ChAoS

That *one* shot, maybe. All the *others*? Who can tell? (His gun buddy, perhaps.) Regards, Mark.

That's the sort of thing that I hate seeing - someone taking pot shots from too great a distance. What's different about *this* film is that he's actually included "misses". BlueBarrels: Now imagine that he'd only included the "perfect" shots. It'd look like he was *amazing*, wouldn't it? Regards, Mark.

I don't think that you understand what I meant by "editted". I don't mean "faked" but editted in the sense of not being one continuous stream. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that he can do this *every* time based upon the filming of a single event. (No matter how many times the same event is shown in slo-mo, it's still a *single* event.) Regards, Mark.

Last week-end, someone commented that my 22" barrelled Chiappa sounded loud - I never really notice the difference, myself. When I started shotgunning, a couple of times I shot with a buddy using a Mossberg 590 that had a 20" barrel with a "sqirrel-cage" on the end. Now that *did* seem loud... (But then, it wasn't *me* that was shootin' it.) Regards, Mark.

He *may* be able to do that nearly every time but you cannot make such a deduction from that video. You'd have to see un-editted video or actually *be* there to be able to make such a statement. Regards, Mark.

Stone him! *Stone* him! (I prefer the Parkerized / bluing and wood, m'self.) Regards, Mark.

Hmmmm. *Taking* photos won't be a problem but *hosting* them might be. Right now, I can't log into my ImageShack account. God knows why. (He's probably punishing me for using Android...) Regards, Mark.

Well, on *this* occaision, you are forgiven. (But don't do it *again*.) Regards, Mark.

Ith-a-ca, rah, rah, rah! You fool! You mad, impetuous *fool*! How could you *do* such a thing? By the way, I've not heard anyone mention the gun which is, perhaps, *the* slickest pump-action ever made - the Higgins M20. (Yeah, yeah, it's really a Hi-Standard.) Anyone else got one of these? Regards, Mark.

Of course, not *all* pumps eject sideways - the Ithaca M37 and Browning BPS are bottom ejectors. Even so, in *my* (very limited) experience of DTL, you're likely to get some icy stares from the DTL crowd. I have to admit that using a pump *will* break the natural "flow" if they won't allow you to load until it's your turn to shoot. It's a bit weird, really, because I reckon that the safest type of shotgun that can be held "ready but safe" is a pump (or lever-action) when loaded "cruiser ready". I have, though, found Sporting shooters *always* friendly and keen to see something "unusual". Regards, Mark.

Funny you should mention that - that's exactly what *I* do, too. (And I just thought it were a bad case of OCD...) I think the real danger with visual checks is that, through long term experience of doing this, that we see what we *expect* to see rather than what's actually *there*. This is guarded against, a little, by the fact that PSG shooters may not know *exactly* how many rounds they've fired and, thus, how many are left in the gun. (Clay shooters will nearly always be checking an empty gun.) Regards, Mark.

That's why it's important to clear the gun after you've shot a stand and use a breech-flag. When shooting a PSG stage, the end-of-stage procedure will go something like: [a] Empty gun of all ammo. Present gun, action open, so that the RO (Range Officer) can check it. [c] Shoulder gun and - still pointing down range - drop the hammer. [d] Open action. [e] Engage safety catch. [f] Put breech-flag into place. [g] Rotate gun either muzzle up or down. I still go through the full safety procedure when I've finished a stand (sans RO) every time I shoot clays. It's very quick to do although, sometimes, non-PSG shooters will wonder if I'm trying to shoot a non-existant pair of clays. I *really* dislike the "I loaded two and shot two so the gun must empty" attitude of many clay shooters. As demonstated by a shooter on a local club's practice range a couple of years ago, this type of shooter can come to grief when they load *three* rounds into their gun. (The chap lost part of his foot.) Regards, Mark.

In my area (Southampton), I've not come across a single shoot that discriminates based upon action *type*. One shoot bans S.1 guns and another bans black-powder and that's about it. I'm primarily a PSG shooter and, as a result, I'm not impressed by the gun-handling "skills" of many clay shooters. In my opinion, "it ain't the arrow, it's the Indian" applies not only to shooting skill but to gun safety, as well. Regards, Mark.

The second shot with a pump is still very quick unless it's being operated by someone who's new to manually operated shotguns. When I started shooting (using a pump), on more than one occaision I short-shucked and got a "click" when I went for the second clay but *still* managed to pump again and get it with the third "shot". Pumps aren't as slow to operate as many people think. The advantages of pumps include: cheaper (or better quality for a given price), simpler, (generally) easier to clean, more reliable, will accept a wide range of ammo, etc. As I said above, a good second-hand 870 WM would be a good choice - cheapish, reliable, smooooth (or should be). By the way, if anyone buys a *new* (or little-used) 870 Express, it will probably pay the give the chamber a bit of a polish. Regards, Mark.

I might have one or two myself... Ah, I see that you haven't quite got the hang of things. The idea is to *stockpile* 'em. I suppose that you *could* say that I'd agree with that opinion. Regards, Mark. P.S. Someone else mentioned the relative speed of shooting semis and pumps. The nice thing about my S.1 M37 is that it *slam* fires.

I only shoot pump- and lever-action shotguns. They're great fun. Short-stroking won't be a problem if you use it enough. I would advise you to get an older Remington 870 Wingmaster. They're not expensive second-hand and are as smooth as a very smooth thing. My favourite would be an Ithaca M37 but you're not likely to come across one of those. Regards, Mark.

Dunno about Emsworth but, the last I heard, Hensting Lane was sold and no longer hosts a shoot. It's a pity, that, as it was my second-favourite shoot (after the Compton Manor shoot at Romsey). Regards, Mark.

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. A chat would, no doubt, be easier than typing on this tablet... I'm not an anti but don't "kill for fun", as it were. I have shootin' buddies who do and, indeed, one of them now has my late father's Marlin M55 goose-gun because *I'd* never have a use for it. (I took it to the clay club but a three-foot barrel means that it's a bit of a handful - I had to unshoulder it before I could get through clubhouse door...) Perhaps, if you're ever down in *my* area (Southampton), we'll meet at a PW shindig. Regards, Mark. P.S. I still fink I'm right so, "nyer, nyer, nyer" to *you*. (Well, *I* thought that was funny...)

With any projectile, you don't *know* where it'll hit. Therefore, there are many different outcomes - not just "clean kill" or "complete miss". I would've thought that this was obvious. Of course not. But I don't consider myself a good enough shot with a shotgun to warrant shooting live targets. Hence, I only use a shotty for target shooting. With an air rifle, I *will* shoot quarry (ie, vermin) but only at short range where I'm pretty sure of - but not *guaranteed* - a clean kill. I've no idea about this because of my aforementioned lack of experience. Yeah, but there's (usually) a hell of a lot of them... But, as I've already pointed out, a bullets energy is going to be a lot higher resulting in a larger wound. Regards, Mark. P.S. Sorry about the split post but editting on a 'Droid tablet ain't so easy when the forum software throws a wobbly over having too many quotes. (What's wrong with loads of quotes, I wonder?) Regards, Mark.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what I thought about *your* posts. No, I don't think so. I appreciate that a farmer or someone employed in pest control may have a different take on things but, even so, I'd hope that they'd *try* to achieve clean kills. I wouldn't agree, for example, with a "gun" attempting to take "high birds" when it was obviously beyond their capability. Regards, Mark.

I have an older iShuffle and, unlike "proper" MP3 players, anything drag 'n' dropped onto it wouldn't play without running a third-party (Windoze) app that I found on the 'net. I was *not* prepared to install any more proprietry commercial junk (iTunes or whatever) onto my 'puter. It's that sort of thinking that makes me steer clear of Apple products. I'm sorry, but I can't remember what it was called and, in any case, fings have probably moved on since then. What I *do* remember was that whereas Apple's software was some huge bloatware download, the stuff I ended up using was but a few KB. (Small is nice...) Regards, Mark.

You forgot the "maim" outcome. You don't "hit or miss". You shoot - whether with firearm or bow - a *group*. Your shot will land *somewhere* in there. The idea is to make sure that can pretty much guaratee that the shot will kill cleanly. But rifles are easier to shoot accurately than bows and have much higher muzzle energy. I'd have to be pretty sure of my shootin' skills before I'd attempt that. The point is that with more projectiles comes a higher probability of a kill. I believe that if you're shooting at live targets "for fun", then you should pretty sure of a kill. Regards, Mark.

I would recommend that you peruse this site and, in particular, the latest PDF in the link. Bob's document is very informative. http://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35143 Regards, Mark.

As I've already pointed out, we only saw the hits. One wonders how many were "missed". I was questioning the ethics, not the law. Perhaps it's just as well hunting with a bow isn't allowed in the UK. Arrows don't travel as fast as bullets and, as I understand it, that can result in animals moving because they hear the noise of the bow before the arrow arrives. Perhaps someone who is knowledgable about this could comment upon this point. Regards, Mark.

We didn't get to see the "misses", though, did we? Personally, I don't think that it's good form to shoot flying quarry with a single-projectile weapon. After all, if someone asked whether it was OK to shoot small animals when his group sizes were, say, a foot across, I would've thought that answer would be, "no". Regards, Mark.