Cannon

It wouldn't be appropriate to comment in detail about the issues I've had with them. What I will say is that they remained polite whilst trying to dodge their responsibilities. Brass necks come to mind.

Spent a bit of time in Young Guns today in Magherafelt. Must say it was a pleasure. Mervyn was very helpful and knowledgeable

Another thread resurrection. My latest dealings with McCloys have left me feeling disappointed with the place. Eunan? is only interested in the money. They are still as pushy as ever and seem to be stuck so far up themselves that they don't even recognise their own ignorance. It's as if you've stepped into their world and if you don't play by their rules then you aren't worthy of being one of their customers. If only there was a way to take them down a peg or two. Charging people for services that they haven't even provided, and doing everything they can to avoid having to admit liability for something that was their fault. Never again will I use them.

I must say that's a cracking job you've done of the cleaning. That carbon isn't exactly easy to remove at the best of times. Should definitely improve the intake airflow.

An old boss of mine once said "if you're full of hope go and buy a lottery ticket. Make sure you're on top of things and leave nothing to chance". Now it would seem to me that these shooting organisations have left a lot to chance with their 5 year transition commitment, with manufacturers claiming they weren't consulted. The pressure is now on them to come up with the goods, and it's US that will pay for it. Such a big change won't come cheap in the shooting industry.

I'm not having a go at you just to be clear. You took the appropriate measures at the time based upon your understanding of maintenance. You can't be expected to know any better if you aren't involved in the automotive industry, but were you aware that there were still a number of Gates products circulating a few years ago that were defective? In particular the pulleys provided with some of their timing belt and aux belt kits. The pulleys were manufactured incorrectly which resulted in something called 'grease purge'. The grease within the bearing would make its way past the seals, leading to dry bearings and pulley failure. This is why you need to stick to OEM or OEM equivalent products (the original manufacturer of the belts and pulleys but not supplied by the vehicle manufacturer) when it comes to timing belts and front end auxiliary drive systems. If you have the original invoice for the Gates products that were fitted two years ago, and the mileage is still below the expected lifetime of the kit, it might be worthwhile getting an independent engineers report into the cause of the failure. If it turns out that it was one of the Gates pulleys that failed as a result of grease purge, you may be able to claim some costs back.

It let go for a reason. If you didn't replace all of the parts I mentioned with original Volvo or OEM equivalent parts (INA), then it was pointless changing the aux belt in the first place. At the time of replacement the A/C compressor pulley should also have been checked. Pulleys tend to give a bit of notice before they fail. If a pulley is squeaking it's normally close to the point of complete failure.

Very common. It's always advisable to change the aux belt, idler pulley, tensioner pulley and alternator clutch pulley at or before the recommended intervals. Prevention is better than the cure.

I'll say it again. You really couldn't make this up. BASC admitting that there aren't enough alternatives to lead shot available, yet are supporting the move away from lead shot in the hope that in five years time the problem will have somehow sorted itself out. How do you expect to introduce new shooters to the sport when you are actively supporting transitioning to ammunition that is considerably more expensive and less effective?

It was the organisations that 'unwittingly' backed the ban

It's a fake photo. Where"s the reflection of his shoe in the steel plate? Not to mention the overall look of the picture.

What direction do you think the screw will turn when drilling from the small end, like I mentioned above?

If you drill it from the small end it might spin out. It's broken anyway so will need to be replaced regardless. If it doesn't come out when drilling you can use a small screw extractor. Doesn't look like a very difficult job.

I had a Winchester 62A pump action rifle with a tube magazine. It was already threaded at the muzzle, but the mag tube would strike the moderator when it was removed. The previous owner removed the moderator each time he wanted to reload. Not a major inconvenience by all accounts, but not the most practical solution either. The mag tube had a knurled steel cap on it that was a few mm larger in diameter than the actual tube, so I was able to file one side of it flat which allowed it to clear the slim Parker Hale moderator. I'm not familiar with the Marlin WMR, but if it's front loading and the tube comes out the front, you would probably need an offset moderator that doesn't obstruct the tube. If the tube is fixed and flush with the muzzle, depending on the gap between the two, it might be possible to remove the mag tube and thread the barrel conventionally. You could then install a 1/2" UNF female to 1/2" UNF male extension, allowing the moderator to screw onto the barrel and not foul the mag tube.

There's a reason why you entered into this debate, meaning you have an agenda. Your agenda seems to be to challenge anyone who speaks in support of the licencing system. You may have good reasons for forming the opinions that you hold, as others may have good reasons for forming their opinions. It"s always good to get a good understanding of other peoples' opinions. It enables you to form solid counter arguments if you know the logic used by someone to come to a conclusion. Stating that I was moving the goal posts tells me that you didn't or don't want to understand where I was coming from with regards my side of the argument. If you re-read what I have already posted with an open mind you may come to a better understanding. Just to add, we are not enemies. I've no doubt that if we met face to face we would get on quite well. You seem a sensible enough chap. An internet forum is not always the most appropriate platform for a debate. It can be hard to convey emotions or expressions. The best we can do is remain amicable.

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. You are merely trying to twist things to suit your agenda.

Regardless of my opinion, it's very unlikely that airgun licencing will come into effect any time soon in England or Wales. It would more than double the workload of the licencing departments, and would be extremely challenging to implement and manage effectively. I still believe that the points I made in favour of licencing are good and valid, but the reality is that it would be quicker and easier to implement a complete ban (something I would be strongly against) rather than introduce licencing. The complexities of airgun licencing would make things difficult for a lot of people, particularly those who use or sell airguns, and for those who are involved in licencing or law enforcement. It would be an administrative nightmare for at least a couple of years, making the easy option of a ban more likely (in the event that a situation or incident brought the discussion to parliament). Though just because something is difficult to do doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That being said, the fines and punishments currently in place for crimes relating to the misuse of airguns are pretty substantial. Perhaps better enforcement would help to deter future airgun crime? Airguns are misused on a daily basis, but in a lot of cases the misuse goes unreported or doesn't fit the criteria needed for an official record to be kept. The newspapers tend to fill in the gaps, though not always impartially. It would take substantial changes in the quantity, frequency and nature of airgun crime for me to change my opinion.

I'm not sure of your level of understanding regarding the North of Ireland. If you have drawn conclusions based on bbc reports, there's a very good probability that the information presented to you was biased and incorrect. Licencing allows a perfectly law abiding citizen to obtain firearms for many legitimate purposes. If criminals want to interfere in any way it's a matter for the police, just like any crime. If the supply of illegal firearms is as bad as you seem to be making out,, why are you suggesting that criminals may target licence holders? Is it perhaps because of the lack of availability of illegal firearms in the first place? Hmmmm.....

What parts of the current system would you say need overhauled? Do you think the current level of vetting is enough or too lax? I don't know about the depth of vetting that goes on across the water, but over here it isn't just the police that are involved. The security services have an input too. A licence is issued to a person if the relevant authorities are satisfied so far is as reasonably practicable that the person in question poses no risk to the safety of the public or to themselves. Many people have been refused licences because they are quite simply of unsound mind. Therefore the licencing system has done exactly what it was designed to do. Not every person of unsound mind applies for a licence because they have criminal intent. Many wouldn't even know they were committing an offence because they haven't got the sense to realise what they're doing is wrong. The licencing system is at present the most effective method of keeping firearms and airguns out of the hands of these people. Without licencing the amount of crimes and incidents involving firearms and airguns would be a lot higher. What part of that statement isn't clear? The same people are unlikely to be hardened criminals who will spend thousands on an illegal firearm. They just want a firearm or airgun for the sake of it. Not really good reason is it?

Licencing reduces the availability and accessibility of firearms to criminals. It's as simple as that. Your offer of an alternative system that basically mirrors our current licencing system tells me that you understand my side of the argument, but for some reason you are unwilling to accept it despite the clear logic and justification behind it. Can you explain to me the reasons why you believe we need an alternative to the licencing system? Why do you feel that it is necessary to vet people before allowing them to purchase firearms?

If as David says Grouse shooting is so accessible, then why do so many shooters seem to think the opposite? Perhaps the shooting organisations could do something to change the perception of these shooters? Saying that, I'm a believer that there's no smoke without fire. These perceptions have came from somewhere and have had enough substance to back them up at some stage. Maybe things have changed over the years?

There is something to be said about the desirability of certain firearms. A pistol will appeal more to an urban criminal, whereas a hunting rifle would appeal more to a deer poacher, hence the reason for all firearms to be licenced.

You wouldn't hear about it because the licencing system has kept the majority of those firearms out of the hands of criminals. If there was a viable alternative to the licencing system I'd like to hear about it. There are firearms that I would love to own and shoot but the law prevents me from doing so. I don't like being tarred with the same brush of distrust by the lawmakers, but at the same time I have the wisdom to know that the reason why things are the way they are is because the minority would pose a viable threat to the majority if licencing didn't exist. Stricter punishment for offenders would help to lower crime levels, and perhaps allow the law abiding to enjoy a bit more freedom.

It's not as simple as that. Knives are used by everybody on a daily basis and are essential tools. Airguns are only essential for those who have good reason to possess them. With that logic you may as well call for the introduction of licencing on pens. As mentioned earlier airguns allow you to reach out and touch your target. If you search the internet for Swans, Geese and Ducks that have been shot with airguns, it's clearly a problem across the Irish sea. We don't have anywhere near the same level of wildlife crime over here involving airguns for the simple reason that airguns are licenced.