Military grade ammo?

[Deker 3,478]

 

Which part of you can only legally buy what it says on your FAC do you have a problem understanding?

 

 

 

I think that this whole issue could turn into a lawers breakfast in a big hurry if it ever came to court and the defandant decided to put up a big fight. The first big, big, issue you will face is one of interpretation. I mean, your FAC tells you what ammo you can acquire by quantity and calibre. However, "calibre" is not defined in the Act, as far as I'm aware. What does it refer to in a legal sense? Is it ammunition which has bullet of a certain diameter; or designed to be used in a firearm with a certain bore diameter - and if so is that land or groove diameter?

 

Also, what about stuff where the ammo designation has got sod all to do with any measurement? My .44 Magnum rifle fires. 429" bullets and a .303 uses .311". 7.62x39mm ammo uses about .310" - .311", .223 Rem is usually .224" as is .222!. The European designation for .30-06 is something like 7.7 x 62, or similar, but it's the same thing. The physical external dimensions of .45 Super are identical to .45 ACP are those of .22 Hornet and .22 WCF - are they the same calibre in law?

 

So, what is "calibre"? Is it an actual physical measurement of something, a particular chambering, or just a term of art. I'd strongly drift towards the latter (and I think a court would agree) but if I'm wrong then lots and lots of people are in possession of illegal ammo.

 

Look at the other problem. What happens if I'm reloading and trim a case down to below the accepted tolerance for .308 Win? That must surely mean that I'm in illegal possession?

 

Until you can actually define what the legal meaning of this word - "calibre" - is then no prosecution could ever succeed.

 

I think the bottom line would be that the court would take the pragmatic view of things. I think they'd look at whether the ammo you possessed was intended to be used in the gun you bought it for, was capable of being so used, and apply that to what your cert authorised you to acquire.

 

J.

 

 

J

 

I hear what you say and I accept that in the case of 7.62 and .308 there is most definately an acceptance on the part of many that you can buy either ammo, perhaps that applies in a similar way to .223/5.56 as well.

 

Yep, certainly an area for potential courtroom debate, but call it what you like, if one factory ammo has 7.62 stamped on it and another .308 and (for example) your FAC only lists .308 then you cannot legally buy 7.62.

 

You know and I know and even Coldweld knows the bullet "may" be identical, and it may be common practice to let this through, but if it's not on your FAC you can't legally buy it.

 

I am not debating sizes/pressures/similarities of .308/7.62....223/5.56 in this, that is another issue altogether, we are simply talking about what it says on your FAC.

 

And again I agree, it could be a real hum dinger in court!

 

The real question is, do you want to be the test case, when it is simple to just ask for .308/7.62x51 and .223/5.56 to be listed on your FAC, as it is in both cases on mine for rifles and ammo.

[HUnter_zero 58]

 

The real question is, do you want to be the test case, when it is simple to just ask for .308/7.62x51 and .223/5.56 to be listed on your FAC, as it is in both cases on mine for rifles and ammo.

 

 

Surely the shear fact that the police are willing to do the above shows with no doubt that the rounds are one in the same, after all the police would not agree to let you buy .22H ammunition if you didn't own a .22H rifle or .22rf ammo if you only owned a .22 WMR. Nothing stops a person buy .22rf caps to shoot in their stamped .22LR rifle. If 5.56mm long rifle rim fire ammunition was marketed, surely anyone who could buy .22rf ammunition could buy it?

.308 / 7.62mm simply refers to the bore diameter and not the bullet / case / primer /powder / chamber / stock dimensions / sighting devises / make of ammunition / make of powder or anything other than the bore. Back in the day, if you owned a .357 , you could buy .38 with no alteration to your FAC. However you could not buy .357 if you only had .38 IIRC.

 

John

Edited May 6, 2010 by HUnter_zero

[Deker 3,478]

 

The real question is, do you want to be the test case, when it is simple to just ask for .308/7.62x51 and .223/5.56 to be listed on your FAC, as it is in both cases on mine for rifles and ammo.

 

 

Surely the shear fact that the police are willing to do the above shows with no doubt that the rounds are one in the same That is a leap of assumption, it means that they are happy to let you have either, and as has already been agreed, it may be acceptable to put 7.62 down a .308, not the other way round, so I fail to see why that makes them "one and the same"

!, after all the police would not agree to let you buy .22H ammunition if you didn't own a .22H rifle or .22rf ammo if you only owned a .22 WMR. Nothing stops a person buy .22rf caps to shoot in their stamped .22LR rifle. If 5.56mm long rifle rim fire ammunition was marketed, surely anyone who could buy .22rf ammunition could buy it?

.308 / 7.62mm simply refers to the bore diameter and not the bullet / case / primer /powder / chamber / stock dimensions / sighting devises / make of ammunition / make of powder or anything other than the bore. Back in the day, if you owned a .357 , you could buy .38 with no alteration to your FAC. However you could not buy .357 if you only had .38 IIRC.

 

John

 

 

Apparently SAAMI know Jack according to some and CIP are a Europeon Committee out of Brussels and anyone can buy anything they like on their FAC without it being listed on it.

 

Glad that's all cleared up.....

 

ATB!!

[JonathanL 4]

 

Yep, certainly an area for potential courtroom debate, but call it what you like, if one factory ammo has 7.62 stamped on it and another .308 and (for example) your FAC only lists .308 then you cannot legally buy 7.62.

 

Well, I'd take issue with that as well. What a certain round is is actually is is a matter of fact, not a matter of lose terminology. What happens when a manufacturter accidentally stamps 7.62 on a .308 case? Which has happened in the past. Custom ammo companies make different .45 ammo from brass stamped .45 BASIC but does that mean that a .45-70 round loaded with this brass is notr .45=70 even though it meets the specs?

 

What about my 7.62mm ammo which was stamped with something in Arabic? It was probably 7.62mm but what if it fell outside the specs for that round by a little bit? Am in in unlawful possession? What if you have a 7.62mm round which is physically meets the specs but is loaded either over or under the NATO specs? Are you in possession of a different "calibre" from a legal perspective? If 7.62mm means NATO spec then you are, surely? The .308 accelerator rounds don't meet any industry .308 spec, that I'm aware of, so how can you buy them on a .308 slot - something isn't a .308 round just because someone wants to call it that and disregard all the specs. Also, why is my .44 Magnum ammunition .44 Magnum? Surely, it should be .429 Magnum? Is it a .44 Magnum simply because someone wants to call it that? What if the industry chanes the name? Take the .300 H&H Mag. It was orignally called the .30 Express, or similar, so could you not buy that on a .300 H&H slot?

 

Modern cartridge names are often not much more than marketing tools, to be honest, and I doubt the courts would consider them to be definitive legal terms. I'm pretty confident that if it ever came to court the outcome would be that the term "calibre" is to be construed as to include everything which is reasonably interchangeable with what's on the cert.

 

I mean, if it weren't what happens with reloads. If you trim a .308 case to half a mm under the accepted tolerance level for .308 then you are in unlawful possession, surely?

 

You know and I know and even Coldweld knows the bullet "may" be identical, and it may be common practice to let this through, but if it's not on your FAC you can't legally buy it.

 

What about .44 Magnum. It's called that because someone decided to call it that - not for any other reason. What about if I made a batch of ammo to .44 Mag specs and called it .429 Magnum? Would I be in illegal possession because my cert says .44 Magnum? Fact of the matter is that it would still be .44 Mag ammo just with a different name. Courts look to facts and it would be .44 Magnum ammo. What about if I turned the headstamp off - would it still be .44 Magnum ammo - of course it would.

I am not debating sizes/pressures/similarities of .308/7.62....223/5.56 in this, that is another issue altogether, we are simply talking about what it says on your FAC.

 

What if my cert says .338 Lap and I'm in possession of some 8.59x71mm ammo? They are identical and come off the same production line it's just that different markets wants them marked differently. It would be perfectly legal for me to buy and possess them because they are the same thing. Regrardless of what it said on the tin, I'd still be in possession of .338 Lap ammo.

 

And again I agree, it could be a real hum dinger in court!

 

And I think the reason it's never got to court, that I'm aware of, is that it's a pointless prosecution that will end in an acquittal. Like I said, there is no definition of "calibre" in the act so any prosecution is probably doomed to failure. If your cert said "chambering" then I'd agfree with you but it doesn't.

 

The real question is, do you want to be the test case, when it is simple to just ask for .308/7.62x51 and .223/5.56 to be listed on your FAC, as it is in both cases on mine for rifles and ammo.

 

Probably not but it would be a case that I don't think I'd be unduly worried about losing, quite frankly. Also, the fact that they will give you doth on asking is pretty strong evidence that they are the same thing for all practical purposes anyway!

 

I'm pretty sure that the court would simply take the "calibres" on your cert as being terms of art to describe the ammo you are allowed to purchase for the gun in question. My cert simply says .308 and I have a .308 Win rifle. By your reasonaing I can go out and buy .308 Norma Magnum ammo even though I have no earthly use for it?

 

J.

Edited May 6, 2010 by JonathanL

[HUnter_zero 58]

 

 

Surely the shear fact that the police are willing to do the above shows with no doubt that the rounds are one in the same That is a leap of assumption, so I fail to see why that makes them "one and the same"

!,

Glad that's all cleared up.....

 

ATB!!

 

 

Well it's not a "leap of assumption", there are people on HERE that buy both .308 and 7.62 Mil ammo. No assumptions about it. When we send our FAC back to the police I am 101% sure they check our ammunition usage and I am sure that if they could find a reason to revoke a persons FAC, they would. RFD's have to keep detailed records (I am presuming you know what happens to your ammo register?). So, as I can never recall anyone having their FAC revoked or their RFD stated revoked due to being in illegal possession of 7.62 when they should only have .308, the conclusion must be that the police are MORE than happy.

 

I fail to see, other than the thickness of the brass, what makes 7.62 & .308 different at all. If case thickness defines different ammunition, whats happens between Norma cases and Remington cases, would that make Norma ammunition .3081 or 7.621 because the case is thicker than Remington? Please enlighten.

 

John

[Deker 3,478]

There are obviously areas of disagreement here, and I suspect this debate could continue on a long while and get nowhere, as I have said all along if you want to put 5.56 through a .223 or .308 down a 7.62 (or vice versa) you are welcome, I choose not to take the chance.

 

Both SAAMI and CIP note the differences in these and most of you accept there are differences.

 

With regard to wording on your FAC and what you can buy, well again, the debate seems to be raging on with differences of opinion, and as I accepted, perhaps a courtroom is the only place to settle it.

 

I see many of your arguments as flawed as do some of you with mine, so do you reckon we are going to convince each other of our viewpoint...I suspect not!

 

Probably best to agree to disagree!

[coldweld 65]

Just look up 7.62 x 51 on wikipedea and in the first pargraph it says that there are differences between .308 and 7.62 x 51 but SAAMI say they are INTERCHANGEABLE !!

 

SORRY to prove HIM :wankerzo4: wrong but there it is !!

[Deker 3,478]

Just look up 7.62 x 51 on wikipedea and in the first pargraph it says that there are differences between .308 and 7.62 x 51 but SAAMI say they are INTERCHANGEABLE !!

 

SORRY to prove HIM :wankerzo4: wrong but there it is !!

 

 

 

 

 

Wikedpedia in all its glory has worded things badly, it means 7.62x51 is interchangeable with .308, it does not mean .308 should be put through a 7.62. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that!

 

Check anywhere you like, here are a few examples!

 

http://www.thegunzone.com/30cal.html

http://www.303british.com/id36.html

http://guncentral.net/Articles/SAAMIvsNATO.html

 

These all make it clear that .308 through a 7.62 is not clever!

 

Nevertheless, if you want to put .308 through a 7.62 then I for one will not attempt to stop you!

Edited May 6, 2010 by Deker

[JonathanL 4]

There are obviously areas of disagreement here, and I suspect this debate could continue on a long while and get nowhere, as I have said all along if you want to put 5.56 through a .223 or .308 down a 7.62 (or vice versa) you are welcome, I choose not to take the chance.

 

Both SAAMI and CIP note the differences in these and most of you accept there are differences.

 

 

Differences yes. You talk about taking chances but, in reality, there are essentially no chances to take.

 

Shooting 5.56mm through a .223 chamberfed rifle is not a risk. It just isn't - I don't care what you say, it just isn't. If it is then show me where the actual risk lies. It's okay to say that they are different but that in its self doesn't show a risk. Show me some particular difference which means there is a risk of blowing you gun up.

 

Also, you still haven't answered the question regarding reloads. If I reload, say, a case stamped 5.56mm with a heavy bullet - say 80grns - then surely by your standards it's autmatically dangerous because it's not a 5.56mm round becaus it doesn't fall withing any 5.56mm standard? Also, my possession of it would be illegal because I wouldn't be in possession of 5.56mm ammo?

With regard to wording on your FAC and what you can buy, well again, the debate seems to be raging on with differences of opinion, and as I accepted, perhaps a courtroom is the only place to settle it.

 

Which is possibly why it's never come to court? Because it's basically a bollox discussion.

 

Probably best to agree to disagree!

 

Never been much impressed with that argument, to be honest. In the vast majority of cases there is usually a right and a wrong answer; agreeing to disagree is usually just a cop-out.

 

J.

[JonathanL 4]

Just look up 7.62 x 51 on wikipedea and in the first pargraph it says that there are differences between .308 and 7.62 x 51 but SAAMI say they are INTERCHANGEABLE !!

 

SORRY to prove HIM :wankerzo4: wrong but there it is !!

 

 

 

 

 

Wikedpedia in all its glory has worded things badly, it means 7.62x51 is interchangeable with .308, it does not mean .308 should be put through a 7.62. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that!

 

Check anywhere you like, here are a few examples!

 

http://www.thegunzone.com/30cal.html

http://www.303british.com/id36.html

http://guncentral.net/Articles/SAAMIvsNATO.html

 

These all make it clear that .308 through a 7.62 is not clever!

 

Nevertheless, if you want to put .308 through a 7.62 then I for one will not attempt to stop you!

 

In reality though, it happens all the time. You should, therefore, be able to reel off loads of cases where guns have blown up due to this.

 

Over to you.....

 

J.

[HUnter_zero 58]

 

Probably best to agree to disagree!

 

 

Again, I have to ask:

 

I fail to see, other than the thickness of the brass, what makes 7.62 & .308 different at all. If case thickness defines different ammunition, whats happens between Norma cases and Remington cases, would that make Norma ammunition .3081 or 7.621 because the case is thicker than Remington? Please enlighten

 

John

[Deker 3,478]

Guys, you obviously can't read and and you are obviously gamblers, I think we have established that you all agree 7.62/.308 and 5.56/.223 are not the same....if you want to take the chance of using ammo of potentially different pressures and different sizes in your guns you are welcome as I have said from the start.

 

There is a wealth of supporting eveidence and as Codweld likes to say, look it up!

 

SAAMI and CIP agree they are different, if you want to keep trying to see if you have a problem you are welcome.

 

I take it you are suggesting all these have it wrong and you know better..

 

http://www.thegunzone.com/30cal.html

http://www.303british.com/id36.html

http://guncentral.ne...AAMIvsNATO.html

 

All your responses are "I don't believe it so it is wrong", then don't believe it, carry on!

 

Frankly nodoby is going to convince anyone of anything who suggests it isn't an issue to use .243 down a .308!

 

I am not interested in convincing you of anything, but tell SAAMI and CIP and just about every other site you can find, they are wrong not me!

[JonathanL 4]

Guys, you obviously can't read and and you are obviously gamblers, I think we have established that you all agree 7.62/.308 and 5.56/.223 are not the same....if you want to take the chance of using ammo of potentially different pressures and different sizes in your guns you are welcome as I have said from the start.

 

 

You aren't telling us why it's dangrous though. You are saying that they are different but aren't saying what it is about those differences that make using one in the other dangerous. So what is it that makes 5.56 dangerous in a .223 chamber?

 

SAAMI and CIP agree they are different, if you want to keep trying to see if you have a problem you are welcome.

 

Well, as far as pressure specs go CiP say they are identical. That being the case, it can only be something about the physical features of the round/chamber which is causing this danger you speak of. What is it?

 

Frankly nodoby is going to convince anyone of anything who suggests it isn't an issue to use .243 down a .308!

 

Of course it's an issue - your gun won't work properly. Personally though, I've seen it happen and it wasn't dangerous from what I saw. What is the actual danger involved here?

I am not interested in convincing you of anything,....

 

You clearly are given how much effort you're putting into this thread.

 

....but tell SAAMI and CIP and just about every other site you can find, they are wrong not me!

 

CiP say the pressure specs are idfentical. CiP do not issue any warning about using 5.56mm in a .223 rifle.

 

What is your opiniomn of the Swiss 7.6mm round? That is actually 5.56mm NATO with a different name - same specs. So, surely you think it's dangerous to use in a rifle ,arked 5.56mm?

 

J.

[riohog 5,701]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

 

have a read,!!

[Deker 3,478]

Guys, you obviously can't read and and you are obviously gamblers, I think we have established that you all agree 7.62/.308 and 5.56/.223 are not the same....if you want to take the chance of using ammo of potentially different pressures and different sizes in your guns you are welcome as I have said from the start.

 

 

You aren't telling us why it's dangrous though. You are saying that they are different but aren't saying what it is about those differences that make using one in the other dangerous. So what is it that makes 5.56 dangerous in a .223 chamber?

 

SAAMI and CIP agree they are different, if you want to keep trying to see if you have a problem you are welcome.

 

Well, as far as pressure specs go CiP say they are identical. That being the case, it can only be something about the physical features of the round/chamber which is causing this danger you speak of. What is it?

 

Frankly nodoby is going to convince anyone of anything who suggests it isn't an issue to use .243 down a .308!

 

Of course it's an issue - your gun won't work properly. Personally though, I've seen it happen and it wasn't dangerous from what I saw. What is the actual danger involved here?

I am not interested in convincing you of anything,....

 

You clearly are given how much effort you're putting into this thread.

 

....but tell SAAMI and CIP and just about every other site you can find, they are wrong not me!

 

CiP say the pressure specs are idfentical. CiP do not issue any warning about using 5.56mm in a .223 rifle.

 

What is your opiniomn of the Swiss 7.6mm round? That is actually 5.56mm NATO with a different name - same specs. So, surely you think it's dangerous to use in a rifle ,arked 5.56mm?

 

J.

 

 

So this lot know jack do they, as well as SAAMI and CIP who both make it clear the rounds are different. So everything contained here is rubbish because your rifle has not let go! Remember, you have to be lucky all the time, the cartridge only has to be lucky once!

 

http://www.thegunzone.com/30cal.html

http://www.303british.com/id36.html

http://guncentral.ne...AAMIvsNATO.html

 

 

Remind me to stay well clear when you try these two IDENTICAL ammunitions.....

 

What is your opiniomn of the Swiss 7.6mm round? That is actually 5.56mm NATO with a different name

 

This is going nowhere as I have already said, believe what you want and do what you want, many others now have much more information to form an opinion whatever.....