Shooting saga


I must have missed the issue of MOD weekly with the front page spread.

Even in your twisted mind, how can the MOD be held responsible for further break-ins for taking actions to prevent the illicit obtaining of firearms following a break in (series of, really) that was reported in the media (because that’s what they do).

What would you say if they didn’t act, then there was another break in due to the media publicity, and a weapon or weapons were nicked? You’d be the first moaning that they should have seen it coming and acted.


Was this not in The Daily Telegraph? You have to wonder at the rank stupidity of allowing this to get into a main daily paper.

You’ve overlooked the fact that with this story the potential has been raised for buildings many in out of the way sites, unused for 160 hours a week, with no alarms as RFCA don’t fit them to be targeted. The people responsible for highlighting this should also be accountable for all loss. Squadrons don’t go around saying we’ve got this and that inside, as this is basic security, the same way many people don’t go around saying what they have in their homes.

Another break-in? When was the first?
I’d feel more sorry for them more than anything, as they would have lost more than weapons, they would have gained that sense of violation of personal space that burglary brings, along with property financial losses.


Well a key one is mentioned in the Telegraph article you referenced. And that’s just one.

Since that and the rest of your reply indicates that you’re completely ignorant of the situation you’re trying to discuss, there’s really no point in continuing while you play contrarian.


Insults are not required and if I wanted weapons, then within the inner city those who want illegal weapons know a man who can provide them and of a far higher leathality such as Uzis and AKs than cadet weapons


Lots of options out there unfortunately.


I know of 3 pubs within a few miles of where I live which isn’t an inner city or particularly large town, where almost anything can be obtained Two of them have had that notoriety since I was a child.


I stand corrected.
But how come that didn’t go round the cadet world at the time? Where were the all addressee emails?
The worry is that, that was last May and now almost a year on “defence chiefs” reportedly take action hardly a responsible and I would suggest that given the lack of further (reported) incidents, as suggested we all know there are far more ways to get hold of more concealable proper weapons, than those suggested that can be stolen from us.


May i ask a dense question. Apologies if covered above, couldnt find it.

Does this withdrawal affect sqns holding L114s?

If not, its not such a travesty as air rifle and .22 can still go ahead.
For 5.56 it now requires signiticant planning but still.doable.

Persoanlly, my belief is that the only people moaning are those god status sqns who were issued l103a2 dp’s.
As now they.
A. Dont have the shiny shiny things to get all moist over all the time.
B. Have to plan additional parade night activities instead of WHTs and more weapons training.
C. Have lost their ability to control who they lend them to. Power power power

Personally, its easier for me to take my sqn 80 miles to my parent station and book the 36 rifles and a room out than have to drive round ans and collect 6 here and 6 there.

Think people need to put this in perspective.
The weapons still exist!


Yes, all weapons but unsure on Air Rifles as i dont have any so i didnt ask.


If such a mythical squadron exist, then yes. As the required storage standards have effectively changed for us, all S1 firearms are being held elsewhere until upgrades can be made to storage facilities.

It does not affect the air rifles we use: those aren’t firearms.


Air rifles are not firearms so certainly wont be covered by this ruling


Air rifles are firearms but in England and Wales those developing a muzzle energy <12 ft\lbs do not currently require a certificate to possess. The law in Northern Ireland and Scotland is different.



That’s just another way of saying not covered by firearms certification therefore not a firearm.

The legal muzzle-energy limit for air rifles is and for pistols, You do not require any form of licence for sub legal-limit airguns. For rifles producing more than,a Firearms Certificate (FAC) is required.

Therfore undet equals not a firearm in the eyes of uk law.

And since in the corps we only shoot those under this its irrelvant to call them firearms.


That is the general understanding and the one I was using. It is not the legal definition. :slight_smile:


Hi all, just joined the site and I am reading this thread with interest. Just to clarify a few points from above,

I can confirm that there have been at least two break-ins at cadet units where items have been stolen, one last year (referenced in the article within the Daily Telegraph) in Fife and one more recently in Merseyside. In both occasions the properties where not at the required standard in JSP 440 Part 2 Chap 5 paras 102-104, therefore any units that do not meet those standards have been directed to remove them to a location that does.


Or those that rely on local squadrons holding 103s to get their cadets tested and trained, or those that had the ability to hold the weapons on unit and previously did on occasion…

Legally, perhaps. But not in engineering terms :wink:


Did the Merseyside one involve anything related to DPs or actual firearms.


Cough Cough.




Thanks incubus :wink:

I only have grapevine rumours (and not from my most reliable source) that a squadron got done over and rifles bolts and ammo was taken.

The rest of the story is a bit too ludicrous to believe so i dont really want to put it out here. But if its even half true, the police wont take long to find the culprit, they will only need the keyholder list for a list of suspects.