What is the legal status of a .297/.230" Moris tube in UK? Are they classed as an obsolete chambered firearm, the same as it would be if it was a complete rifle, or does being a barrel on its own somehow make it a Sect 1 firearm?
Printable View
What is the legal status of a .297/.230" Moris tube in UK? Are they classed as an obsolete chambered firearm, the same as it would be if it was a complete rifle, or does being a barrel on its own somehow make it a Sect 1 firearm?
Harry, I think it a catch 22, the fact the calibre is obsolete is one thing but the fact it will fit into a .303 chamber is another, myself I'd class it as an obsolete conversion unit but its what your local force class it as.......
In recent times Section 58 firearms have had a bad press, obvious for reasons I won't go into but, an obsolete calibre firearm is just that, an old barrel chambered in an obsolete calibre is a component from an obsolete firearm, a new made obsolete calibre barrel is a section 1 firearm part..... but an old barrel in an obsolete calibre that will fit a Section 1 firearm ........... I couldn't say.
That's sort of what I was thinking too. I just don't know, at present, if the one I've seen is for a .303, or a 577-450 parent rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
I am fully aware, though that if I fit it in ANY firearm, obsolete or not, with the intent of using it, it needs to be on my FAC.
I agree, Harry - if one were to alter an obsolete firearm I think it would excite the local firearms officer.
The other thing to ask yourself is 'Why do I want it'. If the answer is to use, you will certainly have to have it on your FAC and authority to purchase ammunition.
If your reason is to add to a collection of Enfield rifles and be held as a 'Curiosity or Orniment' that is a different matter but you could still fall foul of the law as the fact that you would own both the rifle and Morris tube coild be interpited as 'intention to use'.
My recommendation would be get a variation, buy it and load your own ammo using .22Hornet cases .22 pellets (the heavy ones for FAC air rifles) and a set of .297/.230 dies.
Been there, done that and it works well.
Good luck.
I "believe" that, in that case, the absence of ammunition could be held to confirm its curiosity/ornament status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanforth
If I did decide to get it, it would end up on my FAC anyway (if I can persuade the FEO that I've got good reason).
I'm just waiting on an answer from the vendor at the moment as to what its legal status is, and what rifle it's intended to fit.
When all's said and done I NEED to NOT buy it, as it will eat int my Swedish Mauser fund; and that's growing painfully slowly as it is.
First things first. A BARREL per-se is a firearm in its own right, as defined in law as a thing capable....... blah blah blah and so on. Whether it fits inside another rifle or fits into a 25 pounder or MOBAT or WOMBAT (to act as a 'bang maker' ) or whatever shell case for whatever reason is purely academic. If the barrel falls into the category of 'obsolete calibre' then by default AND definition it is, of itself an obsolete calibre firearm in law. You can't have a 'half' a firearm......... It is or in this case, it isn't one requiring a certificate. You - or the vendor - can make it as simple or difficult as you like.
Problem is Peter, each Force interprets the law in different ways, Its bit like Section 7.1....... I had no bother in obtaining mine, but I was told by a forum member a dealer down south had to jump through a few hoops due to him dealing in Ammunition........ although that was part of his business it should not have had anything to do with his own FAC.
As in post#2 I would class it as a obsolete conversion unit, but its what the seller has it down as, if its on his RFD or FAC then it can be a bit of nightmare.........
Point taken of course Big Duke, but the law has been defined here. It is simply a sub calibre insert in exactly the same way as an L12 insert is. But this one IS AN OBSOLETE CALIBRE as defined in statute. If a dealer has it on his books as a 'certificateable' firearm, he just corrects it - as he would any other firearm wrongly entered and that's it. I could be wrong of course
The answer is (or maybe?)
It is an obsolete calibre and can be held without any formality providing that the holder is not disqualified by having a criminal record.
Problems only arise when he fits it in his rifle.
If he intends to shoot it he will require an entry on hid FAC anyway.
Peter is quite correct the item in question can only chamber a recognised obsolete cartridge and therefore can be owned under section 58(2) the fact that it will fit into a .303 barrel is of no consequence at all. If however it is intended for use then a variation would be required AND it would need to be sent to the proof house to be proof tested before use, this requirement is ALWAYS pointed out when selling any section 58(2) firearm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
To prove a point I own a .577 450 Martini Henry rifle, I also own the 297 / 230 Morris Tube for the same rifle, they are both section 58(2) however if I wanted to shoot them they would both need to go onto an FAC AND be proofed if either or both of the items were to be used on public / private ranges, what people do in there own back yards is down to them.
On the subject of Morris tubes, here's a Martini Carbine example I had a few years back with its accompanying .303 Martini Carbine.
I had a couple of inert cartridges with it too, the long and short examples. I took the opportunity to take detailed photographs of the tube at the time as it makes a rather interesting study.
What a beautiful thing - did they make them in common calibres like .22 LR?
The aiming tubes carried on after the Morris round was discontinued in .22lr, I seem to recall made by AJ Parkers?? I would assume manufactured specifically for Lee Enfields by that point, as there would have been no official requirement for a Martini version, unless AJ Parkers made any purely for civilian sale perhaps?
I think surviving original Morris tubes are rare today, due to their obvious fragility and the carbine length example I owned are even rarer. I never found out if the carbine examples were manufactured as such, or base workshop converted from full length examples, anyone know???
Mine went off to a Martini collector, to raise money for another shooting project, like so many previous items from my collection, I really wish I kept it now!
I wish I had a pound for every time I've thought that, too! I bet a few others on here do as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
How true Roger, now I have an L12A1 conversion kit, the Morris Tube would have made an interesting comparison.
Plus side is it went to an advanced Martini collection and that's the best place for it, we are after all only temporary custodians of these things.
You would have needed a different breechblock with an offset striker, (or the other trick of altering the mechanism so that the block didn't rise so far). It would have been more cost-effective to alter the rifle permanently, as so many were altered for sale via the SMRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobD
Well, it sold for £301, hammer price, so add roughly 25% again for the total price. I did put a bid in, but was beaten by "a small margin" of £150.
I have read that the Northwest Mounted Police had Morris tubes that fit their 1876 Winchester carbines that were chambered in 45-75 WCF. Has anyone ever seen one or own one? I would love to find one for my collection of NWMP carbines and artifacts.
With the commission and VAT added the purchaser paid £391.30. Quite a lot considering it was missing the brass front locking nut and the threads appeared to be damaged....Quote:
Originally Posted by harry mac
My queries to the auctioneer went unanswered; hence my fairly low bid. Someone obviously wanted it far more than I did. I also put bids in on the SMG bayonet, and the No7 Bayonet. I didn't get any of them, so the Swedish Mauser fund continues to grow (slowly).Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer