Prohibited and non prohibited bore in India.

[ozk009]

What are the possible rationale behind restricting responsible gun owners in India to limit their choice to NP bore only. Any insights?

[hornet22]

I think making the licencing process easier for law abiding cutizens would be more important than allowing PB ammo to civilians.

I am sure many would agree with me that getting licence especially Rifle and Handgun licence is very difficult even for NPB weapons.

[Vineet]

What are the possible rationale behind restricting responsible gun owners in India to limit their choice to NP bore only. Any insights?

It dates back to British era. The idea was that if revolutionaries stole ammo from Govt. they could not use them. Similarly if they stole weapons then they would not have ammo to use.

[Ambi]

When the only guns one can buy are .22 & .32 revolvers and .32 pistols, useless for sports and self defence, why bother to apply for a licence? A catapult would be much better.

[EkManushya]

When the only guns one can buy are .22 & .32 revolvers and .32 pistols, useless for sports and self defence, why bother to apply for a licence? A catapult would be much better.

a .45 pistol MSD guardian is available for purchase. webley India has also launched a .45 pistol and iirc booking for which is open.

[ozk009]

What are the possible rationale behind restricting responsible gun owners in India to limit their choice to NP bore only. Any insights?

It dates back to British era. The idea was that if revolutionaries stole ammo from Govt. they could not use them. Similarly if they stole weapons then they would not have ammo to use.

Thanks for the reply. I guess now since the Government is by the people , these restrictions are baseless. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens will rarely be misused.

[ozk009]

I think making the licencing process easier for law abiding cutizens would be more important than allowing PB ammo to civilians.

I am sure many would agree with me that getting licence especially Rifle and Handgun licence is very difficult even for NPB weapons.

Agreed. they must simplify the process with due diligence.

[ozk009]

When the only guns one can buy are .22 & .32 revolvers and .32 pistols, useless for sports and self defence, why bother to apply for a licence? A catapult would be much better.

a .45 pistol MSD guardian is available for purchase. webley India has also launched a .45 pistol and iirc booking for which is open.

45 cal is in the list of PB , with some complex exceptions. People buying 45 cal weapon will have to face many difficulties with interstate travel and relocation. And again it almost will cost a fortune to by such weapon. Will any authority ever look into justifying the price?

[EkManushya]

When the only guns one can buy are .22 & .32 revolvers and .32 pistols, useless for sports and self defence, why bother to apply for a licence? A catapult would be much better.

a .45 pistol MSD guardian is available for purchase. webley India has also launched a .45 pistol and iirc booking for which is open.

45 cal is in the list of PB , with some complex exceptions. People buying 45 cal weapon will have to face many difficulties with interstate travel and relocation. And again it almost will cost a fortune to by such weapon. Will any authority ever look into justifying the price?

sir, it appears you are confusing .45 with .455.
.45 is a non-prohibited bore now.

[sid9887]

What are the possible rationale behind restricting responsible gun owners in India to limit their choice to NP bore only. Any insights?

It dates back to British era. The idea was that if revolutionaries stole ammo from Govt. they could not use them. Similarly if they stole weapons then they would not have ammo to use.

Thanks for the reply. I guess now since the Government is by the people , these restrictions are baseless. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens will rarely be misused.

The restrictions are in place to make sure that corrupt service officials are not able to sell the ammunition they are allotted . That's the idea behind it , happens or not is another thing ... As far as responsible citizens are concerned , if things were that simple you won't find so many law abiding citizens complaining about not able to get a license .

[Vineet]

When the only guns one can buy are .22 & .32 revolvers and .32 pistols, useless for sports and self defence, why bother to apply for a licence? A catapult would be much better.

In the last 120 years countless number of people have died/ been killed with the three cartridges you have mentioned. So if you think they can’t kill a person then that’s your mistake.

[timmy]

When the only guns one can buy are .22 & .32 revolvers and .32 pistols, useless for sports and self defence, why bother to apply for a licence? A catapult would be much better.

In the last 120 years countless number of people have died/ been killed with the three cartridges you have mentioned. So if you think they can’t kill a person then that’s your mistake.

Well said, Vineet! There is far too much thinking that guns are toys and playthings, rather than something that can be a definite threat to life.

I hardly think that, if we would ask for volunteers to stand in front of the muzzle of any of these guns while someone pulled the trigger, the line would be very long.

[Ambi]

Without financial constraints and with availability of handguns of different calibres, I don't think there would be a long queue to buy .22 & .32 handguns as made by IOF for self defence. They may possibly be favourites of gangsters in hollywood movies for execution scenes.

[timmy]

I can't say that I've ever seen a movie featuring a 32 Auto, other than James Bond movies. The modern ones have modern guns, not the famous 007 Walther PPK.

The last movie I've seen featuring a 32 revolver was Michael Caine being issued one in "The Ipcress File" in the 60s.

But then, neither of these movies were Hollywood movies; they were British. So, I'd consider the characterization of folks, many of who are on this board, to carry 22, 32 Auto, or 32 weapons as

They may possibly be favourites of gangsters in hollywood movies for execution scenes

to be rubbish.

I don't recall any 22 handguns in Hollywood movies, other than those about the CIA or the Mafia, for which a 22 would have some historical basis. ("Munich" comes to mind here.)

If someone has reason to fear for their life or for some other reason, to require the protection of a firearm, but despite this need they choose to go unarmed if their alternative is a weapon chambered in one of these three cartridges, well, that's their own personal choice.

As for myself, when I carry, I usually carry a 32 Auto, even though I do have other choices, both in my possession and available to buy.

This is my choice, and I'm not a gangster, a Hollywood actor, in the CIA, or in the Mafia. While many folks may have many reasons for carrying weapons in these three cartridges, I seriously doubt that such a characterization as I quoted applies to anyone on IFG.

[ozk009]

It dates back to British era. The idea was that if revolutionaries stole ammo from Govt. they could not use them. Similarly if they stole weapons then they would not have ammo to use.

Thanks for the reply. I guess now since the Government is by the people , these restrictions are baseless. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens will rarely be misused.

The restrictions are in place to make sure that corrupt service officials are not able to sell the ammunition they are allotted . That's the idea behind it , happens or not is another thing ... As far as responsible citizens are concerned , if things were that simple you won't find so many law abiding citizens complaining about not able to get a license .

Thanks for your reply. Make sense.