A useful chart showing which firearms are legal in the United Kingdom
Posted by ChickenWingExtreme@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 182 comments
Thoughts on this?
Ok_Ordinary6694@reddit
Lol knife crime
walt-and-co@reddit
Ehhhh it’s much more complicated than this. All of these can be owned with the correct licence and/or authority, but none of them can be owned without a licence of some sort. If anybody is actually interested I can write out the various levels of licensing in full, but if not I won’t haha.
Gloomy-Bet4893@reddit
I would be genuinely interested!
walt-and-co@reddit
Alright, here goes, as comprehensive a list as I can come up with of all the things considered firearms in the UK! Most of this is governed by the Firearms Act 1968, as amended 1988 and 1996. UK law defines a firearm as a ‘lethal barrelled weapon capable of discharging a bullet, shot or missile,’ or the relevant component parts thereof. ‘Component parts’ used to mean anything pressure bearing, but nowadays also includes any ‘frame, body or receiver’. Regulated parts typically fit into the same category as the firearm that they’re a part of (e.g. a bolt for a shotgun is S.2, for a rifle is S.1, and one for an air rifle or antique is unlicensed).
Firearms which can be owned without any form of licence or authority:
Air guns. This means anything that fires a metal shot using air pressure (spring, PCP, CO2, gas, etc) so long as it isn’t fully automatic, and has muzzle energy below either 6 ft-lbf for a pistol or 12 ft-lbf for a rifle. Above that energy limit, they do not qualify for the air gun exemption and require the same licence or authority as their powder counterparts. Air guns can be shot on any private land where you have permission to do so.
S.58(i): Deactivated guns. These must be deactivated in accordance with specifications set out by the Home Office, and inspected by either the Birmingham or London Proof Houses. Because it’s a lot less faff than live, non-antique firearms, many collectors and reenactors collect deacts.
S.58(ii): Antiques. To qualify as an antique, a firearm must meet three criteria: firstly, it is owned as an ‘antique or curio’ - generally taken to mean it’s held for collecting or display purposes only. Secondly, it was made before 1939. Thirdly, it uses an obsolete form of ammunition. This includes all muzzle loaders, anything that uses pinfire or needle fire cartridges, or breechloaders chambered for anything on a designated list of ‘obsolete calibres’. The list is updated from time to time, and the government are surprisingly receptive to adding new ones if it can be shown that they truly are obsolete (though there are no set criteria to determine obsolescence).*
Then there are the guns with relatively obtainable, and quite commonplace, licences.
S.2: Shotgun Certificate (SGC). To qualify as a legal shotgun, a gun must have a smoothbore barrel at least 24” in length, fire ammunition with at least three projectiles, and be capable of holding no more than two additional rounds (other than the one in the chamber). Any form of action except fully automatic is permitted (i.e. break action, under lever, pump action, self-loading, etc), and detachable magazines are not allowed. Where a gun has a tube magazine, it must be restricted to two standard-length cartridges (and so you could theoretically get more in by using mini shells or similar, but this would only be dubiously legal). To get an SGC, you must have secure storage, and submit your medical records and a character statement from someone** you have known non-professionally for at least three years to the police. They will then conduct a criminal record check, and come round to your house to confirm your storage setup and interview you. Theoretically, you don’t need a specific reason to want an SGC, but if you can demonstrate that you’ve been going to a clay shooting ground regularly, or have a plan to go hunting, or live on a farm, etc, it’ll make them less wary of you. S.2 guns can be shot on any private land where you have permission to do so (with a number of caveats relating to firing near to a public right of way, or allowing your shot to fall outside the land, etc, for obvious reasons).
S.1: Firearms Certificate (FAC). A Section 1 FAC does not apply to a specific type of firearm, but instead to all firearms not otherwise specified in another section. Because of it being this way around, it means that the default state of all firearms in the UK is that they are restricted and require a licence, unless specifically exempted (and not the other way around). In practice, S.1 covers four main types of firearms: rifles (never full auto, semi auto only if chambered for .22 rimfire, barrel above 12” and overall length above 24”), S.1 shotguns (smooth bore with barrel between 12” and 24” and/or magazine capable of holding more than two rounds), long barrelled pistols (semiautomatic only if chambered for .22 rimfire, barrel length above 12”, overall length above 24” - this is where the ‘coat hanger’ attached to the handgun in the original meme comes from), and muzzle-loading pistols (basically no specific requirements - barrels can be short, no coat hanger required, both single shots and revolvers permitted). The process to get an FAC is more stringent than an SGC. The storage, medical and criminal checks all still apply, as do two character references. However, you also have to demonstrate good reason to be issued the certificate, which typically means membership of a registered target shooting club for sport shooting, permission to shoot on land for hunters, or evidence of a formulated collection for collectors. I also know of a couple of people who’ve received licences on the grounds that they’re reenactors, with the stipulation that they’re only allowed to buy blank ammunition. The police can also impose basically any conditions they want on your FAC, if they feel it to be necessary. S.1 firearms can also only be used on private land where you have permission to shoot which has also be inspected and approved for the type of firearm involved. Due to the UK being a small, reasonably flat and densely-populated country, there isn’t much space for range danger areas so ranges always have maximum muzzle energy/calibre limits. Likewise for land approved for hunting.
Then there are the slightly trickier authorities:
S.7(1): Heritage Pistol. S.7(1) allows collectors to own and keep live pistols if they are a part of a collection and meet several criteria. They must be made before 1919, and they cannot use any of a list of cartridges in current common use (which includes things like 9x19 parabellum, but not 7.65 parabellum, so Swiss Lugers are fine but German ones are not). To receive an FAC for S.7(1), you have to submit a collecting thesis and a case for why the specific pistols you wish to acquire are of historical value. No live ammunition may be held, and they may not be fired under any circumstances. They can be kept at home, but can only be handled by the licensed collector or a S.7 or S.5 authorised Registered Firearms Dealer.
S.7(3): Heritage Pistol. S.7(3) is significantly less strict than S.7(1), as pistols from any area and using any cartridge are allowed, so long as they fit a collection (which must be applied for and approved in the same way as S.7(1)). They cannot, however, be taken home and must be stored at an approved range, where they are permitted to be fired but only for the purposes of ‘historical research’ (i.e. no competition use).
Finally, there is the hardest category:
S.5: Prohibited Firearms. This encompasses everything that has been specifically ‘banned’. Semiautomatic centrefire rifles, pistols (except for in Northern Ireland, where they’re still S.1), ordnance, concealed firearms, gas and incendiary weapons, all full autos, etc. S.5 authority must be granted by the Home Office on a case-by-case basis, with any relevant conditions they see fit to make up. Broadly, it’s limited to museums, approved dealers, theatrical armourers, and maritime security contractors. Vets can also sometimes be granted S.5 authority, typically only to own a single pistol with capacity limited to two rounds. I’ve seen both revolvers with the cylinder blocked off and semiautomatics with the magazine pinned.
Further, there’s the stuff that is never possible (except in Northern Ireland and only very rarely there): carry. There is no stipulation for legal concealed or open carry, or for owning or using firearms for defensive purposes. If you were attacked and happened to have a gun with you and managed to use it, there is the possibility of being in the clear but the laws on proportionate force are strict and there is no equivalent to the castle doctrine. When transporting firearms, you must have a good reason to do so (usually taking them to/from a range or shop/gunsmith) and they must be concealed from view and unloaded.
*There was, however, an issue with .44 Smith and Wesson Russian a few years back. Because it used to be deemed obsolete, but the guns were reasonably modern revolvers (by the standards of UK criminal armouries), a ring of black market arms dealers were buying up basically all of the .44 S&W Russian revolvers on the European market, importing them to the UK as collectibles, and then manufacturing thousands of rounds of ammunition for them and selling them on the streets. In the aftermath of this, the government determined that the cartridge could no longer realistically be considered obsolete, and struck them from the list. Any collector who already owned them could get a specific permit to allow them to retain it, but if they wished to sell it to someone else it would no longer be considered S.58(ii).
**Just before I moved away last September, they were planning to increase this to two references, but I don’t know if that’s come in yet.
I hope that was interesting! It’s a pain of a system, but that’s how it works and what UK shooters have to fight against if they want to practice their hobby/sport.
MournfulMonstrosity@reddit
Interesting yes, and well structured therefore easy to read, too. Collector-culture must have a strong presence to have so many "carve-outs".
longboard_noob@reddit
If you care to discuss, I'd like to hear about suppressor laws in the UK.
walt-and-co@reddit
Suppressors used to be considered component parts and licensed accordingly, but they’ve just been deregulated (literally this year) and now can be purchased without needing specific permission, so long as you have the right certificate for the gun they’re going on. It’s a rare step in the right direction for UK laws.
longboard_noob@reddit
Wow, that's great! Would you say most gun owners in the UK own at least one?
WUPHF_ME_UR_TITS@reddit
How easily are the licenses to obtain?
Neko_Boi_Core@reddit
less than a percent of the country has licenses beyond .22 rimfire rifles
Ballbag94@reddit
That's because much of the population are either neutral or negative towards firearms, and because they're an expensive hobby with few places to use them, not because they're difficult to obtain
Neko_Boi_Core@reddit
they're difficult to obtain because of the extreme expenses in the uk. poverty is rife and the government continues to push for gun control to make it even more expensive. a motion a couple years ago tried to push for a license per firearm in wales. madness.
Ballbag94@reddit
I personally wouldn't include expense in the equation of how difficult it is to obtain something, but I see your point
The government are definitely anti-shooting though, I'm just glad they didn't combine section 1 and 2
DrZedex@reddit
Why wouldn't you? Rights aren't actually rights if they are only accessible to the rich and powerful.
fatitalianstallion@reddit
Not a right in the UK
CFishing@reddit
It’s a right worldwide.
fatitalianstallion@reddit
It’s not. The US is unique in how rights are handled. The US Constitution does not grant rights, it provides the govt limited ability to infringe on already existing rights.
No other country is set up that way. All others have the govt granting rights. As such, no right to arms in the UK
CFishing@reddit
It doesn’t matter if they recognize it or not, it is still an inalienable human right every person has at birth.
fatitalianstallion@reddit
In America, no where else.
CFishing@reddit
fatitalianstallion@reddit
No, bc rights aren’t actually a thing anywhere unless they’re asserted. Natural rights aren’t only asserted in America.
Ballbag94@reddit
Because something being expensive is different to how simple it is to acquire, which I would define by the amount of hoops there are to jump through
A porsche is easy to acquire and hard to afford, a house is hard to acquire and hard to afford, a firearm is easy to acquire and hard to afford
Owning a gun isn't a right
landmanpgh@reddit
Actually, owning a gun IS a right. That's what we told our (and your) government when we wrote the Constitution.
You have the same rights, you just forgot and let your government get too powerful.
Ballbag94@reddit
You understand that we're not talking about the USA, right? The context here is the UK, where it is not a right. I honestly don't understand why you guys are unable to infer the subtext from context
Unfortunately the UK has been around a very long time and the laws changed a long time before I had anything to do with them. Sadly firearms ownership isn't popular among voters
firearmresearch00@reddit
The point is that self defense is a human right stemming from God. It has nothing to do with what the American or British government feel in regards to legislation. Any attempt at removing the right to self defense regardless of origin is an infringement against you. It is a right, your government is telling you otherwise because they hate you
Ballbag94@reddit
The right to self defence hasn't been removed, self defence is very much legal and it's also legal to use a weapon to defend yourself if the need arises
What's not legal is to own or carry a weapon for the purpose of self defence
I don't like the way the law is but not having a weapon is not the same as not being allowed to defend yourself and we shouldn't conflate them
DrZedex@reddit
"you can have your good given rights but you're not allowed to actually just them in any practical or meaningful way"
Great. Prefect lol
Ballbag94@reddit
I'm confused, you think self defence is impossible unless you carry a weapon at all times?
DrZedex@reddit
Well...yeah kinda. Unless I intend to cower in my home 24/7. I guess maybe that's a valid strategy for some people lol. I like to touch grass.
Ballbag94@reddit
I can leave my house without fear any time I want to, as can many others, I think we just have entirely different experiences
DrZedex@reddit
Rights don't matter...until you need them.
landmanpgh@reddit
Self defense isn't even the full argument, since people thinks it means defense against other people. It really means self defense against the government.
landmanpgh@reddit
Unalienable, or fundamental, or God given rights were around before any country existed. That's the idea behind our constitution. That simply by being born, we are afforded certain rights. Doesn't matter what country we're from.
I don't care about the UK's laws or how long it's been a country. You're completely missing the point of unalienable rights.
Ballbag94@reddit
What we call "rights" exist because people believe they should and agree to uphold them, they don't come from a higher power, didn't exist for much of history, and are subject to change on the whims of those in charge unless people have the ability to enforce them
If you believe that owning a gun should be a right world wide then sure but that doesn't change the fact that rights aren't something divine or from nature, they're an invention of humanity and as such can differ
Not at all, I simply acknowledge that "rights" are all inventions of humanity. We see this all the time with additions and removals of rights that exist, such as when people go to prison and lose a whole bunch of rights, some permanently
Ballbag94@reddit
God didn't pass down the right to own guns
JCMGamer@reddit
In the United States firearm ownership is absolutely a right.
The ability to defend yourself is essential.
Ballbag94@reddit
We're not talking about the USA, we're talking about the UK
Verum14@reddit
As far as I’m concerned, owning a firearm is still your right — y’all just let them strip it away and need to reclaim it
Ballbag94@reddit
Sadly, outside of completely removing the government that's unlikely to happen. Shooters here are a minority, have little public support, have no government support, and are ignored when we talk
As much as I'd like a system closer to Austria's or the Czech republic's it isn't worth overthrowing the government for, nor would that be a sensible or realistic thing to do
DrZedex@reddit
Give it time, the brexit fallout might make it worth it for other reasons anyhow.
Ballbag94@reddit
If I know anything about this country we'll get a slow collapse and no one will do anything about it because suffering is seen as virtuous. Everything is a race to the bottom
DrZedex@reddit
I can relate
WhatYouLeaveBehind@reddit
Is it my right to own nukes too?
leont21@reddit
British are subjects. Americans are citizens. It’s a perspective
TheDoomslayer121@reddit
FTFY
518nomad@reddit
[i]Owning a gun is a right that the UK government infringes with impunity.[/i]
FTFY.
Ballbag94@reddit
Sorry, did you need that explicitly spelt out despite the fact that the post, and thread, are about UK gun laws? It seems that it was pretty obvious from context
glockster19m@reddit
I bet they also think that requiring and ID to vote shouldn't also require issuing free IDs
CAB_IV@reddit
There is a reason we kicked the British out.
SturerEmilDickerMax@reddit
Shut up. No one cares about that stone age shit. You should worry about having a pedo-president who is a draft dodger and a perverted king wanna’be. So sit down and shut up.
sirbassist83@reddit
not considering expense is stupid
Ballbag94@reddit
If expense is part of difficulty then the term is meaningless
I can get a TV online, they're very easy to obtain because they can be bought from anywhere and delivered to anywhere very quickly, but they're expensive
I can get drugs online too there are at least two more steps involved than buying a TV, but they're cheap
Do you think it makes sense to say that the thing requiring fewer steps and less effort is harder to obtain than the thing requiring more steps and more effort because it costs more?
sirbassist83@reddit
Most people over the age of 21 in the US have a driver's license. Very few people have transferable MGs. The DL is technically harder to acquire outside of cost. I'm not going to continue to argue with you, but yeah, if the cost is prohibitive then the thing that requires fewer steps can be harder to obtain than the thing that requires not steps/effort
Ballbag94@reddit
This is why I consider cost a separate thing from difficulty. I don't see that being unaffordable makes it harder to obtain, it blocks the acquisition but doesn't change the prerequisites required to get the thing, which is what I would associate with difficulty
I get where you're coming from, I just disagree
dadbodsupreme@reddit
A Toyota Corolla and a Bugatti Veyron are equally accessible to me then.
Ballbag94@reddit
Are they?
You could walk into any dealership and buy a Toyota, the same can't be said about a bugatti, nor would they allow you to test drive one without proof of funds. The latter is far harder to access even if you have the money
dadbodsupreme@reddit
I'm trying to say that if you don't think money is a barrier to entry I don't know what to tell you. Everything else being equal, if you can't afford it you can't afford it. If it is made artificially unaffordable by government Fiat that's 100% infringement in the highest order.
Ballbag94@reddit
I didn't say it wasn't a barrier to entry, I said it was separate from difficulty
Something can be cheap and hard to get or something can be expensive and easy to get, in the same way that something can be simple and hard or complex and easy
Sure, but that isn't raising the difficulty of getting the thing, it's blocking the acquisition but it isn't raising the complexity
LeadnLasers@reddit
Lmfao you wouldn’t include price with difficulty? Truly a wildly illogical statement
Ballbag94@reddit
No, because I count them as different things, as I explained elsewhere
To me difficulty relates to the amount of hoops you need to jump through, plenty of things are easy to get hold of but hard to afford. Would you say a £800 TV that I can buy anywhere is difficult to obtain because it's expensive?
If price is part of difficulty then literally every luxury good is difficult to obtain
PlayingDoomOnAGPS@reddit
If the price of the TV was artificially inflated to deliberately keep it out of reach of most people then yes, I'd count that as difficult to obtain.
Ballbag94@reddit
How much do you think a gun is? My most expensive gun cost £1300, that was expensive by comparison to the others, and a portion of that was transport and broker fees
Guns aren't being artificially inflated to keep them out of reach of anyone, hell, I bought a shotgun two years ago for £38
DJpuffinstuff@reddit
Is poverty more rife in the UK than it is in the US where we still have tons of guns? I feel like some of the most poverty stricken areas in the US even still have guns. What does it cost to get a firearms license in the UK for something like a semi-auto or pump action shotgun?
DasKapitalist@reddit
The median household in the USA is $80k vs $46k in the UK. The poorest US state, Mississippi has a higher median household income than the UK.
InnocentPerv93@reddit
Okay, but the UK has far better infrastructure and free healthcare.
DasKapitalist@reddit
Try to get a MRI in the US, then try to get one in the UK.
The last time I was in the US and wanted an MRI, it took 28 minutes...15 of which were driving there.
The median wait time in the UK is 12 weeks. "Free" means nothing if you're dead before it's available.
Lazy_Resolve_9747@reddit
That’s deceptive.
The poorest 5th of households in UK have a median income of 16,500 pounds.
Poorest fifth in US is 17,000 Dollars.
TLDR: the distribution of wealth in the US is tyrannical
KingElessar1898@reddit
Someone missed the mean, median, and mode lesson on math class.
Lazy_Resolve_9747@reddit
Really? The US has about 5 times the population of the UK and we have no social safety net.
We’re talking about nearly 60 million people in that low bracket compared to 14 million in the UK.
And, those poor Americans living in the country often have the most guns.
Someone dropped out after 4th grade.
dottmatrix@reddit
Holy crap! Here I was just thinking we have Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment, Food Stamps, Welfare, and other social programs, to say nothing of religious and nonprofit programs - thank you so much for enlightening me about how we have no social safety net in my country! I don't know how I could possibly have been so misinformed!
Lazy_Resolve_9747@reddit
Have you used any of those programs? Are aware of the hoops you have to jump through for most of them? And how little assistance you get?
dottmatrix@reddit
Yes, I have - which tells me you haven't, and just want to argue despite having been proven thoroughly wrong. Just because you think the existing social safety net is inadequate doesn't make it nonexistent. If you don't like it, please feel free to emigrate (though I doubt you have sufficient skill to be a desirable immigrant anywhere else, based on your ignorance and demeanor) - I'd certainly like this country even more without you in it.
I'll be blocking you now, but please do all Americans a favor and leave. You're dragging the entire country down.
Lazy_Resolve_9747@reddit
That’s deceptive.
The poorest 5th of households in UK have a median income of 16,500 pounds.
Poorest fifth in US is 17,000 Dollars.
TLDR: the distribution of wealth in the US is tyrannical
Oceanman10120@reddit
Yeah from what I’ve seen. Ontop of that we can get very cheap guns because of the abundance of them
_Keo_@reddit
You say it isn't difficult but unless it's got a lot more lax in the last 20yrs (I've not had anything to do with UK firearms for at least that long) you used to need:
A police visit to assess:
- State of your storage.
- State of your ammo storage.
A letter of recommendation from (don't recall if 1 or all):
- A doctor (based on their evaluation of you).
- A lawyer or someone with some sort of legal standing.
- Some other person of standing who knew and would vouch for you.
Proof of ownership or permission to shoot on acceptable land.
And then to fill out the paperwork, pay the fees, and be accepted.
That's obviously not impossible but let's be honest that it's a little bit more than easy.
But I totally agree that most people don't even consider getting into shooting. From what I recall it's more like they don't want to go to all the hassle for something that's so restrictive. Most people thought that other than a farmer's shotgun, everything was illegal. But everyone I knew would jump at the opportunity to go shoot.
walt-and-co@reddit
No need for a letter from a lawyer, just has to be someone you’ve known in a non-professional context. They were increasing to two references for all licences but idk if that’s come into force yet.
The doctor’s letter isn’t a letter of recommendation, just a declaration of relevant conditions for the police to pass judgement on.
No need to prove land ownership or permission for an SGC, but it helps. Good reason has to be demonstrated for an FAC.
It’s definitely a pain in the arse but it’s not as bad as a lot of people (even in the UK) seem to think.
The_J_Might@reddit
They are infamously hard/intrusive, you get assigned an actual officer that digs into every aspect of your life. They dig through your past, interview friends/family/associates, and physically inspect your house and do interviews with you. Your also asked why you want the firearm and self defense is not an appropriate answer BTW. After all of that its completely up to the officer to approve of it, with the ability to disapprove of the lisence for whatever reason.
Great video if you are more curious
https://youtu.be/CzSsRsCk43c?is=1Ydq6XBMzNiayAZm
Lostinthought5000@reddit
You have to prove you are part of a shooting club, farmer for pest control, safety classes or hunting club. Think I'm missing some. Oh safe in the house that has to be inspected by the government. There was something about ammo but I forgot
omgitstallin3@reddit
A major ball ache depending on where you live... And a very long waiting list to get your license approved
mondaymoderate@reddit
And none of them can be used in self defense
Club_Penguin_Legend_@reddit
Im fairly sure that the self defence laws are pretty similar to here in Canada. If you shoot someone it has to be equal to the threat that the attacker was posing.
Onetap1@reddit
Not so. You can't use self-defence as a reason to get one.
For example Tony Martin (Google him) was jailed for murder (later reduced to manslaughter) for killing a burglar with an unlicensed pump action 12 bore. His shotgun certificate was revoked after (I think) he'd fired into the back of a van being used by a trespasser or thief.
Martin had been tormented by burglars and the police were a long way away and fairly useless.
There was a documentary about that case, which included another man who'd confronted a burglar with his legal shotgun. The man said he'd felt threatened and had fired a shot into the floor to intimidate the burglar who'd lunged at him and got his a leg full of shot; at that point, the interviewee started chuckling.
Arkele@reddit
Yes I’m interested
wackadoodle4201@reddit
Im interested
P0l0Cap0ne@reddit
Im interested
Averagecrabenjoyer69@reddit
Yes please do
Sub7viaLimeWire@reddit
Just ask ChatGPT to summarize. Make sure it’s right and then tell us 😁
FafnirRannsTwinedAxe@reddit
Id laugh but im candian
Jumpy-Imagination-81@reddit
Useless chart is more like it.
HeemeyerDidNoWrong@reddit
I don't have experience with UK laws especially any recent ones, but this is some AI generated page, I would t trust it for advice. Useless website.
Jumpy-Imagination-81@reddit
How about from a UK government website?
HeemeyerDidNoWrong@reddit
I meant more the suggestion that something happened in 2026. I already know their laws are shit.
But the complete cadence and also the other random articles on different topics suggest AI, this is a much better page.
Jumpy-Imagination-81@reddit
Do I really have to do your research for you?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-firearms-revocation-consequential-amendment-and-saving-provision-regulations-2026
HeemeyerDidNoWrong@reddit
Thanks, I'm not asking for cites though but good to know what people in other countries are trying because they'd try here. I appreciate your work, really, but again not furiously googling to find answers, just that first one was machine crawled from other sources.
And link says it's law in Britain not UK. As much as many would like Ireland to be 32 counties, it doesn't appear that either country's laws affect NI here.
BloodyToaster@reddit
Let an actual brit explain this
Top to Bottom
Bolt Actions, all calibers up to 50BMG - Section 1 Certificate / Licence [Hunting & Target Shooting] relatively easy to get
Shotguns, side by sides, under and overs, pumps, semi auto - all on a Section 2 Certificate / Licence - easiest licence to get Now mag fed are different, you need a S1 Certificate for Mag feds such as your .410 Siaga AKs etc
M4 / AR & AK Variants [basically all modern rifles] On a S1 you can own all in semi auto providing they are chambered in 22LR.
You can own 5.56, 7.62 etc if the rifle is straight pull meaning you have to manually charge the action after each shot (think springer airsoft guns)
That .50BMG bolty, perfectly legal on a S1 licence BUT the amount of ranges you can shoot it at in the UK are extremely limited and closing more each year but yes, it is obtainable
Revolver with the arm brace. This is a loophole that legally makes them fall under S1 rifles, not pistols themselves. Typically used for target shooting
Regular handguns is partially correct. You can own handguns in Northern Ireland relatively normally. However you can infact own them on the mainland with a Section 8 licence (extremely extremely hard to get) and you have to either keep it at a registered range to shoot OR keep it at home and never shoot it. You are not allowed to transport it yourself. Only a S5 dealer can transport it (i believe)
Hope this helps
DasKapitalist@reddit
What's the point of an un-transportable handgun? So Lord Cornwallis can keep his great grandfather's Webley mounted over the mantle as a memento of the family's service in The Great War?
walt-and-co@reddit
Section 7, nor Section 8. S.8 is a temporary permit (for either expired licences or an inherited guns).
Hanging_Brain@reddit
Damn that sucks balls. I thought Massachusetts was bad lol
texasscotsman@reddit
Doesn't GB laws prohibit storing weapons in the home?
BloodyToaster@reddit
Absolutely not.
We have a safe installed at home which is checked by a firearms officer to make sure its secure.
Firearms must be kept in the safe when not in use (you cant have a shotgun on the wall for decoration etc)
Ammo must also be kept seprately.
NotAurelStein@reddit
Is that checked periodically, or just after installation?
CadeSadow@reddit
I’d like the Northern Ireland part explained a bit. What does relatively normal mean as far as license systems y’all have?
Onetap1@reddit
I think it's a holdover from the Troubles. RIC & UDR members were allowed handguns for personal protection. There's still a lot of illegal firearms in circulation from that time and a lot of people with grudges.
CadeSadow@reddit
Ah so no special ulster carry permit for normal civilians. That makes sense.
Onetap1@reddit
You can also own a muzzle loader including cap & ball revolvers.
BloodyToaster@reddit
Yeah black powder antiques are legal to own without a licence but if you want to shoot it legally, you do need a S1 I believe, I'm not well versed in shooting them.
Onetap1@reddit
Yes, I should have said that.
There's a Home Office list of obsolete calibres, the guns can be owned legally as antiques. There were criminals legally importing .38 Russian (I think it was, an obsolete calibre) revolvers and getting black market ammunition for them.
_c0sm1c_@reddit
I have a really nice deactivated Remington Mosin at home in the UK. If at some point I got a gun license would it be possible to reactivate it? It's gorgeous and I'd love to shoot it properly.
BloodyToaster@reddit
It has been done in the past tbf, its alot of effort you'd have to replace like 90% of the components but in theory it could legally be done, just insane amount of effort.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukguns/comments/1kwnpc9/reactivating_a_deactivated_firearm/
genuinely cheaper to just get your licence and buy a real one
_c0sm1c_@reddit
Where tf could I find an actual Mosin nagant lmao
BloodyToaster@reddit
https://www.gunstar.co.uk/mosin-nagant-1953-bolt-action-7-62x54-rifle/rifles/1812947
_c0sm1c_@reddit
Thanks
BloodyToaster@reddit
Gunstar have loads
SeskaRotan@reddit
Has to be 22 rimfire, but not LR specifically. 22WMR ARs are nice.
walt-and-co@reddit
In case it gets lost in the replies, my summary of the actual and complicated state of UK firearms licensing:
Alright, here goes, as comprehensive a list as I can come up with of all the things considered firearms in the UK! Most of this is governed by the Firearms Act 1968, as amended 1988 and 1996. UK law defines a firearm as a ‘lethal barrelled weapon capable of discharging a bullet, shot or missile,’ or the relevant component parts thereof. ‘Component parts’ used to mean anything pressure bearing, but nowadays also includes any ‘frame, body or receiver’. Regulated parts typically fit into the same category as the firearm that they’re a part of (e.g. a bolt for a shotgun is S.2, for a rifle is S.1, and one for an air rifle or antique is unlicensed).
Firearms which can be owned without any form of licence or authority:
Air guns. This means anything that fires a metal shot using air pressure (spring, PCP, CO2, gas, etc) so long as it isn’t fully automatic, and has muzzle energy below either 6 ft-lbf for a pistol or 12 ft-lbf for a rifle. Above that energy limit, they do not qualify for the air gun exemption and require the same licence or authority as their powder counterparts. Air guns can be shot on any private land where you have permission to do so.
S.58(i): Deactivated guns. These must be deactivated in accordance with specifications set out by the Home Office, and inspected by either the Birmingham or London Proof Houses. Because it’s a lot less faff than live, non-antique firearms, many collectors and reenactors collect deacts.
S.58(ii): Antiques. To qualify as an antique, a firearm must meet three criteria: firstly, it is owned as an ‘antique or curio’ - generally taken to mean it’s held for collecting or display purposes only. Secondly, it was made before 1939. Thirdly, it uses an obsolete form of ammunition. This includes all muzzle loaders, anything that uses pinfire or needle fire cartridges, or breechloaders chambered for anything on a designated list of ‘obsolete calibres’. The list is updated from time to time, and the government are surprisingly receptive to adding new ones if it can be shown that they truly are obsolete (though there are no set criteria to determine obsolescence).*
Then there are the guns with relatively obtainable, and quite commonplace, licences.
S.2: Shotgun Certificate (SGC). To qualify as a legal shotgun, a gun must have a smoothbore barrel at least 24” in length, fire ammunition with at least three projectiles, and be capable of holding no more than two additional rounds (other than the one in the chamber). Any form of action except fully automatic is permitted (i.e. break action, under lever, pump action, self-loading, etc), and detachable magazines are not allowed. Where a gun has a tube magazine, it must be restricted to two standard-length cartridges (and so you could theoretically get more in by using mini shells or similar, but this would only be dubiously legal). To get an SGC, you must have secure storage, and submit your medical records and a character statement from someone** you have known non-professionally for at least three years to the police. They will then conduct a criminal record check, and come round to your house to confirm your storage setup and interview you. Theoretically, you don’t need a specific reason to want an SGC, but if you can demonstrate that you’ve been going to a clay shooting ground regularly, or have a plan to go hunting, or live on a farm, etc, it’ll make them less wary of you. S.2 guns can be shot on any private land where you have permission to do so (with a number of caveats relating to firing near to a public right of way, or allowing your shot to fall outside the land, etc, for obvious reasons).
S.1: Firearms Certificate (FAC). A Section 1 FAC does not apply to a specific type of firearm, but instead to all firearms not otherwise specified in another section. Because of it being this way around, it means that the default state of all firearms in the UK is that they are restricted and require a licence, unless specifically exempted (and not the other way around). In practice, S.1 covers four main types of firearms: rifles (never full auto, semi auto only if chambered for .22 rimfire, barrel above 12” and overall length above 24”), S.1 shotguns (smooth bore with barrel between 12” and 24” and/or magazine capable of holding more than two rounds), long barrelled pistols (semiautomatic only if chambered for .22 rimfire, barrel length above 12”, overall length above 24” - this is where the ‘coat hanger’ attached to the handgun in the original meme comes from), and muzzle-loading pistols (basically no specific requirements - barrels can be short, no coat hanger required, both single shots and revolvers permitted). The process to get an FAC is more stringent than an SGC. The storage, medical and criminal checks all still apply, as do two character references. However, you also have to demonstrate good reason to be issued the certificate, which typically means membership of a registered target shooting club for sport shooting, permission to shoot on land for hunters, or evidence of a formulated collection for collectors. I also know of a couple of people who’ve received licences on the grounds that they’re reenactors, with the stipulation that they’re only allowed to buy blank ammunition. The police can also impose basically any conditions they want on your FAC, if they feel it to be necessary. S.1 firearms can also only be used on private land where you have permission to shoot which has also be inspected and approved for the type of firearm involved. Due to the UK being a small, reasonably flat and densely-populated country, there isn’t much space for range danger areas so ranges always have maximum muzzle energy/calibre limits. Likewise for land approved for hunting.
Then there are the slightly trickier authorities:
S.7(1): Heritage Pistol. S.7(1) allows collectors to own and keep live pistols if they are a part of a collection and meet several criteria. They must be made before 1919, and they cannot use any of a list of cartridges in current common use (which includes things like 9x19 parabellum, but not 7.65 parabellum, so Swiss Lugers are fine but German ones are not). To receive an FAC for S.7(1), you have to submit a collecting thesis and a case for why the specific pistols you wish to acquire are of historical value. No live ammunition may be held, and they may not be fired under any circumstances. They can be kept at home, but can only be handled by the licensed collector or a S.7 or S.5 authorised Registered Firearms Dealer.
S.7(3): Heritage Pistol. S.7(3) is significantly less strict than S.7(1), as pistols from any area and using any cartridge are allowed, so long as they fit a collection (which must be applied for and approved in the same way as S.7(1)). They cannot, however, be taken home and must be stored at an approved range, where they are permitted to be fired but only for the purposes of ‘historical research’ (i.e. no competition use).
Finally, there is the hardest category:
S.5: Prohibited Firearms. This encompasses everything that has been specifically ‘banned’. Semiautomatic centrefire rifles, pistols (except for in Northern Ireland, where they’re still S.1), ordnance, concealed firearms, gas and incendiary weapons, all full autos, etc. S.5 authority must be granted by the Home Office on a case-by-case basis, with any relevant conditions they see fit to make up. Broadly, it’s limited to museums, approved dealers, theatrical armourers, and maritime security contractors. Vets can also sometimes be granted S.5 authority, typically only to own a single pistol with capacity limited to two rounds. I’ve seen both revolvers with the cylinder blocked off and semiautomatics with the magazine pinned.
Further, there’s the stuff that is never possible (except in Northern Ireland and only very rarely there): carry. There is no stipulation for legal concealed or open carry, or for owning or using firearms for defensive purposes. If you were attacked and happened to have a gun with you and managed to use it, there is the possibility of being in the clear but the laws on proportionate force are strict and there is no equivalent to the castle doctrine. When transporting firearms, you must have a good reason to do so (usually taking them to/from a range or shop/gunsmith) and they must be concealed from view and unloaded.
*There was, however, an issue with .44 Smith and Wesson Russian a few years back. Because it used to be deemed obsolete, but the guns were reasonably modern revolvers (by the standards of UK criminal armouries), a ring of black market arms dealers were buying up basically all of the .44 S&W Russian revolvers on the European market, importing them to the UK as collectibles, and then manufacturing thousands of rounds of ammunition for them and selling them on the streets. In the aftermath of this, the government determined that the cartridge could no longer realistically be considered obsolete, and struck them from the list. Any collector who already owned them could get a specific permit to allow them to retain it, but if they wished to sell it to someone else it would no longer be considered S.58(ii).
**Just before I moved away last September, they were planning to increase this to two references, but I don’t know if that’s come in yet.
I hope that was interesting! It’s a pain of a system, but that’s how it works and what UK shooters have to fight against if they want to practice their hobby/sport.
disturbed286@reddit
Shotgun says "most gauges."
What ones aren't allowed?
HeemeyerDidNoWrong@reddit
Yeah there's like 5 gauges (and one "bore") total in semi-common use. Other larger more obscure ones like punt guns are illegal for hunting in the US but fine to own.
disturbed286@reddit
But that doesn't explain the UK, which is what the chart is about.
myroll22@reddit
Thats a weird one
UnitCell@reddit
This chart is intentionally misleading. How are you going to even depict an AR-15 or AK pattern rifle if semi auto center fire rifles are banned. Also, how many hoops do they make you jump through to get any of that which is "legal"?
anderson2553@reddit
You can own these patterns if they’re .22 (like the graphics shows) or if the bolt is manually operated in centerfire cartridges. I know people who own M1 Garands in England where the gas port is plugged.
DoNotCensorMyName@reddit
Those aren't .22. If the person who made the graphic was so lazy or incompetent that they couldn't pull pics of .22LR ARs and AKs then I question whether they got the rest of their facts straight.
Onetap1@reddit
ISTR that a centre-fire rifle must never have been built for semi-auto, to prevent it being converted back. I believe you can own an FAL/SLR, but it has to have been manufactured as a single shot repeater, no gas port, no gas tube.
A plugged gas port could be unplugged.
anderson2553@reddit
No idea but I do know people who own historical Garands that were plugged 🤷
sHoRtBuSseR@reddit
Unplug it
Suburbking@reddit
Not yet... but soon...
firearmresearch00@reddit
Nah the time was 20 50 years ago tf you mean
Suburbking@reddit
Valid point...
uChoice_Reindeer7903@reddit
Sooooo basically not at all the same rifle if the bolt has to be manually operated. It’s like owning a Ferrari with a Toyota 4 cylinder for the engine. Yeah it looks cool like a Ferrari butttt not a Ferrari. Also I’m sure there are mag restrictions. And I’m sure you have to have permits to own them. Andddd I’m sure there very strict areas where you can shoot or carry these. Sooo basically a Ferrari with a Yugo 3 cylinder
SeskaRotan@reddit
No, funnily enough. Magazines are not restricted in the UK at all. No capacity nor licensing restrictions.
UnitCell@reddit
This is the thing with Europeans. They will consider something "legal to own" even if it is heavily restricted through even the most draconian licensing scheme. When American hear "legal", we assume that we can just buy it.
deelowe@reddit
None of this disproves the post as misleading
Spydude84@reddit
In Canada you can't even own an AR-15 chambered in .22lr, so to a good extent, this graphic is useful. I know the American mind cannot fathom such craziness, but here we are.
keep_it_irie@reddit
You got a loicense for speaking against the Crown like that??
animefan1520@reddit
There is a troy industry pump action AR system that came out during Obamas first term that i think would have taken off if it was marketed for the UK or for hunting purposes
HWKII@reddit
It’s absolutely disingenuous to suggest that the British people can own an M4 and then put in the small print that it has to be 22LR. Might as well put a Browning M2 on the graphic and toss an asterisk up “airsoft replica only”.
Spydude84@reddit
Canadians can't even own ARs chambered in .22lr, so the graphic is sadly relevant.
dandyarcane@reddit
There’s a lot of ARs in Canadian homes, but they’re sadly relegated to being safe queens
Spydude84@reddit
There are, but legally you're not allowed to have them, they are just not prosecuting until October.
BloodyToaster@reddit
Youll need a S1, S2 and potentially a S8 to own these but youre not wrong.
We can own alot of firearms you just need a valid reason to own them
DrZedex@reddit
"valid"
IE, wealth, power, and/or political connections.
BloodyToaster@reddit
Not really, I'm a regular guy, dont make stupid money and live on a council estate. Still managed to get my S1 for 22s and my S2 for my shotguns.
I just joined a club, paid for my licencing, got a safe installed, had my interview n bosh, 22s sorted.
DrZedex@reddit
Let me know when you've got a couple beater ARs, couple of 9mm, a few precision rifles, everybody needs a 12ga, and a couple of odd heirloom guns from your late relatives (this applies to 4 guns currently despite my parents still being alive still). Then tell me what it costs to own all this.
BloodyToaster@reddit
um, okay?
Providing the ARs and 9mms are within legal guidelines the licencing costs like £80, safe maybe £200-500
Guns themselves can't tell you how much as they vary too much.
And heirloom guns again providing they are legal can just be transferred from person to person not a big deal.
It's not that deep bro
DrZedex@reddit
You mean these silly not-auto-loading bastardized ARs though, right? Not functional ones?
Mausdr1v3r@reddit
You can have them taken at anytime for any reason, doesn't seem like ownership to me, more like a "we are temporarily allowing you to own firearms until we deem you a threat to our agenda"
BloodyToaster@reddit
You're not wrong here tbf
GingerVitisBread@reddit
Absolutely diabolical that it has more to do with cartridge in some guns and more to do with action in others.
TheEvilBlight@reddit
It’s odd that a semi auto pistol is not uk legal except in NI, but a six shooter is legal in all calibres.
RiveredNuts@reddit
Fuckin damn keep that away from us. That shit is contagious and these dumbass states think that’s a good idea. God bless Tennessee
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
"legal"
As in it's technically possible to own them but exceedingly difficult, expensive, and at the arbitrary whims of the person who approves/denies your request.
goldent3abag@reddit
Too bad the court will hang you if you use them in self defense
sumguyontheinternet1@reddit
Funny how the government in the USA goes after the same style of restriction we put in our constitution to prevent. After saying we don’t want to be lead by the British and 250yrs later we are slowly becoming exactly what we hated. Taxed to death and restrictions out the wazoo
Big-Sweet-2179@reddit
I don't think it is a restriction that follows UK pattern specifically. I live in latin america, we were conquered by Spain and we have similar restrictions here.
sumguyontheinternet1@reddit
The USA is supposed to have 100% unrestricted access and use of firearms.
115machine@reddit
“Legal” assuming what? You jump through the hoops of fire and do all the paperwork to have them?
firearmresearch00@reddit
I assume it's similar to in the us its technically legal to own a full auto, artillery pieces and live grenades but it's a hassle to the point where almost nobody does
hessmo@reddit
Crazy to find out they have more firearm choices in the UK than I do in IL
juggarjew@reddit
They cant own handguns at all. The revolvers that are legal are super long and have permanent braces and are legally rifles.
The fact that you can buy an actual handgun automatically make you better off in terms of laws.
hessmo@reddit
I can’t even get a 22 rifle with an adjustable stock in Illinois so it will fit my kids while they learn how to shoot. Handguns here have been heavily curtailed in recent years there was even a bill to block all striker fired handguns. I cannot own a 50 caliber any longer, and they are talking about criminalizing the ownership of non serialized ammunition, which effectively makes all guns illegal as nobody is doing that.
_c0sm1c_@reddit
The craziest part is that the police have to come and inspect your house to judge if you're storing the rifles and ammo safely.
Good for the sake that it eliminates America's problem of bad parenting/kids picking up guns and shooting themselves
Bad because the government has to come and look inside your home if you want something.
Useless_Fox@reddit
Legal to own under certain circumstances, but when and where you can use them is super restricted
I'm not super familiar to UK gun law, but IIRC just because you legally own a firearm doesn't actually mean you can use it to, say for example, kill a home intruder. Even here in the US the strictest "duty to retreat" (as opposed to "stand your ground") states generally allow lethal force in defense of a private abode. But in the UK, it's more complicated.
Neko_Boi_Core@reddit
in the uk you can be liable for a burglar injuring themselves in your home
it's equal force rules, if your opponent has a weapon, you may use force up to that weapon. for example, if a burglar breaks in with a baton, you may use a baton or similar blunt weapon to defend yourself. anything more potent (and thereby useful) would be grounds for offence.
Ballbag94@reddit
Not necessarily equal weapons, just that the force has to be proportionate to the perceived threat
If someone breaks into your house and threatens to kill your family so you stab them to death but they only have a baton you haven't necessarily comitted a crime just because you escalated to a more dangerous weapon
As long as you can demonstrate that you reacted with appropriate force for what you believed the threat was you're fine, it's also worth noting that you don't need to be correct, nor are you expected to be perfect
Every scenario I've seen in the news of someone being prosecuted for harming a criminal was someone who either began or continued their attack after the criminal began to flee, or in other words, in absence of a threat
HWKII@reddit
Imagine simping for a government that wants to make sure that your fight with a criminal is fair to the criminal… 😂😂🤮
Ballbag94@reddit
What part of my explanation of UK law is "simping"? At no point did I state my thoughts on the subject
If you can't tell the difference between an explanation and an agreement I think you need to go back to school
libertariancandidate@reddit
This is what I hate on European countries laws altogether. If somebody breaks in your home even with a stiletto to harm you or your family, law shouldn’t require to be proportionate.
Ballbag94@reddit
What do you believe "proportionate" means in this sense? The meaning of the word wrt self defence here isn't that you need to engage them like for like, it's that the level of force used isn't higher than the threat perceived
If someone breaks into your house to attempt to kill your family then you would be justified in killing the intruder, even if you used something more powerful than them. The reaction would be proportionate to the threat - deadly force met with deadly force
However, if someone were to break into your house, you catch them taking your car keys, and then they run out of the house when you confront them it wouldn't be proportionate to punch them on the way out even if it later turned out they had a gun because they weren't presenting a threat to you
Likewise, if someone were to shove you and you had no reason to believe they were armed or wanted to hurt you it might be proportionate to punch them, but not proportionate to hit them with a brick, however if there were multiple people/you believed they wanted to cause significant harm the brick might suddenly become proportionate
HWKII@reddit
I didn’t mean to suggest you were, but all over this thread are idiots talking about how akshually the British are totally free. It’s disgusting.
Ballbag94@reddit
Ahh, gotcha, sorry! In that case I agree with you!
Jordan_1424@reddit
Which is how it also works in the US regardless of what people think.
You can't kill someone if they push you for example. If someone raises their fist you can't just shoot them.
Ballbag94@reddit
For sure, the overall outcome isn't that much different between the countries
I think the main issue is that there's so much misinformation about self defence in the UK, combined with us not being allowed to own a weapon for the purpose of self defence, combined with the fact that whether or not an instance of self defence is legal depends entirely on the specifics of each individual situation, which leads people to thinking we're not allowed to defend ourselves at all
The news doesn't help either when they run stupid clickbaity headlines to push an agenda
omgitstallin3@reddit
Some of us remember the 70 year old woman who was charged because she slammed the window down on a man attempting to break into her bedroom. The window broke him neck and because he was simply climbing through a open window she was hit with murder I believe.. possibly manslaughter I forget that part. Absolutely idiotic laws we have for home defence
Dakota__rose@reddit
"Useful chart" lol it's a poster, propaganda.
purdinpopo@reddit
Yeah right. If by legal you mean after jumping through hoops and getting permission then sure, but the Government might and probably would refuse that permission. I could buy any of those guns and be on the range within the hour here in the US, there will be a check if I go to a gun store. Within twenty-five miles of me right this moment most of those guns are for sale at a garage sale, I could legally buy them without even a single Government check at all. Try buying those guns in England at a garage sale.
I_LAUGH_AT_TYRANNY@reddit
The wife wanted to move back to her birthplace (Ireland) and i was all for it until the whole gun thing came into play
Still living in the US
Excellent-Ad-8767@reddit
Same with my wife (Suffolk, UK), we just went back in Jan and we both now have zero desire.
Admiral52@reddit
lol. This is the awful of useful
tdavis20050@reddit
*Until 2029 when all ammo with >1% lead is banned
hotelwhiskey291@reddit
Literally anything and everything can be owned with the correct licensing, permission, contracting, etc.
And that includes human beings, just look at the private prison industry.
However, this does not meet the general definition of legal that most people think of when they think of things that are legal.
HWKII@reddit
Oi, you got a loisance to criticize private prisons?
JustShootingSince@reddit
Makes sense