List of Bore Arms from MHA

[Sourojit]

I got this list of NPB and PB Bores from the MHA website and am confused.
I didn't know some 9mm Cals. are Non-Prohibited Calibre(NPB)!!
Nos. 36,50,63,81,86 list 9mm Pistols.
Only 63 is a 9mm Rifle and 86 is a '9mm Short Pistol'.
Only 9mm Luger and Parabellum are PB.

And what is a 'BA Rifle(.30)' and '.30 CAL US Rifle' ?

[TwoRivers]

Hard to say, as this list was obviously composed by a totally clueless person ignorant of the subject matter. Most likely they are referring to the M1917 Enfield .30-06 and the M1 Garand.

[goodboy_mentor]

This list has no legal value. It is a piece of glorified garbage put up on MHA website by babus who do not understand what they are publishing. Only those guns falling in Category I b and c of Schedule I of Arms Rules 1962 are PB rest all are NPB. BTW the these names PB and NPB is a great work of fiction created by babus. These names do not exist in Arms Act 1959 or Arms Rules 1962.

[Mozzad]

Sir goodboy_mentor ,

I would like to ask you questions based on your very helpful posts. Could you please send an email to burt(dot)robin(at) gmail (dot)com? I don't have the PM facility in this forum yet.

Thaanks

[winnie_the_pooh]

Arms falling in Category I b and 1 c are not prohibited arms.

[farook]

This list has no legal value. It is a piece of glorified garbage put up on MHA website by babus who do not understand what they are publishing. Only those guns falling in Category I b and c of Schedule I of Arms Rules 1962 are PB rest all are NPB. BTW the these names PB and NPB is a great work of fiction created by babus. These names do not exist in Arms Act 1959 or Arms Rules 1962.

Good boy mentor, why dont you give us a write up and explanation on what basis a bore is pb and npb. I know this topic has been discussed repeatedly on this forum, the whole concept is still unclear when you keep saying the word pb and npb is not mentioned in the arms act and arms rule.

[goodboy_mentor]

why dont you give us a write up and explanation on what basis a bore is pb and npb.

It has been explained many times in this forum. If you read my reply which you have quoted in your post it has the answer. It is clearly mentioned "Only those guns falling in Category I b and c of Schedule I of Arms Rules 1962 are PB rest all are NPB."

Instead of mentioning "Category I b and c of Schedule I of Arms Rules 1962", the babus have given a very misleading name called "prohibited bore". This concept of PB and NPB was started around Lord Curzon's time to ensure that common people and government forces have guns of different bores so that if soldiers supply ammunition from government armories to rebels, it cannot be fired. Unfortunately our present day government follows the same colonial mindset as it also probably does not trust its soldiers or citizens.

[surajshuresh]

What nonsense is this .380, 9mm short, 9mm kurz is classified as different bore they are all the same... Who ever did this dont know what he is talking about all copy and past from the internet sad babus...

[renjith747]

What nonsense is this .380, 9mm short, 9mm kurz is classified as different bore they are all the same... Who ever did this dont know what he is talking about all copy and past from the internet sad babus...

Arms acts requires amendment, since 1962 no big changes happened.Always law is created in such a way that "to confuse a common man who don't have legal background" and only a good lawyer can find loop holes if any.A good amendment can bring good changes in shooting sports in india which is gaining popular after the the 2004 Athens Olympics( Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore Silver Medal in Men's Double Trap) making license procedure easy.But big question is who will suggest government to make suitable amendments???

Regards
Renjith

[farook]

What nonsense is this .380, 9mm short, 9mm kurz is classified as different bore they are all the same... Who ever did this dont know what he is talking about all copy and past from the internet sad babus...

Arms acts requires amendment, since 1962 no big changes happened.Always law is created in such a way that "to confuse a common man who don't have legal background" and only a good lawyer can find loop holes if any.A good amendment can bring good changes in shooting sports in india which is gaining popular after the the 2004 Athens Olympics( Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore Silver Medal in Men's Double Trap) making license procedure easy.But big question is who will suggest government to make suitable amendments???

Regards
Renjith

There has been one step in this direction when a gazette was passed in march 2012 segregating sport shooters from a citizen. But the fact is and I can tell you this is painful, that we still cannot import a target pistol, rifle or shotgun until we have won in the nationals with a qualifying score. Even the national shooters squad of NRAI does not have proper weapons to complete with. Our HM just does not know the difference between a terrorist and a sport shooter. They seem to restrict guns to just about everyone.

[Sourojit]

But if the PB and NPB are not mentioned in Arms Act 1959 and Arms Rules 1962 then the Supreme Court is sure to put a stop to it if we lodge a complaint there ,right?

[goodboy_mentor]

There has been one step in this direction when a gazette was passed in march 2012 segregating sport shooters from a citizen. But the fact is and I can tell you this is painful, that we still cannot import a target pistol, rifle or shotgun until we have won in the nationals with a qualifying score. Even the national shooters squad of NRAI does not have proper weapons to complete with. Our HM just does not know the difference between a terrorist and a sport shooter. They seem to restrict guns to just about everyone.

This is a serious problem with our understanding. We are not able to understand the conspiracies done under guise of purportedly good motives. Why do we need to make distinction/ division between sports shooter and citizen? Unless we stop making these kinds of baseless distinctions and divisions, our miseries are not going to stop.

But if the PB and NPB are not mentioned in Arms Act 1959 and Arms Rules 1962 then the Supreme Court is sure to put a stop to it if we lodge a complaint there ,right?

Supreme Court may or may not. Unfortunately the answer is not short and simple.

[veeveeaar]

THIS IS A REALEDITED XXX . Whoever has compiled this, is not even well versed in English and is not even a officer of the lowest hierarchy. See this is a good example of how our babus rule us by remote control.

[RaminderD]

You r right. I saw the list. I never heard about 380 Revolver.

[cottage cheese]

The sad clowns who compiled this gem ought to go on voluntary retirement and not waste public money. Incredible masterstroke of idiocy.... and only two appropriate words come to mind- IDIOT & GADDHA.

Whats more, the charlatans couldn't even prepare a proper pdf file...all we have is a crudely scanned copy of a xerox copy of an internal file that's of worthless pedigree. This is the MHA site, for heavens sake.

Self goal after self goal.

The sorry old geezer appears to have immense difficulty trying to grasp the difference between what constitutes a 'bore' and a specific firearm model/make.

By the logic of the so called 'list', since only the "9mm Carbine Stan gun" (Stan haha) is specifically listed, it would be ok for me to go out and apply for that 9mm MP5A5 and UZI that I always wanted.... ...gentlemen, make hay while the sun shines

Then the sod goes on to declare .380(rev) and .455 as NPB, then back to PB in the next page...oh wait... its NPB .... er ...naah its PB... oh chew glass and die.

If anybody had this lifelong dream of getting hold of a Dragunov or moisin-nagant, now is probably the time, since the enistein has dutifully NPB'd 7.62x54 ('R" being not specified)....and my goodness, how could the chaps miss out our current national cartridge - 5.56x45? and the millions of 7.62x39s of AK-47 fame?

I mean come on, this is the MHA we're talking about. How difficult is it for the MHA got get an updated copy of "Cartridges of the World" to at the very least be reasonably informed on the basics. ...or perhaps not... since the book is not a "government publication" it has no credible legal basis...going by the logic of our rock solid bureaucracy.