Jump to content

HEEEEEELP PLEASE!!!!


deadeye18
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone.ok here goes last year i inherited a stunning 1909 dated imperial german g98 mauser rifle that was smoothbored to 410 in the late 60s or 1970s.no other work was done to it and heres my worry i just got a 410 no4 lee enfield and the magazine on that was cut and a plate welded to where the mag follower would have been,are all converted military arms done like this now?if so does that make my mauser fall foul of the law?i really dont want the mauser to be messed about with so anyone with any advice id be gratefull.would its antique age mean i wouldnt have to have it butchered?the magazine is useless with 410 ammo anyway and so only use it single shot anyway i must add.it would be a crying shame to have this piece of history cut and welded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi wymberly it was on my dads sgc then it was transferred onto my sgc just before he died last year.im just worried that when my renewall comes next year the police will see one welded and one not then order me to sort it.like i said before i really dont want it cut or welded :-/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi wymberly it was on my dads sgc then it was transferred onto my sgc just before he died last year.im just worried that when my renewall comes next year the police will see one welded and one not then order me to sort it.like i said before i really dont want it cut or welded :-/

Worry not. Your force will have that transaction recorded and classified as a shotgun (ie not Sect.1). Any different and they're going to have to admit that they've made a mistake - the same one several times - unlikely they'd want to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sleeping dogs and all that- ok , so the not the definative legsl answer but take it from me there are loads of these type of .410's kicking around that FLO's are happy with.

There are other questionable firearms out there and always will.

 

So, personally I would not have a pronlem with it due to its history of not being questioned in the past .

 

Just my tuppance worth which with inflation is prob worth nowt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law is very clear, if it can hold more than 3 cartridges (of any sort) it's a section 1, the fact it can't cycle them won't be a good enough reason to have it as a section 2.

 

 

That's not correct! The magazine must be attached and not able to hold more than 2 shells of the proof length. The 1 in the chamber is not relevant neither is the one on the lifter (ghost loading)

 

Has it been proofed? It probably should have gone to proof house in 87 but slipped through.

The law is very clear, if it can hold more than 3 cartridges (of any sort) it's a section 1, the fact it can't cycle them won't be a good enough reason to have it as a section 2.

 

 

That's not correct! The magazine must be attached and not able to hold more than 2 shells of the proof length. The 1 in the chamber is not relevant neither is the one on the lifter (ghost loading)

 

Has it been proofed? It probably should have gone to proof house in 87 but slipped through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...