Horrocks

Repriced to £550 for the lot. £395 for the rifle alone.

Hello all. This is my sale. I would consider selling rifle separately. Thanks.

Selling my T-Bolt HMR. Should appear on gunwatch/private sales shortly.

I'd echo Gixer's comment on this topic, which seems the most reasonable so far. He's quite right in that the only way to settle this argument is to find a balance. When I was in my early teens and still hunting foxes (which I would love to do again, had I the balls to get up on a horse) I was far more partisan on the matter, it was when hunting was first banned and it really was and 'us' and 'them' sort of world. Now I feel less ardent about the whole thing. Like Gixer I would tend not to shoot a fox if I felt it was unnecessary, I can appreciate the animals for their natural beauty and as an image that is of the British countryside. I would also try to avoid shooting a nursing vixen if I knew there was a set in the area, because leaving cubs to starve (unless they could be found and dispatched)is unnecessary and inhumane. Despite that, they are undoubtedly a pest, and when I shot a fox last week that had wiped out a coup of my grandparent's chickens I was proud of myself, as were they. I shall soon be getting a .223 with the express aim of controlling the foxes in my area. I don't wish to eradicate them, but to control their numbers. Unfortunately the presenters on this program represent a growing number of people who are unwilling to take such a balanced view. They (and the vast majority of my fellow students at uni), represent a culture that deliberately remains ignorant of the natural world beyond their parks and back gardens, and that shortsightedly seeks to humanise a wild animal. I found the image of Brian May cuddling a fox cub, and the presenter's face melting as a result, highly nauseating. I also fail to see what they find cute about an animal that is increasingly living in squalor, surviving off the unnecessary waste of urban communities. These are undoubtedly people who also feel we should stop littering and despoiling our natural world, and therefore represent the large section of the population that wants to have its cake and eat it. Unfortunately that cake seems to be made out of self-righteousness. What I feel we shouldn't do is become self-righteous in return. Knee-jerk reactions are self-destructive, and it seems we can only reason with these people, tone down the us and them situation. I feel thats the only way to win, or at least halt this argument. Some of the comments on here, for it is an open forum, would be seen by the anti-hunting/shooting lobby to be those of gun-toting murdering hoodlums (obviously not an opinion I share). We need to be aware that such comments will only add fuel to their fire. I'm not sure this rant was was appropriate or necessary in the circumstances, so apologies, but I'm doing all I can to avoid writing an essay for my finals. Edit: Crosshair reminded me that I hadn't said which sex of Fox I shot the other day. It was a healthy Vixen, which I was glad to note wasn't lactating, so presumably her cubs would have been relatively mature. It's clear that shooting a rearing Vixen would often be unintentional and I wasn't out to demonise those who do or have. I would personally prefer to avoid doing so, but in the real-world this would often be unavoidable and in the course of shooting foxes I'm almost certain that I will do so. I also don't rely on my upkeep on things which are spoiled by foxes, so it's not absolutely necessary for me, as it is with others, to maintain a constant check on their numbers. I would defend to the hilt those who do so, including those who shoot rearing vixens due to the future danger of the fox cubs.

Thanks very much for all the comments. This does seem like a beautiful gun and one I'd love to get hold of should it remain in the dealer's hands long enough. I'd have get shot of my Winchester before thinking about getting it, money being an issue. After an experience driven shooting last week with ejectors, I don't think missing them would do me any harm. when a good few came over I found myself rushing, gaining the kind of rythm Nickbeardo mentioned would be a huge help. But what would be the disadvantages of shooting with such an old gun? I'd be using it on pigeon too (although my pigeon shooting isn't manic), would it be worth getting a newer side by side? (I'm not fussed about O/U's, when I've got enough money for two shotguns I'll get one) thanks And Aldivalloch; fantastic comment, I'm totally in agreement with you.

I don't think it's a minefield at all. The bike would be bought or picked up as is, it's up to a responsible rider to make sure the brakes etc. work. Any other arguement just implies a pointless waste of potentially retrievable products. Another example of health and safety regs running pointlessly roughshod over a totally legitimate, recycling conscious thing to do.

Any waxed Barbour is good, wind/thorn/rain proof. Just make sure you don't get one of those motorcycle jackets that are the new big thing, I keep seeing grown men wearing budgie yellow or purple versions and it makes me wince. Seems like Barbour may be going the same way as Burberry did.

I'm wondering if anyone out there has any old (preferably road) bikes they want to get off've their hands? I'm at uni down in Reading and myself and a couple of my mates want to get cycling together, obviously cost is an issue so they don't fancy the expense of new bikes (I'm already accounted for). I'm a dab hand at getting bikes back in working order so perhaps some of you have got a bike out back that perhaps has been sat outside for a while/ isn't worth the trouble of putting up on t'internet? As a general rule they don't deserve to head to the skip and I'd appreciate wiping the cynical smiles off've my friends faces if I got them a couple sorted. I've tried the dump but frustratingly health and safety is an issue, ridiculous really. I guess we're looking for medium sized men's road bikes, any age. Many thanks, do drop me a PM if you've got the kind of thing I'm after. I've got my car down in Reading so can drive, and I'm back in Essex quite a bit if anyone in that general region has one lingering about. Josh Edit: oh, obviously if you wanted some cash for them/it that would be fine, depending on the condition of the bike ie. how much we'd have to spend to get it road worthy.

Mentioned losing my Winchester pigeon grade the other day in return for something with a little more gravitas/was lighter, more wieldable etc. A quick search on Guntrader came up with this, a George Bate and Co. non ejecting side by side: http://www.guntrader.co.uk/GunsForSale/110909141807337 Any feedback, has anyone out there had much experience with non-ejectors, is it infuriating. I read somewhere that you could buy a good gun for less if it was a non-ejector? thanks

Hello All, A few months ago my grandfather gave me the above shotgun, his sight and willingness to get out and about are fading whilst mine are increasing so he passed this one on to me. I've had mixed results on pigeon with it which has led me to think the stock is far too long. It's been lengthened so I assume that the owner previous to my grandfather was a giant as I'm over 6ft and it's got a good 2 inches of extension on it. I went on a Pheasant shoot unexpectedly earlier this week so borrowed my host's game gun, which came loosely under the heading of english game gun, i.e. a light and relatively short, pointable sxs. After lunch my father turned up with the winchester and I found that my shooting drastically tailed off. The Winchester was noticeably longer, heavier and despite being clearly meant as a game gun (its a SxS) I found it less comfortable than my host's gun. It seems that this gun was some kind of balance between a skeet and a game gun. Anyway, after my experience I've been turning over the option of selling it on and getting a lighter English game shotgun, or getting it fitted to me and trying it out, despite the expense that generally entails. What I was wondering was whether anyone out there has used these Winchesters before and what success they had with them. Being rather a heavy gun and myself intending to get more into pheasant and Pigeon shooting, would a lighter SxS be of more use to me? many thanks.

hear hear.

Not once did I question your actual competency to hold an FAC, i disagreed with the way you responded to Newportshooters question, and i disagreed with what some of your posts inferred. Also with the manner in which you addressed the issue of .22lr, it's quite clear you didn't actually mean it in the way it was interpreted by me, just as I didn't mean to suggest that you shouldnt be holding an FAC. I honestly believe that if we stepped back a little we'd agree with alot of what the other has said. I'm sure I tried to make a point at the start, which you haven't adressed.

Look up Vipa, I've already posted them.

So what?! If i heard someone with a FAC in .22lr saying it wasn't a 'real' gun, I would approach them, and if i thought their approach to firearms lacked the respect these things are due, I would THINK about reporting them. That said i am NOT going to report anyone for what they say on a forum!

and here. i would expect a responsible FAC holder to treat all firearms the same and with equal respect as potentially lethal weapons. You're quite right about a .308 causing more actual damage, but what's that got to do with it?! a .22 is still perfectly capable of killing someone! it should be treated as such, a potentially dangerous piece of kit that needs to be approached with care and responsibility. And I would also argue that your reaction to Newportshooters original post has been consistently bullying. You told me to read yours, I have, now read Newports, mine and the others that have come close to trying to actually approach the subject about which he was speaking, rather than getting stroppy and browbeating him. there is a serious question posed by this post and its not about breaking down solidarity within the shooting community or making it impossible to get military looking weapons. perhaps more about questioning their application and the image they create when used in the field rather than in the shooting gallery of a practical comp, also the image they give of the sport to younger people (yes younger than me) coming up into it.

Here, the reference to putting .22's in the same bracket as 'real' guns

I've already made the point that I wasnt actually threatening Vipa with reporting him. I merely said that if he were to say what i quoted him saying, I would think about pulling him up, and if he persisted, seriously question his respect for the firearms for which he is licenced, possibly reporting that lack of respect to the police. Vipa, I am sure that were you to say what I quoted, (and the exact quote will follow) your FAO would be furious.

Chill out Vipa! I'm afraid you HAD written what I had quoted, I'm sure out of context the sentence seemed very slightly more dodgy than it really was, but other members are more than capable of going back and viewing it in context if they so wish. The alternative is (unfortunately) having to quote you in full (as above) thereby giving further publicity to your furious musings, something that I would rather avoid, but hey-ho, I've conceded the above to stop you popping a vein. You're quite right about some rimfire rounds being (in their 1800's pistol/rifle configuration) far more powerful that the .22lr, but the history of the .22 lr (according to Chuck Hawkes) goes back through the .22 short, a cartridge developed for close protection during the civil war. The .22 lr WAS also used as a revolver (and rifle) round for personal protection, before gaining credence as a hunting round. I think I'm right in saying .22lr is still used by some armed forces in pistol configuration, the US navy seals too, apparently. Also police snipers in some urban situations. I'm sorry but I DIDN'T change the order of words, I also DIDN'T threaten you, I simply said that were I to hear an FAC holder (I used the word 'you' unfortunately) claiming that a .22lr was only a 'real' round because the police say so, I would be inclined to move swiftly away from them, and if they continued saying so, report them. As far as my claim about the FAO goes, try it with them next time you get a visit, I'm sure their expression would be a sight. Vipa, I also wasn't in reciept of your personal history when I wrote my comment, and didn't know a personal friend was killed by an air rifle, even if i did it wouldn't have had much relevance on what I wrote, which was based on what you had written earlier. As far as going and sitting by myself in a darkened room for a couple of hours ....and perhaps this is because of my still relative closeness to puberty you mentioned .... I can think of FAR better things to be getting on with than bothering myself with your (albeit in my opinion) false diatribe. I think you need to get off've your soapbox, if you back off a little you'll find that somewhere in my comment I was trying to make a point and one that still stands.

Excuse me!?! Vipa in the past I've appreciated your posts and concurred with you on many things, but what you've just said is (i think) pretty shocking. If you dont't think a .22 is a dangerous piece of kit, capable of killing someone, then you shoud in no way have the bloody thing! Of course .22lr is a 'real' gun, it is a round that started of as a man killer. Sure a CF will do more damage, but they'll both kill someone. I honestly think you should take a step back and read that again, your FAO would NOT be happy if you expressed that view to him, you wouldn't have been issued an FAC and if I heard you (off the bat) saying that I'd feel inclined to pull you up on it or report you! Newport shooter's legitimate concerns have provoked a knee jerk reaction from a lot of you guys. I agree solidarity is the key to maintaining this sport, more shooters should have backed fox hunting. However, as far as .22's that look like MP5's go, I don't think they should be licensed for field shooting either, practical competitions yes, but no-one should be walking around the countryside with a replica military weapon, it is a very bad image for the sport, unneccesary too, they're largely far less accurate and are simply not designed for a hunting situation. Practical comps are no doubt a wonderful thing, though not my cup of tea, but people should not be allowed a military replica .22 for their first rifle unless they shoot in those competitions, simples. H Edit: I would stress that I do not think anyone dressing up and rambo-ing it is more likely to go off on a sudden murderous rampage. However, to most people over the age of about 50 (and many under), the overtly militaristic nature of these firearms is innappropriate and possibly threatening, they are not made for hunting, competitions fair enough. I do not apply this to those AR type .223's which I'm sure with the right twist rate etc. make for a more that useful hunting rifle. I'm sorry, but using a .22 military looking MP5 thing to nail bunnies just isn't appropriate.

i've only just bought a T-bolt, and rate it very highly. First rifle i've been really happy taking a standing shot with. I swapped from a CZ and must say it's a big difference, quicker bolt cycle, lighter, better looking and (it feels) better made. I'm 6' 2'' ish though, and will need to get butt spacers, so be aware that it comes from the factory with only a thin buttplate, i don't know why. With the money you're alluding to I would get either a HW60j or a Sako Quad, with a definate preference for the former, heavy though.

10/10 for least helpful post this week

Just got meself a T-bolt Browning, factory floated and glass bedded in both .22 and HMR, certainly impressed so far.

+ 2 over the weekend, the first two with the new .17 2639

Despite shooting perfectly my new T-bolt has a flat pad on the end of the butt-stock with makes it about a half inch too short for perfect comfort. The butt-stock is of the exact same dimensions of my old CZ varmint but the CZ had a half inch pad at the end of the stock and that is what I preferably need on the T-bolt. Does anyone know what butt-pad i should get? Looking at sportsman guncentre they've got a whole variety of pads but don't properly show their dimensions, They've even got slip on pads in sizes medium and large without specifying what medium or large actually means! So, will i be able to buy an off the shelf butt/heel-pad, or is it a visit to the gunsmiths to get one fitted? Thanks all.

Right-o all, I think Highlander has accepted defeat now. I do also agree with his argument, but also that it was an unnecessary and pompous one given the context. I think the bashing should probably stop now though, he's apologised and the thread has had its happy ending!