Category Archives: Editorial

Swiss Ammunition Enterprise

Posted on by

Recently I was lucky enough to have a tour of the manufacturing facilities and museum of the Swiss Ammunition Enterprise, known more commonly as RUAG.

The company is divided into two separate divisions, and I visited the small arms ammunition plant in Thun.

Unfortunately I couldn’t take pictures inside the plant, but I took plenty inside the museum!  The main product made at Thun is the Swiss Army service ammunition, namely 5.6mm Swiss, although it has essentially the same dimensions as 5.56mm NATO.  This is also called GP90 by the Swiss, meaning Gewehr Patrone 90.

First I thought I’d give you a rundown on their ammo.  Originally it was adopted in 1987 as a replacement for the aging 7.5mm GP11 round used both in the Schmidt-Rubin and the Sturmgewehr 57.  Unlike NATO, the Swiss adopted an ordinary lead core projectile for their ammo.  Originally it had a nickel alloy jacket, but this was changed in 1998 to an ordinary copper jacket as it was found that the nickel jacket was wearing out barrels on the Sturmgewehr 90 too quickly.  The picture illustrates both projectiles, on top of a GP90 ammo box:

The original nickel alloy plated bullet is shown between two of the later copper jacketed bullets.  Note that the earlier bullet has an exposed lead base, while the later design has a plug in the base.  This was done apparently due to environmental concerns.

Without the steel penetrator tip of the NATO round, I doubt this bullet is as effective in terms of penetration, but it is very accurate, probably the most accurate full metal jacket 5.56mm round made.  The Swiss also use a 1 in 10 inches twist in their service rifles, rather than the NATO twist of 1/7.  This means longer barrel life, as there is less friction in the slower twist rate.  There is a theory that it will also be more lethal from the lower twist rate but Martin Fackler I think has put that one to rest (makes a difference in internal and external ballistics, but not terminal ballistics, provided the twist rate is fast enough to stabilise the bullet in flight).  In any event, I don’t think anyone has been intentionally shot with GP90 on a battlefield yet!

Some people seem to think that GP90 has a steel core.  I’m not sure where this rumour started, but it doesn’t.  It is definitely lead core, I saw the cores in the factory!  The following picture shows two partially completed bullets:

On the left is the later copper/steel (called “tombac”) jacketed bullet and on the right is an earlier nickel alloy jacketed bullet.  You can see the exposed lead core inside each jacket.  The bullet itself weighs about 63 grains, which once again indicates it has a heavy core.

SM also makes all the cartridge cases.  These are very high quality, and have a distinctive headstamp:

On the right is a fired GP90 case, the headstamp is a “T” (for Thun) above the year of manufacture, in this case “94”.  On the left is a round of commercially sold ammunition, this has a “T” above the calibre designation of “.223”.

SM doesn’t sell the GP90 ammunition on the commercial market (except to special order), although surplus GP90 is sold all over Switzerland at local rifle ranges for target practice.  They do however have a wide range of ammunition available to the general public, which you can see on their website.  They make the Blaser line of ammunition for example.  I have purchased some of their target load, the Swiss P:

It comes in the same size box as the GP90, and is even on stripper clips for the Stgw 90!  It is essentially identical to GP90 but uses the Sierra Matchking bullet instead.  At the factory I was told that they have now developed their own .223 match bullet that is more accurate than the Matchking, this I will have to try!  Even so, this stuff is the most accurate factory .223 I have ever used, more accurate even than Federal Gold Medal, although I have to admit I haven’t shot enough of both to determine if that is simply a fluke or statistically accurate.

One point: if you have thumbs strong enough to load a Stgw 90 magazine using these stripper clips you must look like King Kong!

It’s difficult to describe the plant without pictures.  Mind-blowing is not too strong a description.  Everything is automated, from melting the lead into lead cores, shaping the bullet jackets and inserting the cores and closing the bases, forming the cartridge cases, waterproofing them, loading the primers, (I was particularly impressed with the machine that seals the primer in) to putting the powder in the case, loading the bullet, pushing the completed rounds into a rack where they are then pushed onto the stripper clips, and then loaded and sealed into boxes.

The machines that make the cartridge cases were very impressive too.  There is one machine that cuts brass discs out of a sheet of brass, and then bangs them into a cup shape.  Then there are two rows of machines joined together, each row of machines is about 100 metres in length.  Essentially at one end the brass cups are poured in, then they are hammered, cleaned, hammered, cleaned and so on until at the end the last machine shoots out completed cartridge cases!  I noticed that most of the machines were made by Manurhin.

SM also makes pistol ammunition for the Swiss Army, the Pistolen Patrone 41, that was originally used in the SIG P210 (A49) pistol and currently the SIG-Sauer P220 (A75) pistol:

This is sold commercially at pistol ranges in Switzerland.  It is very accurate but also very hot, so it is not that suitable for target shooting.  Like the rifle ammunition, it used to be made with a nickel alloy jacket, but now it is copper jacketed.  It is fairly standard 124gr. FMJ, nothing to get excited about really.  Headstamps are the same as for the GP90 rifle round.  It comes in 24-round boxes, which is quite unusual, enough for three magazines worth.

Each member of the Swiss Army is issued a Stgw 90 to keep at home together with a single box of GP90 ammunition that is kept in a sealed can similar to a can of corned beef.

And onto the museum!  Unfortunately some of the best photos I took seem to have disappeared out of my camera, as they had two Stgw 90 PEs (the semi-auto version sold in gun shops) set up in the corner of the museum that I took pictures of with a novel CO2 conversion kit for indoor practice (made by a company called Waffen Furter in Olten).  More noteworthy than that were the serial numbers on the rifles: #000001 and #000002!

Given that there are a fair few photos I’ve decided to do hyperlinks to them:

A Vetterli 10.5mm bolt-action rifle, the first bolt-action rifle adopted by any Army, together with ammunition.

A selection of .22 rimfire ammunition made by SM in the past together with a SIG P210 fitted with a .22 conversion kit.

A prototype SIG SG541 assault rifle in 6.45mm NSK, the round nearly adopted instead of 5.56mm.

Not a very good picture of some Swiss service pistols.  Note the sardine can of 9mm ammunition issued to Swiss Army officers.

Boxes of various types of 5.6 ammunition, including tracer and drill.  Note the ammo can for GP90 ammunition, rarely seen.  These are all pre-production samples.

Anti-tank munitions and shaped charges made by SM.  One of SM’s specialties is making shaped charges, they hold several patents on the method of production.

Another main product for SM are hand grenades, the British Army having entered into a large contract to buy them.

Shots of various Swiss Ordnance Lugers, the Swiss were the first to adopt the Luger in 1900.  I think this is a pretty good selection of them, the Swiss using three or four distinct types up until the adoption of the SIG P210 in 1949.  Here’s another shot.

More serious ordnance, anti-tank missiles.

Plates showing penetration of the GP90 round (I think, not sure).  The top one is obviously a bit harder steel but it’s pretty serious thickness.  Note the sardine can of GP90 ammunition on the right, this is found in many Swiss homes!  The box below with the red “B” is blank ammunition.

A prototype Stgw 90, you can just about make out the different method of holding the stock closed as compared with the production model.  On the prototype the stock was locked in the closed position by clipping onto the end of the front receiver pivot pin.  If you look at the boxes of ammunition in the case, you will see the one at the front right has a diagonal stripe on it, this is tracer ammunition.

A picture of some pretty rare SMGs, including some prototypes.  The Swiss were never too keen on SMGs because it runs contrary to their philosophy of the individual marksman.  I think they were relieved when the Nazis invented the assault rifle!  Unfortunately I took a picture of an extremely rare FN FAL made in 7.5x55mm Swiss with an odd curved magazine but it didn’t come out.

My great thanks to M. Frutiger and the staff of SM for their hospitality during the visit!

 

Another day, another knee jerks…

Posted on by

In the wake of the recent murders in Birmingham, there has been considerable discussion of the issue of the status of imitation guns and air guns in the press and by Government, and as is usual after a tragedy in this country, wackiness is sure to follow.

Two girls are machine-gunned to death, and the Government response is to announce a rise in the age limit for the possession of an air gun, a ban on air guns that use air cartridges and a mandatory minimum five-year sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm. In addition the Government claims that a national tracking database of illegal firearms will be ready by April.

As per usual, when you look at the proposals closely, they don’t make as much sense as the average Daily Mail reader is likely to believe after thinking about them for two seconds.

Raising the age limit for the possession of an airgun is highly unlikely to make a real difference to serious firearm-related offences, although the underlying reason for this change is because of instances of vandalism, rather than gang warfare. However the current age limit of 14 was conceived so as to allow young people to conduct pest control – the current spin is that youngsters can easily be supervised for sporting purposes, and this is true, and it has always been true, but airguns are used for things other than sport. In many rural areas they are a vital tool for pest control, and close supervision of young people engaged in pest control is not practical. In Northern Ireland the age limit is sixteen, and this has been a problem in rural areas there for a long time, and BASC has been campaigning to have it changed for years. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did propose lowering the age limit for this purpose to 14 in 1998, although the current draft of the proposed new law there does not include it. However it does seem rather bizarre to propose an age limit of 17 in Great Britain when the age limit in Northern Ireland is 16, and that lower limit has already caused problems.

On the issue of mandatory sentences, a “minimum five-year sentence” sounds tough, but in reality it is a largely meaningless statement for a number of reasons. To begin with, it will only apply to people indicted for possession or distribution of prohibited weapons. So anyone dealt with by way of summary judgement for this offence, or who has been convicted of distribution or possession of unlicensed non-prohibited weapons will not be affected. In addition, even if the sentence is applied, sentences usually run concurrently for this offence, so for example, a person convicted of armed robbery will get 4-7 years for armed robbery and five years for possession of the pistol he used, meaning a total sentence of 5-7 years. Armed robbery is the most common of serious firearm offences, and in these cases it will not make an appreciable difference. In addition, a person is eligible for parole after serving only half their sentence, making “five years” in fact only two and a half.

The Government appears to be portraying this measure as one of deterrence, however most criminals have an inkling of what I’ve said above and will know it is largely meaningless, and in any event, it is hard to see how it would have dissuaded the killers in Birmingham, given that the prospect of four life sentences for murder and attempted murder did not.

On the subject of the “illegal firearms database” which supposedly is to be in place in April, this appears very unlikely as the Government only advertised the job for the feasibility study a couple of weeks ago. It seems highly unlikely it will go from a feasibility study to full operation by April, especially since section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 requires a central database of all shotgun and firearm certificate holders, and the Government has announced they do not expect this to be in operation until 2004!

Another suggestion, this time by the police, is for a firearm amnesty. However, it is implausible that criminals will voluntarily turn in their guns, and this is readily proven by the fact that the last amnesty was in 1996, and armed crime has been rising ever since. Home Office guidelines in fact mean that there is in effect a permanent amnesty in place allowing the surrender of unwanted guns to the police, so in essence what the police are proposing is to publicise that. It may be worthwhile in some respects, but it is not going to reduce armed crime. The example given by the police of a successful programme in West Yorkshire is misleading because there is no evidence that any of the guns handed in there have been used in armed crime, or were going to be, although armed crime has dropped in that area.

Shooters should be increasingly concerned by the comments being made by the police, most especially by the Association of Chief Police Officers, because ACPO is a taxpayer funded organisation. In one week an ACPO spokesman claimed that 60% of firearms recovered by the police were converted imitation firearms. The next week, another spokesman said it was 70%. The following week, the same spokesman said it was 75%. I frankly don’t believe them, and the fact that they are unable or unwilling to produce the underlying statistics upon which these percentages are based supports that view. ACPO already found themselves in hot water last year, by attempting to claim that “50%” of guns recovered by the police in London were converted Brocock air pistols. In fact, it turned out that this statistic was based on converted guns only (i.e. excluding factory-made firearms that fire live ammunition), and the number of guns the percentage was based on was less than 20.

However, the Government appears to be using this “evidence” and some other anecdotal support in aid of their idea of banning air cartridge air pistols, which apparently can be converted to fire live ammunition too easily for the Government’s liking. In reality the evidence to support this is very weak indeed, and in any event, it is illegal for any criminal to possess any air gun under the provisions of section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 (which makes possession of any firearm by a criminal illegal) and also anyone who converts such a gun to fire live ammunition commits an offence under section 5(1) of the Act, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment. Making it illegal again seems to me rather pointless – it already is illegal. The only effect will be to put legitimate companies out of business, because of the acts of criminals. It seems rather odd to punish law-abiding businesses in this way, through no fault of their own.

The Government has also proposed making it an offence to have an imitation firearm in a public place without reasonable excuse – in aid of this view Home Office minister Bob Ainsworth MP gave on Radio 4 the example of how a police officer could not arrest a person carrying an air gun who may be committing acts of vandalism until he witnessed an act of vandalism being committed. Mr Ainsworth appears to have not read the Firearms Act 1968, which says quite plainly that is an offence to have a loaded air weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Once again this an example of bait-and-switch, perhaps it should be made an offence to have an imitation firearm in a public place without reasonable excuse, but as Mr Ainsworth’s explanation points out, the Government is exaggerating what effect this is likely to have.

The real solution is actually quite obvious, and that is to enforce the law as it currently stands. When armed robberies reached an unprecedented level of nearly 6,000 recorded offences in 1993, the Metropolitan Police tasked the Flying Squad with cracking down on these criminals, and lo and behold, in 1994 the number of armed robberies fell to 4,104 recorded offences. In 1996, the Met disbanded the unit so that they could “share their experience” with other units, and armed crime has risen ever since.

Endlessly we hear in the news concerns expressed about guns being carried as “fashion accessories” and drug dealers shooting each other, and various colourfully named police programmes such as “Operation Trident” which aim to tackle various offences. The problem is that this type of firearm-related crime is focused on by the press, but in fact Home Office statistics indicate that 53% of serious firearm-related offences are armed robberies, and the rise in those offences from 2000/01 to 2001/02 was 34% (from 3,965 to 5,323 offences). This is the real problem, and this appears to be the only problem that the Government has not thought up some silly scheme to deal with. If police forces set up task forces to deal with armed robbery along the lines of Roy Penrose’s successful attempt in 1993, armed crime would drop, and it would drop markedly and rapidly, provided the funding is in place to enable the police to do it.

I am often reminded of Alun Michael’s press release of 27 February, 1998, which begins with the sentence: “The Government fulfilled its pledge to remove all handguns from the streets of Britain today as the final phase of firearms surrender came to a close.” As we know now, this claim was a wild exaggeration, and the current claims being made by the Government are wild exaggerations. In fact it is simply window dressing, which does not address the actual problems.

You need to write to your MP and urge them not to support this foolish legislation when it comes before Parliament unless it is amended into something likely to be effective, and urge them also to put their name to Early Day Motions 488 and 503, which help make the point.

Australia

The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard is probably the most anti-gun politician to ever make it to the Prime Minister’s office in any Commonwealth country.  He is on record saying that he hates guns and can’t understand why anyone needs one, and his CV includes pushing Australian States (who are responsible for domestic gun law in Australia, rather than the central Government) into enacting a ban on all semi-automatic long guns and pump-action shotguns in 1996 (with some limited exceptions for occupational purposes and certain clay events).  Not surprisingly, because the people who handed their guns in were the honest, law-abiding people of Australia, the ban wasn’t effective at stopping firearm-related crime, and large rises in armed crime, particularly in Sydney, coupled with a nutcase shooting up a classroom in Victoria have led to another knee-jerk gun ban in Australia.

Starting on July 1st, people who legally own revolvers that have a barrel length less than 100mm, semi-automatic pistols with a barrel length less than 120mm, or pistol magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, or any handgun with a calibre more than .38″ (with some exceptions up to .45″ for people who use them in certain sports) will have to hand them in.  They will be compensated, although the basis of the compensation is still unclear.

It’s not clear what effect this ban will have or is supposed to have, other than buying handguns off shooters who will go straight to the gun shop and buy a replacement with a longer barrel.  Several States in Australia opposed the plan after pointing out the failure of the 1996 ban and that the proposed ban would simply be a replacement programme for shooters.  Also they don’t want to pay the compensation bill.  However, after revising downward how many guns were going to be handed in, and how much compensation would have to be paid out, the Federal Government managed to twist the arms of the States into agreeing.

When Canada pulled the same stunt in 1995, they were at least wise enough to grandfather the handguns that were already in circulation at the time.  How making an Australian shooter turn in his S&W model 10 with a 2-inch barrel and making him buy one with a 4-inch barrel will make the public safer in Australia is truly one of the most bizarre questions criminologists will ever have to answer.

The only silver lining here is that this idea appears to have hurt the Government politically; the anti-gunners know it’s pointless; the pro-gun people are even madder now than they were in 1996; and the average person in the street is wondering why their tax money is being spent on another gun ban when they only just paid for one back in 1996 which was portrayed as the solution to the problem.

France

A Senate committee reported late last year on problems with the law there; for the most part they appear to have agreed with shooters that most of the problems are in the administration of the law by the police, and that the current regulation of firearms in myriad categories through a maze of endless decrees since 1939 needs to be consolidated, with particular attention to using the category system of the European Firearms Directive.

Sounds good, but a new internal security law will actually make the situation worse by giving the Minister of the Interior greater power to shift guns from one category to another.

Hopefully when a specific firearm-related Bill comes before the French legislature, it will reflect the views of the Senate Committee on Law and Internal Security.

“Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.” – trad.

Coming to their senses, a bit too late

Posted on by

The Minister for Defence has recently been quoted in the press as saying that the SA80 will be replaced in 2006, “two years earlier” than the planned replacement date of 2008 – in fact according to the MoD, it was due to be replaced in 2020.

This change of heart has come about due to faults reported with the new A2 version in Afghanistan, mainly that it doesn’t work properly at high altitude or in dusty environments.  In reality I suspect the torrent of abuse hurled at the MoD by the press about the latest defects in the weapon has finally kept the bureaucrats up one night too often, and they want their headaches to cease.

2006 is the planned date for the end of the upgrade programme currently underway; what this means in essence is that shortly after arriving back from Germany our upgraded SA80s will be chopped up and sold off as scrap!  What an incredible waste of taxpayer money, and it could all have been avoided if they had instead decided on replacing the SA80 last year, instead of this year.

The problems will also be compounded by what seems an almost inevitable conflict with Iraq in the near future; once again, British soldiers will be fighting in the Iraqi desert armed with substandard small arms.  The only bright spot on the horizon is that the issue of the Diemaco C8 Special Forces Weapon (the L119A1) is underway to the special forces, equipped also with the Heckler and Koch AG36 (L17A1) grenade launcher.

Heckler & Koch must be laughing themselves silly as they are the prime contenders to supply the replacement weapon in 2006 (the G36), although FN with the F2000 and Diemaco also have a chance of being chosen.  (Diemaco especially, if more of their guns have to be acquired for use in a war with Iraq).

(Postscript: after I wrote this, the MoD announced they would be keeping the SA80 after all, despite the fact the Minister of Defence apparently doesn’t like it, click here.)

Europe

Shooters in France were extremely lucky; the planned legislation that would have banned a great many guns failed to win consent due to a procedural matter that could not be resolved before Prime Minister Jospin had to leave office.  The decree had to be considered by the Sports Committee, who would have certainly rubber-stamped it, but because they could not meet on a Sunday, the decree could not be signed by the next day, the day the Government was dissolved.

The new right of centre Government in France is taking a different approach.  Instead of calling for guns to be banned they have instead indicated that they plan to completely overhaul the licensing system for firearms, bringing many types of firearm that are currently not licensed within a new licensing system, to replace the archaic one that has existed since 1939.  They have been given motivation by the attempted assassination of President Chirac, by a man armed with a .22 target rifle of a type that is not licensed currently (although the purchaser must have taken a competence test first).

Shooters in Germany were also lucky, after the shootings in Erfurt things looked very grim, however a new gun law that had already passed the lower House the same day of the shootings was amended to increase the age limit for the grant of a license for a handgun to 21; to introduce a requirement that an applicant for a license provide information from their doctor that they are not mentally ill; and also a ban on shotguns with pistol grips was included.  This last one sounds worse than it is, as many German states already interpreted the current law as banning them.  The main problem for shooters in Germany are the restrictive provisions in the new gun law that existed prior to the shootings at Erfurt.

Northern Ireland

Finally, after years of waiting, the Northern Ireland Office have released a draft of the new Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order, which you should read in conjunction with the explanatory document.

Essentially the Order incorporates some of the changes in the licensing procedure introduced by the 1997 Act in Great Britain (but handguns and expanding ammunition are still legal); exempts airsoft guns and deactivated firearm from licensing (with some wrinkles that need addressing); moves appeals to county courts (previously heard by the Secretary of State) and contains some fairly weird provisions that need to be removed, such as the redefinition of a firearm component to include “any magazine” and also the extension of ballistic testing to air guns and shotguns.

The explanatory document doesn’t even mention the change in the definition of a firearm component, even though in my opinion it’s the biggest change in the law.  Many collectors of magazines will run afoul of this requirement, it will require the variation of at least 10,000 firearm certificates and it also completely defeats the idea of removing deactivated firearms from licensing control, because anyone will be able to buy a magazine by buying a deactivated firearm!

Other major changes include the idea of a competence test performed by a dealer, which contains so many problems it’s difficult to tackle here, the main ones being that many dealers simply aren’t competent to give safety testing, don’t have the time to do it and do not have a suitable firearm to give the test on!

Another problem is the new visitor permit requirements that are copied from the law in Great Britain but won’t work properly in Northern Ireland because of the large numbers of visiting shooters from Ireland.

Many shooting organisations have already pointed out that the age limits in the draft Order are extremely restrictive, it will be completely illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to even touch a firearm, other than a deactivated firearm or an airsoft gun!

If you live in Northern Ireland I suggest you make a submission – the contact details are in the explanatory document.

Armed Pilots

Legislation in the United States that will allow a test programme whereby up to 1,400 commercial pilots can be trained and then carry handguns in the cockpit of their aircraft seems certain to become law in the near future.  It has cleared both Houses of Congress with substantial majorities, and is supported by the Administration.

What is still unclear, as I posed last October, is how this will work when a US pilot flies into foreign airspace, and more importantly from the American perspective, how this will dissuade hijackers of an Air France or British Airways aircraft, whose pilots will still be unarmed, and whose planes can still be crashed into a US skyscraper.

The Home Office have provided me with one answer – they will grant authority for airlines to have firearms in the cockpit, however this raises more questions than it answers, because pilots themselves cannot get that authority and it appears to me as though the pilots will be armed with their own personal firearms, not firearms owned by the airlines.

I’ll be interested to see how they figure this one out!

The March

Don’t forget the Countryside Alliance march on the 22nd!

“Fortunately, in this country there is no necessity to carry a loaded revolver on a bicycle.  An empty one is sufficient to frighten away tramps, if they stop you on a dark, lonely road; or even a short bicycle pump when pointed at them will scare them off.” – Walter Winans, “The Art of Revolver Shooting”, p.219, 1901

The Disaster Facing Shooters in Europe

Posted on by

Shooters, especially target shooters, are facing a catastrophe of major proportions in Europe as Governments react in a predictable knee-jerk fashion to various criminal acts in which firearms were used.

The first crime committed was the shootings at Nanterre in France, where a man named Michael Durn opened fire at a local political meeting with two semi-automatic pistols, killing eight people and wounding thirty more.

After being arrested, Durn escaped from interrogators and jumped to his death after crawling through a skylight.

Upon further investigation, many facts came to light:

He had been seeing a psychiatrist for several years, even prior to applying for authorisation to possess firearms.  Not only that, but he was under care because he suffered from a condition where he had fantasies about killing himself.  And even more incredibly, he had threatened his psychiatrist previously with a pistol, but the police took no action.  On the day of the killings in Nanterre, his authorities for his pistols were expired, apparently due to the licensing department being unable to process applications in a timely manner.

One might think that here were enough facts to lead to a thorough public inquiry, but with an election looming in France, and crime being the major issue, Prime Minister Lionel Jospin announced a far-reaching decree (gun laws are made by decree in France under a 1939 law) that would effectively ban all handguns that fire cartridges more powerful than .32ACP (with the exception of .32 S&W Long and .38 wadcutter), as well as all military-calibre firearms and many other things besides.  Not only that, but many common sporting types of ammunition such as .357 Magnum and .38 Special would be reclassified as “military-calibre” as well, extending the ban to many types of lever-action rifle that are currently unlicensed and commonly owned in France.

This decree was announced three days before the first round of the French Presidential election.  Not surprisingly, shooters were unimpressed, and this is undoubtedly one of the factors that led to Jospin being defeated by right-wing extremist Jean-Marie Le Pen, who condemned the new decree immediately after it was announced.

Shooting is a more popular sport in France than in Britain, and there are currently 140,000 shooters who are licensed, the vast majority of whom would be affected by the new decree, and they are authorised to own somewhere around half a million guns.  It is unclear how many guns that do not require licensing would be affected, but it is a substantial number.

All the guns affected would have to be turned in when the shooter’s license expires, or by the middle of next year at the latest – without compensation.

French shooters are slightly more fortunate than we were because they can convert their guns into something that is not banned, for example by rechambering their military-calibre rifles to a non-military calibre, or by altering their semi-automatic rifles so that they do not function semi-automatically (this is illegal under British law).  However, it is hard to see how handguns could be modified, short of deactivating them, and these form the bulk of the guns affected.

Prohibitions of this type without compensation are almost certainly illegal under Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it will be interesting to see how things unfold in France.  At the moment things appear to be going pretty badly although shooters have won a small victory because the bans in the decree have run out of time to be enacted by the current government.  It will be up to the new government to move them forward.

Notably the police, although heavily criticised for their mishandling of Durn, have also criticised the new proposals, pointing out that the facilities for storage of guns handed in do not exist, and that the Government did not consult at all with them before announcing the decree.  I suspect also privately they are worried that the guns they carry are next up for the chop, not a popular idea given the levels of violent crime currently in France which have left several police officers shot dead.

Germany

The situation in France is bad enough, but it has been made worse by the killing of sixteen people in a school in Erfurt, Germany, by a disgruntled former student, Robert Steinhäuser, who then committed suicide.

The emotional outpouring in Germany has been great, and it remains to be seen what the German government will do.  As in France, there are elections underway in Germany, although the tragedy occurred so closely to the start of the election campaigns that the politicians have not been able to coherently respond so far.  The right-wing wants a crackdown on violent films and videogames; the left (and the media) want a crackdown on guns.

The facts appear to be that Steinhäuser had planned his crime almost a year in advance; although he obtained a gun license and bought his guns legally he did not declare them to the police as he was required to do.  The Erfurt city government has been criticised for not enforcing the law correctly, for example by not following up on gun sales frequently enough to ensure they have all been declared.  More relevantly, the pistol used in the killings was acquired privately.  The seller declared the sale to the authorities as he was required to do, but still Steinhäuser’s failure to declare the purchase was not followed up, even though the authorities had that information to hand.  Legal action against the Erfurt city government seems likely but whether or not that has any relevance to shooters is open to question.

The real problem for shooters, not just in Germany but worldwide, is that Germany is the main centre for the manufacture of firearms and accessories used in the target shooting sports.  Not only that, but the headquarters of the International Shooting Sports Federation are in Munich, and Germany is also the largest region for the International Practical Shooting Confederation in Europe.

Prohibitions in Germany on the scale of those seen in the UK or those proposed in France would be an absolute disaster for the sport.  It would be the equivalent to the sport of football of the Chancellor of Germany telling FIFA that football was to be banned there – even worse in fact, if you also assume that Germany were the major centre for the production of footballs!

Compounding the difficulties for shooters in Germany is the fact that on the very same day that Steinhäuser was on his rampage, the lower house of the Bundestag was passing a new gun law, which among other things restricts further the number of guns a person can own, and introduces a police permit requirement for airguns, starter pistols and similar items.

The upper house is scheduled to vote on the Bill at the end of May, although it could be delayed as a result of the tragedy in Erfurt.  No amendments have been announced as of yet although there seems to be consensus on raising the age limit for a license to be issued to a higher age, such as twenty-one.  (Steinhäuser was nineteen at the time).

The FCC reports

Not to be left out, our very own Firearms Consultative Committee finally issued its eleventh annual report, which actually isn’t that bad except for Chapter 2.

The report recommends in this chapter a ban on rifles with a muzzle energy of more than 10,000 ft/lbs (i.e. things like .50BMG calibre rifles) and also a ban on long-barrelled revolvers.

It is, however, completely devoid of any rationale as to why they should be banned, and it is noteworthy that the FCC came to the conclusion they should be banned on a “majority vote”, which means the police want them banned, but the shooting organisations don’t.

The report harps on at some length about how .50 calibre rifles are designed for “anti-materiel” use, but totally fails to mention that armour-piercing ammunition is already banned, as it is in every other EU country, and without AP ammunition, these rifles are not significantly more deadly than many other types of rifle commonly used for hunting and target shooting.  The use of a muzzle energy figure to determine lethality is, at this level of power, seriously flawed and unscientific.

The report mentions the use of such rifles by terrorists in Northern Ireland – where it is very difficult indeed (more so than in GB) for a licensed shooter to own any sort of centrefire rifle, let alone a .50, and given that terrorists have illegally imported and used any number of firearms it is laughable to draw a comparison between licensed shooters and the use of firearms by terrorists.

Also mentioned is a comment that the committee felt that these rifles are not “appropriate for civilian target shooting”.  Pardon?  Since when did the police and the Government decide what is “appropriate” for a person to do in a supposedly free country?  Using a water pistol for target shooting is arguably not “appropriate” either, but no-one suggests they ought to be banned!

No clear case as to why long-barrelled revolvers should be banned is made in the report, the committee simply recommends that they should be banned.  It appears the “third way” nowadays actually translates into: “my way or the highway”.

Obviously such a ban is an utterly ludicrous suggestion, and the fact that shooters are buying such guns merely illustrates how totally foolish the handgun ban was to begin with anyway.  There is no way of actually defining such guns in legislation without banning all rifles, otherwise they would have been banned in 1997.  The report proposes a ban on firearms with revolving cylinders, which would catch some types of rifle while leaving long-barrelled pistols using other action types unaffected, making a complete nonsense of any such prohibition.

This is all worth writing to your MP about, by the way!  The Government has yet to respond to the report so the more letters the better.

Suggestions such as this recall to mind the comments made by then Chief Supt. Brian MacKenzie in 1996 following the Home Affairs Committee recommending that handguns should not be banned.  He stood up at a meeting of the Police Superintendent’s Association and referred to the HAC report as a: “…load of rubbish that should be thrown in the bin.”

Hmm, well, six years after the event with both reports in my hands I’m pretty certain which one I think should be on its way to the landfill…

The Home Office attitude was that a public inquiry was unnecessary since, as a senior official stonily told us, “There is nothing to learn.”  The 1988 Act, he was happy to say, was preceded “by no research at all,” nor could he “point to any specific section and say that it addressed a particular problem.” – Jan Stevenson commenting on the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 in the May 1996 issue of “Handgunner”.

SHOT show 2002

Posted on by

The Las Vegas Convention Center was the setting for the 24th Annual Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade show this year, and having nothing better to do I decided to go!

This year was somewhat muted I thought, because of all the hassle at the airports attendance appeared to me to be slightly down, although according to their press release there were a lot of people who showed up on the last day when I wasn’t there and apparently it was the second most attended show in history (so what do I know).  I also thought there were less new products than average, but there were still enough doodads for me to write about.  It was worth going and you, the lucky reader, get to live vicariously through me!

This isn’t going to be as long-winded as the article I wrote in 1999, I’m just going to cover the things I saw that caught my eye.

First up was Beamhit, a company I am constantly impressed by, they have developed a system whereby you put a laser in the barrel of your gun that goes off when it detects the vibration of the hammer or striker being fired.  You point your gun at the screen of your PC, and the light is detected and registered on a target on the PC screen.  Basically it makes dry-fire a lot more interesting, and moreover it works well and it is inexpensive.  Highly recommended, every serious shooter should buy one in my opinion.

Next was Benelli, best known for their shotguns although they do make pistols as well.  Of interest to me was the M4 Super 90, recently adopted by the US Army and Marine Corps.  This uses a gas-assist mechanism to ensure the gun functions all the time.  Although the inertia-operated M1 works pretty well in my experience, you do have problems with them when you add on gizmos as the gun becomes too heavy for the inertia system to work.  The M4 system is welcome and I was told that it would be available for police sales around July, with sales to the civilian market shortly thereafter.  I was also told that versions with longer barrels (e.g. for IPSC) were a possibility, I hope so, I think an M4 Super 90 along the lines of the current practical model would be an excellent shotgun for Practical Shotgun competition.

Beretta were of course in attendance, with various new products.  One was the Vertec series of pistols, essentially the 92/96 series with straight backstraps for smaller hands.  I have big hands and obviously it wasn’t my cup of tea, but if you have small hands this may be what you have been looking for.  The 92 variation that really got my attention was the Billennium, I suggest you click on the link as my photo was crap:

The gun is nickel-plated and has a single-action only mechanism and various other interesting details.  Only 2,000 will be made.

Of far more interest to shooters in the British Isles I suspect was the Neos pistol, an inexpensive .22 plinker:

This is of interest because although we can’t have handguns, a carbine version is planned:

Not sure how it will compare with a 10/22, but anything to increase our choice of guns is welcome!

Bleiker is a company I hadn’t heard of before, but the 300m ISSF standard rifle on their stand was very impressive, if you’re in the market for a 300m rifle I suggest having a look at this one.

I suppose I should have been paying more attention on the Browning stand, the only thing that caught my eye were their rifles chambered for the range of Winchester Short Magnums.  Short magnums by the way were one of the trends at the show.  I did notice another model of the Buckmark rifle.

Bushmaster was one of a blizzard of companies making and selling AR-15s, I mention them only because I have been impressed by their Y-Comp, which seems to be one of the more effective muzzle brakes I have come across.

Cavalry Arms is another maker of AR-15 parts with a neat product – one-piece injection-molded plastic lower receivers.  Inexpensive and they seemed to work okay from the ones I handled on the stand.

Colt’s had quite a large stand, with a very wide variety of products that I thought had been discontinued.  Whether they are all available or not I don’t know – but the price tags seemed to be a lot higher than I recall.  Another one of the trends at the show was vintage handguns, and Colt’s joined in with a replica of the M1911A1 from World War 2, even down to the US Property markings!  A bit pricey with a retail price of $950 and there were a couple of details that were not authentic that I noticed when I handled it (trigger design and the roll-marking on the chamber), I will be interested to see how they sell as you can still buy the genuine article for less than $950:

A neat touch was the replica box with the grease-proof paper.

DPMS was another maker of AR-15s at the show.  DPMS always impress me because they go to the effort of redesigning the rifle rather than simply knocking out endless obvious copies of the original Colt product.  They are known for their side-cocking upper receivers for example, or the pump-action version.  One variation that is in their new brochure is a single-shot version, which should be of serious interest to shooters in the UK because it is legal here.  Essentially it is an AR-15 without a magazine well.  If you are a shooter like me who does a lot of “load one, shoot one” with your AR-15, then this may be the gun for you because the gas-operated action means you don’t have to endlessly manually yank the bolt back as you do on the popular straight-pull variations of the AR-15 made for the UK market.  Because it is single-shot only, it is not “self-loading” and is thus not prohibited under UK law.

Eley had their EPS ammo on display, which is apparently the best .22 rimfire ammunition ever for target shooting.

FN Herstal had lots of toys on their stand, albeit all banned from civilian possession.  Included were the P90 personal defence weapon and the Five seveN pistol, a new version with a single-action trigger was on display.  I think I saw the F2000 assault rifle there too, although it might just be my imagination from looking through the brochure.  The problem with these guns is that the F2000 is about 15 years too late, as all major armies have re-equipped with 5.56mm rifles.  The P90 is a clever gizmo, but although the 5.7x28mm can penetrate 48 layers of kevlar the actual terminal ballistics in gelatin aren’t all that impressive, akin to a .22 rimfire magnum.

They have however hit paydirt with their “less lethal” gun, which fires hard plastic bullets with a muzzle energy of about 40 ft/lb and it’s powered by a bottle of compressed air.  This has the serious advantage over a baton gun of having a rotary magazine, and the advantage over sprays and the taser of being usable at longer distances.  I suspect they will sell heaps of them to the police.

Glock didn’t have any new models other than an “America’s Heroes” tribute model for the Glock 21 and 22.  These have USA prefixes on the serial numbers and there will be 1,000 each of the 21 and 22.  Glock has however made various changes to what you get with your gun, worth mentioning.  The most notable (because all guns will have it) is the new extractor, which has a lump on it that protrudes from the gun when the chamber is loaded, otherwise known as a loaded chamber indicator:

Also, Glock has redesigned the famous box to make it more user-friendly for civilians, it is now easier to lock and looks less like Tupperware:

For those of you who like doodads, there is a Glock light (sorry about the bad photo):

And also as an optional extra you can now have a key-operated lock:

The key goes into the bottom of the grip, you turn it, the striker assembly is blocked and a white tab protrudes from the back of the grip.

I had a moan at them about the finger-groove grips, which I don’t like, I prefer the old ones because my fingers don’t fit the grooves.  I was told by the rep. I spoke to that it was a common complaint, so hopefully they will make models without the grooves at some point in the future.

Heckler & Koch had the USP Elite, which isn’t all that new as it has been around in Europe for awhile.  Yes, it’s nicer than an ordinary USP and I’m sure it’s accurate, but the trigger is made of plastic and is pretty spongy, and I can’t stand the lever magazine release.

Insight Technology had an impressive array of gizmos, they apparently make the LAM for the SOCOM offensive pistol that H&K makes.  I had a play with one on their stand, no doubt very expensive, it has a laser, light and an IR laser and can probably make a cup of coffee also.  Probably very expensive but a clever piece of kit given how small it is.

Kahr Arms had some yet smaller, yet lighter models of their pistols, we can’t own them and even if we could they’re useless for target shooting, but it’s new so I have to mention it.  Personally I’ve never been able to get along with the Kahr guns, the trigger pull is too unusual for me.  Nice and smooth, but too long.  Great for you guys who shoot those round thingies (revolvers?<G>)

Kimber had lots of 1911s and their bolt-action .22 rifles.  Someone import the rifles please, they’re very, very nice.

Korth have risen from the dead.  More of those round thingies.

Les Baer had the best AR-15s I have ever come across on their stand, which is saying something as there were about a zillion people selling AR-15s at the show.  They just ooze quality and they come with a 0.5 MOA guarantee, which is pretty astonishing if you think about it.  I came off the stand trying to figure out how I could get the money together to buy one, as they aren’t cheap.  I don’t see that making one straight-pull would be much of a problem as they make their own barrels, and all the other main bits too, which is why they’re so accurate.  If you have the money I suggest you buy one, they’re that good:

I didn’t see too many other stands with test targets next to their guns!

Magnum Research is the US importer for Israel Military Industries pistols, they are best known for the Desert Eagle, but they had an interesting new pistol on their stand called the Barak, which means “Lightning”:

It’s weird looking isn’t it?  The slide is tubular for most of its length, and there are two recoil spring guides.  Riding inbetween is a buffer.  Here’s the other side:

It looks so odd that I’ll be surprised if it takes off in a big way, however Israel has a large enough domestic market for pistols that I suspect it will be at least marginally successful.

Marlin had lots and lots of stuff that will be of great interest to shooters in GB.  First is the “Cowboy Competition Carbine”, the 1894 in .38 Special with a 20-inch octagon barrel and 10-shot tube.  Second is a stainless steel version of the 1894 in .44 Magnum, and third the model 795 .22 semi-auto is also now available in stainless steel.  There are also new rifles in the new Hornady .17 Magnum Rimfire.  I suspect the new versions of the 1894 (which is already one of the biggest selling rifles in Britain) will be extremely popular, now all we need is a stainless steel 1894 in .357 Magnum!

Uncle Mike’s had a new range of Kydex holsters, not of much use to us but an interesting development in the holster world, as they are so inexpensive.

PMC had two new products, they have a line of hunting ammo using Barnes XLC bullets, plus a range of “less lethal” shotgun ammunition, rubber buckshot and slugs.  They also had a line of inexpensive shotgun loads, however I suspect they will not be that competitive with our domestic makers.

Remington had various bits and pieces, but the product of most interest was the model 700 with a titanium alloy receiver, which obviously makes the rifle lighter.  I’m not sure I agree with this trend to ever lighter guns as it means ever heavier recoil, but it’s a neat toy!  Remington has their own range of short magnums called “Ultra Mag”, I suggest you go to their website for all the nitty gritty on them.  They also have a range of non-toxic shotgun loads called “Hevi-Shot”, which is worth a look at if you’re a field shooter, this appears to be pretty clever, with the shot made from a combination of tungsten, nickel and iron.

RUAG Munition had a small stand, but I had a look at their 6x47mm load for 300m ISSF, which is used by the World Champion.  Very high quality as with all RUAG ammunition, I recommend you buy some if you get the opportunity.

Sabre Defence Industries have resurrected the M85 sniper rifle, which is sure to be of interest to practical riflemen:

And:

They’re also making their own AR-15 lowers in the UK, which is helpful and also have a personal defence weapon based on the AR-15 in development.

Savage Arms have a number of new models chambered for the Remington Ultra Mag cartridges.

SIGARMS didn’t have anything spectacularly new, although they have started importing the P226 SL (stainless P226) into the US, and also the P226 Sport II SL is now available with a standard length 112mm barrel.  There were a huge variety of variations of the SSG3000 on the stand, but these models are unique to the US market apparently.

Smith & Wesson, now also the US importer for Walther, had a new range of guns called the “Heritage series”, which are recreations of some of S&W’s old standbys.  None of them are entirely authentic to the original, although most of them are pretty close.  Plus they’re new and you don’t have to worry about harming the value of the gun by shooting it.  There’s a substantial number of models in the range such as the Model#3 Schofield revolver, Model 29 Hand Ejector, the Model 15 and the Model 1917.

My favourite was the Ed McGivern Model 15 in blue, although it is available in nickel and also with a case hardened finish, note the sights and barrel profile and grip on this gun:

It also has a recreation of a sideplate with Ed McGivern’s shooting records on it:

Note the four-screw sideplate.  Shame we can’t own them in GB, but c’est la vie.  The model 952 target pistol is also being re-introduced, which is good news for target shooters in Europe.  I have to say the trigger pull on the one I tried wasn’t that impressive, but the general idea of a target pistol in 9mm will sell well in Europe, I’m sure.  Trigger pulls are after all what gunsmiths are for!

One of the significant new products of the show was the Sphinx AT-3000 pistol.  This is based on the older AT-2000 model, (which in turn is based on the CZ-75), but uses a new modular frame:

You can see in this picture the frame has a distinct top half and bottom half.  This may sound not too interesting, until I tell you that the bottom half is made from titanium alloy.  Not only that, but they can make the top half from titanium alloy too if you want (and you’ve got the money!)  The ones I handled were noticeably lighter than the equivalent AT-2000 model.  The AT-3000 also has full-length slide rails, which usually mean better accuracy, and there is an attachment for a light, another popular feature at the moment.  Here is a picture of the other side, but it didn’t come out too well:

That big lever is a decocker.  However, they do make the pistol in competition models with a standard thumb safety and also a single-action trigger if you want.  They’re a bit pricey but then quality always is.  I took a picture of Armin Landolt, proprietor of Sphinx with his new pistol:

You can see the target shooting model on the poster in the background.

Steyr were noticeable by their absence.  Apparently they have fallen out with their US importer, although a new one has been obtained.  Steyr itself has moved premises and reportedly has some new management.  This would seem to be the case as they will apparently make a straight-pull version of the AUG assault rifle for the civilian market later this year, something they have previously said repeatedly they would never do.

Sturm, Ruger & Co., better known to you and I as “Ruger” introduced a new side-by-side shotgun called the Gold Label.  I’m not much of a side-by-side enthusiast so I won’t embarrass myself with a critique, but it seemed well-made and Bill Ruger is a big shotgun enthusiast so I’ll assume for the time being it’s a nice gun!  The main selling point of the gun is that it is a high-quality gun at a lower price, thanks to the manufacturing method.  This will undoubtedly appeal to field shooters who have a tight budget, although I suspect the nostalgia of a hand-made gun will mean that London and Italian makers still have their market.

Taurus are still expanding their line of “Silhouette” revolvers, which is good news for us as they have 12-inch barrels, so made with a wrist brace they are legal in GB.  The newest calibre is .218 Bee, a rather odd choice, I suspect it won’t sell although it’s an interesting idea.  They are also made in .22 Magnum (which apparently has been around for awhile but I hadn’t seen one before), which is a more likely candidate for success.  Here is a picture of the .218 Bee model:

The big news from Winchester of course was the expansion of the short magnum range to include the .270 WSM and the 7mm WSM in addition to the .300 WSM introduced last year.  There is a range of model 70 rifles to accommodate them.

The more interesting new product from my point of view I have to say was the old standby, the model 94 lever-action rifle chambered in .480 Ruger!  I suspect this is a bit painful in terms of recoil but interesting nonetheless.  I’m not sure there is any non-expanding ammunition in this calibre so target shooting with it legally in GB will be quite difficult, although I’m sure there is a handloading option.

Also of interest is the 9410 lever-action shotgun, basically a model 94 chambered in .410.  This was introduced last year although there was a new shorter model on display.  The version with the 24″ barrel would be legal on a shotgun certificate in GB with the magazine permanently restricted to two rounds.

Anyway it was a long walk as per usual, you get all the information from the comfort of your chair! 

ACPO, again

Posted on by

ACPO, again

I don’t think there has been any one piece of earth-shattering news in the past few months, however, I thought it was time for an editorial because several small things have happened that are noteworthy.

New guidance on firearms law

The new Guidance for Police has been published, and you can read it by clicking here.  There are many noteworthy things in it, however the main point to be made is that shooters were successful in convincing the Home Office that the number of rounds that should generally be allowed for a target shooter per calibre is 1,000; with larger limits for those who use .22 rimfire.  This is an improvement upon the original suggestion of 500 rounds.  My personal view is that the 1,500 limit suggested in the 1969 guidance appears to have worked well for several decades, so why change it?

The other main point is that the number of “uses” per year, recorded by your club, per gun, should be at least three before warning bells start tinkling in your licensing officer’s head, as opposed to the proposed six times, in order to substantiate your “good reason” for wanting a rifle or muzzle-loading pistol for target shooting.

US clamps down on foreigners with guns

As I speculated in the last editorial, there will be fallout from the attack on the World Trade Center, and the bad news is that it is going to become substantially more difficult for foreigners in the US to own or even use firearms.  The actual new regulations aren’t that much different, it’s just that they’re taking them more seriously now and new measures have been thought up to make the regulations enforceable.  There are more details elsewhere on this website by clicking here.

The meat of it is that if you want to visit the US with your guns now, you must have an import permit, and those take a couple of months to get.  The picture as regards even renting a gun at a shooting range in the US is very murky, it’s not clear whether even this innocuous activity is still legal.  Final regulations will be issued in May, and pressure is being brought to bear to make them as reasonable as possible, given the circumstances.

The SHOT show

I’ve done a review of the SHOT show that you can read by clicking here.  Given all the hassle at the airports it is amazing that anyone showed up, in my opinion!

ACPO strikes again

ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) have once again demonstrated that they are no friends of shooters with a misguided attack on Brocock, the importer and manufacturers of air cartridge pistols.

ACPO apparently based their stupid press release on a comment of an employee of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), to the effect that 50% of all recovered handguns were Brocock air cartridge revolvers converted to fire live ammunition.  Later, (much later, after the press had all stuck their oars in) it became apparent that NCIS had been seriously mistaken – their figures in fact show that of recovered firearms converted from other items, six out of thirteen recovered firearms were converted air pistols, and of those a proportion were converted Brocock guns.  These thirteen guns comprise only a fraction of the total number of firearms seized however, and in reality the converted Brocock guns amount for no more than 4% of the total guns seized, and in all likelihood an even smaller percentage than that.

Several important questions need to be answered, first of all, why were NCIS so incredibly mistaken about their own statistics, and why did an NCIS employee open his mouth with the press watching and cram his foot into it?  Why did ACPO respond with a knee-jerk press release, essentially libeling Brocock, without checking the facts first?  And what exactly are two public organisations funded by taxpayer money doing, spending taxpayer money to create a massive amount of hysteria over virtually nothing?

We can be sure of only one thing: a lot of criminals who previously didn’t know how to illegally make a handgun now do, and the people responsible for the advertising campaign for how to do it are NCIS and ACPO.

They must face sanctions as a result of their reckless irresponsibility, and writing to your MP with the above details is an excellent place to start.

Overheard at the SHOT show:  “The gun went civil service on me.”

“What does that mean?”

“It means it won’t work and you can’t fire it.”

The fallout from terrorism

Posted on by

Since the attacks on September 11th, my mailbox has been full of e-mails speculating on what the Government might do or should do in the aftermath.  Regardless of their merits it does seem to me at least that an awful lot of people are running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

Terrorism is nothing new in the UK of course, although nothing on the scale of the attack in New York City has ever happened here, the closest thing was a bomb at Canary Wharf.

So what will happen?  Well, of course my crystal ball is exceedingly murky because the Government in these situations does have a tendency to have a knee-jerk response and that response will be to whatever the terrorists do.

In the United States the picture is clearer, at least as regards guns.  More gun control laws are distinctly out of fashion as guns fly off the shelves due to worry about terrorism.  Of course, there is far more chance of being hit by a car crossing the road to get to the gun shop, then being a victim of one of Osama’s zealots, but providing there is no further crisis that causes a mass panic there will be two outcomes, I suspect.  One is that there are a lot of first-time gun owners and many of them will find that shooting is something they enjoy.  If nothing else, firearm instructors will be making some money in addition to the gun shops.  The second outcome is that I suspect in a couple of years time there will be a lot of barely used guns on the market.

One of the more intriguing things that has happened in the US is that the Airline Pilots Association has come out strongly in support of allowing pilots to be armed, and a measure allowing them to be armed after undergoing training seems certain to become law.  This is not as simple an issue as some have made out.  Using a firearm on board an aircraft is not something to be undertaken lightly.  There have been those that have suggested it would be unsafe because of the possibility of explosive decompression.  As it turns out, an airliner can take quite a large number of bullet holes through the fuselage without problems, assuming the bullets even penetrate it.

The problems are in fact somewhat less dramatic.  Airliners are packed with passengers (well, not at the moment).  Discharging a firearm on an aircraft means an excellent chance of hitting a bystander.  Discharging a firearm also means a good chance of a mass panic.  On an aircraft this is a serious problem because if the passengers all cluster in one area of the aircraft it can cause a load imbalance that can cause the aircraft to pitch.

Another problem is that hijackers are far more dangerous than a mugger or armed robber would be.  In many cases they are well-trained, motivated and heavily armed.  To take them on requires extremely well-trained personnel.  For these reasons the FAA Air Marshall firearm training course is probably the most demanding of any police organisation anywhere on the planet.  Pilots probably don’t need this level of training as they are merely defending the cockpit rather than actively engaging terrorists in the passenger cabin, but still, they will need excellent training with regular practice sessions.

However, the main problem with this proposal, which I have yet to see mentioned anywhere else, is that it suffers from the substantial loophole that it only applies in the United States.  What happens if a US airline flies to France or some other European country for example?  Will the pilot find himself arrested for illegal possession of a firearm as he steps off the plane?  Even more alarming, what about flights by foreign airlines from the United States?  A terrorist may well target a British Airways or Air France flight knowing that the air crew are almost certainly unarmed due to the existence of more restrictive legislation in those countries.  Many foreign airlines have flights that take off from airports in the US.  Unless these problems are addressed by reciprocal legislation in other countries, the US legislation is largely futile.

Whether or not the Government here will reciprocate is an intriguing question.

What about my guns?

One of the major concerns expressed by shooters is that a crackdown on terrorism will mean a crackdown on them.  It’s impossible to say at the moment.  Certainly firearms have not featured in the terrorist acts so far.  Given how restrictive firearm laws are in Europe my personal feeling is that it is unlikely, although there may be changes in other laws that indirectly affect shooters, such as a law requiring everyone to carry photo ID, a firearm certificate would be an example of that.

Certainly concern about more restrictive gun laws appears to be fueling a fire sale of stock among certain European wholesalers, prices have fallen to silly levels for certain guns in France and Germany.  Unfortunately shooters in the British Isles won’t benefit from that as our wholesalers carry so little stock nowadays.

The new SA80

The Ministry of Defence has announced that the modified SA80, the L85A2 individual weapon (rifle, to you and I) and L86A2 light support weapon have passed all tests “comfortably” and are in the process of adoption, some 10,000 having been converted already.

I’ve made no secret of my opposition to this move in earlier editorials, and the cost appears to have gone up now too, from £80 million to £92.5 million.  Clearly replacing many of the major parts of the gun with better designed bits from H&K will improve things, but what is perhaps more worrying is the spin the MoD is putting on it in the press package.

It describes the alterations as “minor”, no doubt in order to conceal just how truly horrendous the gun was prior to the changes.  Other worrying comments are the weak attempt to explain away the difficulties left-handed shooters face using it, plus the excessive weight (which the MoD attempts to conceal by giving the weight figure minus the sights – a rifle with no sights isn’t much use).  Perhaps the all-time classic comment is that reliability has improved just as a new Vauxhall Astra is better than one made in 1986 – missing entirely the point that a Kalashnikov made in 1951 beats an SA80 made in 1986 hands down!

Also the “special forces” cop out continues, the MoD simply cannot explain away why the special forces have adopted completely different weapons made by Diemaco, so instead they say that they cannot comment, when everyone knows from the contract award that the special forces are using different guns.

Of course, now there is talk of putting in ground forces in Afghanistan, things could get very messy very quickly.  It is perhaps a good job that the units that will be first in aren’t armed with the SA80!

According the MoD, the SA80 will remain in front-line service until at least 2020.

“I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson’s seven shooter, which carried a ball like a homeopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult.  But I thought it was grand.  It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon.  It had only one fault – you could not hit anything with it.  One of our conductors practiced a while on a cow with it; as long as she stood still and behaved herself, she was safe; but as soon as she went to moving about, and he got to shooting at other things, she came to grief.” – Mark Twain, critiquing the S&W No. 1 .22 revolver in the 1860s.

Disarmament hasn’t worked in England, but no-one admits it

Posted on by

By Jeffrey R. Snyder

Values are not derived from facts, and do not “follow” from facts. Thus, a correction in a person’s state of knowledge by the addition of new or correct facts does not, presto-chango, alter a person’s values. For this reason, one can never “win” a gun control debate by replacing or correcting the opposition’s false facts with true facts.

The facts are not why anti-gunners believe what they believe. In fact, the facts are often merely justifications for what they want to believe. At best, new facts may lead a person to re-evaluate his values, but, even then, the facts do not determine the values. 

Consider as a case in point the fact that the English press is beginning to learn that the universal pistol ban enacted in 1997 following the Dunblane massacre has not delivered the country from gun crimes. And consider the reaction to this news. 

In an article titled “Britain’s Tough Gun Control Laws Termed Total Failure” appearing in the May 3-16 issue of Britain’s venerable Punch magazine, Peter Woolrich writes:

“Four years after the Dunblane massacre, Britain’s tighter gun laws have failed completely… There are now an estimated 3 million illegal firearms in the UK, perhaps double the number of four years ago, and the only effect the knee-jerk political reaction that led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1997 has had is to shut down legitimate gun clubs. 

“The new research suggests that in some areas a third of young criminals, classed as those aged 15 to 25 with convictions, own or have access to guns ranging from Beretta sub-machine guns to Luger pistols… ‘There is a move from the pistol and shotgun to automatic weapons,’ says Detective Superintendent Keith Hudson of the National Crime Squad. ‘We are recovering weapons that are relatively new– and sometimes still in their boxes from eastern European countries.’

“Home office figures soon to be released will show that, overall, armed crime rose 10 percent in 1998…” 

Additional Proof

The article goes on to favorably quote Bill Harriman, a spokesman for the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, who criticizes the current legislation for focusing on the law-abiding instead of being directed at illegally-held firearms. The article further pointedly notes that “…the government had plenty of evidence at its disposal to realize that simply banning certain types of weapons is ineffective. For example, fully-automatics have been prohibited since 1937, but it has not stopped criminals from using them.”

Now with these facts, the author could go in at least two directions. He could use this information as the beginning of an examination of whether gun control is a valid or effective means of securing reductions in crime, for example, by questioning whether it ever can in fact succeed, or whether it imposes too high a price on the law-abiding. Alternatively, he could take it as evidence that not enough restrictions have yet been enacted. 

At this point we are on pins and needles! What, oh what, will our British author do? What direction will his values or his “knee-jerk response” take him? 

The article concludes by examining existing loopholes and inconsistencies in the current law, such as the fact that it did not control access to ammunition and permitted persons who could not acquire or own pistols to acquire and own shotguns, and criticizes the “laxity” of the Dunblane legislation.

It quotes the Home Affairs Committee recommendation that “…the time is now right for Parliament to address the entire issue and produce an completely new Firearms Act. Any lesser step will be insufficient.”

Nowhere does the article argue that new legislation could or should re-establish pistol ownership by law-abiding members of shooting clubs, let alone raise the issue of whether people have a right to the means to self-defense. 

Knee-Jerk Response

One of the interesting, and revealing, things about the article is its seemingly tough criticism of Parliament for a “knee-jerk” political and ultimately ineffectual response, which, the article implies, Parliament should have known would not work.

By sheer coincidence, my wife and I were in England at the time the Dunblane legislation and report were being considered. The English media and populace were absolutely rabid for the banning of pistols. Leaders of sportsmen’s clubs who appeared on television, wrote op-ed pieces or lobbied Parliament to defend the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and shoot pistols for sport– self-defense is a taboo subject– were simply savaged in the papers and on television.

Often the strongest and angriest criticism was that, by resisting the proposed ban, the country’s pistol owners were not respecting the grief of the parents whose children had been massacred! 

One would never know any of this reading the Punch article. The way it is written, one would think the poor English people were blameless in the outcome, patiently sitting by expectantly, and hoping merely that the experts in Parliament would protect and serve them well. And then, lo and behold, the bumblers simply did the most expedient and easy thing.

Sure, a “complete ban” sounded good, it played well on television, but ultimately– and they should have known this– it would prove ineffectual. And now, now, things are worse. By George, this time, they better get it right!

Refusal To Charge

And this refusal of the author to charge the people with their own stupidity and cupidity, this refusal of the people to own up and take responsibility, is symptomatic. In the end, the article exhibits the same response as the original response to Dunblane. We bear no responsibility for ourselves; we take nothing upon ourselves. Government must do something to protect us.

Close those loopholes, clamp down further. Evil still works unencumbered, and you, our protectors, must stop it. 

It is this underlying “knee-jerk” reflex, this utter and childish dependency of the individual and society upon government, this learned helplessness, this presumption that the individual cannot act, that only the state can act, which is the reason for the prohibition on pistols.

This valuelessness of the individual, this timidity, this rejection of personal responsibility, is why mounting revelations of the ineffectualness of gun laws lead only to demands for more and more restraints, and why the facts prove powerless to change men’s minds. It is not information that is lacking. It’s that there’s no there there.

This article was originally published in American Handgunner magazine and is reproduced with permission.

Sam Cummings: “I am not personally an enthusiast of the M-16.”

Sen. Stuart Symington: “In Vietnam they are enthusiastic because of the weight.”

Cummings: “The World War Two carbine was a useless weapon… Everybody loved it because it was light, but it was a dog.”

Symington: “Why is it a dog?”

Cummings: “Ballistically.  You can have a hatful of the cartridges in your stomach and still live long enough to blast the man who fired at you.”

Stenographer: “He’s right!  He’s right!  I was in the Battle of the Bulge and I shot a German six times with a carbine and he was able to shoot me!”

– US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, 1967

Labour’s Gun Policy Backfires

Posted on by

What does £100 million buy you? Not a lot if you spend it on banning handguns, as the Government is rapidly discovering. According to their own statistics, published by the Home Office, serious offences involving the use of firearms increased by 31% in England and Wales from 1998/99 to 1999/2000. In the period 1997/98, 54 people were shot dead in England and Wales, by 1999/2000 the figures had risen to 62 fatalities. All indications are that the next batch of figures will be even worse. 

Of course, anyone who had actually studied the issue knew this would happen, but during Labour’s pre-election “promise the moon” phase in 1997, they got carried away and are now reaping the consequences. 

Pistol shooters don’t like the Tories with good reason; it was the party of Michael Howard and Michael Forsyth after all that proposed a handgun ban after the shootings at Dunblane, but they were careful never to suggest that it would have an impact on armed crime generally; they merely suggested it would reduce the likelihood of another nutter using a legally held gun to commit carnage. 

But then Labour decided to turn the whole issue into a political football in order to win a few more votes, with the appearance of gun control supporter Anne Pearston at the 1996 Labour Party Conference, together with Tony Blair’s personal pledge to ban all handguns.

And then along came Alun Michael MP, appointed as Home Office Minister of State when Labour came to power in 1997, and currently relegated to the back benches after his disastrous run as leader of the Welsh Assembly. On November 3rd, 1997 he commented in the House of Commons that:

“There is a danger.

In the last year for which full information is available, there were 398 incidents of theft of legally held handguns. In that year, therefore, there was more than one incident per day–sometimes involving more than one weapon–of guns going from legal to illegal possession. That figure should give pause for thought to anyone who thinks that it is safe to leave handguns in the possession of members of the public.”

The clear implication was that criminals steal these guns and use them in crime – how then how does the Government now reconcile this statement with the reality that 54% of serious firearm offences were committed with handguns according to their own statistics in 1999/2000, a rise from 44% in 1989? (Not to mention their own research that shows the theft figures are flawed). And remember this infamous press release, dated February 27, 1998, that began:

 “The Government fulfilled its pledge to remove all handguns from the streets of Britain today as the final phase of firearms surrender came to a close.”

If it weren’t so serious it would be laughable. 

And what do the police say about all this? The Metropolitan Police limply responded recently that at least armed robbery figures were down. So you’re less likely to be robbed, but more likely to be murdered. Wonderful. Of course, the Police Federation are also strong supporters of the ban, according to the October 1997 issue of Police:

“The Police Federation played a significant role in bringing about this step… we… welcomed the new administration’s swift implementation of its manifesto commitment to enact a total ban.”

Remember, they “played a significant role” in squandering £100 million of taxpayer’s money on a law that has been followed by a sharp increase in the crimes it was supposed to prevent. 

And what of the anti-gun lobby, remember the pages of heartfelt calls for a ban in the national press, because even if it saves only one life it’s worth it? Well, according to the Gun Control Network’s website, the increase in firearm-related homicide is not “statistically significant”.

So if your child is murdered by a madman in Dunblane, that’s a tragedy, but if your child is gunned down by a drug dealer in Bolton, that’s not “statistically significant”.  A low blow? They’re the ones saying it!

The only real effect of the handgun ban has been to hand the gun lobby a brick bat with which to hit the Government every time further controls are suggested. More controls on shotguns? The proportion of shotguns used in crime is at an all-time low and the handgun ban didn’t work. More controls on airguns? Fatalities with airguns are at an all-time low and the handgun ban didn’t work. A ban on replicas? There are millions in circulation with no idea who has them AND THE HANDGUN BAN DIDN’T WORK!!!!

Of course, the £100 million question is whether the Government is wise enough to learn from its mistakes. Time will tell.

What would Walter Winans say?

On the 23 – 31st of August this year at Bisley, a most peculiar event will take place, the Commonwealth Shooting Federation championships. That in itself is not peculiar but the circumstances under which they will take place are, to put it mildly, extremely bizarre. 

The National Rifle Association, the custodians of Bisley National Shooting Centre, are in very serious financial trouble, with an overdraft closing in on £2 million by the end of the year. As the Commonwealth Games are one of the premier showcases for the shooting sports, especially Target Rifle, the NRA’s favourite discipline, the NRA lobbied hard for the shooting events to be kept in the Games. Eventually the Commonwealth Games Committee agreed, as many of the smaller Commonwealth countries only send teams to the shooting events. 

So far so good. 

The NRA and the NSRA made an application for funds to the National Lottery in order to do up Bisley to hold the shooting events from the Games in 2002. Originally (according to the NRA) attempts had been made to find a shooting venue close to Manchester where the rest of the events will be held, but this was abandoned and Bisley was chosen. 

So the NRA and NSRA received a grant for £6 million, which they split between themselves. Unfortunately for the NRA, they had not realised that “matching funds” were needed in order to secure the grant, and had to dig deep to find the money, several hundred thousand pounds. Of the £3 million, most was spent on new facilities for the shotgun events, but most of the NRA’s matching funds were spent on Melville range in order to hold the pistol events. 

Now this is where things start to get a bit bizarre. You see, pistols are banned in Britain and so the improvements have been accomplished for the purpose of holding two pistol events, the Commonwealth Shooting Federation match this year, and the Commonwealth Games next year. 

One might think the NRA has some pretty serious funds to spare that they can spend money on a sport that is banned. Er, no. 

It has now transpired that the NRA expected to recoup the funds they spent from various sources, such as Sport England, the Ministry of Defence (for future range rental fees) and the City of Manchester. But, apparently there are no written contracts to that effect. After all, the NRA is a very trusting organisation. 

Problems arose because the chosen venue for the Games, the City of Manchester, was less than welcoming to the idea of shooting events. Although they eventually agreed to them, they have been less than forthcoming with money with which to stage them. Not surprising, you might think, given that they are taking place some 200 miles away from Manchester. 

Sport England have also said no money will be forthcoming. The MoD, one of the most cash-strapped agencies in the UK, have also, not surprisingly said “no”. Hmm, what, other organisations are not as trusting as the NRA? Stop me before I choke on my own sarcasm. 

The pistol events

In years gone by, shooters would drive down to Bisley, get out of their cars (or buggies, going further back) with their pistols and ammunition, sign in for the relevant competition and start shooting. Walter Winans, one of the greatest pistol shots of the late 19th and early 20th centuries described shooting at Bisley in great detail in his book The Art of Revolver Shooting, published in 1901. In one passage he states: 

“I always have my Bisley sights made solid with the revolver, without any screws, and have some made to shoot higher, others lower, each on a separate revolver. If I find that the light, or my shooting, does not suit one sort of sight, I take another revolver. I have some fifteen revolvers prepared in this way.” 

Capital thinking, Walter. 

This year and next year, things will be slightly different. Competitors will have to arrive at Heathrow Airport.   Prior to arriving, they will have been issued a visitor’s permit with the authority of the Secretary of State attached. Competitors will surrender their pistols to Customs. From there, they will be taken by secure transport to the armoury at Bisley Camp. On the day of the competition, and for brief practice sessions, their guns will be given to them by the armourer who will supervise them while they shoot, together with range officers who also have the authority of the Secretary of State. 

Want to spectate? You’ll have to get a ticket from the NRA to allow you onto Camp. If you want to watch the pistol events, you will be separated from the shooters by a glass partition behind the firing point (paid for by the NRA, incidentally). 

One wonders whether the NRA wouldn’t have been better served by getting heavily into debt attempting to stop pistols from being banned in the first place. To quote Walter again: 

“The place to practise is at home; there is no economy in paying half-a-crown for every six shots at Bisley, when you can shoot as much as you like at home for nothing.”

I may be wrong, but I don’t think Walter considered Switzerland to be “home”. Oh well, Walter, rest in peace, but while you’re spinning in your grave, take heart in the fact that the NRA has at least named one of the pistol, er, gallery rifle ranges after you.

“Only quite recently there was a report of a mad dog in a crowded street of New York.  The policeman on the beat killed it at the first shot, and did not hit anyone in the crowd.  If a London policeman started ‘loosing off’ a revolver in a crowd, I fear the ambulance corps would be kept busy!” – Walter Winans, “The Art of Revolver Shooting”, p.224, 1901 

Time to vote

Posted on by

Another General Election is upon us, and frankly I have yet to recover from the last one.  Shooters lost a great deal in terms of our freedoms prior to the last election.

Unfortunately, there is very little chance of a change of Government, and even if there were, the likely replacements, the Conservatives, are what got us in this mess to begin with, with laws like the Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1988 and 1997.

Labour has undertaken to bring forth a consolidating Firearms Act sometime in the next Parliament, that in itself is welcome, however, it is a sure bet that the Bill will contain various other provisions not currently in law, such as tighter controls on shotguns.

So how do shooters decide who to vote for, given that in many areas, both main candidates are anti-gun or at best don’t care about the issue?

The first thing to realise is that your vote does count.  The recent fiasco in the United States illustrated that clearly.  If shooters vote en bloc they can facilitate change, but once again, who do we vote for?

The dynamics of this election are a lot more complex than the general media appears to realise.  There is a real battle going on here, but it’s not between Labour and the tories, it’s between Labour and “New Labour” as Blair likes to term the party nowadays.  New Labour forms an identifiable chunk of the Labour party, and in most cases, the MPs who represent that chunk are in far more marginal seats than most of the rest of the party.  This is because many of them have been elected in seats that were formerly under the control of the tories.  It is these seats that Tony Blair is keen to keep in Labour hands, and it is these seats that are the most vulnerable.  If these seats were to be lost, the Labour Government would survive, but there is a real chance it would veer off to the left.

This would make Labour less popular, but it would also make them more anti-gun, probably.  It’s a bit of a conundrum to know what to do.

My personal view remains the same now as it did in 1997.  Forget about who leads what party, forget in fact what party your candidates represent.  Talk to the candidates from the main parties in your area, and figure out which one is the most pro-gun.  If none of them are, attempt to convince them.  Then vote for the best one.

Unlike in the US, there is no party where pro-shooting philosophies can be clearly identified.  The UK Independence Party sometimes makes such noises, but sometimes it makes anti-gun noises, and in any event they stand little chance of gaining real power.

Also, unlike in the US, the power to make gun laws rests almost entirely in Parliament.  Local politicians can do very little about it, the worst they can do is to prevent planning permission being given to shooting ranges or gun shops.

You have to vote carefully, to make a long story short.  Many shooters seem to think that voting tory is the only real option, it’s not, and it is a serious error to think this in my opinion.  The tories have never had a minister as pro-shooting as the current Minister for Sport, Kate Hoey MP, for example.

Certainly a narrowing of the massive Labour majority in the Commons will benefit shooters though, because the smaller their majority the harder it will be for them to get anything extreme through.  Unfortunately, until we can convince the tories of the error of their ways, gridlock is the best option in the “big” picture as it’s called.  Achieving that though I think is difficult.

So remember to vote, but be careful who you vote for, and be sure you talk to the candidates in your constituency before you vote.  It is easy to do, they will soon be assailing you with hotlines you can call, knocking on your door etc., take the time and make the effort.

The future of target shooting

I have been inspired to write on this subject by a recent article in Target Sports magazine by Richard Munday, who is a well-known and respected member of the shooting community, in addition to being President of the British Alpine Rifles.

Richard in his article bemoans the lack of attendance of the events at the Imperial Meeting at Bisley in the short-range (gallery rifle etc.) events, and suggests alterations to them and new events to encourage attendance.

I think Richard has the right idea, but as I have mentioned to him before, I think we are barking up the wrong tree.  The events at Bisley and a lot of other places are in essence the old course of pistol fire adapted to gallery rifles (for those of you who don’t know, these are .22 rimfire or pistol calibre rifles such as the Winchester M1894 or Ruger 10/22).  I personally think it is a serious error to even attempt to adapt these courses of fire for gallery rifles.  It makes some sense for muzzle-loading pistols that are still legal and air pistols, but not for rifles.

The problem I perceive is that the old pistol courses of fire where in decline long before the handgun ban anyway.  ISSF disciplines have grown ever more esoteric and the events ever more poorly attended.  Even when I go to events that are supposedly to ISSF rules now, most of the equipment used is not to ISSF rules or if it is, totally outside the bounds of anything remotely competitive in ISSF competitions.

For example, at the Imperial Meeting, most of the 300m events can be shot with Target Rifles, which are not to ISSF rules.  Pistol competitions I go to in mainland Europe feature mainly customised 9mm pistols, similar to the SIG-Sauer P226 Sport reviewed on this site, rather than the high-end .22 pistols you see at the Olympics and ISSF championships (you do see them, but only about 20% of shooters have them).

10m air pistol for example is an ISSF event, one would expect with the handgun ban that it would have become massively more popular, but no, most people seem to have gravitated to rifle sports or they have adapted the ISSF 25m courses of fire for use with multi-shot air pistols!

Frankly, the courses of fire are simply ultra-dull, they weren’t too exciting with centrefire pistols, even less exciting with .22 pistols, and coma inducing with gallery rifles.

This is not to say they cannot be challenging, but the reality is that with a rifle at 25m the margin of victory is usually only a few points (especially with the ISSF pistol targets).  For a typical club shooter to be able to put up nearly a perfect score without too much practice underlines how dull it is.  Richard even makes the point himself in his article, with a picture of himself with a perfect score on a duelling course of fire.  Could he have done that with a pistol, I wonder?

Certainly some of the new shooters at my local club do find it interesting, but most GR shooters were originally pistol shooters, and while ISSF disciplines adapted to rifles can be made artificially more difficult with smaller bullseyes, tighter time limits and so on, I think it a rather pointless exercise.  There is little point in adapting declining disciplines to try to appeal to equipment that makes them relatively unchallenging when compared to the pistol equivalent.

A different approach

My personal view is that clubs like Wrexham R&PC have got a better idea.

Wrexham have adapted the Sportsman’s Team Challenge from the US for gallery rifle competition.  The Team Challenge has three stages in which steel plates on racks must be knocked down.  .22 rifles are used in two of the stages, and it is this that Wrexham have picked up on.  Several other clubs are also taking a similar approach.

This to my mind is vastly more interesting, for various reasons.  It’s challenging, and perhaps more importantly, it carries more prestige to win it.  Knowing that people around the world shoot the discipline make it seem more worthwhile, which is not the case with pseudo-ISSF style disciplines adapted to pistol-calibre rifles, which are only shot in this country by a relatively small number of people.

Another alternative are the Bianchi Cup-style events, also more interesting than the events put on at the Imperial, but these are few and far between.

Yet another alternative came to my attention recently, and that is IPSC rifle.  Many people will be familiar with practical shotgun and pistol events, IPSC rifle is basically practical pistol with a rifle, at longer ranges.  The Practical Rifle League in this country has for many years dominated practical rifle, but PRL events are similar to service rifle, IPSC is a different kettle of fish.

Much to my surprise I discovered that IPSC rifle actually requires in Standard Division the use of manually-operated rifles.  I suspect most people like myself assumed everyone used centrefire semi-auto rifles.  They are banned in the UK, so obviously international competitions would have been out of the question if everyone used semi-autos – but they don’t.

The main problem with IPSC rifle is finding a suitable range to do it on, but you can use gallery rifles within the terms of the rules (or the more powerful ones at least), so this is an interesting option for the former pistol shooter I feel, something worth looking into at any rate.

Doubtless there are other options, but ISSF duelling and precision with pistol-calibre rifles is like trying to flog a dead horse in my opinion, and in talking to other shooters it is a widely held view.  Sorry, Richard.  If it had anything going for it the current ISSF .22 rifle disciplines would have been taken up in greater numbers, but this has not happened, as my local club with its 50m range set up for ISSF .22 disciplines that no-one wants to shoot can attest to!

Time to innovate.

“The place to practise is at home; there is no economy in paying half-a-crown for every six shots at Bisley, when you can shoot as much as you like at home for nothing.” – Walter Winans, “The Art of Revolver Shooting”, p. 125, published 1901.