Is a Grenade launcher a Section 1 Firearm Component ?

I was looking at buying a Grenade Cup launcher for my No1 Mk3* but was informed I would need a variation on my FAC as it is a 'pressure bearing part'.

Looking at the 2014 Home Office Guidelines - I wonder ?

2.55
When considering whether a particular weapon should be regarded as a firearm to which
sections 1, 2 or 5 of the 1968 Act applies or which is covered by the 1982 Act, it is important to remember that the purpose of the legislation is to control the supply and possession of all rifles, guns and pistols which could be used for criminal or subversive purposes while recognising that individuals may own and use firearms and other devices for legitimate purposes. In the absence of a decision by a court, the Secretary of State takes the view that the following devices should not be regarded as firearms within the definition of the Act:
..............
..........
....
i) harpoon guns utilising a spigot and fired by blank cartridge, such as the Greener
harpoon gun;
j) dummy and target launchers (designed to project a dummy for dog training or an artificial target for shooting), utilising a spigot and powered by blank cartridges;
k) armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) smoke dischargers used to project pyrotechnics for
smoke screening; and
l) smoothbore sleeve type chamber inserts for use in a shotgun or rifle (chamber
adaptors which incorporate rifling and chambered for any cartridge are subject to
Section 1 control.).

So if I want to use the 'launcher' to launch tennis balls as an artificial target is that OK ?

However :

Those weapons and ammunition, which are prohibited, consist of:

vi) any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signaling
apparatus


Is a grenade (or a tennis bal) a 'stabilised missile' ?

I haven't heard of any specific case ruling on these - you hear that some police forces regard both cups and spigots being considered prohibited weapons, whereas others see them as Sect1, and yet others as un-licensable militaria. Its one of those many firearms areas where someone has to be the first to risk 5 years in jail to find out judicial opinion!

I think that, if police wanted to be unpleasant, they can get you on the "designed for" bit. Cups and Energa spigots are quite clearly "designed for" launching explosive munitions, albeit it must be quite a fine dividing line given that AFV smoke dischargers are not regarded as firearms....

Thanks TB - that stirs the 'mud' even more.

Funnily enough, I was going to ask the same question regarding No4 Energa launcher, I believe the No4 launcher is "proofed" ??? Now, if that's the case, then an FAC will be required, but due to barrel length, would it regarded as Sec5????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Funnily enough, I was going to ask the same question regarding No4 Energa launcher, I believe the No4 launcher is "proofed" ??? Now, if that's the case, then an FAC will be required, but due to barrel length, would it regarded as Sec5????

---

The No.4 Energa launchers have been sold freely sold "off ticket" for donkeys and, as Thunderbox rightly says, some constabularies do not like this.

They are certainly NOT rocket launchers nor mortars because in both those cases the projectile is self-propelled.

The HBSA sought, and received, a Home Office letter on this some years back which said, yes, they would be Part Five unless they were deactivated, but if they were permanently welded to the rifle then no, no special permission would be needed. Of course it's only 'opinion' - not a 'comfort letter'.

I gave an opinion on the cup dischargers in an offficial capacity as an expert witness by definition. I won't go into the why's and wherefores yet again but in short, nowhere in any official document is the cup discharger ever described as, nor does it work as a grenade launcher. A better and more realistic name for it would be a long winded 'grenade-striker lever-holder-in thing' as it does nothing more or less. However, one could be classed as offensive weapon if you battered someone on the head with it. As a result of my finding that went on and upwards, the concensus was that that's what it was.

As for the spigot launcher such as the Energa, then that is, by definition, a LAUNCHER, Grenade. No iffs and butts there in my opinion. But only an opinion of course!

.....but of course an Energa spigot in reality is just an inert tube - no rifling, no chamber, no firing mechanism, no active part in launching a grenade. Its effectively just a support structure, arguably just the same as a cup.

In fact you could argue for the other side: if an Energa spigot is a prohibited weapon, then so must be things like grenade rods - as these perform an identical function in supporting the grenade and transmitting the firing gas pressure to it.

Mmmmmmm. See where you're coming from and of itself an energa launcher IS just an inert tube. The fact is that the spigot launcher is described in all the literature and is in every sense of the word, a grenade launcher. The TROUBLE is that the average law abiding shooter or deact owner or just a collector doesn't listen to the first valuable words that the suspicious person opposite says to him. And that is 'YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO SAY ANYTHING UNLESS YOU............' So they ramble on and on getting deeper and deeper into the mire. When they do eventually seek advice................... It's all toooooo late

The problem we are facing is that of 'Creep' it used to be that the only items that required a Firearm Certificate were those that carried a Proof Mark as pressure bearing items. As a Customs Officer I could not legally seize any other 'Parts' being imported without an Import Licence or in the case of a personal import a valid FAC. However parts might be detained until we could be satisfied that they were not being used for 'Naughty' purposes. However a raft of import and export controls have crept in very often as 'regulations' that have never been near Parliament and this has also crept into the Police view of a number of things. All this of course stems from the 'War on Terror' being used to 'Justify' a lot of very silly restrictions. As Thunderbox says the risk of getting 5 years for being the 'Test Case' is rather high. This is why 'Test Cases' should be just that and should have NO Penalty when they are just being used to clarify the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert303

The problem we are facing is that of 'Creep' it used to be that the only items that required a Firearm Certificate were those that carried a Proof Mark as pressure bearing items. As a Customs Officer I could not legally seize any other 'Parts' being imported without an Import Licence or in the case of a personal import a valid FAC. However parts might be detained until we could be satisfied that they were not being used for 'Naughty' purposes. However a raft of import and export controls have crept in very often as 'regulations' that have never been near Parliament and this has also crept into the Police view of a number of things. All this of course stems from the 'War on Terror' being used to 'Justify' a lot of very silly restrictions. As Thunderbox says the risk of getting 5 years for being the 'Test Case' is rather high. This is why 'Test Cases' should be just that and should have NO Penalty when they are just being used to clarify the law.

---

At a tangent (but interesting - to me anyway) how do you determine what an item "is", is evey parcel subject to x-ray, do you rely on the customs declaration ie "metal cup", how do you decide what is a 'suspect item' ?

I don't think Robert will answer that Q. AdeE on the basis that a lot of their knowledge is intelligence based. Additionally, we used to regularly deal with HMC&E and you'd be suprised at the depth of knowledge that certain members had or had access to............

The sad part about this thread is the fact that we are actually discussing whether this sort of innoxious stuff REALLY is a cause for concern. Reading back I notice mention of 'stabilised in flight' in relation to items that are 'projected' A No36 grenade in flight certainly isn't stabilised in flight. IN fact it's about as aerodynamic as a piano whereas an energa certainly is stabiliased. The rule of thumb will be whether the object is capable of being accurately sighted and placed. Just a thought........

As Peter says I will not discuss 'Operational Matters'. Peter thanks for the praise re certain Customs Officers. I was lucky enough to know a few of them and they and the staff at Shrivenham taught me a LOT. I learnt more from them than I did from the 'Shooting Community'' especially the various Club 'Experts' I've come across in 30 years of shooting.

Hi
So is there or isn't there a definitive answer to the legal status of the cup launcher or does it come down to being a matter for the courts to decide?

Thanks Terry

Well - I have got my SMLE "Cup" for the type 23 grenade - beats me that anyone could make a firearm component out of it.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...x0aojzsv-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zz5hkran-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...f2f6ymjl-1.jpg

Now to work out if the No1 Mk1 2 1/2" Cup is allowed

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...qwlhpoth-1.jpg

Alan illustrates JUST what I said earlier - and more....... All a cup discharger REALLY is, put simply, is no more that a 'striker lever holder in thinggy'. Which is exactly what the pressed steel thinggy in thread 15 is. And here's the thing. If you were to be questioned about possessing a cup discharger you just remain silent and commeth the day, your solicitor and expert witness illustrate the stupidity of the case by producing the totally innoxious pressed steel 'thinggy' and explain that they do exactly the same thing.

A bit like driving to Carlisle. You can do it in a Triumph TR6 or a clcpped out Mini. They'll both get you there but one looks better than the other. As my sister occasionally tells me. The judiciary don't like you making a laughing stock out of the law. But if you do it while making a laughing stock of the 'other side' - to your benefit, then that's OK!

Hi
This thread was originally first posted in January 2015 since then an updated Guide on Firearms Licensing Law was published in March 2015, I have just been looking through it, and I don’t know if clause xii) was included in the 2014 guide? But it would seem to me that this clause would now make the 2.5in discharger cup a section 5 item?

vi) any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signaling apparatus (section 5(1)(ae));
ix) any cartridge with a bullet designed to explode on or immediately before impact, any ammunition containing or designed or adapted to contain any such noxious thing as is mentioned in (viii) above and, if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb or other like missile, or rocket or shell designed to explode as aforesaid (section 5(1)(c));
xi) any rocket or ammunition not falling within (ix) above which consists of, or incorporates, a missile designed to explode on or immediately before impact and is for military use (section 5(1A)(b));
xii) any launcher or other projecting apparatus not falling within (vi) above which is designed to be used with any rocket or ammunition falling within (xi) above or with ammunition which would fall within that paragraph but for it being ammunition falling within (ix) above (section 5(1A)(c));

If this is the case, they have finally gone the the whole way and gone completely nuts ... you can make a prohibited Sec5 component part with a bit of sheet metal, bent to fit a No36 grenade and gaffer taped to an SMLE!:madsmile:

Seriously though, if they make a WW1 era discharger cup a prohibited weapon the world really has gone bloody mad!

Fortunately a hand grenade, projected by the cup discharger doesn't explode ON or immediately BEFORE impact. It explodes AFTER impact.

Annanuvverfing. Please don't confuse a PROOFED part with a pressure bearing part. They are not the same thing. If it were, you would have to proof your butt!

The question boristhepig has raised at No 17 is valid. Is the item in question a Sec 5 prohibited item? This and a few other matters are going to have to be referred to the Law Commission review of Firearms Law. We are either going to have to push for a list of items that can be held without an FAC (Rather like the obsolete Calibre List) or get a really tightly defined list of what is controlled WITHOUT the ability of the Police or Home Office to add to that list as they see fit.

[QUOTE=boristhepig;342247]Hi
This thread was originally first posted in January 2015 since then an updated Guide on Firearms Licensing Law was published in March 2015, I have just been looking through it, and I don’t know if clause xii) was included in the 2014 guide? But it would seem to me that this clause would now make the 2.5in discharger cup a section 5 item?

vi) any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, QUOTE]

My counter to that would be :

a) A grenade is not a "stabilised missile"
b) The 'bit of bent metal' is not a 'launcher' & is not launching anything - the rifle (via a blank cartridge) is doing the launching.

The trouble with the idea of a list of this that and the other is that it is never up to date. And another that everone should be wary of is that such a list goes against the grain of anyone who believes in democracy. That a democracy tells you what you CANNOT do. An autocracy tells you what you CAN do.

In respect to TBox's (ooooops, sorry TBox, I meant AdeE) idea in thread21, that's all very well, but a Judge making his observations in a case where something is ambiguous or unclear, can always make HIS decision the final one as we saw in the ridiculous decision of having to have a dealers cert for every County in which you deal........ Discussed on this forum recently.

For the unwary and/or one with a collection of such items that can be attached to the end of a firearm, then I can only suggest keep all items of this nature out of eyes way, a prime example is a security visit on renewal etc, presenting the said firearm with all bells and whistles attached as in Alan's post #15 then it would raise an eyebrow or two, a cabinet with the FAC holders firearms only, would just be as normal check.

Never present the item either.... " err what do think of this ? is it section 5 "? remember KISS and if you are on the edge of the seat then email or phone the constabulary that you are under and enquire with the impression you intend to purchase ...... and see what they come back with.

My sisters advice to me this very afternoon was '...... least said, soonest mended' and the what the eye doesn't see, the heart - or in this case the constabulary - won't fret over. More about her advice/what she said later

Hi
My constabulary are currently unwilling to give a decision on a discharger cup, they are seeking further advise/clarification ! But as there doesn't seem to be an official decision on this item ? I don't feel that any further headway will be made in resolving this question.
Terry


I did notice this item on ebay, even less sure of its legal status

Enfield SMLE Attachment | eBay

Wrong in one aspect of course. It's not for an SMLE but rather for a No.4.

Mmmmmmm. That, in my humble opinion is, by definition, a Launcher, Grenade. No if's or buts, it LAUNCHES a stabilised GRENADE.

Fancy even asking for an opinion! Remember the words of my sister, a Barrister....... Least said, soonest mended and what the eye doesn't see, the cops ain't going to fret over........ The only opinion that REALLY matters is that of the Judge

I know “It’s better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.” I asked for an opinion more as an academic question for future help or reference.

Need to bear in mind you could be begging not to do a five year jail term in the unlikely advent of going to Court. And if found not guilty, would still have had the months of stress waiting for your case, along with the seizure of anything else in your home that took the police officers fancy, and the months of then trying to get it all back.

Some times "Discretion is the better part of valour," but its the individuals choice

Well - this 'launcher' sold as a buy-it-now for £325

ww1 lee enfield no1 mk3 cup display,cup dated 3.18 | eBay

Scroll down the page

I have several 'rifle grenade projection facilitating devices' but due to the indecision as to their status in the UK they reside in foreign parts, where their presence doesn't bother the authorities. It means I can only physically handle them three months out of twelve, but also that I do not have to run the risk of a five year stretch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

projecting a stabilised missile

---

Far be it for me to comment on UK Law (other than Old English Common Law), but the term "stabilized missile" generally refers to an object with fin stabilizers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the No.1 cup grenade launcher (I have one) was designed to propel an unstabilized grenade that was also hand-launched. My 1950s Energa grenade launcher on the No.4 MII is a different animal, as the Energa was a Rocket propelled missile grenade with integral fin stabilizers.

The U.S. M-1 Grenade Launchers held a hybrid fin-stabilizer that clipped on the bottom of a pineapple grenade, making it a stabilized missile.

There's a reason it's called "Criminal Law":

Drafted by......

Enacted by.......

Enforced by......

For the exclusive benefit of.........

Join the dots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

My 1950s Energa grenade launcher on the No.4 MII is a different animal, as the Energa was a Rocket propelled missile grenade with integral fin stabilizers.

---

Nope. It was NOT a rocket. It was propelled by a Ballestite cartridge fired from the rifle. I have fired the 94 Grenade (Energa) from both types of launcher, the No.4 (Mk.1, BTW. I never came across a Mk.2 actually in service.) and the SLR, I think I would have noticed any rocket blast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

Nope. It was NOT a rocket. It was propelled by a Ballestite cartridge fired from the rifle. I have fired the 94 Grenade (Energa) from both types of launcher, the No.4 (Mk.1, BTW. I never came across a Mk.2 actually in service.) and the SLR, I think I would have noticed any rocket blast.

---

Thanks Beerhunter. I think I may have figured out the confusion. The Energa was not a self-propelled missile (rocket) as you said, but the Super Energa apparently had an internal rocket booster. Wikipedia (certainly not the last word, but always informative) says:

Energa anti-tank rifle grenade is a rifle-launched anti-tank grenade that is propelled by a ballistite-filled blank cartridge. The name Energa comes from the firm in Liechtenstein that designed it, the Anstalt für die ENtwicklung von ERfindungen und Gewerblichen Anwendungen, based in Vaduz.[3]
First produced in the 1950s, by Mecar in Belgium, it was in front-line use by European armies until replaced by disposable tube-launched anti-tank rockets such as the M72 LAW. Although no longer in production, stocks of the grenade still exist and the Energa grenade remains in service with Third World countries. The original Energa grenade could penetrate 200 mm (7.8 inches) of armor[5][6][7] or 500 mm (19.6 inches) of concrete at an angle of impact of 90 degrees. At an angle of impact of 45 degrees, the figures dropped to 100 mm (3.9 inches) and 250 mm (9.8 inches), respectively.
The Super Energa used a rocket booster to extend the grenade's range to 550 meters.[8] The Super Energa could penetrate up to 275 mm (10.8 inches) of armor and 600 mm (23.6 inches) of concrete.

BTW, I love the commentary brought by the gentlemen scholar historians on this site -- Learning something every day.