Is a Grenade launcher a Section 1 Firearm Component ?

[Alan de Enfield]

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' ?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Thunderbox]

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....

[Alan de Enfield]

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

[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????

[Beerhunter]

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.

[Mk VII]

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'.

[Peter Laidler]

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!

[Thunderbox]

.....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.

[Peter Laidler]

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

[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.