Thread: Anti-tamper
View Single Post
Old 13th January 2015, 06:52 AM
skires skires is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 950

I bobbed out of posting because I was basically saying what Bri is saying a few days back and Bri carries the flag far better than I do.

It's all trust.

Do we, as individuals, trust the manufacturers and Terry when they tell us that that there was a Bogey man, and they did what they did to make him go away. That's both re AT and stopping shouting for a standard test.

The bit that seems to annoy folk is that when asked why ... the answer is ( ... dons cloak and conceals dagger ) ... " Can't tell you mate ... it's all a bit nudge nudge, wink wink ... know what I mean " ( Tapping nose and eyes shifting from side to side with annoying grin that says " I know something you don't know " ) ... " You'll just have to trust me on this ".

Now I would love AT gone in an instant ... and I'd love a standard test ... but I must admit I've sold my soul and swayed towards the attitide that I will actual trust these people. The main reason I'm biting the bullet and trusting them is because I haven't seen any solid evidence to show me what motive these people have to be pulling the wool over my eyes and doing all this for their own gain.

Can we get some solid conspiracy theories on the table stating what the motive is for the industry to have fitted AT and/or Terry to have stopped chasing the standard test ... if it wasn't/isn't to scare off the Bogey man?

There will be a strange irony, if by discussing these issues, when asked not to, that we pull down the fragile wall that has been built to protect us from the Bogey man.

... but I suppose that is silence by blackmail.

I just don't see the motive ( gain ) that the industry have from AT or no standard test?

I'm still not convinced about any legal issues re AT and overpowered guns.

There are just not enough cases with regularity to be able to say exactly what happens re owner and supplier in overpower cases. I imagine most overpower cases are more complicated with other issues regarding the circumstances the gun was taken for testing.

Probably of little relevance ...

There used to be a gun shop in Stoke on Trent that started assembling/selling ALROS rifles. They also sold the usual popular rifles. A friend of mine bought a HW99 0.22 from there. He asked me to look at the rifle as he thought it seemed low on power. I put the rifle over my chrono and it was doing @ 8fp. A quick glance over the rifle revealed that the breech seal 'O' ring had a piece missing out of it. So it was more of a 'C' than an 'O'. I went back to the shop with my mate and we asked why this was the case. The shop owner was quite aggressive about this. He growled at us that he had recently been in trouble with the police because a lad had bought a rifle from him and been caught doing something daft. The police had tested the gun and it was just over 12fp. They asked the lad where he had bought this gun and he told them.

So this shop owner said that he wasn't taking anymore chances ( it didn't seem the kind of shop that was going to strip and tune springers ). So he was butchering the brand new springers that he was selling and popping out the 'O' ring breech seals and simply using wire cutters to chop a piece out before refitting. He refused to help my mate. I replaced the seal with a new one and tuned the gun to 11.5fp.

So there is some evidence there that it's not just the owner's responsibility. That was a springer but would AT have helped that vendor?

I've read some of the reports on court cases involving air rifles and overpower etc ( all have had other issues ). Some of the comments from the defending solicitors are dreadful. They seem to have no understanding of airgun law.

I don't know the full details of the case mentioned where someone with an AT HW100 got a criminal record for a 12.4fp gun.

However, if someone was caught with an AT PCP that was tested and found to be 12.4fp and the AT in tact, here's a few questions/statements I'd want my solicitor to be mentioning in court ...

So this gun was fitted with AT when it was bought? AT means Anti Tamper and is fitted by the manufacturer to stop the owner from increasing the power? The AT was still intact when this gun was taken from my client? It was not possible therefore for my client to have increased the power on that rifle? The manufacturers don't test the power of every rifle before it is sold? It is fact that some rifles are sold with AT and are overpowered?

I know you can keep quoting that it is the owner's responsibility. I'm seriously not seeing the manufacturers walking away from these cases completely unscathed.

So I don't really see how the AT fitting was done by the manufacturers to get them off the legal hook and put ALL the blame/responsibility on the owner. Just one case and a decent solicitor and the AT excuse, for the manufacturers, is gone.
Reply With Quote