Inspectors Bolt Gauge, Section1 ??

[Buccaneer]

Since I started the last thread on the legal standing of pressure bearing parts I have acquired this item.
It is clearly marked "Gauge Inspectors, Selected Breech Bolt, No1 Rifle S.M. 396" but of course it is still an intact bolt body and head, albeit without its internals, and as such could still be used as part of a functioning rifle. I wonder what the powers that be would make of it ??

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.

[Peter Laidler]

If they had come and asked me I'd tell them it is exactly what it says on the tin. It is an inspectors gauge. It might LOOK like a bolt and it might FIT like a bolt. A bit like a drill or an Armourers dummy round. But like the dummy round, it's a gauge.

I wonder what they'd make of a drill or Armourers dummy .55" Boys round - that comtains an AP projectile............

[villiers]

Is the bolt ... without the bolt head .... a "pressure bearing" part? The German authorities who are responsible for me and my Enfield don´t seem to think so.

[Brit plumber]

Is the bolt ... without the bolt head .... a "pressure bearing" part? The German authorities who are responsible for me and my Enfield don´t seem to think so.

That's where the interpretation is, what is a pressure bearing part? If you put a rifle in your shoulder you could say that's a pressure bearing part when it's fired. Some tend to use the idea of 'If you remove said item, could it still fire', but this is flawed as you could remove pretty much any part and make it work.

[Peter Laidler]

Best to remember that the SOLE arbiters of whether something is an offence or otherwise, is the Court. All YOU have to do is make sure YOUR team is more savvy than the enemy.

I acted as an expert witness in several cases and always told the team Solicitor that I only told a) the truth, b) only answered the question I was asked, c) told it in MY language using everyday terms and phrases that a layman could understand, and d) MY way. That way they knew at the outset what they were going to get. And if someone was spouting a load of bollocks or waffling, I'd tell the judge in no uncertain terms. The MG42 on the motorbike and sidecar was a point in case where I told the judge that I had never heard so much pure guff and horse manure spouted from someone supposedly well briefed in my life. The Judge looked down his nose and over his glasses, smiled (or was it a grimace ?) and said '.......that's what I like to hear Capt Laidler....

[Beerhunter]

It is clearly marked what it is and as such does not need licensing. That is to say it is not a firearm or a controlled part.

The law is clear and does not second guess what use something MAY be put to. For example an empty .303 cartridge case requires no license and the law does not say it does because with the addition of a primer, charge and projectile it becomes a round of Section 1 ammunition.

[Peter Laidler]

That's a good example of two points Beery. First, the defendant doesn't have to prove ANYTHING. The prosecutors have to prove EVERYTHING and
the old chestnut that generally speaking in a democracy, unlike a dectatorship, you can do anything you like unless the law says you can't...........

[Buccaneer]

Is the bolt ... without the bolt head .... a "pressure bearing" part? The German authorities who are responsible for me and my Enfield don´t seem to think so.

If thats what they say then keep your head down and accept it, but if you think about it it's the lugs on the bolt that take the strain that is transmitted from the bolt head when the rifle is fired.
From what you say it would seem that neither the bolt body or bolt head can be called pressure bearing parts unless they are assembled as a one unit, or am I missing something??

[Peter Laidler]

It is a GAUGE to REPLICATE the action and ascertain the wear pattern of a bolt. Nothing more or less

[RobD]

As I see it, the law concerns the actions and intention of the individual rather than the component. Sure, if one put one's mind to it, one could fashion a functioning bolt ( = sec 1 part ) from the bolt gauge. This could involve little work, but the gauge would then have been adapted for another purpose.
Just like ammunition can be assembled from components one can buy without a licence,or a complete firearm can be made from bits of steel, or a revolver in .44 Russian can be adapted to fire other calibres.
I reckon it's the act of manufacture, assembly or adaptation which constitutes an offence; the altered object is evidence that the offence occurred.