cutting back rifle barrell

Sean Mullen

I'm getting my marlin rifle in .223 threaded for a mod tomorrow. It has a 26" barrell and I would like to shorten it back. I was thinking of getting it cut back to 20". All work is being done by a good gunsmith. Anybody with any opinions on this?

bravestar

I have the barrel on my .223 choped back to 20" from 26". Haven't regretted it for a second.

Comeraghshooter

Sean Mullen wrote: »

I'm getting my marlin rifle in .223 threaded for a mod tomorrow. It has a 26" barrell and I would like to shorten it back. I was thinking of getting it cut back to 20". All work is being done by a good gunsmith. Anybody with any opinions on this?

I did it and I'm happy with the results.

Thread on it here....http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056412347&page=5

CS

Sparks

bravestar wrote: »

I have the barrel on my .223 choped back to 18" from 26".

Which was completely illegal. We've mentioned this, oh, about a hundred times before. Section 12A of the 1990 Act (introduces in the 2006 Act) says:

12A.— (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who shortens the barrel of—
(a) a shot-gun to a length of less than 61 centimetres, or
(b) a rifle to a length of less than 50 centimetres,
is guilty of an offence.

...

(7) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment—
(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or such shorter term as the court may determine, subject to subsections (9) to (11) of this section or, where subsection (13) of this section applies, to that subsection, and
(b) at the court’s discretion, to a fine of such amount as the court considers appropriate.

Licencing a rifle that came from the factory with an 18" barrel is a gray area in that nobody knows if it gets around the offence of possessing a rifle with a barrel that short; but actually shortening one down past the limit is very black and white.

bravestar

Sparks wrote: »

Which was completely illegal. We've mentioned this, oh, about a hundred times before. Section 12A of the 1990 Act (introduces in the 2006 Act) says:


Licencing a rifle that came from the factory with an 18" barrel is a gray area in that nobody knows if it gets around the offence of possessing a rifle with a barrel that short; but actually shortening one down past the limit is very black and white.

My bad, it's actually 20" after measuring.

knockon

bravestar wrote: »

My bad, it's actually 20" after measuring.

Great recovery there:D

garv123

Sparks wrote: »

Which was completely illegal. We've mentioned this, oh, about a hundred times before. Section 12A of the 1990 Act (introduces in the 2006 Act) says:


Licencing a rifle that came from the factory with an 18" barrel is a gray area in that nobody knows if it gets around the offence of possessing a rifle with a barrel that short; but actually shortening one down past the limit is very black and white.

Grey?

It says you cannot shorten not you cannot buy one thats already that short..
pretty black and white.

There's the other section that tells you the overall length the gun has to be over when buying it.

Sparks

garv123 wrote: »

Grey?

The gray area is in this section:

6) It is an offence for a person (except a registered firearms dealer) to possess without lawful authority or reasonable excuse—
(a) a shot-gun the barrel of which is less than 61 centimetres in length,
(b) a rifle the barrel of which is less than 50 centimetres in length,
(c) a converted firearm mentioned in subsection (3), or
(d) a firearm which has been modified as described in subsection (4).

Specifically, the question is whether or not a licence issued for a rifle with a sub-50cm barrel (which it came with as standard as opposed to being fitted after the licence was granted) constitutes the "lawful authority" mentioned in the Act.

And no, it isn't as simple as "I have a licence therefore it's legal" because we've seen licences issued in the past for things that the person issuing the licence couldn't legally issue a licence for. The licences in those cases were null and void and the onus lay with the shooter to avoid the mess in the first place.

Basicly, if the licence does constitute the lawful authority that the Act mentions (and I think it should, but that and a few euro will buy you a cup of coffee), then all is dandy. And if it doesn't, then the licences which have been issued for such rifles are null and void and lots of folks will be left scrambling for cover. And the only way to know is not to talk to the DoJ, the Gardai, any of our many associations, or any lawyer -- none of these can overrule an Act with a quick chat. You need a judicial ruling in a test case. Or a new law, that'd work as well.

(You might get the "erra, it's grand" from your local TD or Garda. That's nice, but it's worthless unless it's your local TD or Garda in the court at your desk putting their career on the line to save your bum, and even then it's not a sure thing. If you do find local TDs or Gardai who'll do that for you and they're not family, please let us know so we can all move to where you live...)