The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Disclaimer: I have no affiliation to this or any other company, I'm merely trying to gauge the thoughts of others on this forum as to the practices that this company appear to be taking.

It would appear that Rude Fat Dog are marketing, and by all accounts selling modified S&W pistols, as Long Barrelled Pistols.

According to their Facebook:

The Europa is an LBR (Long Barrelled Revolver) based on the Smith & Wesson 686 frame. It is .38/.357 calibre and has been modified by Ballistic Arms in Louisville, Kentucky to conform with the UK Section 1 firearm requirements. Ballistic Arms is an ATF registered firearms manufacturer which is owned and run by Darren Digby who used to shoot for the UK Gallery Rifle squad. The Europa is serial numbered by Ballistic Arms. UK shooters have been long awaiting such a high class LBR as the Europa and they are available to order now from Rude Fat Dog at Email Removed

According to their website:

The Europa Style

Built around a Smith & Wesson 686 L frame revolver in .38/.357" calibre.

The Europa LBR can be supplied 'out of the box' or we can Match Tune this for you to give you the ultimate experience in revolver competition shooting. The barrel sleeve and underlug is available in various Cerakote colours.

A number of The Europa's are currently being used in National competitions on the Gallery rifle circuit.

The Carbon Fibre barrel style

Built around a Smith & Wesson K, L or N frame style revolver in various calibres.

As standard, the Carbon Fibre models are always supplied ready Match Tuned. Our Match Tuning of Smith & Wesson revolvers is second to none - our expertise has been gained over the years during countless trips into Europe to 'Tune' PPC and similar styles of Smiths.

As standard we supply our LBR's as 6 shot models, however, for IPSC style competitions we can also supply 7 and 8 shot versions.

I looked briefly into 3rd party S&W Frame copies, but they appear to be non-existent - presumably because of patents S&W hold over the designs of their frames, which would indicate 2 things to me, these are most likely being made from existing S&W Frames, or they are being made from frame copies that are being made under license. I would wager the former, since licensing fees to S&W are likely to be astronomical, if at all even possible.

With this in mind, since S&W do not, to my knowledge, make any UK Section 1 Revolvers, is it not the case that these would be, at factory, considered Section 5, and if that the case, although the conversion is taking place over in the states, if looking up that frame at the factory, would it not become clear that it was made for something section 5?

The only other thing that pops into my mind at present is that I seem to recall another RFD a while back buying lots of M1 Garands, separating the parts and building new - straight pull converted rifles from the parts - could this be how these are considered legal?

Not looking to throw anyone under the bus, or remove legal firearms - simply looking to better understand why one RFD considers that he can do something that the rest of the shooting community believes to be out of the realms of possibility.

Quite often it's the case that RFD's find ways around things and don't actually let anyone else know so they can hold a monopoly - which sounds like it would be great for business, but the shooting community as a whole suffers. Wouldn't it be better if we know and can fight the corner united, instead of as a 1 man band?

Any thoughts?

Whilst i am obviously interested to see “some” of the replies.

My first question would be, why would they advertise either if it would jeopardise their of RFD ticket?

Secondly there’s quite a few of both already on the circuit?

Gh0st wrote:Whilst i am obviously interested to see “some” of the replies.

My first question would be, why would they advertise either if it would jeopardise their of RFD ticket?

Secondly there’s quite a few of both already on the circuit?

In response to your first question and not knowing the rfd directly, there are a number of responses.
Ignorance, greed, mis-information...

Secondly, quite a few is a broad term. Personally I've met 1 guy who had 2 S&W lbr's, incidentally he was also a section 5 rfd, not that that makes a difference.

RFD has been around for a long while. Supplies a lot of the Gallery rifles (10/22 and Marlins) that are out there.

Yes apologies i do not know exact numbers

Again, being around for a long while accounts little for knowing the intricacies of the legislation in the UK.

The police force has been around a long while and they still give out incorrect information when talking about firearms legislation from time to time - I've known it happen.

Look a little while back and see that southern gun company got in a lot of bother with the first batch of lever release that were considered not fitting within the law, after people took delivery and had them on ticket - they had a long history of making straight pulls behind them, too.

Whilst experience goes some way, when moving into murky waters and the path not yet taken it stands for very little.

TattooedGun wrote:Again, being around for a long while accounts little for knowing the intricacies of the legislation in the UK.

The police force has been around a long while and they still give out incorrect information when talking about firearms legislation from time to time - I've known it happen.

Look a little while back and see that southern gun company got in a lot of bother with the first batch of lever release that were considered not fitting within the law, after people took delivery and had them on ticket - they had a long history of making straight pulls behind them, too.

Whilst experience goes some way, when moving into murky waters and the path not yet taken it stands for very little.

out of interest, what makes the S&W frames illegal? presumably it is barrel length? , so if the design incorporates a legal length barrel and an ext to bring the overall length into the realms of the legislation. where is the problem?
where would that make them different from Taurus revolvers for example?
obviously with rifles such as the M1 they are section 5 due to their self loading action, and in order to convert to sec 1 straight pulls certain measures have to be taken, to alter the action in a way that it cannot be easily changed back. anyone who does that without clearing it with the relevant authorities in advance is playing with fire, SGC appear to have been caught by a retrospective investigation, in the same way that the MARS and lever release rifles appear to be in danger of reclassification (moving the goal posts) I find it hard to believe that they would have gone into production without some clearance from the authorities, even if at a later date someone decided there was an issue that needed to be amended

Ok, so if there is no confidence in the different interpretations of the law from the police force(s) what are you aiming to achieve here with out a direct response from the Dealer them selves... anything else would be purely speculation on all of our parts.

kennyc wrote:

TattooedGun wrote:Again, being around for a long while accounts little for knowing the intricacies of the legislation in the UK.

The police force has been around a long while and they still give out incorrect information when talking about firearms legislation from time to time - I've known it happen.

Look a little while back and see that southern gun company got in a lot of bother with the first batch of lever release that were considered not fitting within the law, after people took delivery and had them on ticket - they had a long history of making straight pulls behind them, too.

Whilst experience goes some way, when moving into murky waters and the path not yet taken it stands for very little.

out of interest, what makes the S&W frames illegal? presumably it is barrel length? , so if the design incorporates a legal length barrel and an ext to bring the overall length into the realms of the legislation. where is the problem?
where would that make them different from Taurus revolvers for example?
obviously with rifles such as the M1 they are section 5 due to their self loading action, and in order to convert to sec 1 straight pulls certain measures have to be taken, to alter the action in a way that it cannot be easily changed back. anyone who does that without clearing it with the relevant authorities in advance is playing with fire, SGC appear to have been caught by a retrospective investigation, in the same way that the MARS and lever release rifles appear to be in danger of reclassification (moving the goal posts) I find it hard to believe that they would have gone into production without some clearance from the authorities, even if at a later date someone decided there was an issue that needed to be amended

As is my understanding, and I am welcome to be put right, items such as the buckmark start from a carbine which is within the UK law. Similarly, the k22 comes from the factory to UK spec and I read the other day that the walther that's recently graced us has had the extensions made in the UK and shipped to the factory to comply with 'once section 5 always section 5' interpretation of the law.

So because these are leaving the factory as what would be section 5 and then from RFD's own post are being altered to UK spec, is this a technicality, or does it open the door for other manufacturers and models?

If that is the case, why hasn't anyone done it previously with very popular models such as flocks and the like? My understanding was that without aftermarket frames and assembling as a UK spec from the very beginning it was not possible to import.

I'm asking here because I'm wondering if anyone knows or has proof that this is no longer the case, if indeed it ever strictly was??

Is it possible until this is put through the courts nobody really knows wether this once section 5 always section 5 is accurate.

They've been selling them since 2015 going by previous posts here and on the gallery rifle site. I would have thought that if they were section 5 something would have been done by now?