Licencing a historical firearmost. Is there any difference to a regular firearm

Zxthinger

OK so was thinking of getting something bigger I have seen a few ww1 and ww1 bolt actions that interest me all of which are in 303 British.

In terms of licencing of any historic firearm is there any dispensation give to the "must have good reason"
Would it be sufficient to tell the truth that I want it because of historical value____ and yes I want to put it to good use thus shoot it ( in other words hunt with it as I'm not in a club yet but I don't want to be bound to any club either) nor do I want to register it as a deer hunting rifle.

Any thoughts

aaakev

The truth is you want it for hunting. There are plenty of comps and shoots run for these types of guns too that i dont think you need to be a member of a club to shoot in.

Not sure on how available hunting ammo woukd be for a .303 though although a previous member here did use his for fox shooting sometimes

gunny123

To the guards, its a gun, end of. So to licence it you either need a deer hunting licence or be a member of a club. The fact it is historical, cuts no ice.

Zxthinger

So what about the portions of the firearms act that refer to antique firearms but fall to stipulate what defines an antique.
Is it an age or if I remember correctly they didn't even place a cavet on ammo being of a unified cartridge construction..?

Is there no allowance to simply invest in a firearms if not solely for profit.

Don't forget that no one is asking to do anything illegal here. As far as I remember antique firearms required no licence unless the owner actually wish to fire them.
The ASS law of the land has banned us form shooting a few cans in a ditch so without joining a club I need to say that I intend to give the old girl a spin out hunting.

gunny123

Antiques are muzzle loaders, if the gun is designed to be used with cartridges, even if they are long obsolete and are unobtainable, it needs a licence.

tac foley

PPU make soft-point 174gr .303 British ammunition, for those who want to shoot game. Very good it is, too.

Grizzly 45

Zxthinger wrote: »

So what about the portions of the firearms act that refer to antique firearms but fall to stipulate what defines an antique.
Is it an age or if I remember correctly they didn't even place a cavet on ammo being of a unified cartridge construction..?

Not so much in the act but in the guidelines, as to what their opinion is of an antique, based on international law is an antique firearm unable to accept a unified cartridge,etc.

Is there no allowance to simply invest in a firearms if not solely for profit.

Become a gun dealer and you can do such no doubt...

Don't forget that no one is asking to do anything illegal here. As far as I remember antique firearms required no licence unless the owner actually wishes to fire them.

Or more likely and more difficult to acquire BP for them to fire them. Without the powder, they are more or less antique and awkward clubs. Hence they aren't too worried about pre-1860 stuff. Although why you need a license for a repro of the exact same gun, beats me.

tac foley

Ah, you see, the repro is a NEW gun, not an antique, therefore, it's a new gun, and not an antique.

Mind you, you can shoot ALL percussion guns, shotguns and all rifles and carbines, with a black powder substitute like Pyrodex RS [rifle and shotgun] - it's a propellant, NOT an explosive. But then, most people can't get that, and percussion caps are the same as primers, and you can't get them, either.

juice1304

I think you would have to show it was an extremely rare and expensive firearm like 20 40 60 grand to have them consider that. They will never take that as a reason if there are 20 million of them floating around and they cost 200 quid everywhere else on the planet.
You want if for hunting, so that is a valid reason for owning it. end of story.

gunny123

juice1304 wrote: »

I think you would have to show it was an extremely rare and expensive firearm like 20 40 60 grand to have them consider that. They will never take that as a reason if there are 20 million of them floating around and they cost 200 quid everywhere else on the planet.
You want if for hunting, so that is a valid reason for owning it. end of story.

I have seen expensive handmade firearms here, that cost the price of a very good car, a pair of cased hollands, believe me they have to be licenced exactly the same as a 60 quid baikal. How can there be any difference under the law ? They are both firearms and their value is unimportant.

juice1304

gunny123 wrote: »

I have seen expensive handmade firearms here, that cost the price of a very good car, a pair of cased hollands, believe me they have to be licenced exactly the same as a 60 quid baikal. How can there be any difference under the law ? They are both firearms and their value is unimportant.

Because if it is a financial investment or a firearm of historical value then that can be your reason for owning it. As stated in the commissioners guidelines and on the department of justices website.

gunny123

juice1304 wrote: »

gunny123 wrote: »

I have seen expensive handmade firearms here, that cost the price of a very good car, a pair of cased hollands, believe me they have to be licenced exactly the same as a 60 quid baikal. How can there be any difference under the law ? They are both firearms and their value is unimportant.

Because if it is a financial investment or a firearm of historical value then that can be your reason for owning it. As stated in the commissioners guidelines and on the department of justices website.

Historical value possibly, but not financial value. You can buy a gun as a financial investment of course, but to licence it you need to prove a use, so target or hunting.