browning buckmark .22 rifle

devil dog

Hi all

A friend of mine is thinking of buying a browning buckmark,sporter or target:rolleyes:

He is wondering what there like:)

Where would he pick one and what cost would they be

Thanks;)

Bananaman

Have only ever shot the sporter model - target barrell a lot heavier

good for field or target work - I know people who shoot benchrest and gallery rifle competitions with them - Although it is more suited to Gallery Rifle - also know lads who use em for bunny bashing

reliable, accurate, eats anything, great to shoot

only downside, if any is to completely disassemble it for cleaning you must remove the top rail

not sure where you can get one - I know a good few who got them through Pat Cooke@Hilltop - you could try him

dunno what they cost but prob 700-800

B'Man

devil dog

Thanks Bananaman man:D

Will pass on the info;)

Sparks

Only downside is that they need a restricted licence because of the bullpup design.

Bananaman

Sparks,

Have you ever applied for one?
A License for a Browning Buckmark Rifle that is?

Should try it some time before alluding to how it will work out.

B'Man

Tackleberrywho

Ladies handbags @ 50 paces

I knew a fella who has/had a .243 Bolt Bullpub for donkies.

I have not seen him in a while to ask does he still have it. He also shoots .270 if anyone knows him (he does a bit of range work, Dublin chap AFAIK)

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Sparks,
Have you ever applied for one?
A License for a Browning Buckmark Rifle that is?
Should try it some time before alluding to how it will work out.
B'Man

BMan, it's pretty clear here - the magazine is behind the trigger. That's beyond dispute for any rational person. And that makes it a bullpup configuration since it's classed as a rifle. And a bullpup configuration in a rifle automatically puts it into the restricted category.

None of this is a matter of someone's opinion, it's one of the very few cases in the firearms acts where something is right there in black and white (4(2)(c) in the original restricted firearm SI, along with its corresponding definition of "bullpup rifle"). Even if your local super issues you an unrestricted licence for it, it doesn't mean that it's not restricted; it just means that your local super messed up and issued a document he had no right to issue, and that document will be legally null and void and you'll be in possession of an unlicenced restricted firearm, with all the extra penalties that the restricted status carries.

I no more need to buy one to know it's restricted than I would need to punch someone in the nose to know that that would be assault. And making out that someone can just go buy one and it'll be very easy to licence is irresponsible at best and you shouldn't be doing it on here. Devil dog needs to let his friend know that carbine conversions of pistols like the buckmark rifle (or the neos carbine or any other carbine conversion where the magazine's behind the trigger) are restricted and a restricted licence is required, as is the higher security level (in this case, level three security if it's his first firearm; meaning gunsafe, house alarm and up-to-snuff locks on the house's outside doors).

And I do get the irony - if this was bought as a smallbore pistol (exactly the same firearm, sans stock), it would be unrestricted; and no, I don't know why bullpup rifles get this treatment when there's already limits on minimum length for all firearms; but this is the law that's in place right now, and I'd rather we bitched about how daft it is in spots than pretend those spots didn't exist and let someone walk face-first into them without any warning.

bunny shooter

Just in case anyone is interested in one there is/was one for sale in Casale 2000 Ltd, Cashel, Co.Tipp (062) 63106, they're closed Mondays BTW

Bananaman

Sparks,

No need to get your panties in a bunch.

We can all read - we have all read the legislation - we all know they made a bollix of it - again.

Magazine behind the trigger is NOT the definition of a bullpup - the "action" behind the trigger- more specifically - "in the stock" - hence making it much shorter as the barrel begins in the stock IS. That would obviously lead to the magazine being behind the trigger (more likely behind your ear) in order to get the rounds to that end of the barrel.

If our legislators had simply sought a modicum of consultation - from people who would know - or god forbid - googled it - they could have got it right - can't have that though.

Many rifles have the magazine behind the trigger - most stock loaded tube mags have magazines behind the trigger - they are no more a bullpup design than the buckmark is.

It's all a bit academic anyway - it's only a restricted license - I have one - I know people who have a dozen - no big deal - definitly nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

From the OPs perspective - if he wants to seek a restricted license -he will need an alarm and a safe - but to be honest he probably was planning that anyway - so hardly a downside to seeking a buckmark - now is it ?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

We can all read - we have all read the legislation

It's fairly evident that you haven't from this:

Magazine behind the trigger is NOT the definition of a bullpup - the "action" behind the trigger- more specifically - "in the stock" - hence making it much shorter as the barrel begins in the stock IS.

The definition of bullpup in Irish law is all that matters here. And the definition, as laid out in the SI as I mention above, is:

“bullpup rifles” means rifles with a magazine located behind the trigger;

Now you can look at that any way you want, but the result is always the same: the buckmark rifle is restricted.

If our legislators had simply sought a modicum of consultation - from people who would know - or god forbid - googled it - they could have got it right - can't have that though.

They did seek it. The problem is that our representatives (not the same group of people) and various other special interests who also gave their input, were not on our side.

It's all a bit academic anyway - it's only a restricted license - I have one - I know people who have a dozen - no big deal - definitly nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

Sure. Until someone points out that you don't have a restricted licence for a restricted firearm, which means you're in possession of an unlicenced restricted firearm, the penalties for which offence are rather severe.
It's all academic to you, certainly - but that's because it's not you that'll be standing in front of a judge.

The OP needs to know that he needs a restricted licence, for several reasons - not least of which is that he is the one responsible for applying for the right kind of licence, not the Gardai. It's very irresponsible to suggest otherwise - so with mod hat on and looking at the charter (specifically the bit that says Advocating, condoning or soliciting information about breaking the law is prohibited); stop doing that please.

Bananaman

I never suggested that anyone break the law

I said the law is broken

you, as a mid are meant to be objective - you have a bad habit - as a mod - of trying to put words in peoples mouths - of trying to always have the last word - of trying to be an expert in all things

it is bad manners, destructive and frankly - extremely annoying

so with no hat on - and with the greatest of forbearance and civility - please stop it

B'Man

Sparks

B'man, whether or not you're annoyed is frankly not important.
The important thing is that the OP doesn't come to boards.ie and get told "erra, you're grand", go off and get himself into trouble from bad advice.
He needs to know that he needs a restricted licence, what he has to do to get it and how to go about it if he wants to use a buckmark over something else.
He should be told that there are alternatives that are cheaper, simpler to get and just as useful.
If that's not what you want to do, fine; but don't paper over a crack and then complain when someone shows up with polyfilla.


To the OP:

You might want to recommend a few alternatives to your friend, as unless he already has a restricted licence setup and doesn't mind the extra fun and games of getting a restricted licence, there are better possible choices out there. Anschutz make a decent semi-auto; baikal and walther make fun-looking semi-autos (and while the G22 hasn't the best performance and is also restricted as it's a bullpup, the baikal seems to be earning a solid reputation where folks have gotten one); and there are others (even the 10/22 which personally I think is almost never worth the money).

poulo6.5

bunny shooter wrote: »

Just in case anyone is interested in one there is/was one for sale in Casale 2000 Ltd, Cashel, Co.Tipp (062) 63106, they're closed Mondays BTW

i had a look at that one a while ago, its different to say the least.

Tackleberrywho

devil dog wrote: »

Hi all

A friend of mine is thinking of buying a browning buckmark,sporter or target:rolleyes:

He is wondering what there like:)

Where would he pick one and what cost would they be

Thanks;)

A beautiful specimen.
If the super said OK, I'd consider one myself for Gallery rifle.
"There was no Gallery Rifle in my day":D

rrpc

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

A beautiful specimen.
If the Chief super said OK, I'd consider one myself for Gallery rifle.
"There was no Gallery Rifle in my day":D

Just a small but important correction there Tack.

Tackleberrywho

rrpc wrote: »

Just a small but important correction there Tack.

Touché

Lovely rifle, I'd prefer one over a 10/22 TBH.
Something very quirkie about them that makes them cool

rrpc

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Touché

Lovely rifle, I'd prefer one over a 10/22 TBH.
Something very quirkie about them that makes them cool

I have found them to be very accurate in comparison to the competition. The only drawback is a pretty horrible trigger which has a gritty feel and a let off point that's as predictable as next week's lotto numbers.

Tackleberrywho

rrpc wrote: »

I have found them to be very accurate in comparison to the competition. The only drawback is a pretty horrible trigger which has a gritty feel and a let off point that's as predictable as next week's lotto numbers.

If a Jewell could be fitted it would be a sweet rifle, almost make me write "Dear Santa"

See post 52,
http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174356&page=4
Now I am not condoning this procedure, but this guy seems to have worked a fix for standard trigger

Traumadoc

Are owners of stock fed tube magazine rifles required to apply for a restricted license? - it is not clear on the application forms.

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Something very quirkie about them that makes them cool

If it's quirky and cool you want...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPC8ORveTd0

Traumadoc wrote: »

Are owners of stock fed tube magazine rifles required to apply for a restricted license? - it is not clear on the application forms.

Doesn't matter where you feed the tube from, if the tube itself is in front of the trigger, it's not a bullpup design. You might still need to apply for a restricted licence for other reasons - but they're not set out in the application form, they're set out in the Restricted List SI's.

Basicly, unless the rifle is covered by the following description, you need a restricted licence (and it's your responsibility to apply for the correct licence):

(c) the following long firearms (not being assault rifles or bullpup rifles):

(i) single-shot or repeating rifled centre-fire firearms of a calibre not exceeding 7.62 millimetres (.308 inch) and whose overall length is greater than 90 centimetres,
(ii) single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds,
(iii) air-operated rifled or smoothbore firearms;

And in that description, the following definitions apply (rather than the normal ones we would use day-to-day:

“assault rifles” means—

(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

“bullpup rifles” means rifles with a magazine located behind the trigger;

“long firearms” means firearms other than short firearms;

“repeating firearms” means firearms that are loaded and reloaded from a magazine or cylinder by a manually-operated mechanism;

“rim-fire firearms” means firearms using rim-fire percussion ammunition;

“rim-fire percussion ammunition” means ammunition with a cartridge case not containing a percussion cap;

“semi-automatic firearms” means firearms that reload automatically from a magazine or cylinder each time a round is discharged but can fire not more than one round with a single pull on the trigger;

“single-shot firearms” means firearms that are loaded before each shot either manually or by a manually-operated mechanism;

Traumadoc

A bit off topic but according to this
Assault rifles are rifles that fire semi-automatic and as automatic rifles.

Are semi-automatic fullbore rilfes therefore not restricted unless they are capable of automatic fire?

Sparks

Correct.
Unless they look like rifles that can function in semi-auto and fully-auto modes.
And yes, it is a monumentally boneheaded and useless definition, but we're stuck with it for now.
That said, there are several licenced semi-auto fullbores in the country right now.

firefly08

Unless they look like rifles that can function in semi-auto and fully-auto modes.

Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a semi auto that doesn't resemble a full auto. After all, the only differences are internal. Admittedly I haven't seen every semi auto that's out there, but by the above criteria, it would have to look quite unconventional to qualify as unrestricted.

Grizzly 45

Without stirring the sh%%te further RE the Buckmark.But has anyone actually asked the PTB.IE The Garda firearms policy unit,or whatever its correct title is..Does this rifle actually fall under the restricted category??After all thats what they are there for??;):)

Firefly .
There are simply loads of semis out there that do not look like or ever were,or had a SELECT FIRE capability[That is the true defination of an "assault rifle".Along with it firing an intermediate power cartridge EG a 7.62X39,30 cal range of shells,along with a detachable box magazine ] That is the UNIVERSAL defination of a assault rifle, in any court of the world
The oldest would be the ww2 US issued M1 30 cal carbine,newest would be some made by Merkel in Germany,Via the Remington Woodsmaster seris or the Browning BAR seris[not to be confused with the Browning US issued BAR ww2 automatic rifle] Or the Ruger mini 14 or the HK hunting rifles in the SL seris. All civillian rifles based on military battle rifle actions.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

After all thats what they are there for?

Actually, no, it's not. The law is the law - we've been asking for decades for the Gardai to just apply it, not make it up as they go, because they have no right to overrule the Oireachtas - we've even taken Supreme Court cases over that point in the past.

Seems a bit silly after all that to turn around and ask them to make up a law that contradicts what's there in black and white just 'cos we don't like it...

That is the UNIVERSAL defination of a assault rifle, in any court of the world

Well, except in Irish courts. And American courts. And English courts. And... well, actually in most western courts, because they deal in law, rather than technical definitions. Some of the laws are closer to the technical definitions than others, but in general, it's almost always daftly defined at one level or another. Pretending otherwise would be wrong - but so would pretending that the technical definition was the law.
One has validity in the real world and one has validity in the courts. It was ever thus

The oldest would be the ww2 US issued M1 30 cal carbine

*cough*German-developed Stg44 since the M1 wasn't select fire (that was the later M2) and it was much shorter range than an assault rifle*cough*
Sometimes even the technical definition isn't clear-cut

firefly08

The oldest would be the ww2 US issued M1 30 cal carbine,newest would be some made by Merkel in Germany,Via the Remington Woodsmaster seris or the Browning BAR seris[not to be confused with the Browning US issued BAR ww2 automatic rifle] Or the Ruger mini 14 or the HK hunting rifles in the SL seris. All civillian rifles based on military battle rifle actions.

The thing is, the M1 carbine, M1 Garand, M1A and Mini-14 all look a lot like the M-14 to me, and I'm into guns. Imagine how similar they'd look to the average Garda or judge.

The Browning and Winchester you mentioned look...less like that (to me and you) but my point is, an M-14 looks very conventional, and the average non-gun owning person could easily find that almost any conventional rifle resembles it (it's an objective term in any case, leaving it open to interpretation)

That is the UNIVERSAL defination, in any court of the world

What goes on in other courts in the world isn't relevant. Neither is popular opinion, the opinion of the Guards, the well informed opinion of gun enthusiasts like yourself, dictionaries, encyclopaedias, or even sheer common sense - at least, not when there's a clear definition written in the law. Sad but that's the way it is.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Sparks;68925295]Actually, no, it's not. The law is the law - we've been asking for decades for the Gardai to just apply it, not make it up as they go, because they have no right to overrule the Oireachtas - we've even taken Supreme Court cases over that point in the past.

True,but we are asking them to DEFINE wether this particular gun goes into a restricted or unrestricted category..After all they are the "experts" who are supposed to know this and be able to advice us ignoramouses out here:rolleyes:.Not to make up the law,but to tell us how we must interpert it.After all they are suposed to know this as firearms experts,if they cant define this correctly,why are they there then,and what is their function then??Apart from costing us taxpayers money??

Seems a bit silly after all that to turn around and ask them to make up a law that contradicts what's there in black and white just 'cos we don't like it...

Not asking them to make up anything!!Simply in their expert opinion as the dept that handles firearms matters to give an opinion/ruling/whatever..
Is this type of firearm,to wit a Browning Buckmark Carbine in cal .22 LR because of its configuration [a] restricted because it is a bullpup due to it having the mag behind the trigger,in the mag well or a carbine based on a pistol action?
Should be pretty simple to issue a statement on that matter quoting the law and reasons why???

Well, except in Irish courts. And American courts. And English courts. And... well, actually in most western courts, because they deal in law, rather than technical definitions. Some of the laws are closer to the technical definitions than others, but in general, it's almost always daftly defined at one level or another. Pretending otherwise would be wrong - but so would pretending that the technical definition was the law.
One has validity in the real world and one has validity in the courts. It was ever thus

Courts DO have to be able to define,and need to be able to define an object to prove or disprove a point of law.. and have done so in Ireland,and the rest of the Western world what a certain item is in technical definitions.There is an international accepted definition of an assault rifle,or other firearm type,taken from an accepted international reference book,which has been used and accepted in Irish courts..Its called "JANES infantry weapons".;) Janes publications are internationally accepted as reference books by courts of the World.So,as usual Ireland when it suits the PTB want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds,is what you are saying??But then again Ireland and its Govtmental society generally doesnt inhabit most of the time the real world anyway!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

*cough*German-developed Stg44 since the M1 wasn't select fire (that was the later M2) and it was much shorter range than an assault rifle*cough*
Sometimes even the technical definition isn't clear-cut [/QUOTE

I'm talking about semi rifles that LOOK civillian Sparks! And yes the STG 43/MP44 is the genisis of all the assault rifles,but you would have a job claiming it isnt an assault rifle here.
Where as the M1 or the many "civillian" copies of it might pas muster on being unrestricted.As would the other above mentioned.
Shorter range ..questionable..More like knockdown power..The 30cal carbine was a notorious non man stopper.The 7.63 Kurtz was certainly a man stopper,most of the times.

Actually it is VERY clear cut as to the differnce is between a battle rifle and an assault rifle and a machine carbine[to be pendantically correct] is.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

True,but we are asking them to DEFINE wether this particular gun goes into a restricted or unrestricted category...Not to make up the law,but to tell us how we must interpert it.

You want them to define or interpret whether the magazine is in front of the trigger or behind it? Feck's sake Grizzly, that's taking the ****, to put it bluntly. The thing's restricted. It shouldn't be in a perfect world, but that's life.

if they cant define this correctly,why are they there then,and what is their function then??Apart from costing us taxpayers money?

I dunno, arresting criminals? I'd rather see them on the streets catching drug dealers or even just driving around making other drivers suddenly remember the rules of the road, than being paid to sit behind a desk identifying where the trigger is and whether or not the magazine is in front of it! :pac:

There is an international accepted definition of an assault rifle,or other firearm type,taken from an accepted international reference book,which has been used and accepted in Irish courts..Its called "JANES infantry weapons".;) Janes publications are internationally accepted as reference books by courts of the World.So,as usual Ireland when it suits the PTB want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds,is what you are saying?

No, I'm saying exactly what I've said above. "Assault rifle", and many other terms for which we have our own technical definitions, have different definitions in law. And those definitions are the ones the courts are bound by our legal system to use.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Sparks;68927655]You want them to define or interpret whether the magazine is in front of the trigger or behind it? Feck's sake Grizzly, that's taking the ****, to put it bluntly. The thing's restricted. It shouldn't be in a perfect world, but that's life.

Yes it is..But whats it to them??They are paid by you and me to interpert ,classify and answer many questions including stupid ones. And until somone in authorithy says it is or it isnt restricted ,we can argue the toss forever here.Cant see what your problem is to get this sorted by a body that is there supposedly to help us???

I dunno, arresting criminals? I'd rather see them on the streets catching drug dealers or even just driving around making other drivers suddenly remember the rules of the road, than being paid to sit behind a desk identifying where the trigger is and whether or not the magazine is in front of it! :pac:

To be pendantic yet again...I am talking about the firearms policy unit
Which is supposed to deal with firearms,and all matters related...which includes advice,definitions and such..Not chase criminals about the place.
Fexk sake! Thats WHY we have so much backlogs and delys,the FAO are seconded off to do other duties all the time.I'd rather have them at their desks sorting out Firearms related matters.Or better still the dept being run by competant ,knowledgeable civvies,and the Gardai out on the street too.But thats Ireland for you!
You see Sparks,that is what it is there for,we pay for it,and if it has to answer stupid questions,it is obliged to do so..So even IF it looks like a given to you and me..It still is speculation on everyones part.Until a Govt body or a judicary says it is a bullpup,or not.Hasty law is bad law...And if there is vageriecies in it,it is up to the law MAKERS not the obeyrs to decide the correct interpertation..So I stand by my assertation get onto the FPU and get a written clarification and put the matter to bed once and for all.

No, I'm saying exactly what I've said above. "Assault rifle", and many other terms for which we have our own technical definitions, have different definitions in law. And those definitions are the ones the courts are bound by our legal system to use.

[/QUOTE]

So please show me in the FA of Ireland where there is a technical and correct definition of [a] an assault rifle a silencer[c] sound modifier [d] a suppressor???They mention them but do not DEFINE them.Which leaves it open again to the vagracies of interpertation.Amazing that we can define [when it suits obviously] things like night vision scopes,butterfly knives,switch blades, ninja martial arts equipment ,samuari swords,etc but when it comes to somthing more important like a firearm,it goes very vauge.IOW I could argue that your match air rifle could be classified as an assault rifle,because of its "looks" under your definition.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yes it is..But whats it to them??They are paid by you and me to interpert ,classify and answer many questions including stupid ones. And until somone in authorithy says it is or it isnt restricted ,we can argue the toss forever here.Cant see what your problem is to get this sorted by a body that is there supposedly to help us?

My problem is very simple. If you go to the AGS firearms policy unit and ask if the buckmark is restricted, you're not going to the correct people, you're wasting time they should be spending on more important things (like working on getting supers to be more consistent), and if they get it wrong and you get the wrong kind of licence, then you're the one in the cell not them when you get arrested for possession of an unlicenced firearm.

Which is supposed to deal with firearms,and all matters related...which includes advice,definitions and such.

Yes, that's their job - for Garda Superintendents. Not the public. The FPU is meant to be the mechanism by which consistency of application of the Acts by the Superintendents is ensured (yes, it doesn't work well, but I don't see how wasting their time with queries about things that are laid out in black and white already is going to help).

It still is speculation on everyones part.

Bull.
It's not speculation. The magazine is behind the trigger. The definition of bullpup in Irish law is that the magazine is behind the trigger.

FFS Grizzly, if you'd argue that toss, then a shotgun isn't a shotgun until a judge rules it is, and you need a court ruling for all 200,000-odd firearms licence applications. At some point you have to stop asking and get on with it, and we're way past that point here.

So please show me in the FA of Ireland where there is a technical and correct definition

Nowhere. I told you, it's an ass-backward definition, not a technical and correct one. However, it's still the legal definition. Like it or lump it, that's how it is. And I pointed our the definitions you wanted up above, they're scattered between secondary legislation and primary legislation (and don't go saying that if it's in an SI it doesn't count, the only gray area there is if you have conflicting definitions in the SI and the Act for the same term)

Seriously Grizzly, getting into this kind of pointless argument is not only a waste of time, it makes us look like time-wasting idiots at the table. There's a line between ensuring you have well-defined terms and just taking the mickey, and we're well past that line here.

IOW I could argue that your match air rifle could be classified as an assault rifle,because of its "looks" under your definition.

Yes, you could. That's why it's a bad definition. But the fact that it's a bad definition doesn't mean it's not the definition. It's what we have to work within. And saying my air rifle looks like an assault rifle is something you could go to court to get a judicial decision on, because "looks like" is a subjective judgement call and those can be questioned.

"Is the magazine behind the trigger?" is not a subjective judgement call, it's an objective measurement.

jimmy5694

Sparks wrote: »

Only downside is that they need a restricted licence because of the bullpup design.

Hi, if you dont mind me asking what is the difference between the restricted license and the ordinary license, because im 16 and im thinking about buying my first rifle and i was just wondering if i get this rifle would the gaurds allow me to get a license for it because of its pistol and pistol grip design?

Sparks

In practical terms, the major difference is that you apply to your chief super instead of your super, and you specify on the application form that you want a restricted firearm. You'll have to meet a higher security standard; but that standard is that you have a gunsafe, and you'd have that anyways. Aside from that, there's not much any target shooter is going to run into; the rest of the restricted list's impact is only on sentencing for when someone breaks the Firearms Act with a restricted firearm (they're meant to get a heavier sentence for breacking the Act with a restricted firearm than they would if they used an unrestricted firearm).

As to whether you'd get the licence, you meet the legal requirements for age; so it's down to the other details of your application (what purpose, what range you'll be shooting in, that sort of thing) and your Chief Superintendent's decision.

Bananaman

And depending where you live so they know it is a mistake that it is 'restricted' and is no different to any other standard .22 semi so will not treat it any differently - bar checking you have a safe

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

they know it is a mistake that it is 'restricted'

Don't bring this up again B'man. Whether or not bullpup rifles should be restricted is a seperate debate (and in my opinion, a short one ending in the word "no"), but the legal fact is that they are; and that the buckmark is legally restricted. And this constant faffing about of yours saying "erra, sure it's not really" has the potential to drop someone in a lot of hot water - and it won't be you who'll be charged with possession of an unlicenced restricted firearm if that happens, so kindly re-read the charter, note the part that says:

Advocating, condoning or soliciting information about breaking the law is prohibited;

and give it a rest with the whole "erra, sure it's not really" line until such time as we have an opportunity to amend the restricted list to fix the problem.

dCorbus

because im 16 and im thinking about buying my first rifle and i was just wondering if i get this rifle would the gaurds allow me to get a license for it because of its pistol and pistol grip design?

First off, which rifle are you thinking of getting?

would the gaurds allow me to get a license for it because of its pistol and pistol grip design?[/

Secondly, if it is a rifle (rimfire or centrefire, fullbore or smallbore, semi-auto or bolt-action, makes no difference) - the fact that it has a pistol-grip is entirely irrelevant to whether it is restricted or non-restricted (The pistol-grip restriction only applies to shotguns)

sparks, you're losing your touch, buddy!:D:rolleyes:

Sparks

dCorbus wrote: »

sparks, you're losing your touch, buddy!:D:rolleyes:

Just tired dC Besides, I think in this case, it'd be more the appearance of the pistol grip that you'd worry about with your local Super as it's not what most of them would think of when they think of the word 'rifle'. But since it's restricted, it goes up the chain, and the CSs, despite one or two being opposed to firearms ownership in general, are somewhat better briefed than the supers. Rank hath its privileges and all that.

dCorbus

jimmy5694, the poster above, didn't make any mention of the buckmark rifle one way or the other - we've gone so far away from that and there has been so many other rifles mentioned in this thread, that may not be the rifle he is refering to.

***

Hold on a wee second there, my good man......

If it's not the Buckmark rifle which he's referring to.......

You must be very tired....

Have a re-read of what you've just posted and edit accordingly (that's a front-seat modding suggestion BTW);)

it'd be more the appearance of the pistol grip that you'd worry about with your local Super as it's not what most of them would think of when they think of the word 'rifle'.

Ahem, cough, cough.....

I've two words for you to think about before you do any editing about references to "pistol grips":

















bleiker, anschutz

Bananaman

I never said it was restricted or was not - I said it was a mistake

I never suggested that you would be issued a non-restricted license - a restricted license is no big deal - makes no difference to the licensee

what I said is that any ChSup that knows what they are talking about knows that a Buckmark should not be restricted and hence will not be all squeaky bummed about it when dealing with an application as they would if you came looking for a real restricted rifle at 16

But it will depend on whether your ChSup is well informed or not

B'Man

Sparks

dCorbus wrote: »

jimmy5694, the poster above, didn't make any mention of the buckmark rifle one way or the other

He said "if I get this rifle" in a thread about the buckmark, bringing it back up after more than a month. I made an assumption that he used the search function to find the thread and so was interested in a buckmark...

dCorbus

Fair point. Accepted.:D

Maybe the young chap could clarify this just in case, so we're all not talking/posting at cross-purposes?

If it is the Buckmark rifle he is thinking of getting, any particular reason?
TBH It seems like an exotic, hard-to-come-by, and kinda expensive choice for a first-time rifle, best suited to GR, but a bit OTT for bunnybashing and pretty much not the "right shape" for BR.

(But, hold fire, lads: that's just my very humble and ill-informed opinion - I happen to actually really like the Buckmark in all it's forms).

It wasn't me!

To be honest, if I could have one (Restricted bullpup semi-auto lethal mad dangerous yoke for bunny bashing seems a little hard to explain :rolleyes:) I'd love one for rabbits. Fast to point, good trigger, good stock length for me, accurate, yep, definitely a great little bunny rifle, especially for the sort of hedge-walking fast shooting bunny hunting I like.

dCorbus

Wouldn't mind one in the Christmas Stocking myself.
But they do seem to be like hen's teeth and not a cheap option either.

A lovely lovely bit of sporting equipment - If I did have one, the GR lads would have to put up with my company too!

But, as I said, seems a bit exotic for a first-rifle. That said, to each their own, and I'm all for any lad getting whatever he wants/likes/takes a fancy to - I'm just not sure if the chap realises what it is he's hoping to buy? That's all.

(I know that sounds like a very condescending remark if taken the wrong way - so I apologise in advance if any offence is taken - none however is intended - I'm just curious about the choice of firearm).