.22lr revolvers

Munsterlad102

Just a quick question to anyone who has a non restricted 22lr pistol, how was the cylinder restricted to 5 rounds? Is the extra round welded shut or is it similar to how a shotgun is restricted? I’m just asking whether or not it could be converted back to 6 shots, if the capacity rules changed.

Cass

SI 391/2015 was created to clarify the 5 round issue with rimfire pistols. It only says that so long as the magazine is manufactured or modified prior to use to hold no more than 5, you're set.

It doesn't say permanently, but I suppose a certain degree of permanence is implied.

Sorry I cannot offer a solution but I'm not in the revolver club so I'll leave it to those that are to answer properly.

tudderone

You cannot weld or braze the cylinder, it would render the gun out of proof due to heat treatment issues. You don't know what steel is in the cylinder and applying serious heat could change the steels properties. Making it harder or softer or more brittle, you just don't know.

Get an inch or two of brass rod, 6mm or so in diameter, and ask someone with a lathe to turn it down to the same diameter as a .22 bullet case, and loctite it into a cylinder chamber. If you don't have access to a lathe or someone with one, chuck it up in a drill and use sandpaper to get it down to size.

clivej

From the few I have seen they were fitted with a small wooden dowel. Easy to put in as long as tight fit.

Wadi14

Dowel or I have even seen a raw plug and screw used, don't put anything in that can't be easily removed again without damage to the cylinder.

otmmyboy2

Wooden dowel from what I've seen.
Sometimes with some rubbery glue stuff to ensure it stays stuck in.

The wording just specifies modified prior to use, so I know 2 revolver aficionados(pictured below, upon seeing the self loading pistols at the range ) who after each session will move their dowel one chamber onwards, so all get an equal amount of wear.

Not that I'd be that exacting, but to each their own

Munsterlad102

Perfect, thanks for all the replies. Just another question, can I buy a revolver up North and license it here, would I have to restrict the capacity prior to import or not? The legislation does say 'prior to use' so I think you can, but I'm open to correction.

Cass

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

can I buy a revolver up North and license it here,

Yes.

would I have to restrict the capacity prior to import

Yes.

Your license, which can only be unrestricted, does not only allow you to use/shoot an unrestricted firearm, but also be in possession of one. So to be in possession of a restricted firearm (unplugged revolver) wouldn't be allowed so you need it plugged prior to import and use.

If it were solely prior to use you could, in theory, stick a blanker in one chamber, use the firearm, then remove the blanker to go home. You'd be bouncing between restricted and unrestricted but only licensed to have unrestricted.

In short, plug before importing, if for no other reason to import a restricted firearm won't work or to import it as unrestricted when its restricted is a fraudulent import and carries issues of its own.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

SI 391/2015 was created to clarify the 5 round issue with rimfire pistols. It only says that so long as the magazine is manufactured or modified prior to use to hold no more than 5, you're set.

Does it say "magazine" or "magazine or cylinder"?

Just wondering as everywhere else refers to magazine or cylinder when referring to capacity.
I wonder if people are exposed due to the flawed wording of the amendment.

Richard308

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

Perfect, thanks for all the replies. Just another question, can I buy a revolver up North and license it here, would I have to restrict the capacity prior to import or not? The legislation does say 'prior to use' so I think you can, but I'm open to correction.

You could have it shipped from north to your local restricted dealer. And arrange him to have it plugged. I’ve seen dealers have to declare that prior to sale “magazines will be restricted to 5 rounds only”

Cass

Mellor wrote: »

Does it say "magazine" or "magazine or cylinder"?

Magazine.

SI 21/2008 states that a repeating firearm and semi-auto firearm are firearms which are reloaded, either manually or automatically, from a magaine or cylinder.

Its the only mention I can find in the SIs, but there may b something else in any of the 18 acts, but a word search has shown nothing yet.

I wonder if people are exposed due to the flawed wording of the amendment.

Simple answer is I don't know, however a revolver has a cylinder so I assume that is it covered?

otmmyboy2

Cass wrote: »

Magazine.

SI 21/2008 states that a repeating firearm and semi-auto firearm are firearms which are reloaded, either manually or automatically, from a magaine or cylinder.

Its the only mention I can find in the SIs, but there may b something else in any of the 18 acts, but a word search has shown nothing yet.


Simple answer is I don't know, however a revolver has a cylinder so I assume that is it covered?

So what you are saying is belt fed may be a possibility...


I'll show myself out...

Cass

Limited to 5 shots, perhaps*.






*Joking, btw, for anyone thinking a 5 shot belt fed firearm may actually be legal

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

Magazine.

SI 21/2008 states that a repeating firearm and semi-auto firearm are firearms which are reloaded, either manually or automatically, from a magaine or cylinder.

Its the only mention I can find in the SIs, but there may b something else in any of the 18 acts, but a word search has shown nothing yet.


Simple answer is I don't know, however a revolver has a cylinder so I assume that is it covered?

Yeah, that's the one I was thinking off. repeating/semi-automatic firearms refers to both magazine or cylinder. But it doesn't mention the 5 rounds limit.

S.I. No. 391/2015 added that.

(iii) firearms which are designed for use with 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition and use magazines that have been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to accommodate no more than five rounds of ammunition”.

Seems like a omission to be. As that clearly doesn't cover revolvers.
To be clear, not arguing agaisnt revolvers, just the sloppy SIs.

Cass

Mellor wrote: »

But it doesn't mention the 5 rounds limit.

S.I. No. 391/2015 added that.

No, SI 337 of 2009 added the 5 round limit as it amended SI 21/2008 due to the release of the 2009 Criminal justice (Misc. Prov) Act which effectively banned C/F pistols and brought about the 5 round limit in .22lr pistols.

SI 391/2015 had one real purpose, to clarify the stance on restricting magazines to 5 rounds.

Seems like a omission to be. As that clearly doesn't cover revolvers.
To be clear, not arguing agaisnt revolvers, just the sloppy SIs.

Yeah its sloppy wording. You could argue the "intent" of the SI, from either side, but its another case of if people are happy to leave it as is, then leave it as is. IOW neither AGS, DoJ, or the shooting community want to rock the boat because history has taught us that if any side pushes for change, its never good and rarely benefits us.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

No, SI 337 of 2009 added the 5 round limit as it amended SI 21/2008 due to the release of the 2009 Criminal justice (Misc. Prov) Act which effectively banned C/F pistols and brought about the 5 round limit in .22lr pistols.

Ah, I forgot about that one.

(iii) other firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition provided that the maximum magazine capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five rounds and that the barrel length of the firearm is greater than 10 cm.”.

(iii) firearms which are designed for use with 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion ammunition and use magazines that have been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to accommodate no more than five rounds of ammunition”.

Seems to clarify that modified is permitted, in addition to off the shelf 5 round mags. Plus removed length issue. But still seems cylinder is omitted. Sloppy.
I'll leave it at that. Rocking boats and all that.

jb88

Any .22 revolver that Ive seen is a 10 shot conversion where 5 of the holes of the 10 in the cylinder are plugged permanently.

Cass

Any idea how they do it?

BSA International

Only use timber dowel as anything heavier may affect timing of cylinder as it moves to next chamber, apparently.

Grizzly 45

@smmember 20. Why not apply for a restricted .22 license in your case?You have a good justification for either 10 shot mags or revolver as you compete in NI? I have heard of some folks getting restricted .22 licenses for this purpose both NI and internationally[pre covid].

smmember20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117892364#Comment_117892364

Can't license any short firearm as restricted if not licensed prior to November 2008 as far as I am aware (sorry AFSIK) but as I said it is unnecessary as possession of 10 shot mags is not unlawful, as long as they are not used in your .22 pistol in the South on Authorised ranges!

smmember20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117892047#Comment_117892047

Yellow raw plugs are a perfect fit, light and do not effect the weight of the cylinder

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117892492#Comment_117892492

Think that might only apply to CF, as there are some 22 pistols going about as restricted.I know of one of them, now whether this was because of the SNAFUS with the court cases, and the owner has tried to correct this a good few times with no success,or some other aberration, but if there is one, there might and possibly are more?

Be careful on this possession wording. Because if you possess a 10 shot mag and a pistol for it, they could possibly nail it to you on "intent".This is the same thing with the EU directive on semi-auto rifles and over 10 shot mags.If you have "in your possession" that means even within your 4 walls just the mag body for that particular type of gun.

The legislation implies you have "intent" to convert your semi rifle into a CAT A prohibited firearm,by simply inserting the greater than 10 shot mag into it.And lets not go to the mess that has ensued if you have a pistol carbine that can take high cap pistol magazines of 20 shots! After all, they could argue as to why would you have such if you were not intending to use it in a 10 round capacity down here?Ok you would probably get away with it by proving you use it outside the State for competitions,but it would possibly a lengthy and costly day out in court to prove such.Just my read on it.

Cass

Grizzly 45 - Think that might only apply to CF, as there are some 22 pistols going about as restricted.

Its not the gun so much as the license tht cannot be got. Anything pistol and restricted cannot be licensed after 2009. Restricted 22lr pistols are out there but they're "hang arounds" from before the ban. You won't get one since 2009 as its illegal to issue the license for them and if any license were issued it would stand moot due to the legislation. IOW you wouldn't be licensed, even with a license as the CS has no authroity to supercede the legislative ban on the licensing of them.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117891548#Comment_117891548

The legislation is clear. But it doesn’t mention revolvers, so it’s all interpretation to some degree. Modified is no different. Doesn’t need to be permanent. But, at the same time, I would rely on anything too easily removed.

otmmyboy2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117895499#Comment_117895499

Will do, though I doubt it'll get that far once I start firing questions back at my FO.

Cass

I'd issue a cautionary note here lads.

While you might be onto something @smmember20 about the interprettion of the wording, for the sake of an "easy life" and so as not to tempt fate would it not be simpler to have the magazines blocked at all times (excluding those with restricted licenses) and avoid the situation that may arise if an inspection finds unblocked mags?

I mean to block a mag/cylinder and then unblock it while stored in the house to block it again prior to use seems redundant if its only purpose is to prove a point. Not trying to be a dick btw, so no offence intended and its not a jibe at yourself, its more a broad sweeping cautionary note to all. If you don't have a restricted license have all your mags/cylinders blocked. If you travel over the border where the license coers you but you are not subject to the same restirctions (on mags) then unbloc when you get there and block again before you return.

As for co-operation. The same applies. If the mags are blocked then you provide no reason to argue the semantics of the wording of the SI.

smmember20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117896260#Comment_117896260

Absolutely agree on all fronts, from a personal viewpoint I only have mags that are 10 shot when I am out of the state, the dowels I use are easily inserted prior to travel down and if you were to review my revolver it is reduced to 5 at all times in the South.

I believe the main point I was making was simply that individuals are having pistols confiscated because they have unrestricted magazines in their possession and the law is the law it states modified before use, however for sure it is common sense to have them restricted at all times, but again I say you cannot be convicted for what you might do so where is the legislative support for some FO's confiscating pistols where they find 10 shot mags in the persons house!!! That is my concern.

I have posted advices already on being absolutely sure to comply with the firearms legislation and I stand by compliance and not defiance as some might!

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117894474#Comment_117894474

VERY MUCH So! Ever hear of "self endightment" a legal term for "legally hanging yourself by presenting evidence to assist in such." B

Grizzly 45

However the reports I have heard from the Balbriggan district was the FO was turning up at any time of the day or night unannounced and actually carrying out searches of bags etc in the person room, all be it asking permission "is that your range bag? Yes, Can I look in it. Unfortunately, FO had such success using these tactics that he managed to highlight what would appear to the Super with no real knowledge of sporting firearms a real crime wave!

WHAT THE SERIOUS ACTUAL FUK.Com was this FO doing?That's a total illegal search and anyone who acquiesces to such should be onto a lawyer soonest for an actual lawsuit against this force. They were [1] invited into this person's premises to do one thing inspect a magazine of a firearm for a legal capacity.NOT to go rooting around minus a search warrant in a person's private property... Did the officer have probable cause and grounds to search that persons bag on private property, and if so how did they justify it? [2] Pitching up at any old time isn't on either, the law states "a reasonable hour" Mostly assumed to be business hours,or make an appointment thereafter.[Under a warrant,a different matter]

Christ on a bicycle,any half decent lawyer will have a field day with that carry-on.A drug dealer wouldn't be treated like this.

Finally I would caution against being uncooperative as long as it is reasonable. The reason I say this is that it would not be difficult for an inspecting Garda to cite suspicion of unlawful activity and get a search warrant and then the **it storm follows: I can confirm I know of one case where it happened already.

Do you mean know your rights and when an LEO is overstepping their authority?. This is why it is "real" to video this whole process if it happens to you. What you have described above is basic thuggery in uniform, and the only way it is stopped is by standing up to it legally of course and making complaints. As whoever this poor sod was, who was legally violated like this.

smmember20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117896718#Comment_117896718

Some folks are not as brave as you are, some are just ordinary folks going about their business and unfortunately this FO acted the bully and got away with it. The unfortunate thing is that his strategy worked and he found sufficient numbers of individuals not in compliance with the legislation that it has clearly been acted upon by the policy unit in HQ and the directive has gone nationwide!

In any case I did say on the other thread I was finished commenting on these matters, so this is it!

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117896260#Comment_117896260

Agreed.

Unblocking to block before is a bit of work to prove a point. And would then require you to convince somebody that you’d actually go to those lengths.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117896718#Comment_117896718

Is it still an illegal search if they ask and the person consents. I wouldn’t be sure, but it does feel like it would void the requirement for a warrant.

Grizzly 45

The most important part is missing to this story,WHY was this search or appointment made in the first place?

Without this information, we can't judge how legal or otherwise this Garda's actions are...It's highly unlikely that some Garda just took it into his head to randomly inspect some pistol shooter .22 magazine in the Balbriggan[? ]area Or that area of Dublin has very little crime for aGS to be dealing with. Did someone rat this owner out? Was he acting the bollix with the pistol? Did he import a 10 shot mag recently and customs let it thru and tipped off AGS? We can only speculate unless more info comes out.

But going on the information provided so far by the OP, it would be;

Certainly very questionable.As the officer would have to and need to demonstrate probable cause as to why he felt it necessary to go outside the remit of his original appointment of inspecting a magazine[singular] in a pistol held by a licensed owner 1st off. Remember this was done minus a warrant,which must specify the time,date location place to be searched and for what/whom]

More to this story than we are being told folks!

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117901485#Comment_117901485

Being done without a warrant would have all sorts of criteria. But it wasn’t, so none of that applies.

You claimed the search was illegal. I have doubts whether that’s correct.

Probably cause or reasonable suspicion is required to search somebody against their will. Also doesn’t apply here. The Garda asked permission, and the owner permitted him to look in the bag. I think the owner could have said no, and the garda would need to come back with a warrant. But as soon as he gives permission, there’s a good chance that he’d lose any claims if it being illegal.

But maybe more info needed. As I don’t get why anyone would give permission if he was has something he shouldn’t in there.

Grizzly 45

I'd contest it as illegal,or maybe expand on it that the evidence seized was done in a questionable manner,[bearing in mind the info we have on this topic] as it seems to go outside the stated reason of the audit.To check a pistol and A[1] magazine, presumably the one in the pistol? That should have been the end to it there and then. So what justification or reason did the officer have then to request to search this persons range bag?And if nothing had been there, what then, permission to search the house? Does it seem that this officer was pre-armed with some knowledge to look for another mag or mags? Nor were the mags in plain sight either. He had to request to look for them in a particular area.

As said there is a lot of bits missing from this story,esp the reason for this particular interview?

Proable cause aSFIK does not require it to be used holding someone against their will.

smmember20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117907801#Comment_117907801

Nothing missing from the story

The FO had established a modus operande of appearing at firearms owners doors and requesting entry for inspection unannounced...........fact

1) FO knocked on the door and requested entry to do an inspection, unannounced and no appointment made.

2) Entry agreed by the individual

3) Inspected safe where Pistol stored (bolted to wall all good)

4) Inspected ammo storage, in safe bolted to wall no issues, examined magazine for gun, limited to 5 shot, checked ammo allowance and compliance, no issues.

5) FO observed bag on floor beside gun safe and asked if it was her range bag (yes) asked could he look in it (she was hardly going to say no!), nothing to hide she agreed.

6) FO thanked her commended that she was perfectly compliant with the legislation more that a lot of individuals he had inspected!

End of inspection

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117907801#Comment_117907801

And I think you’d lose that contest on the information given. If they just pick up the bag and rummaged through it, you would absolutely have a value argument. But the giving of consent changes everything. A good barrister might have it excluded on other means. But not because it was an illegal search.

Where does the 1 (singular) magazine come from? I’d imagine the restriction applies to all magazines. Not just the one inserted at a given time. Certainly wouldn’t like to rely on it. Also sounds like the inspection included a check of ammo storage. Checking ammo isn’t stored in a range bag is not unexpected.

Ammo storage could be a topic in itself.

Cass

Grizzly 45 - I'd contest it as illegal,or maybe expand on it that the evidence seized was done in a questionable manner,

Apologies if I've missed something in all the above posts, but this seems an argument over "nothing". There can be no question of illegality in terms of the search as the Garda was invited in, allowed to check the safes, and when asked was given permission to check the bag.

If consent, for whatever reason, was given by the firearm/home owner then that is the end of the matter. Its why the Garda asked and did not demand.

We have known about this "loophole" for some time. They [AGS] can only request compliance/permission, without a warrant, and if consent is given they work away, if permission (to enter the premises or search) is refused the Garda simply walks away, marks the house as "non compliant" and you can expect a follow up of some sort in the future (hence the "loophole" regarding warrantless searches).

I fail to see any other way to look at this or how it can in any way be construed as illegal. If you think there is no cause, well the firearms act allows, indirectly, for home checks for the suitability of the owner to adequately and safely store the firearms. Section 4(2)(d). There is no limit on the amount of checks or the frequency of them. The firearms act does not say you must allow the Garda in, but it does state the issing person must be satisfied the applicant has complied with the storage requirements set out and the only way to verify that compliance is to allow a check.

AS said you can refuse the home check, but then its a case of "not checked, refused". This check also DOES NOT state its only when applying, but that the person continues to comply with the secure storage requirements which once again would imply continuous, randomn, checks.

Mellor

If consent, for whatever reason, was given by the firearm/home owner then that is the end of the matter. Its why the Garda asked and did not demand. 

Exactly. Nobody was forcibly searched. They didn’t have to say yes.

[quote]I fail to see any other way to look at this or how it can in any way be construed as illegal. If you think there is no cause, well the firearms act allows, indirectly, for home checks for the suitability of the owner to adequately and safely store the firearms. [/exactly]

This is the crux of it. People agree to comply with certain conditions when licensed. It’s not unreasonable AGS to check on that compliance.

But everyone can make their own choices.

Grizzly 45

 Also sounds like the inspection included a check of ammo storage. Checking ammo isn’t stored in a range bag is not unexpected.

Why not, if it is a "Locked container" as per the act? So long as it is separate from the gun?As per the act.

Where does the 1 (singular) magazine come from? I’d imagine the restriction applies to all magazines. Not just the one inserted at a given time

From nowhere, because the act[s] doesn't have any ASFIK statements on AGS members checking on the condition or mechanics of firearms capacity or other functionality or accessories in someones home. As it would be unlikely that the average Garda would be trained in such. That is usually a job for Garda ballistics or possibly a trained and card-carrying member of AGS with firearms experience...Maybe the Garda was? Plus,it is a point of evidence to hand or whatever the legal term is

.It is again like the broken taillight case. Are you stopping someone for a traffic offence, or are you using that as probable cause to search the vehicle because the driver is acting nervously because they are a specific profile? Or did the Garda have already pre specific knowledge of more mags,and just used logic to check the most obvious container?

Going by the act[s] they are entitled to inspect [1] The storage and security of the firearms and ammo [2]Serial numbers corresponding to the licenses for some reason[4] if present in possession after an incident like a murder in the locality.[which seems to fit according to them under part 1,as it has happened to me once when there was a murder victim found within a mile of the house] [3] At a reasonable hour...Which is open to interpretation..but we will ASSume it's within a couple of hours post business hours at max, and that by appointment? According to the OP, this wasn't within reasonable hours either. So we have to ASSume the Garda just showed up at X hour wanting to inspect this pistol minus an appointment? So the owner was well within his rights to tell the AGS it's not convenient now come back tomorrow or ring me and reschedule without gaining the need of attention from the ERU or any sort of demerit? He is not suspected or wanted for a crime either at this stage and as far as we know not threatening anyone or himself with harm with the gun? So again we are left minus info as to the Why of this story Why let the Garda in?And as you said why leave something illegal in your range bag? And Why did the AGS ask particularly to search that right off?Why not the sock drawer,under his bed,or the whole room?

Cass

Grizzly 45 - At a reasonable hour...Which is open to interpretation..but we will ASSume it's within a couple of hours post business hours at max

Assume nothing. Reasonable for one person may not be so for another.

Grizzly 45 - the owner was well within his rights to tell the AGS it's not convenient now come back tomorrow or ring me and reschedule

If I read the above correctly they didn't so the point is moot.

Grizzly 45 -  And Why did the AGS ask particularly to search that right off?Why not the sock drawer,under his bed,or the whole room?

Because one is search with consent within the confines of the visit (the guns, safe, ammo, shooting bags) and anything else is a search of the premises which can be done with consent, but would require more explanation I'd imagine as to why, the good reason for such, and why it was asked for. IOW the Garda can ask to check/search anything within the "meaning" of the act and everything is requires the full monty (warrant, etc).

I'll say again, I'm not seeing the issue with this. FO arrived, person invited them in, allowed a check, and all was done with consent and confined to the firearm aspect of the visit. Why look for trouble where none exists?