In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
.223 & 7.62 To Be Outlawed for Civilians
Alan-De-Enfield
Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
Target Shooter Magazine - December 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23404164/Target-Shooter-December
5.56 and 7.62mm `Outlawed'
A perennial question is about the difference if any between 7.62X51mm and .308 Winchester (or 5.45X45mm and .223 Remington). And while there are small differences primarily in the chamber and barrel throat forms, they are so nearly indistinguishable that the UK national police firearms licensing computer uses both terminologies together either side of an oblique to avoid problems if an FAC variation is for one, but the firearm is marked and proof-tested for the other. This applies particularly to British and Commonwealth TR (`Target Rifle') rifles that were classed as 7.62mm until recently, although current builds or recently rebarrelled examples now bear the .308 Winchester descriptions.
None of this would be of any great import if it weren't for the United Nations having started a crusade against international movements of military small arms and ammunition except on a government-to-government basis. The problem is that 5.56 and 7.62mm are classified as `military' period, no matter that it's a single-shot target rifle and your pride and joy. This is a particular problem for anybody traveling across international boundaries as an early result has been airlines, through their international regulator IATA, accepting these rules and refusing to carry anything so marked or documented, even if on a dual basis as in `7.62mm / .308 Winchester'. The next worry is that as countries sign up to the various UN accords on this issue, we'll suddenly discover that somebody has done this for the UK and unwittingly made ownership of every .308 Win rifle in the country illegal as our FACs invariable use the dual title in listing the weapons held. In any event ICFRA, the international target shooting body which regulates full bore rifle including our `Target Rifle' and F-Class, has deleted all reference to the metric versions of the two cartridges in its rules and documentation, and I imagine that applies to our NRA too.
Firearms law researcher and writer Colin Greenwood has been investigating this UN process and his findings must be deeply unsettling for all sporting and recreational firearms users. The sub-committees tasked with producing reports and recommendations that are often accepted by the UN with little or no debate are secretive, refusing to disclose their membership or the remits they are working to. They will not divulge the basis of `facts' contained in their reports, how research was carried out and where, who
was interviewed and so on. One fact that is clear are that they will NOT make any distinction between civilian sporting arms, (even shotguns), and military weapons, and that they believe that arms ownership is a bad thing per se. Greenwood is convinced that this is a movement towards international civilian arms control via the back door under the cloak of keeping AKs and RPGs out of the hands of African child soldiers or guerrillas.
Things may get `worse' too in that the proposed conventions seek to ban the manufacture of arms and ammunition of ANY type and ANY calibre, except by government licensed concerns which must be closely regulated. Quite right too you might think, but remember that your gunsmith is an `arms constructor', and you are an `ammunition' manufacturer' if you hand load. Until now, the US government has been a bastion against this sort of undemocratic backdoor control by routinely telling the UN to naff off! Not so now under Barak Obama, the State Department allegedly signaling a change of policy here, its first move being to announce that export licenses will not be issued for any barrel chambered for 5.56 or 7.62 NATO destined for a commercial end-user.
Dont think it wont happen in your country - Clinton has already signed up, and I know of one US dealer who has exported for years who has had to fill in extra paper work and apply for dispensation to export a C&R 7.62 rifle.
Permission was granted with a proviso that if the buyer ever wanted to sell it he would have to apply to the US Government for permission.
So - I'm in England, I imported the rifle from the US and a couple of years later I want to sell my 7.62 rifle and I have to apply to the US Government before I can sell it.
This is worrying !!!!!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23404164/Target-Shooter-December
5.56 and 7.62mm `Outlawed'
A perennial question is about the difference if any between 7.62X51mm and .308 Winchester (or 5.45X45mm and .223 Remington). And while there are small differences primarily in the chamber and barrel throat forms, they are so nearly indistinguishable that the UK national police firearms licensing computer uses both terminologies together either side of an oblique to avoid problems if an FAC variation is for one, but the firearm is marked and proof-tested for the other. This applies particularly to British and Commonwealth TR (`Target Rifle') rifles that were classed as 7.62mm until recently, although current builds or recently rebarrelled examples now bear the .308 Winchester descriptions.
None of this would be of any great import if it weren't for the United Nations having started a crusade against international movements of military small arms and ammunition except on a government-to-government basis. The problem is that 5.56 and 7.62mm are classified as `military' period, no matter that it's a single-shot target rifle and your pride and joy. This is a particular problem for anybody traveling across international boundaries as an early result has been airlines, through their international regulator IATA, accepting these rules and refusing to carry anything so marked or documented, even if on a dual basis as in `7.62mm / .308 Winchester'. The next worry is that as countries sign up to the various UN accords on this issue, we'll suddenly discover that somebody has done this for the UK and unwittingly made ownership of every .308 Win rifle in the country illegal as our FACs invariable use the dual title in listing the weapons held. In any event ICFRA, the international target shooting body which regulates full bore rifle including our `Target Rifle' and F-Class, has deleted all reference to the metric versions of the two cartridges in its rules and documentation, and I imagine that applies to our NRA too.
Firearms law researcher and writer Colin Greenwood has been investigating this UN process and his findings must be deeply unsettling for all sporting and recreational firearms users. The sub-committees tasked with producing reports and recommendations that are often accepted by the UN with little or no debate are secretive, refusing to disclose their membership or the remits they are working to. They will not divulge the basis of `facts' contained in their reports, how research was carried out and where, who
was interviewed and so on. One fact that is clear are that they will NOT make any distinction between civilian sporting arms, (even shotguns), and military weapons, and that they believe that arms ownership is a bad thing per se. Greenwood is convinced that this is a movement towards international civilian arms control via the back door under the cloak of keeping AKs and RPGs out of the hands of African child soldiers or guerrillas.
Things may get `worse' too in that the proposed conventions seek to ban the manufacture of arms and ammunition of ANY type and ANY calibre, except by government licensed concerns which must be closely regulated. Quite right too you might think, but remember that your gunsmith is an `arms constructor', and you are an `ammunition' manufacturer' if you hand load. Until now, the US government has been a bastion against this sort of undemocratic backdoor control by routinely telling the UN to naff off! Not so now under Barak Obama, the State Department allegedly signaling a change of policy here, its first move being to announce that export licenses will not be issued for any barrel chambered for 5.56 or 7.62 NATO destined for a commercial end-user.
Dont think it wont happen in your country - Clinton has already signed up, and I know of one US dealer who has exported for years who has had to fill in extra paper work and apply for dispensation to export a C&R 7.62 rifle.
Permission was granted with a proviso that if the buyer ever wanted to sell it he would have to apply to the US Government for permission.
So - I'm in England, I imported the rifle from the US and a couple of years later I want to sell my 7.62 rifle and I have to apply to the US Government before I can sell it.
This is worrying !!!!!
Comments
What can you do about it?
Really?
Well tell me where the nearest depot is, and a schedule of when to turn it in. I will scurry down there as fast as I can and relinquish what I have.[:o)]
'F' them.[:(!]
Bottom line, he is selling reality. You guys are selling naive dreams.
1) from the chamber
2) down the barrel
3) out of the hot muzzle
in the form of a spinning projectile.
What you guys don't get is that apparently Alan-de-Enfield is telling you how it is or will soon be. You blow him off by acting like it will never affect you or you respond with long speeches about how you THINK it is or should be or how you WOULD LIKE for it to be.
Bottom line, he is selling reality. You guys are selling naive dreams.
I agree with the logic.
More fundamentally I would suggest there are 2 aspects to the gun control factions forming. One is general public safety supposedly justified by randome extreme violence. The other is based in stopping the arms business inspired by cold war oppositions going back to the 1940's.
Interestingly enough, proper respect for the human mind and behavioral potentials can completely address the first aspect, as I've posted here.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=434277
And the same awareness of that function residing in the populations can address the second aspect as well by developing an ability to scrutinize the behaviors of officials. Over some time, that can be a global effect.
Perhaps you miss the point.
There are a sizeable number of people out saying, bluntly...."Molon Labe".
TRfox is merely one among a multitude of people willing to trade off his...AND my..freedom...for a box of rocks.
I certainly hope and and trust you are not among that group.
Well, freedomfighter;
Perhaps you miss the point.
There are a sizeable number of people out saying, bluntly...."Molon Labe".
TRfox is merely one among a multitude of people willing to trade off his...AND my..freedom...for a box of rocks.
I certainly hope and and trust you are not among that group.
Quite true, if I understand you proper. People are aware of "problems" with unlawful government.
The box of rocks can only be a empty promise I've tried to separate from by going to the fundamental levels of human behavior involved in both cases working against gun rights; public safety or secret government agenda, concerning situtations where any right or freedom might be diminished.
It is basically about the human mind. And everything we do involves that. Two problems exist causing symptons that are the thread topic. Extreme violence and unconstitutional governmental zealousy at disarming the public. They are both behavior.
If you feel I might be an idealist, I confess I am. However, it can be reasonably stated that if the ideal is not held closely, it might be lost. The fact of direct and permanent relief and reduction of cost to the public is immense, and people get to keep their guns, full auto, ordinance, whatever.
We can control ourselves, but we must look at the entire human mental creature with open and honest psychology. If we do that, over time it will change conditions and the tendency of secret control over government with hidden agendas will recede.