Cannon

The level of determination would need to be quite high to overcome the difficulties faced by criminals wanting to obtain illegal firearms and ammunition. I don't believe that obtaining illegal firearms and ammunition is as easy as you think. Perhaps the media and government would want to make it seem easier than it is to justify another kneejerk reaction if it suited their agenda. As for criminals choosing not to break the law for fear of being caught, why would they break any laws in the first place if that was the case? I think the reason why they don't carry illegal firearms is because of the difficulty of obtaining them, as well as the ammunition. Our licencing system plays a very big part in reducing the supply of firearms and ammunition to the criminal contingent in our society. Without it, it would just be a free for all. As for banning handguns, I believe it should never have happened. It was a case of enacting a political agenda when the opportunity arose. The only people affected by the ban were the ligitimate licenced shooters. I cannot defend the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of licencing in that particular case. It was a poor decision made by the government at the time. What I can say is that up until the point of the ban the licencing system was working well by restricting the ease by which firearms could be obtained by criminals.

I cannot explain it any clearer. If a criminal is determined to break the law, they will do so. It's the responsibility of the police to deal with that. The fact is that there isn't a perfect system in place, but the one we have has done a very good job of keeping easily accessible firearms out of the hands of opportunistic and casual criminals. If firearms were freely available and unregulated, the less responsible members of society would undoubtedly take advantage, much to our detriment. If you were to remove the licencing system, petty criminals, casual criminals and opportunistic criminals who would perhaps never have even considered using a firearm in a crime because of its relative inaccessibility, would all of a sudden have legal access to firearms. Suddenly they are in possession of a tool that could make the undertaking of their criminal activities a whole lot easier. There are illegal firearms out there, but not to the extent that our 'honest and unbiased' media platforms would have you believe.

There's no need to be pedantic. So you stop gun crime by punishing those responsible. Licencing stops gun crime before it happens. Are you saying that if licencing wasn't in place, gun crime would stay at the same level as it is now? Do you actually believe that? Serious question. Are you also saying that you believe the current resources are more than adequate to deal with gun crime? How many more 14 year olds would be running around with guns if they could just go out and buy them? The only thing stopping the police from being overwhelmed by gun crime is licencing. It's also a moot point to use America as an example in the context that you meant. Gun crime in the states is through the roof, and I could say with confidence that if we mirrored American gun laws, our gun crime would be proportionate to theirs taking into account population size. As a responsible shooter and licence holder, I'm happy to apply for a licence if it means suppressing the supply of guns to criminals. This is a subject that requires a logical approach rather than an emotional one.

Licencing does stop criminals from acquiring guns. You really cannot dispute that. You are assuming that every criminal is a hardcore nut job who will stop at nothing to acquire a firearm and will happily pay thousands for a modern pistol. That simply isn't the case. Licencing stops opportunists in their tracks. It also prevents petty criminals from quickly climbing the ranks. The reason we don't have more gun crime is because licencing works. Imagine the criminals who are the lowest in the pecking order were able to freely obtain firearms, and not just the organised more sophisticated criminals. Would you be happy with that? I have asked the question before and I'll ask it again. Could you sleep soundly at night knowing that all firearms were freely available to absolutely everyone?

This ^^ The reason why very few people use the licencing system to acquire firearms for criminal purposes is because they know there's a very good chance that the checks done prior to issuing a licence will highlight them as being unfit to possess a firearm. This leaves them with a couple of options. Use a lesser weapon than a firearm to commit their intended crime, or spend a ludicrous amount of money to acquire a firearm on the black market. Even then it's not likely to be an all singing all dancing firearm. There's a good chance it'll be a modified blank firer, a converted Brocock or an antique. Not exactly the safest or 'coolest' options for criminals to use. This is the very reason why licencing works. It's an effective barrier that prevents criminals from easily acquiring firearms, and because the alternatives are either unsafe, antique or not financially viable, the majority of criminals just won't bother trying to get hold of a firearm in the first place.

Doesn't sound positive at all. I've just read that report and it backs up exactly what I said in my last post. It's mostly speculation. Claiming that thousands of birds die of lead poisoning but there's no proof because the bodies are never found? Are they serious? According to the report many of the birds are eaten by predatory animals. Where are the thousands of foxes that have died as a result of lead poisoning? What about the rest of the predators? They're probably hiding somewhere too. That report cannot be taken seriously at all.

The point a lot of us are trying to make is that there seems to be absolutely no hard evidence to support the eradication of lead shot. It just seems to be made up statistics and guesswork that many are taking as gospel when it clearly isn't. Where are the carcasses of the 100,000 birds that died of lead poisoning? I've never seen or heard of one never mind 100,000. Lead is a natural element that comes from the earth, whereas steel is a synthetic man made material. Have you seen the effects that rusting steel has on trees and wood? The reason for the transition is because the shooting organisations who are supposed to represent shooters have had the wool pulled over their eyes with made up figures and wishy washy reports written by ill educated environmentalists. It's a response based purely on emotion and political point scoring.

The GB steel cartridges I have come with two warnings on the box. The first is about the increased chance of ricochets, and the second states that the cartridge must not be used to shoot game past 35 yards. Not exactly a suitable alternative as Terry would have us believe. There's a long way to go to reassure shooters of the suitability of lead alternatives. Maybe there should have been a consultation with the very people who use cartridges for hunting instead of committing to a 5 year transition period with absolutely no idea how it was going to pan out.

Believe me I get it, but lets call a spade a spade here. A handgun poses more of a risk to people than a knife. If a person tried to stab you and missed, the knife wouldn't travel another 100 meters and hit an innocent bystander. As it is, I believe the banning of handguns should not have happened, but that's an entirely different debate. The thing about a knife is you need to be up close to the other person to use it. Firearms and airguns allow you to distance yourself from your target, which decreases the risk of detection and adds a certain element of anonymity to the mix. How many swans, ducks, geese, cats and dogs have been stabbed over the years? Compare this to how many have been shot with airguns. Would these crimes have been committed if the airguns used were licenced? More than likely the answer is no. I appreciate that the licencing of airguns can be an emotive subject, but as responsible shooters I feel it is our duty to protect the future of our sport by reducing the opportunity for idiots to bring it into disrepute.

With all due respect, I would say that it is you who is naive about how things work. The point I have made a couple of times seems to have gone straight over your head. If licencing didn't exist, every Tom **** and Harry would have access to guns. It is licencing that prevents firearms from falling into the hands of criminals in the first place. It is licencing that makes things difficult for criminals. If firearms were so easy to access, criminals would treat them as single use items so as not to tie particular firearms to multiple crimes. The fact is that licencing has undoubtedly stopped many crimes from being committed with firearms. How many we will never know, but you can be sure of the success of licencing. We all know someone or know of someone who you wouldn't trust with a water pistol. Now imagine that person had access to handguns etc without restriction. You cannot honestly come on these forums and tell me that you would be happy with that. You can give as many examples of failures of licencing as you want, but I'm sure the firearms branches of every police force could provide you with a longer list of people who have been refused licences for good reason.

I honestly don't think there's anything ridiculous about it. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the owners of the thousands of legally owned handguns still in circulation are complying with the conditions outlined on their certificates, particularly the condition relating to the secure storage of the firearms using approved methods. Failure to comply with these conditions can lead to revocation of your certificate. If you have your certificate revoked as a result of not complying with your certificate conditions, you are perceived to be unfit to possess firearms. The conditions are in place for a reason, and have been well thought out. What would things be like if there were no conditions? If everybody and anybody could just walk into a shop and buy a handgun or high powered rifle? Would you trust the general public to be as security concious or vigilant as someone who's certified? If firearms licencing wasn't in place, I don't think you would be arguing against its introduction. To tie this post in with the theme of the thread, if harsher punishments were in place for those who break the law, and a culture of compliance was firmly established, then maybe licencing could be made a thing of the past. But as things are, all too often the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The current laws allow criminals to act with impunity over and over again. Until that changes, the licencing system should not only remain in place, it should also be extended to airguns. Take Scotland as an example. Since licencing of airguns was introduced, airgun related incidents have dropped by nearly a third of what they were before licencing. Proof that certification does work.

Not here in NI where airguns are categorised as firearms. An offence with an airgun is equal to an offence committed with a .308 rifle according to the law. As daft as it may sound, we are not at liberty to make common sense distinctions between the two. The law is the law. As an aside, a sub 12ft/lbs rifle can be as deadly as a bullet firing firearm in certain circumstances.

You can add as many firearms as you want in one go to your certificate for £30. It isn't £30 per firearm. Certification does have an affect on the criminal use of firearms. The easier it is to access firearms, the more chance there is of firearms falling into the hands of criminals. If the need to certify firearms was suddenly removed tomorrow, would you feel safe knowing that every single one of your fellow countrymen has free and unrestricted access to firearms? Could you honestly sleep soundly if that was the case?

If we want to add an airgun to our FAC, there's a £30 charge for a variation. Whilst not extortionate I have always been of the opinion that if you hold bullet firing weapons or even shotguns on a certificate, the addition of an airgun to your certificate should be viewed as posing no additional threat to the public. No charge to add an airgun to a certificate would be great, but there is a certain amount of administration that needs to be paid for somehow. I am not advocating the use of legitimate shooters as cash cows, but there are intelligent and cost effective ways of doing things. It would be up to us and the shooting organisations to lobby the relevant authorities in order to iron out the finer details, (if ordinary shooters could get support from the organisations purporting to act on their behalf that is).

Some good points made. What I will say is that you may resent the idea of licencing for firearms and airguns, but the fact is that firearms possession in the uk is a priviledge and not a right. If the government wanted to ban gun ownership entirely, they could do so without us being able to do anything about it. For those who would have no intention of handing in their airguns or applying for a certificate, realistically there isn't much that could be done at the time. When an old gun is found in a loft, a chimney or under floorboards over here it often finds its way into the system via the police or an rfd. It will then be accounted for. Those found using airguns illegally are accountable to the relevant laws. I would have to disagree that certification doesn't work. For the legitimate shooter it is an extra hoop to jump through, but it makes owners more responsible. They cannot afford to treat their airguns or firearms with any disregard, so owners tend to take security more seriously. I would also go as far to say that certified owners/shooters put more thought into a shot before pulling the trigger.

I can see your point, but having to have airguns on a licence over here has undoubtedly stopped a lot of casual airgun purchases by unscrupulous individuals. Those who legally possess airguns are also unlikely to risk losing their certificate by participating in questionable activities or associating with dodgy individuals. The certification of airguns breeds a culture of responsibility. I'm not saying that unlicenced airgun owners aren't responsible, but we should take steps to prevent airguns from getting into the hands of those who should not have them. Licencing is a good way to do this. Criminals will always find a way to get around the law, so licencing airguns will not stop their irresponsible use by those who are determined. It will however make obtaining airguns more difficult, which in turn will reduce the amount of easily accessible airguns in circulation. As for those who would just hand them in, if they aren't willing to apply for a certificate, they probably don't have a genuine interest in shooting, or have a legitimate use or need for an airgun in the first place.

I believe the licencing of air weapons is a good thing. If every incident involving an air weapon is recorded and categorised as 'gun crime', just how much less gun crime would there be if air weapons were licenced? The statistics would be tipped a lot more in favour of genuine shooters. Every year we hear of incidents where cats, dogs, swans etc are shot with legally held air weapons, but it isn't the likes of you or I doing it. It's the local vacuous contingent who really shouldn't be allowed access to air weapons in the first place. If the level of gun crime continues to rise, there's a risk of further kneejerk reactions that could be extremely damaging to our sport.

Grisport Trekking Boots. There are a few different types and the design seems to have changed since I bought them, but I wouldn't have a problem buying another pair.

Had a pair of Grisport boots for 2 years now. Would definitely buy another pair.

Thanks for all the replies. It has given me a lot to consider. One thing that may sway my decision in favour of a Bettinsoli is that the main distributor is only up the road, and has confirmed that he will deal with any issues that may arise straight away. Spares are also very cheap and plentiful should they be needed.

I am looking to add an O/U to the cabinet and have been drawn to a few Bettinsoli models. So far this has been purely based on their appearance, though I will be hands on with them shortly to get a closer look. Looking at some of the other Bettinsoli threads on here it would appear that they get fairly mixed reviews, with the most common gripes being double discharges and the occasional stuck action. Some of the threads are 8 years old, and I am wondering whether or not Bettinsoli have got their act together since then and addressed the issues raised by their customers, or are they still producing products that suffer from the same issues? Some people have reported similar issues as late as 2018, so I am wondering if anything has changed in the last couple of years regarding the quality of the end product. One thing to mention is that the gun will be mainly used around farms and fields, with the occasional appearance at a clay ground. It would be difficult to rest a 525 or a Silver Pigeon up against a fence even if it was second hand, but at the same time I would like a gun that looks and feels half decent. I have had Baikals and Lanbers over the years, with both brands suffering the same issues of light primer strikes and failure to fire the second barrel quite regularly. Perhaps they were just bad examples of what otherwise would be very reasonable choices. Any thoughts on the Bettinsoli (or alternatives) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks all in advance

A cylinder compression test is a good way to identify loss of compression, but it won't necessarily highlight the cause of the loss of compression. You would also need to make sure you use a diesel rated compression tester/gauge, as a petrol gauge can easily fail if connected to a diesel engine. When head gaskets fail they don't always fail at the top of a cylinder. Check the oil for contamination first. If everything looks ok with the oil I would refill the coolant system and do a pressure test using a coolant pressure tester. It makes finding leaks a lot easier.

Conor you're not listening to your members

50-100,000 is a lot of birds. How does someone come up with that figure? It's all guesswork not backed up by evidence from what I can see. Scaremongering and playing right into the hands of the antis.

Just because a part comes from ebay doesn't mean it's substandard. Like the majority of car parts, vehicle manufacturers buy them from other companies and brand them as their own when reselling. Yes vehicle manufacturers can specify part tolerances and quality, but the companies who actually make the parts will most of the time be able to supply OEM equivalent parts (or genuine original parts with the vehicle manufacturers name still on the part or ground off) for considerably less than what the dealers charge. When buying pulleys there are only a couple of companies that should really be considered for light vehicle applications. The Schaeffler Group which incorporates INA is a pretty safe bet. There are plenty of times when parts are only available through the dealer network though. Honda is one of the brands that seems to keep a tight leash on certain parts. As an example a friend of mine had a 2004 Honda with less that 30,000 miles on it. The car was in exceptional condition but wasn't really worth much. It needed a NSF driveshaft that was only available through the dealer. £550+vat plus a refundable surcharge of nearly £300 repaid to him when he returned his original driveshaft. Not a single scrapyard in the country had one and online searching yielded nothing. In the end he bought the driveshaft from the dealer. I should mention that you should always buy from verified reputable companies/sellers online. There are lots of sellers who slip the words 'original' and 'genuine' into the description of their listed parts when the reality is the parts are in no way original or genuine. The parts descriptions are intentionally misleading, so you need to be careful. Hopefully your mechanic is switched on and knows to buy from a reputable source.