Indians For Guns

I have heard that one type of ammunition of .38 bore is NPB in India. Rimless .38 or something like that. Anyone have any idea ?

Lawman";p="20836 wrote:I have heard that one type of ammunition of .38 bore is NPB in India. Rimless .38 or something like that. Anyone have any idea ?

Hi Lawman,

You probably heard correctly. They must have been talking about the 9mm Short cartridge. This is also known as .380ACP. This is a relatively low powered cartridge that occupies the space between .32ACP(7.65mm) and the full size military 9mm...(well, at least from the Indian context)

.380ACP ammo is not manufactured in India so you'll have to depend on imports that the bigger dealers might have lying around and I can tell you, it will be pretty expensive. On the other hand, on basis of my observations, .380ACP Pistols are not uncommon and I know some folks who take the trouble to own and spend big time on these pieces.

Generally .380ACP is the among the 'maximum' limit ammo types that can be safely used in unlocked breech pistols(Though this is not a rule- there are exceptions)

The services use or at least at one point of time used (The police still do) .38 ammo of different types. The Ruger Service Six, Titan Tigers and Lama revolvers that are used by the police are chambered for a lame .38 rimmed round(.38Webly I think). Quite confusingly, the ammo is head stamped .380 by KF.

The police also uses S&W Model29s(Or was it something-9?) and apparently Colt Cobra snub nosed revolvers . These are chambered for .38 Special. The ammo for this is not manufactured in country and are imported by the MHA. The .38Special comes pretty close to .357Magnum and one of them (I'm not too sure which) was based on the other. I'm told some guns will chamber and fire both safely. The odd thing is the 357 is NPB because its not in service use.... though the Arms Act mentions something like any gun that can chamber a service round....falls under PB... or something like that... man, our shitty arms act. Perhaps penpusher can help here.

I think we should dump the Indian Arms Act for techinical ineptitude and unpractical assumtions. The IFG should form a forum and comeup with an alternative Act which is more meaningful, practical and technically viable. At least if and when the question did arise at the parliament, we would have a ready alternative inhand.

Jonah

jonahpach";p="20838 wrote:I think we should dump the Indian Arms Act for techinical ineptitude and unpractical assumtions. The IFG should form a forum and comeup with an alternative Act which is more meaningful, practical and technically viable. At least if and when the question did arise at the parliament, we would have a ready alternative inhand.

Jonah

Hi Jonah,

Here we go... going OT as usual!!

If anybody has made an attempt to read up The Arms Act or any Indian act, you'd have immediately noticed the absurdly confusing archaic language and lack of clarity which only serves to confuse the average Indian who would not have been educated well enough to digest the awful quagmire of Indian codification. The end result is most Indians, even after 50 years still can't figure what the hell the Arms Act is ranting about.... not to mention their rights. Add a big dose of self-serving, arrogant, all-knowing babus to the equation and it will be apparent that the Indian gun owner is the most oppressed and harassed of citizenry in an arrangement that pretends to be a democracy. One might as well wonder how much has changed since independence?

The Arms Act is unscientific and moribund. It is an act of administrative convenience that aided and aids an unimaginative, uninnovative, unfit and unqualified officialdom. It aids a class of people who don't want to take the trouble to think and in many cases- work. It also can be interpreted as an open admission that the agents and arms of law are thoroughly incapable of effective functioning. The simple rule applies, if you can't administer or police it with ease- ban it.... Path of least resistance....This is the hallmark of the Indian bureaucracy and governance.

The general ambiguity of the Arms Act presents a lot of loop holes that unscrupulous individuals and parties can use to get around restrictions. Loop holes and lack of clarity also works the other way. The babus can interpret the provisions of the act to their convenience and throw in more 'illegal' restrictions and regulations.

Have a nice day.

U took the words right outta my mouth Guv' now i gotta go get my dictionary! Never met a guy who could sum up on what I think of the arms act so beautifully.

Thanks for being so verbose!

Ha! Just a bit of verbal mas****ate.

In the end, the average Indian is toothless. The bureaucracy has such undeservedly sweeping powers, most often netas, as un-technical as they are, will have no power to 'legally' tame the MHA and the like. The temporariness of neta-hood also discourages expending of energy in non-power play issues.

What galls me no end is the unimaginably huge power the miserable pen-pushing pissant of a hominid known as the bureaucrat, has. This most often arrogant, "respect me", generalist who would most probably be diabetic by the time he or she reaches this level of importance, can simply stomp on the whole population with some squiggly illegible signature on an impersonal and brusque directive...thats it... What happens below is no matter to him or her.

I'm beginning to feel that only the judiciary has the prerogative to put a shoe in the works. The judiciary needs to be 'educated'(implying positively) in the technicalities of arms and arms-ownership and also absurdness of governmental 'paranoia', and they should be persuaded to draw a clear line as regards gun ownership rights. Declare unconstitutionality of government directives as and where they are unreasonable... throw in a bit of contempt of court etc... to drive in the message...

Shooting associations are, as Mehul keeps reiterating, is the way to go. Get enough babus, netas and judicials into these associations... and you never know...good things may come.