New Wa-Shan SP001

[mcnuggets]

 

http://www.uncompany.com/pageproductdetails.asp?prodid=10721

 

Wa-shan seemed to have upgraded their SP001. It looks like they dispensed with the paintball-like pump handle and went for an airgun-like bolt.

 

It would probably be pretty easy to run an external HPA setup using OTS paintball parts.

 

It may seem a bit awkward to most with its bolt handle being on the left side.

 

It being a non-replica might make it useful to the Brits for getting around the VCRA.

 

I think it has potential. The wooden stock looks much better compared to the older version. Although I'm worried that its barrel and hop-up (if it has one) might be sub par.

[BigAl]

It being a non-replica might make it useful to the Brits for getting around the VCRA.

 

Nope it's a RIf as the public could mistake it for a Firearm.

[snorkelman]

or its a really low powered air rifle as its over 1 foot pound

[mcnuggets]

I thought airsoft sniper rifles that fire >1 ft/lb were the norm in the UK.

 

(It looks to be a scaled down Nelson valve action so conceivably velocity can be lowered by attaching a regulator and reducing input pressure or by using a weaker hammer spring, a stronger valve spring or a combination of both.)

[The Chef]

Bizarrely interesting.

 

If this has decent consistency from shot to shot and the hop is not poop then this could have real potential.

 

The stock is mo.fo ugly in my opinion but the action looks as though it could be easily slotted into some other form of better looking and more functional stock.

 

Odd how they made it a lefty though.

[AnotherJesus]

I asked the Policeman down the station, if an air rifle could also be a RIF. His answer was an unequivocal yes. When you understand how cagey station officers are about giving answers, especially this old timer - I've spoken to him before, then you'll understand that I consider this to be fact. So don't assume this, or any sniper rifle, is VCRA section 36 exempt.

 

And just to quote section 38.

(1) In sections 36 and 37 “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm which—

 

(a) has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm; and

 

( is neither a de-activated firearm nor itself an antique.

 

 

Edit: Sorry, out of the blue I know. But snorkleman's post made it sound like it's either a RIF or an air weapon.

[The Chef]

Well, solicitor's logic (not my own), but it certainly sits right with my own background of former Police Constable.....

 

If an item is a Firearm (which air weapons are... although unregulated), then it cannot also be a Replica. Its either one or the other, not both.

 

I mean, for such an item you could argue the toss either way, its a RIF, its an air weapon to suit your own ends would be your own choice to try as none of this has even been tested in court, and probably even less discussed in real policing terms.

 

You have to understand that there are some serious cross overs of legislation with regards to the VCRA and the FireArms Act 1968. Airsoft weapons are technically Firearms, because they are not 'Toys' (which are regarded to have a power level sub 0.1J or some such), but still can fire a projectile. They are not Technically Firearms because they don't go over the indicated 'low powered air weapon' limit of 1.35J (hence you can have an airsoft weapon that fires fully automatic, it doesnt fall within the 'low powered air weapon' catagory, which would push it to being a Sec.5 prohibited weapon, but neither is it a toy.... Good Huh!). They do indeed inhabit a sort of Null zone. There is nothing within the VCRA or subsequent Firearms legislation updates (as far as I am aware) that covers this area. The RIF description does nothing to address the issue of firing projectiles. It purely covers the 'looks like' aspect.

Knowing the powers that be, this would be looked upon as an 'air weapon' purely because it gives them greater scope and more legislation to fall back on. Why get someone for breaking the unimportant VCRA when you can nab them for a Firearms offence?

 

I know Nuggets mentioned the VCRA, but seeing as this is an Airsoft forum, and one which airsofter's frequent, and Airsoft skirmishing has a defence under regulation.... I think that particular facet of his post is a little moot.

 

I may be a little out of date, so I wont be offended if you can post a more up to date argument with links to stated cases or legislation.

 

 

Its still ugly....

[AnotherJesus]

Bolt handle seems to be able to be moved to the other side.

 

Thanks for the blurb chef. I made a point of asking if the guy was sure or not. I trust him. It's certainly not something people should be messing with though. So I'd treat guns like the above as both. Hedge your bets when it comes to the law.

Guess we could use a thread in the VCRA section about this. If there isn't one already.

[gisburn20]

Looks like a nice simple magazine system ( Like the Ripley range of air rifles?)

 

But I'm not sure you could swap over the cocking handle without machining the stock and receiver.

( probably do-able but a ball ache!)

 

all comes down to the hop, a fixed hop on a sniper rifle could be a pain , but if it can be modded to an adjustable hop...

 

I might pick one up if it ever shows up this side of the pond, but I wouldnt bother importing one personally, I'd rather buy one of Magnumbb's cold shot systems for my M700.

 

Jim

 

 

[AnotherJesus]

Ahh. I'm an idiot. I thought that thing on the right hand side was a bolt spring. Actually a magazine/hopper spring.

[snorkelman]

I asked the Policeman down the station, if an air rifle could also be a RIF. His answer was an unequivocal yes. When you understand how cagey station officers are about giving answers, especially this old timer - I've spoken to him before, then you'll understand that I consider this to be fact. So don't assume this, or any sniper rifle, is VCRA section 36 exempt.

 

And just to quote section 38.

 

 

 

Edit: Sorry, out of the blue I know. But snorkleman's post made it sound like it's either a RIF or an air weapon.

 

 

I made it sound like that because it IS an either or siuation

 

go read the start of section 38 again

 

(1) In sections 36 and 37 “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm which—

 

Note the word imitation I put in italics - thats the broad group within which theres a subset that go beyond just being an imitation and become classified as realistic imitations.

 

Airguns are not imitation firearms - thus are not in the broad group that RIFs are a subset of, and thus cannot be RIFs

 

Neither are shotguns, straight pull rifles, .22LR semi-autos, muzzle loading revolvers etc Like airguns they're all real bonafide firearms - which is why you dont see them listed amongst the 'imitation frearms that arent RIFs' exceptions in section 38 either.

 

They all fail the same basic test that a tiger would in respect of Dangerous Dogs Act ie a tiger can't be a dangerous dog cos it isnt a dog in the first place.

 

 

The definition of an imitation firearm is anything that isnt a firearm but still looks like a gun - not neccessarily a specific make and model of gun just a gun. By that token all airguns would fall under the category of IFs and most (due to colour and size) would then be further classifiable as RIFS ...if it werent for the fact they are fireams.

 

Yunkers AK - an air rifle and thus a firearm. Makarov pistol an airpistol and thus a firearm. Webley typhoon would be a RIF too (cos its big black and look a bit like a handgun) except yeps you guessed it ..its an airpistol too.

 

Dont beleive me then go look at any airgun shop. They sell loads of these items 'that look like guns' but they dont ask you to prove any sort of VCRA defence. Instead they ask you to prove you're over 18 and will only hand the firearm over face to face or deliver it to another registered firearms dealer you can then pick it up from.

 

Now wether its sensible to have a law that makes that distinction is another story but as it stands it IS the law.

 

a prime example is the Wa-Shan airsoft PPK - its black and under 1 foot pound and thus classed as a RIF - anyone selling it needs to ensure the buyer has a valid defence under the VCRA.

 

Umarex market an identical PPK as an airpistol - its still black and looks just the same.

 

The only relevant difference is that it fires a little over 1 foot pound, is thus classed as an airpistol and can be sold to anyone over 18 (so long as any business selling it is a registered firearms dealer and the sale is face to face).

[Pablo]

So the lesson we've learned today is: By all means tell folks about a new gun, but DON'T suggest it may or may not be a RIF if you don't want your whole thread turning into an argument about interpretation of the VCRA

[The Chef]

I'm with Snork on this one.. the argument is sound and definitely on rocky ground in the realms of a court case.

 

AJ, I'm not knocking your source. Its difficult at best, unfathomable at worse! Seeing as its such a random and minor piece of legislation I doubt the 'front line officers' would have received more than a memo about it, just detailing some of the relevant points about it. Not going into the vagaries of what and why. That would come later when it was needed.

 

The only reason we know is because we've lived with it for the last two years and have been in on the consultations and threw around the what-ifs etc with various solicitor types and the Home Office.

 

But enough of that VCRA garbage....

 

Lets get this back on topic about the Wa-Shan...

 

Its Still UGLY!!

[snorkelman]

agreed - current job has me coming into contact with CID and firearms officers etc every now and then. Most were under the impression that 'those replicas are now gonna be banned from private ownership' when the VCRA was about to come into force.

 

Same as anything else legislation wise - if its an issue your dealing with day in day out (or something major) then you'll be up to speed on the minor ins and outs of it it. If you arent (or its something relatively minor in grand scheme of things) then you'll seek advice as the situation arises.

 

And yep its butt ugly

[mcnuggets]

Although you have to admit it's a step up from the prior version:

 

 

That is truly ugly.

[The Chef]

yeah, but you can only polish a turd so much.....

[mcnuggets]

Well I think you may be jumping the gun. It may look ugly but who knows about performance?

 

It seems to be a Nelson action copy. The Nelson action is on many stock class paintball guns. Very simple, easy to adjust, and breakdown. But who knows though if it transitions well to airsoft.

 

I can see other advantages. Taking straight CO2, what looks to be a metal receiver, and although it's a bit ugly it does have a wooden stock. Which is better than most comparably priced airsoft sniper rifles.

 

But I agree. Hop-up probably will be a problem. And its ugly.

[The Chef]

I know what you mean, I'd love to see an internally regulated CO2/HPA based system, that has the VSR hop (or comparable).

 

I think the Tanaka CO2 conversion systems are a step in the right direction. Just need to try and get the magazine away from the gas source.

 

I really must try and sort out that VSR gas cylinder I have, and see how that handles.

 

But like I said in my first post, if this has the power consistency and a decent hop, this would make a real good base for a decent looking rifle.

[Kristoffer]

yeah, but you can only polish a turd so much.....

 

Actually, you can polish a turd quite well.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBj6PonX14A

 

But you can't polish this thing. Not in a million years...

[magaz]

Planet of the Apes much? haha