Burns, Adams cups for grenades. FAC required?

[Andy A]

Hi all,

with reference to previous posts re the need for either a certificate of deactivation or a firearms certificate for relic firearms or otherwise, how would either a Burns or an Adams cup for the discharge of a 36 or a 23 gren fit into this.

Neither have a serial number evident, both can be used on a live weapon and how would both items be added to said FAC?

Is this a 'grey area' re the law or is there some instruction somewhere which can add clarity?

I have heard comments that the Burns cup should be on a certificate but having said that, the Adams cup would be just as effective with a 36 with a rod. They can easily be bought on eBay.

A dilemma possibly but does anyone know how the law stands re this?

Andy A

[Gunner Bailey]

Andy

My guess is that on their own they are harmless and therefore legal. Same way you can own a rifle butt, a trigger guard etc. It's only when it all comes together the legal status changes. The things the police concentrate on a gun barrels, receivers and bolts. They are the key parts of a firearm. Anything that needs to be pressure tested or is key to the weapon working.

I would say a Burns or Adams discharger cup would be fully legal to own. I expect the Police won't even know what they are, so are not worth asking without scaring them.

GB

[Andy A]

I am sure you are right John,

i wonder how you would add one to an FAC without a serial number as all the parts you mentioned have one.

Also i am sure the Police would not have a clue what they were.

It was just a thought thats all, thanks bud

Andy

[TonyE]

A discharger cup is a prohibited device under Section 5, 1A ( c ) of the Firearms act. This prohibits any device for launching any rocket or other ammunition that falls within Paragraph ( b ) of that section, which in turn defines any device or ammunition designed to explode either on or before impact.

That is the strictly legal position, but how strictly it was interpreted would depend on the local force. It would be a nice easy "nick" to add to the clearance statistics though!

Regards

TonyE

[Gunner Bailey]

A discharger cup is a prohibited device under Section 5, 1A ( c ) of the Firearms act. This prohibits any device for launching any rocket or other ammunition that falls within Paragraph ( b ) of that section, which in turn defines any device or ammunition designed to explode either on or before impact.

That is the strictly legal position, but how strictly it was interpreted would depend on the local force. It would be a nice easy "nick" to add to the clearance statistics though!

Regards

TonyE

Tony

I think it would only become illegal when loaded with a prohibited weapon. Otherwise they would definitly by a part of the ebay ban and I've seen them sold since the grenade / shell ban. I've never heard of them needing to be FAC covered. If they were illegal on their own, people could be prosecuted for adding one to their deactivated SMLE.

They would be illegal if you had the live ammunition to put in it, I think, but then you are into a whole string of illegal activities by that stage.

Again this shows what a shambles our firearms acts are, if they are open to wide interpetation.

GB

[TonyE]

I still maintain that it is a prohibited device in its own right under Section 5 of the Act, but you are absolutely correct to say there is scope for a wide interpretation of the law.

An interesting conundrum: you say it would be illegal with live ammunition, but the cup discharger uses the .303 H Mark I blank to discharge the grenade and blanks are not subject to the Firearms Act!

As for using E-Bay as the arbiter of what is or is not legal, I will pass on that. Even before their ammo ban, they were happily selling inerted AP and Incendiary rounds, all of which are totally prohibited under Section 5 whether inerted or not.

BTW, I am looking for a good condition cup discharger - and I have a Section 5 FAC!

Regards

TonyE

[Andrew Upton]

Tony E is quite right as usual - if you legally want to own/display one of these now, they supposedly have to be deactivated (typically, certain bits welded up, and a bar welded inside so that it can no longer accept a normal grenade - one dodge is to get a Mills grenade body and drill a slot up it's length, so that it slides in over the bar and looks good from a short distance). However, interpretation of the law is differently applied sometimes, and under certain circumstance you seem to be able to get away with them "live" - just don't try owning a live Mills at the same time...

[59165]

So,I spose that these 2 are not 100% legal?

Old fotos so I dont care much but....at the end of the day,its down to any officers interpretation of the law.I cant see anyone getting pulled for these unless,as Andrew & Tony have said,other circumstances/things were found in conjunction.

& yes,its for sale Tony but wont be a bargain,I'm afraid

[TonyE]

What is not a bargain? PM me with the answer.

Regards

Tony

[manchester terrier]

I recall seeing cup dischargers being sold by Henry Kranks in Guns Review about thirty odd years ago. IIRC they were about £25 and sold as curios.

[Gunner Bailey]

Andrew

Perhaps you could show us photos of a deactivated cup discharger?

Tony

E-bay will like most US corporations spend millions on legal advice. Sadly they apply inconsistently, causing worldwide frustration.

Also this definitition, 'A discharger cup is a prohibited device under Section 5, 1A ( c ) of the Firearms act. This prohibits any device for launching any rocket or other ammunition that falls within Paragraph ( b ) of that section, which in turn defines any device or ammunition designed to explode either on or before impact' - would also render a Mills 23 and 36 base plug, a No 23 rod and a gascheck plate as being illegal items. Clearly this is so badly defined as to be a nonsense.

GB

[TonyE]

I do not believe that would be so. We are back to the "constituent part" arguement. A baseplate or rod is not a "device" so I think that would escape the legislation. As we are agreed, the definitions are so open to interpretation that only precedent in a court case would give a basis in law.

Regards

TonyE

[Andrew Upton]

Andrew

Perhaps you could show us photos of a deactivated cup discharger?

Unfortunately, I don't have any photo's (one of the people I know who has one might be at Kelvedon Hatch this weekend - if they are and have brought it, I will try and get a picture), but have handled two deactivated in that manner (one with the afore mentioned slotted grenade present as well - looked very convincing). They were essentially deacivated mainly in the same way as a mortar, with a hole drilled right through near the top, and a rod placed across and welded in place. As mentioned, it's a bit odd, since they're only really any sort of problem if you have a live one AND a live Lee-Enfield (or similar) AND a live grenade AND the correct blank cartridge, but as was recently demonstrated in the thread with the relicy Lee Enfield, the law can be applied if they want it to be.

[Gunner Bailey]

Andrew

Thanks. It will be interesting to see but also I see it as the needless destruction of a historic relic. I doubt if there's a single instance in the last 75 years or so of a WW1 rifle grenade being fired off by a civilian in breach of any firearms laws.

I have uncovered instances of WW1 & WW2 grenades being set off or going off by accident in civilian hand in the periods after both wars, but nothing like the illegal firing of a rifle grenade.

GB

[Andrew Upton]

Thanks. It will be interesting to see but also I see it as the needless destruction of a historic relic. I doubt if there's a single instance in the last 75 years or so of a WW1 rifle grenade being fired off by a civilian in breach of any firearms laws.

I have uncovered instances of WW1 & WW2 grenades being set off or going off by accident in civilian hand in the periods after both wars, but nothing like the illegal firing of a rifle grenade.

I didn't get a picture in the end - the chap was there, and he did have it with him, but he was only there on the Saturday (attending another event elsewhere on the Sunday), and we had such a torrential downpour throughout the day I never had a good opportunity to get a picture before they left.

[T8HANTS]

Surely a cup discharger is wrongly named, it in its self cannot discharge anything, without a live rifle with pressure bearing components, a cup discharger is just a holder of the grenade. Your arm will throw a grenade further than an isolated cup discharger.

G

[Gunner Bailey]

Surely a cup discharger is wrongly named, it in its self cannot discharge anything, without a live rifle with pressure bearing components, a cup discharger is just a holder of the grenade. Your arm will throw a grenade further than an isolated cup discharger.

G

Agree entirely!

GB

[Andy A]

To have a piece of metal that you cannot use without a licenced rifle, can only use with a blank, not a normal round and you are told you need a certificate for it, which you cannot put on said certificate cos it dosnt have a serial number........ Going mad like ebay i think.

Mind you, its a nice piece of metal, well designed, looks good, and can never be used by most people, never mind what the 'high and mighty' who swear by what the rules say.

Try firing a rusted old relic rifle, found on a battlefield, no wood, corroded to almost extinction and then be told you need a licence for it, i dont care what is said, the law is an ass. Please dont try and convince me otherwise. All you will be doing is trying to convince yourself. Dont need to be told otherwise.

I reccon bayonets n swords are far more dangerous and more easily obtained and far more cheaply too.

[Gunner Bailey]

Agree entirely!!

GB

[TonyE]

Andy

I agree wholeheartedly with your point, but I was merely pointing out what the law actually says. This is the wording of the relevent part of the act;

(1A)Subject to section 5A of this Act, a person commits an offence if, without the authority of the Secretary of State, he has in his possession, or purchases or acquires, or sells or transfers—

(a)any firearm which is disguised as another object;

(b)any rocket or ammunition not falling within paragraph © of subsection (1) of this section which consists in or incorporates a missile designed to explode on or immediately before impact and is for military use;

( c )any launcher or other projecting apparatus not falling within paragraph (ae) of that subsection which is designed to be used with any rocket or ammunition falling within paragraph ( b ) above or with ammunition which would fall within that paragraph but for its being ammunition falling within paragraph ( c ) of that subsection

Ammunition falling within paragraph ( b ) is any ammunition designed to explode on or before impact, ie. a grenade.

It is all very well to rail against the "high and mighty", but there is always some jobsworth who is only too happy to apply the letter of the law and nick you. Then they use that as an excuse to ban something else and so it goes on. As collectors, researchers and enthusiasts we have to avoid giving them any excuse to further limit what we can have.

Regards

TonyE

[Andy A]

Tony,

you are right but i think that the problem with all this is a 'British or English' problem in that we seem to adhere to the letter of the law to the nth degree whilst for example the French just stick their fingers up at the problem. Ok. the French too have to us their 'quirky' laws but common sense seems to prevail with them. I feel this 'Britishness' has been with us for far too long a time perhaps there should be a change.

We seem to just give up and accept what is thrown at us without so much as a comment. Sorry for my political diatribe but i feel needs must.

Also, i feel that quoting the letter of the law at the first instance to me just reinforces that 'Britishness'.

I think that we have as a country in many instances have just devolved to a very sad state.

I dont want to hurt anyone, just like to collect things which i have become very involved and interested in. Ime very into moths, as i am sure by my avatar you are well aware, dont ever collect them, just their records as that dosnt hurt the species in any way. However, collecting bits of wood and metal, none of which can be used to hurt anyone, ok, i suppose i could stick someone with my 1917 bayo, or club them with my rifles but to have the law thrust upon me about a bit of metal which hasnt probably been used for near 90 years saddens me.

I dont think we can ever change such laws but people powers is something not to be discounted.

Andy

[Gunner Bailey]

It's a crying shame that we have had two gererations that fought two bloody wars to give us freedom and liberty and successive governments slowly strip away all those freedoms, until lawyers and the police run everything. Have we reached 1984 yet?

GB

[auchonvillerssomme]

The problem is that we don't fight individual rights collectively unless its an issue that a workplace union wants to get involved in or does not put individuals at risk of losing their freedom in the process. For example we shout about the injustice of pensioners being sent to jail for non payment of community charge, poll tax by any other name, but what do we do as a group about it....nothing. This is not because of coawrdice it is for a very valid reason. If I demonstrate, even legally, and a tool of the state says that I have shouted a bit loudly (yes you can be in breach for that) then I will be arrested, dna'd, fingerprinted and put in front of a magistrate. Whatever the outcome of that, I will have to declare it to my employer and my professional body this event and I have no doubt I will be suspended, immediately that happens I can no longer practice in any capacity in my trade. The chances are I will then be accused of bringing the organisation into disrepute and sacked. I will lose not only my job but any chance of following my trade ever again.

If I was a French fisherman I could disrupt the lives of thousands, cost individuals, companies and the government millions with impunity. i Might even get away with burning a few sheep.

Did you know there are several Communes in France where cock fighting is legal?

Mick

[auchonvillerssomme]

I seem to have drifted from the original question...apologies, feel free to delete as necessary.

Mick

[Gunner Bailey]

Going back to Andy's point, here we are being told that something that is not numbered, is not subject to pressure tests and is not recognisable as a firearm, and cannot function independently as a firearm comes under firearms legistaltion and has to be de-activated? Can we add to that list bren gun bipods, butts etc. Incredibly, at any militaria shop or fair you can buy sten gun magazines, bren gun mags and often magazines for modern pistols. I would have thought the police would be far more concerned about the latter than a 90 year old rifle accessory.

GB