make it for us(honest shooters). why dont they make harder for the illeagle shooter.why are we always the fallguy for their short comings

IRLConor

patbundy wrote: »

yes conor they are trying to make it for us(honest shooters). why dont they make harder for the illeagle shooter.why are we always the fallguy for their short comings

Because legislation is cheaper than enforcement.

patbundy

true conor (good point) but that doesnt excuse them.in orther words they havent a clue

bunny shooter

patbundy wrote: »

yes conor they are trying to make it for us(honest shooters). why dont they make harder for the illeagle shooter.why are we always the fallguy for their short comings

They know where our guns are

patbundy

bunny shooter wrote: »

They know where our guns are

that bug the shxte out of me.:D:D

patbundy

why dont we go over to the emergency servicies post and have it it out with them.lets see what they know about firearms law

bunny shooter

patbundy wrote: »

why dont we go over to the emergency servicies post and have it it out with them.lets see what they know about firearms law

Yaaaaaa (in real southern accent :pac:), banjo music in background, let's go a fueding

It wasn't me!

Because that would be a really stupid idea?

patbundy

ha ha ha bunny

patbundy

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Because that would be a really stupid idea?

is it iwm?.you are talking about people who have look down the barrel

Sparks

Speaking of being off-topic....

...and we weren't earlier - ivan asked why they were restricted, we gave him a list of people to ask (because those bodies surely asked the DoJ themselves).

It wasn't me!

patbundy wrote: »

is it iwm?

Yes. Absolutely.

Let's say you get a Guard in that forum. And let's say you come blustering in demanding all of his knowledge on firearms licensing and firearms in general. You just come across as some high-horsed <expletive deleted> on some ridiculous mission which has *absolutely nothing* to do with the guard in question, who's anonymous here, doesn't know you from Adam, probably lives at the other end of the country and will never have anything to do with you. So what is the grand point of such a ridiculous maneouvre?

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Speaking of being off-topic....

Where is Ivan ? Over on Emergency Service forum without us ? He's gone a fueding without us :pac:

patbundy

true bunny so are the mods with us shooters or are they still stuck in peashooter land

bunny shooter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

So what is the grand point of such a ridiculous maneouvre?

Fueding don't need to be for a reason, fueding is for fueding sake :P

Sparks

"feuding" will be a quick trip to being banned. And don't think that just because E.S. is modded by a shooter that you'll be excused making a mess in there, you weren't in here.

Posts deleted and edited and infractions issued because of the name-calling by the way.

Sparks

patbundy wrote: »

true bunny so are the mods with us shooters or are they still stuck in peashooter land

The mods (who are shooters) are a bit busy cleaning up the mess in here, thanks. And if you go there and make a mess, the mods there (who are shooters) will also have to do some cleaning up and we may not see you back here for some time. So don't do it.

bunny shooter

Peashooter gets you everytime, doesn't it :rolleyes:

patbundy

so in orther words you wont back real shooters so what are you doing on here

Sparks

"real shooters"?
Yeah, right.

patbundy

sparks your jumping thru hoops again.if you look at the post again you will see is what they know about the law. all i want to ask is what they know about the cjb.is that against the law

It wasn't me!

Why do you want to ask an ordinary Garda? Surely asking anyone other than Superintendents, your FAO or the Commissioner is wasting your time and theirs?

Sparks

patbundy wrote: »

sparks your jumping thru hoops again.if you look at the post again you will see is what they know about the law. all i want to ask is what they know about the cjb.is that against the law

Nope, and if you ask politely, you might even get an answer. The thing is, will you be getting an answer from a Superintendent? Because there isn't any such job in the Gardai as Firearms Officer, it's just the way we've come to refer to the bloke at the desk who handles the paperwork. He makes no decision of his own, that's purely and by law solely the purview of the Superintendent. And we've been told, in public, by the Gardai, that in cases where there's any confusion or problem, to directly contact the Superintendent, not the guy on the desk. So if your FO can't quote all of part five of the CJB in full, it means squat. If your Super doesn't know the relevant bits, that's another story.

But I doubt you'll find too many superintendents posting openly on boards to be honest.

chem

Sparks wrote: »

But I doubt you'll find too many superintendents posting openly on boards to be honest.

Is that because, they dont know how to turn on that thing in the cornor, of the office?:D

IRLConor

chem wrote: »

Is that because, they dont know how to turn on that thing in the cornor, of the office?:D

I know you're joking, but from what I've heard you're lucky to get dialup in a Garda station. Maybe it has improved recently.

Of course the real reasons are probably that no Super would want to deal with work stuff after hours and they don't have time to be posting here during office hours.

It would be nice if there was a Garda/DoJ representative of some sort who was willing, had time and was authorised to post here and answer questions like the one in the OP from the Garda/DoJ viewpoint. I can't see it happening any time soon though.

Grizzly 45

Oh they know about it all right.And proably give it a good boot every time they pass it too.It's called PULSE and it is the most despised and ineffective LE tool in a Garda station.It has triplicated the paperwork instead of reducing it.Just what every busy Garda needs.Works occasionally to do it's job,and is not what it is cracked up to be.So dealing with a yoke like that on a daily basis,would hardly encourage you to want to spend free time in front of one at home.

The folding stock issue.Proably too much Hollywood education on this issue.
Realistically wouldnt worry too much on it,if I was in the Garda/DOJ as the folders on shotguns are uncomfortable,too short,and have appaling pistol grips that seem to be knockoffs of the AR15 pistol grip.So using one will decrease your accruacy,hurt your hand alot with heavy loads.So many might buy them,try them...Go OW that hurts..and promptly put their wood stock back on their shotgun.
The only thing they are good for is storage in tight spaces,and then the Pros[IE those who work in the field where somthing like this is useable] are more likely to get ultra short barrels and leave the wood stock on them.
They just look cool.
OTOH a shot pistol is a different story.

Sparks

PULSE isn't on the net though Grizzly, and just because they have PULSE in a station doesn't mean they'll have email or network access. It's really quite rare for a station to have network access.

BornToKill

BornToKill wrote: »

Adjustable butts are not restricted. This is an extract from the SI:

'shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them
incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns—
(i) with a detached, folding or telescopic stock, or
(ii) with a pistol grip, or
(iii) whose barrel is less than 60.9 centimetres (24 inches) in length'

If you want to read the whole thing here is the link:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB08000290

patbundy wrote: »

btk i think ivan wants to why they are restricted

Thank you Pat, though I did understand that. Ivan wanted to know why adjustable butts are restricted, my reply points out that they are not.

As to why pistol grips on shotguns are restricted, it is because they are normally to be found on military shotguns of the 'trench clearer' kind and most shotgun owners in this country would have no need of them.

If I may reverse the question, why would you want a pistol grip on a shotgun? It's going to be in the way for the most part if you're shooting clays or hunting.

Sparks

If I may reverse the question, why would you want a pistol grip on a shotgun? It's going to be in the way for the most part if you're shooting clays or hunting.

It's a good question given the drawbacks of such stocks which Grizzly highlighted...

cavan shooter

I could get shot down for this but here we go:D
My guess cartridge content in shotguns where restricted for obvious reasons 3 before you have to reload versus 8. Now as a shooter who has a semi 3 is plenty and it gives wildlife a break.

As for the stock easy to hide under coat, hovever your 8 shot extender on the magazine will give it away:D

As for length, diito see above.

We are back to the "I don't like the look of that"

Black synthetic =Bad (Militaristic, Rambo etc) add camo coat etc = nut case

Walnut (Turkish or American) = images of the game keeper doing his round in wellies with a trusty springer by his side =

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

Adjustable butts are not restricted.

Actually, it depends on the kind of adjustment you're talking about - that's why the ISSF stuff was caught in the restriction first time round, because our stocks can adjust in length - the buttplate can be moved in or out to adjust, and in fact can pull right out, so they were caught twice, once for being telescopic and once for being detachable.

kowloon

I don't have a shotty with a pistol grip so not quite sure of the pros/cons through experience. I can definitely see the advantage of an adjustable stock. I would imagine folding stocks batter the shooter something awful. As for the mag restriction; If you walk with the mag loaded and the chamber empty there's no point in having a pump anymore as you're restricted to 2 shots. I wonder if they'll make a go for black guns on the basis that black is easier to hide :rolleyes:.

Grizzly 45

.

If I may reverse the question, why would you want a pistol grip on a shotgun? It's going to be in the way for the most part if you're shooting clays or hunting.

[/QUOTE]


Well it depends on what kind of pistol grip you are talking about.I have pretty big hands and find the small plastic foregrip of some pumps annoying.If I replace that with a vertical pistol grip I have better control and can work the action alot quicker. I also have one on a Remmy1100 the solid "FAL "style stock.I find it is easier to reload quicker in a practical shotgun match, by holding a vertical pistol grip.On the folder[Top folder].
I used it once for hunting in some extremly heavy brush for wood cock with the 24in open choke barrel,just to be able to manouver the gun somwhat in the brush. Apart from that it has resided in my closet ever since,apart from dressing it up once in awhile to look at somthing different.I have also shot clays with both and apart from the looks from all and sunbdry.:DI didnt find the FALstyle stock any problem or distraction.The folder just kicked harder and gave me wrist fatigue.:(
Just a question of getting used to them.But unless you are really stuck for space in your house,car tractor,etc or LE SWAT unit.Icant see folders being much in demand.

If you just have a rear pistol gripped shotgun.I would say your accruacy potential has taken a dive by 75%,beyond 20ft.I had one in my younger days in LA and it was a PITA to shoot properly. It was just compact for use in a car.So I cant see anyone wanting just a pistol grip

ivanthehunter

So Hollywood is to blame?
WALOS (What a load of sugar).
What kind of people are responsible for these policies that stem from childish views. Are they the same people that restrict reloading?:(


Every stinking year some busy body is trying to add some thing to the amendments or change the law in some ridiculous way. Is it their effort to a claim to fame? IMO it would seem that every desk jockey in the houses of power want his own Bertie bowel.
I think reloading will never have a chance in the deep south! well bunny?

No one person here know the answer but thanks for you opinions

chem

Might be alot of ego trips going on alright ivan. I feel its a problem these days in alot of office type jobs. If by the end of the day you cant see the amount of work someone has done eg:building, painting etc. It seems its down to who shouts loudest and is see and been active in something or other.

Just to be seen to justify there jobs:rolleyes: