Thread: Anti-tamper
View Single Post
Old 12th January 2015, 09:23 AM
raygun's Avatar
raygun raygun is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Member of: Rivington Riflemen
Location: Bolton
Posts: 951

Originally Posted by Yorkshiretea View Post
Wotcha Ray,

I don't doubt that some guns are over, I'm not disputing that at all.

What I'm questioning is that AT is used to void warranty and therefore charge, my point being that there are much cheaper ways for them to do that in practice. So I think that side of the argument is a bit of a false flag really.

As everything is held with private companies and/or under NDA I've go no idea how you take this conversation forward other than one reply from the Home Office and a bloke who attended a meeting.

How do you think it should be taken forward?
Hi Martin,

It should be taken forward in the manner that was suggested quite a few years ago and the way it should have been progressed originally.

AMTA along with Representative shooting organizations like BASC, with our support should press for the legislation to be changed to make it workable for all.

The problem originates with the wording of the Statutory Instrument. "Capable" could be removed from the S.I. and the 12FPE left as the limit. There could even be a tolerance to the limit like the one applied to speeding.

There should be a simple specified test that we could all use to ensure we were below the limit. As it is any individual test house can do what they want as long as they follow their own written procedure.

There could be a "Test projectile" that we could purchase and use and as long as you were in line with the S.I. limit you are legal. That could mean that some rifles would shoot a little higher with other pellets but it would not be by much or be that significant. It could certainly be trialled out.

I would settle for the change to the S.I. and a standard test. It would certainly put us in a more stable position. Not just us but also the manufacturers.

Reply With Quote