Classic Rifle Ownership?

Crawn

With the new Firearms legislation, how hard would it be to obtain a cert for classic rifles, such as a Lee Enfield or a Mosin-Nagant? Reading through the commissioners guidelines, these rifles fall under the 'Restricted' category. I'm guessing it would be impossible to agrue a hunting use for these type rifles, so its the 'Rifle/Pistol' club route! Would any club/shooting range allow a member to have such rifles???

Grizzly 45

Why ever not for hunting??they are big calibre for deer,and will drop Red no problem.ASFIK you can get hunting ammo loaded for .303 British.TBH a lot of old school German hunters still use the Mauser rifle,or carbine version for hunting,The Swede Mauser in 6.5 is a lovely rifle for both target and deer hunting.You would have best of both worlds.:)

Cass

Crawn wrote: »

............. so its the 'Rifle/Pistol' club route! Would any club/shooting range allow a member to have such rifles???

Try these (www.vcrai.com) for a start, and this user (http://boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=58175 ) for more info on ownership, etc.

rowa

Crawn wrote: »

With the new Firearms legislation, how hard would it be to obtain a cert for classic rifles, such as a Lee Enfield or a Mosin-Nagant? Reading through the commissioners guidelines, these rifles fall under the 'Restricted' category. I'm guessing it would be impossible to agrue a hunting use for these type rifles, so its the 'Rifle/Pistol' club route! Would any club/shooting range allow a member to have such rifles???

are you sure they are restricted ? the lee and mosin are both under .308" in calibre, the german mauser is restricted because its over the calibre limit.

Crawn

rowa wrote: »

are you sure they are restricted ? the lee and mosin are both under .308" in calibre, the german mauser is restricted because its over the calibre limit.

Well the commisioners guidelines can seem vague, it mentions 'assault weapons' or military weapons, which are restricted. You could try and argue that there not, but there orginal purpose were military weapons.

The Lee Enfield uses a '.303 British' calibre, which is actually .311 or 7.7mm
Talking of .308's, would the M1 Garand be non restricted? or are semi-auto guns a big no no??

bunny shooter

.303 is NOT restricted the FPU have deemed that calibres will be what's printed on the barrel not the 'actual' calibre there is a thread about this here somewhere.

This is where the new legislation is a complete and utter load of bollix

Garands are restricted by virtue that they are/can be semi-auto.

rowa

Crawn wrote: »

Well the commisioners guidelines can seem vague, it mentions 'assault weapons' or military weapons, which are restricted. You could try and argue that there not, but there orginal purpose were military weapons.

The Lee Enfield uses a '.303 British' calibre, which is actually .311 or 7.7mm
Talking of .308's, would the M1 Garand be non restricted? or are semi-auto guns a big no no??

yeah but these rifles can hardly be called "assault rifles" and the correct term i believe is "battle rifles", assault rifle suggests to me an m16/ar15 or ak47 type rifle , small , semi or full auto , foldable or collapseable stock etc , the old lee's and mosins have barrels the length of the week and are much more akin to modern hunting rifles.

Grizzly 45

Once more...The defination of an Assault rifle must have select fire capability,and be of an intermediate calibre.IE 7.62x39 or 5.56 NATO.
308 is a full calibre,having folding stocks detachable mags bayonet holders ,flash hiders etc,does not an assault rifle make.
Otherwise rifles like the Garand,SKS,M1Springfield M1 carbine would be classsified as such.Actually they are legally defined as Battle rifles.

Hezz700

Crawn wrote: »

Talking of .308's, would the M1 Garand be non restricted? or are semi-auto guns a big no no??

M1 Garands are chambered in 30-06

Crawn

Hezz700 wrote: »

M1 Garands are chambered in 30-06

True, but also chambered in .308 Winchester, probably easier to get than in 30-06.

Cass

Crawn wrote: »

...........You could try and argue that they're not, but there orginal purpose were military weapons.

To butt in here a little.

Every firearm... ever... can trace its origins/roots back to military purposes right down to archery.

The fact that some firearms no longer look like their original design and some do holds no arguement for me. Its the purpose they are being used for now that is relevant, not what their creators had in mind during their inception. Thats not to say it won't be argued by some but for me the debate holds no water.


My 2 cents worth.

rowa

i'd love an m1 garand , i love the looks of it and the way the metal stripper clip rings after being spat out of the open bolt.
if i thought for one second i'd get the licence for one i'd apply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvMcSnOMxkk

but these fellas have no problems buying rifles :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9S9gDcTPuU

Crawn

ezridax wrote: »

To butt in here a little.

Every firearm... ever... can trace its origins/roots back to military purposes right down to archery.

The fact that some firearms no longer look like their original design and some do holds no arguement for me. Its the purpose they are being used for now that is relevant, not what their creators had in mind during their inception. Thats not to say it won't be argued by some but for me the debate holds no water.


My 2 cents worth.

I totally agree with you. But the powers that be, its seems their view isn't clear and it is open to a lot of interpretation!

Grizzly 45

Duffys in Galway have them in .308[garands] for sale at INMHO silly money.Unless they are virgin,never fired,still in their grease wrapper??

When you think that in te USA,Uncle Sam will STILL sell you one from the director of Civillian Marksmanship office for appx 100USD,for an average one and 140USD for a selected match grade..Even in the times of the gun banning presidencies of Obama and Clinton you could still get them.:eek:

ivanthehunter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Once more...The defination of an Assault rifle must have select fire capability,and be of an intermediate calibre.IE 7.62x39 or 5.56 NATO.
308 is a full calibre,having folding stocks detachable mags bayonet holders ,flash hiders etc,does not an assault rifle make.
Otherwise rifles like the Garand,SKS,M1Springfield M1 carbine would be classsified as such.Actually they are legally defined as Battle rifles.

I'd love to know where this hales from?

Regards Itbh

Sparks

It hales from real life Ivan, where the term "assault rifle" was invented towards the end of the second world war to describe a new kind of firearm that fired intermediate rounds (ie. larger than pistol rounds but smaller than rifle rounds) and which were designed for shorter ranges (ie. out to about 400m or so) and which could fire single shots or fully automatically. Those firearms were completely different from anything that had come before and were designed for a completely new kind of warfare, so they invented a new term for them.

Sadly, the name sounds "cool" to newspaper editors and hollywood, so it's been dragged off to apply to dozens of things it shouldn't apply to.

Hezz700

Common lore has it that a certain Mr A Hitler coined the the phrase after being shown the STG 44. Truth or fiction i couldn't say, but thats the general belief.

P.S i am aware that this post smacks of Godwins law and in that respect do apologise.

Hezz700

Crawn wrote: »

True, but also chambered in .308 Winchester, probably easier to get than in 30-06.

Thats a new one to me i must say...

To my Knowledge the U.S only changed over to 7.62X51 in 1957 when the M1 was replaced by the M14
Six Million M1's were produced between 1935 and 57 and all were originally chambered in 30-06.
Any M1 chambered in.308 has been rebarreled and also extensively reworked in order to address the feed issue which would be encountered by the .308's shorter COL.

Therefore it would cease to be an original M1.

Just my opinion, Classic rifles should be kept in their purest form.

ivanthehunter

interesting stuff!

TMC121

The Italian makers Beretta and Breda manufactured the M1 Garand chambered for the NATO 7.62 x 51 cartridge.

Most of the ones I have fired where Italian 7.62mm.
The 30-06 ones have a fair thump of them

They where designed to cycle any 30-06 mil ammo, clear the chamber and reload a fresh round no matter what.
This caused problems with the op rods bending and breaking at the tip. Services kits where required.
A great Battle rifle all the same

TMC121

Owning a classic rifle has the same criteria as any firearm
You need to have good reason
The commissioners guidelines allows for classic antique firearms to be licensed.
This does include "restricted" calibers.
I know of a .45 -70 "Creedmoor" rifle licensed

Grizzly 45

Hezz700 wrote: »

Common lore has it that a certain Mr A Hitler coined the the phrase after being shown the STG 44. Truth or fiction i couldn't say, but thats the general belief.

P.S i am aware that this post smacks of Godwins law and in that respect do apologise.

Close ,but not quite..The German term Sturm Gewher[lit trans "Storm rifle"] was not one of Adolfs favourite ideas.He actually didnt want the programme to go forward,as he belived theMausers and Schmeissers plenty for winning the war,not to mind that it isnt a good idea to change your armament for which you have millions of rounds for a new calibre in the middle of a war..
Hence the actual terminology for the first Sturmgewehr was actually Maschinpistole[machine pistol 44]Which is wrong in itself as it first appeared in 1943.And that was just camoflage by the wehrmacht and SS,more the SS to get it injto production behind Hitlers back.

Crawn

Hezz700 wrote: »

Thats a new one to me i must say...

To my Knowledge the U.S only changed over to 7.62X51 in 1957 when the M1 was replaced by the M14
Six Million M1's were produced between 1935 and 57 and all were originally chambered in 30-06.
Any M1 chambered in.308 has been rebarreled and also extensively reworked in order to address the feed issue which would be encountered by the .308's shorter COL.

Therefore it would cease to be an original M1.

Just my opinion, Classic rifles should be kept in their purest form.

Wouldn't we all love a purest form of a classic rifle! An M1 Garand chambered in 30-06 and manufacterd in the Springfield Armory would be the business!!!

It wasn't me!

Crawn wrote: »

Wouldn't we all love a purest form of a classic rifle! An M1 Garand chambered in 30-06 and manufacterd in the Springfield Armory would be the business!!!

For my money, it'd be a Springfield 1903 in good nick, an SMLE No.1 Mk. III or any of the Swedish Mausers, possibly a K98K (which, funnily enough, due to a better stock, is far nicer to shoot than its full-size big brother, which is a pig of a thing with a horribly low comb - knocks the shíte out of cheekbones every time you pull the trigger).

TMC121

For my money, it'd be a Springfield 1903 in good nick, an SMLE No.1 Mk. III or any of the Swedish Mausers, possibly a K98K

I would agree with you on those but include a Swiss K31

It wasn't me!

TMC121 wrote: »

I would agree with you on those but include a Swiss K31

I like it a lot, and as a rifle it's probably pushing for top spot, but as a *classic* rifle, I'd take one of the turn-bolts.

Grizzly 45

Crawn wrote: »

Wouldn't we all love a purest form of a classic rifle! An M1 Garand chambered in 30-06 and manufacterd in the Springfield Armory would be the business!!!

If you got one made by Wurlitzer[who made Dukeboxes] or Union switch& signal.You would indeed be made for life.They are apprently the rarest of the M1 Garands.
Walther K43 for me please,or a Garand or the Swedish Lungjmann in 6.5 Swede.All the good workmanship of the Swede mauser,without the door bolt;)

chem

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

If you got one made by Wurlitzer[who made Dukeboxes] QUOTE]

Was it not rockola?

Grizzly 45

You are right Chem.:o:o:o It was Rockola.