Is my semiautomatic shotgun restricted IF

johngalway

I insert some wooden dowel into the magazine limiting it to a three shot? (This would entail disassembling the magazine, not just "loading" the dowel).

Or does it need permanent work that only a gunsmith could do, such as crimping the tube itself?

If it is the latter than I'm not pushed, if it's the former I could apply for a non restricted firearms certificate (I think).

ATB,

John

rrpc

johngalway wrote: »

I insert some wooden dowel into the magazine limiting it to a three shot? (This would entail disassembling the magazine, not just "loading" the dowel).

Or does it need permanent work that only a gunsmith could do, such as crimping the tube itself?

If it is the latter than I'm not pushed, if it's the former I could apply for a non restricted firearms certificate (I think).

ATB,

John

AFAIK, it's accepptable to restrict the magazine capacity by means of a dowel (the disassembly route).

ayapatrick

rrpc wrote: »

AFAIK, it's accepptable to restrict the magazine capacity by means of a dowel (the disassembly route).

what about the ones fitted with insertable rods?

4gun

my beretta has a 4 shell mag pluged removing the plug takes just about 30 seconds,
was actually thinking of gettting restricted licence just in case i forget to replace plug after cleaning

Meyer

johngalway wrote: »

Or does it need permanent work that only a gunsmith could do, such as crimping the tube itself?

If you look at the wording of the restricted list, it would seem ok...

(b) shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them
incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges, but not to shotguns—

To me "modified" would indicate professional work, i.e. carried out by a gunsmith, while "adapted" would indicate what you are thinking of doing.

As for anyone thinking of going the restricted route "just in case"...Have you lost the plot??? You are just bringing a major headache down on yourselves for no reason! Believe me I know, given that all my firearms are restricted.

Mellor

rrpc wrote: »

AFAIK, it's accepptable to restrict the magazine capacity by means of a dowel (the disassembly route).

I don't think so.
IIRC, the restricted SI specificly says permanantly restricted to 3 rounds

Any guard (and more importantly Judge) is going to read it as black and white

Meyer

Mellor wrote: »

I don't think so.
IIRC, the restricted SI specificly says permanantly restricted to 3 rounds

Any guard (and more importantly Judge) is going to read it as black and white

Have I a different SI as I can't find "permanently" anywhere on it???

foxhunter

Mellor wrote: »

I don't think so.
IIRC, the restricted SI specificly says permanantly restricted to 3 rounds

Any guard (and more importantly Judge) is going to read it as black and white

All Mossberg pumps that come in to the country are restricted to 3 rounds with a wooden dowel from the factory which can be removed in about 10 sec's.

rrpc

Mellor wrote: »

I don't think so.
IIRC, the restricted SI specificly says permanantly restricted to 3 rounds

Any guard (and more importantly Judge) is going to read it as black and white

Meyer quoted the SI exactly Mellor, stop making up law

At the FCP conference last year, I remember this being discussed as the SI had only been published a couple of months. The dowel approach is perfectly acceptable, but remember that if you're found with a shotgun that has been adapted to carry more than three rounds and you're only licensed for three then it's your own silly fault.

You decide beforehand if you want to be licensed for 3 rounds or more than 3 rounds and you apply accordingly.

Simple

johngalway

For me putting in the dowel is an easy job, I wouldn't be removing it for any reason I can think of to be honest so I'd be safe enough that way.

Next question.

b) shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them
incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges

This I presume means 2 in the magazine +1 in the chamber?

rrpc

johngalway wrote: »

For me putting in the dowel is an easy job, I wouldn't be removing it for any reason I can think of to be honest so I'd be safe enough that way.

Next question.

b) shotguns manufactured, adapted or modified so as to render them
incapable of containing more than 3 cartridges

This I presume means 2 in the magazine +1 in the chamber?

I presume so as well. As in a DB or an O/U will hold a max of two and a semi can hold a max of three.

Hezz700

My Al391 came with two rod,

One restricted the mag capacity to 1 shell(necessary for certain EU states) and the other restricts it to 2 shells.

With neither rod in place capacity is 3+1 which you would have to assume falls into the restricted catagory, and therefore should only be used with a rod inplace or reapplied for under the restricted section.

cavan shooter

The fact that you can remove the rods/plugs by fiddling at the magazine tube implies that there is no such thing as a permanent solution to make them incapable of holding more than 3 shells. As I see it the only way forward like the Benelli is to go for crimping of the tube

rrpc

cavan shooter wrote: »

The fact that you can remove the rods/plugs by fiddling at the magazine tube implies that there is no such thing as a permanent solution to make them incapable of holding more than 3 shells. As I see it the only way forward like the Benelli is to go for crimping of the tube

There's no requirement for it to be a permanent solution. Have a read of the SI again, and not the one that Mellor made up

Sandy22

I'd suggest anyone with a shotgun with a capacity over 3 rounds should apply for the restricted licence. Unlesss you get hit for extra security, the cost is no more.

Get them in the habit of issuing restricted licences - the more they issue the less hassle there will be with each one in future.

cavan shooter

rrpc wrote: »

There's no requirement for it to be a permanent solution. Have a read of the SI again, and not the one that Mellor made up

Ok read it again and would agree. :oIn that case nothing to worry about:D:D

Looked up the word incapable and the following is the best match for the word incapable in this instance: lacking the ability to....