| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
abec1989
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 11
Location: swansea
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:28 pm Post subject: know anything about this belgian revolver |
 |
|
hi, i have a belgian revolver that i know nothing about do you know any thing about it . it has the belgian proof marks a crown with a R below it. have you got any idear on the date.
link for a photo
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l263/abec1989/DSCF1368.jpg
thank you aaron |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NeilMac
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looks about 1880-1900 to me but I'm no expert on such things. What calibre is it? Rimfire or centrefire? I take it you've got it as "obsolete calibre".
Best wishes,
Neil Mac' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abec1989
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 11
Location: swansea
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
when i got it i was told that it is obsolete, and i dont know if it is a rimfire or a centerfire how do i tell. i only started to collect deactivated guns in febuary and i have been reading as much as i can about the history or the guns but i don't know much yet
thank toy aron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abec1989
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 11
Location: swansea
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sorry about the spelling mistake on the last post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeilMac
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Aaron,
You can edit posts you know. Look for the edit button. I usually put a note in saying for example "Edited for spelling" or whatever.
If the pin on the hammer lines up with the centre of the chamber it's a centrefire, if it looks as though it will it hit the rim of the cartridge it's a rimfire.
I'll leave you to look up rimfire and centrefire priming for yourself! 
Best wishes,
Neil Mac' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject: Re: know anything about this belgian revolver |
|
|
It looks a bit like a Webley Bulldog revolver in .44 Bulldog to me. Does it have a tear-drop shaped barrel?
The whole thing about "obsolete" chamberings being the only ones you are allowed to possess as antiques is not really true. The Act only refers to "Antique firearms possessed as a curiosity or ornament". The HO would like to think it only applies to cartridge loading firearms that are on their sacred list but they aren't right, I'm afriad. In fact, their guidance is flatly contradicted by case law. The HO say that no firearm chambering .22 rinfire cartridges should be considered to benefit from the exemption in Sec.58 yet there is case law that says otherwise.
If it's an antique and you buy, sell acquire or possess it as a "curiosity or ornament" then it's exempt, even if it's Sec.5.
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeilMac
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 981
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anybody got an antique Bren for sale? I've always wanted one as a "curio"?
(and why not?) ( I think the old hands know where I stand)
Best wishes,
Neil Mac' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cybershooters
Site Admin
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4618
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like a knockoff of the Webley RIC revolver to me. Many companies in many countries made copies of that revolver during the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s. They're generally not worth much.
_________________
Steve.
Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carrot Cruncher
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Copies of English revolvers were made in their thousands in Liege. Considerable lengths were gone to in some cases to replicate the English style - for example "British Bulldog" would often be stamped on barrels or frames.
Lots of Belgian revolvers are around on the obsolete circuit, chambered for .320 CF Revolver. They were generally intended for private use.
This is a constabulary style revolver though - see the vestigial lanyard attachment - and so is likely to be in one of the larger calibres.
The grip shape and apparent length indicate to me that it is a copy of the 1883 Metroplitan Police Webley rather than the RIC No 2 Model. It could be .450 CF. You might find a calibre marking on the rear face of the cylinder. This could be gauge size, so a .450 would be about 50 to 52 gauge I would guess. Such a marking would be in small impressed characters about 2.5/3mm high, and they are frequently incorrectly taken to be some sort of serial number.
If you do not know what you are acquiring, be very careful indeed that you do not put yourself at risk of being put in possession of a prohibited weapon. I hope that the person who told you it was obsolete was a reputable dealer ? If not, get it properly checked and surrendered to the police if necessary. Some dealers may charge about £200 for this sort of thing, but really they are neither rare nor valuable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Carrot Cruncher wrote: | | I hope that the person who told you it was obsolete was a reputable dealer ? |
Like I said above, just because something is or isn't on the HO obsolete list dosen't meant it does or does not benefit from the exemption in Sec.58. If it's an antique firearm and you possess it as a curiosity or ornament then it's exempt.
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JonathanL wrote: | | Carrot Cruncher wrote: | | I hope that the person who told you it was obsolete was a reputable dealer ? |
Like I said above, just because something is or isn't on the HO obsolete list dosen't meant it does or does not benefit from the exemption in Sec.58. If it's an antique firearm and you possess it as a curiosity or ornament then it's exempt.
J. |
If a Court of Law agree with you, yes. If not, it's Section 5.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mick F wrote: | | JonathanL wrote: | | Carrot Cruncher wrote: | | I hope that the person who told you it was obsolete was a reputable dealer ? |
Like I said above, just because something is or isn't on the HO obsolete list dosen't meant it does or does not benefit from the exemption in Sec.58. If it's an antique firearm and you possess it as a curiosity or ornament then it's exempt.
J. |
If a Court of Law agree with you, yes. If not, it's Section 5.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-) |
Obviously, but surely then the HO should be issuing guidance that actually reflects the state of the law, rather than what they would like the law to be?
Lets face it, there is case law on firearms chambered in .22RF being held to be exempt under Sec.58 whereas the HO specifically say a .22RF should never benefit from Sec.58.
Why are the HO issuing guidance that is clearly and unarguably wrong? If they are wrong on this then how long will it be before someone gets sent to prison because they are wrong on something else?
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JonathanL wrote: | | Mick F wrote: | | JonathanL wrote: | | Carrot Cruncher wrote: | | I hope that the person who told you it was obsolete was a reputable dealer ? |
Like I said above, just because something is or isn't on the HO obsolete list dosen't meant it does or does not benefit from the exemption in Sec.58. If it's an antique firearm and you possess it as a curiosity or ornament then it's exempt.
J. |
If a Court of Law agree with you, yes. If not, it's Section 5.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-) |
Obviously, but surely then the HO should be issuing guidance that actually reflects the state of the law, rather than what they would like the law to be? |
You could say exactly the same about shooting associations. the fact that their 'losses' are not so well publicised doesn't mean they don't happen.
| JonathanL wrote: | | Lets face it, there is case law on firearms chambered in .22RF being held to be exempt under Sec.58 whereas the HO specifically say a .22RF should never benefit from Sec.58. |
One, on a rifle which had no bolt and quite clearly was being kept as a curio or ornament, albeit it was stuck at the back of a cupboard.
| JonathanL wrote: | Why are the HO issuing guidance that is clearly and unarguably wrong? If they are wrong on this then how long will it be before someone gets sent to prison because they are wrong on something else?
J. |
Source? Or conjecture?
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut
Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You could say exactly the same about shooting associations. the fact that their 'losses' are not so well publicised doesn't mean they don't happen. |
Perhaps, but we're discussing the Home Office here.
The HO are the ones who issue the guidance and people may, or may not, get prosecuted on the strength of it. Also, people may end up disposing of, or destroying, valuable firearms that they need not have on the strength of it.
| Quote: | | One, on a rifle which had no bolt and quite clearly was being kept as a curio or ornament, albeit it was stuck at the back of a cupboard. |
So, it benefitted from the exemption as it was being kept according to the provisions in Sec.58 of the Act then.
The fact that it had no bolt is beside the point, other than possibly to back up the guys reason for possessing it. The fact that it was inoperable is not relevent to whether it's legal to possess or not as it's still a firearm.
Point is that the HO clearly say that no firearm chambered for .22 rimfire cartridges should benefit from the exemption yet this case clearly contradicts that.
"8.6 Old firearms which should not benefit
from the exemption as antiques are set out
below. This list is not exhaustive and there
may be other types and calibres of firearms
that should be considered “modern” rather
than “antique”:
b) Rifles and handguns chambered for 4mm,
5mm, .22 inch, .23 inch, 6mm or 9mm
rimfire ammunition;"
| Quote: | | Source? Or conjecture? |
The source is the case at hand, which I can't find reference to but have read in the past and that you obviously know exists. It's not that recent so surely the HO know about it and should have included it in the guidance?
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carrot Cruncher
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think you may be thinking of R v Thompson, QBD 1994. It was unreported/not stated. Carries no weight |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
