Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About timps

  • Rank

  • Birthday December 21

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • From

Recent Profile Visitors

851 profile views
  1. My guess is back in the day no one cared so people just did it. Now with accountability it’s a different matter. I know in my area if they saw your certificate once you could buy carts without ever producing it again. Then GMP had some kind of audit and issues were identified and a total review of firearms was instigated on the back of it, now everything is by the book common sense out the window and your cert is at risk if you don’t follow the rules to the letter. They did give RDF’s a massive wake up call to toe the line. This has now caught on with other areas so what was once overlooked is now not. But if you live in an area that is not as keen as others you can still be a bit more lax.
  2. The legality is clause 3 of your certificate which says. If you are selling a firearm [or shotgun] which will be sent or posted to another dealer for the buyer to collect in person you should complete this table and notify the police. The dealer who actually hands over the firearm should not complete the table or notify the police (except in circumstances which may require police investigation as above). If you have personally brokered and advertised the sale then that’s the law you and the RFD’s are breaking, if the final RFD brokers, advertises and sells the gun then no law has been broken, like auction house or sale or return. However, in the case you have outlined the gun has already been sold before the final RFD knows about it therefore you are legally obliged to follow clause 3, in law you can’t pretend you haven’t sold it and the RFD has, that is not the spirit of the above law and any judge would take a dim view of it if it was ever proven that's what you did. The sticking point for the police is proving you sold it and are now pretending the final RFD did. It is a gamble, you may or may not convince a jury that everyone is innocent, and they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction which might be very hard with your scenario indeed. However, Firearms departments can revoke a certificate or RFD without a court case and just on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, any FEO looking in depth that sees a shooter gifting an expensive gun to an RFD who immediately gifts this gun to another dealer who then gifts that gun to anther shooter in a very short period of time miles apart knows this is not how business make money or work and may revoke on the balance of probabilities if this practice continues without the need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The money going through the RFD’s books as sold is more believable but this does have tax and liability issues for the RFD’s involved. If the police then link the dots due to looking at the books and finding no commission, no profit and only transfer fees therefore deem the certificate holder brokered the sale personally then you fall foul of clause 3 again. As an individual certificate holder chance of getting caught are low, as an RFD that is continual doing it the chances are higher, however if the certificate holder has sold the gun to be collected from an RFD in law he can’t pretend he didn’t just to get around the conditions on his cert. Therefore if you actually admitted to the judge your scenario you would fall foul of the law, but the police trying to prove it might be hard without that admission.
  3. I’ve not read that book so will give it a look over that’s for sure. In response to hamster’s OP the training is along the lines of my own so I agree with what you say. The only difference is I also did a lot with pointed fingers, broom handles etc. Every day repetitively throughout the day. I’d swing left to right then right to left try and stop on a lamppost, telegraph poles etc. with both eyes open. I’d then shut my left eye and see if the sight picture moved. At first I only saw one sight picture so it was hard, then I started to see 2 sight pictures, then I could pick and choose, now I see only one again but instead of left it’s right.
  4. To be fair to the book it was written in 1984 and the reason why it was thought you could not change dominance was due to the brain being hard wired after the critical stage. If you had asked neurologists could the pathways be rewired in an adults in the late 70’s early 80’s then most would have said no due to the research of Hubel and Wiesel who even received the Nobel Prize in 1981 for their work. Ask the same question now and it is accepted due to the proven research from the likes of Michael Merzenich, Jon Kaas and Doug Rasmusson yes it can and has been done. A lot of the research has been centred around vision and dominance recently. The trouble with that forum is bring a new double choke with a sideways twist on the market and some vocal posters will tell you that it instantly gets you ten targets. However, criticise a book written in 1984 and the same poster will say you are Beelzebub’s love child and recite something abut the Boston tea party proving why all limey's are wrong😀 .
  5. It was me, I even posted about it on here first and described my method. The shotgunworld post ran into quite a lot of pages and despite the numerous scientific journals and papers published that I linked backing my claim to be true due to Neuroplasticity in adults, a book "An Insight to Sports Featuring Trapshooting and Golf " which was published (1984) was the only thing our American cousins would believe. Basically, according to them medical science and the understanding of how the brain worked stopped in 1984 when this book on Trapshooting and Golf was published and any subsequent research published by very eminent scientists means absolutely nothing.😂 Whether I trained it as a learnt dominance or if the visual cortex did indeed physically change won’t be found out on me unless you pull my eyes out and see my visual cortex. However, the research I posted on that thread and subsequent research that wasn’t available at the time proves you can change dominance by reactivating juvenile like ocular dominance plasticity in adult rats and cats. The tests proved ocular dominance plasticity in the adult visual cortex could be reactivated by wearing an eye patch / blocking off a healthy eye for a very short period and it was a true physical change to the visual cortex that could be physically measured. My post at the time was just to prove that dominance is not set for life as some people think and can be changed in adults by wearing an eye patch constantly for a few weeks / months, although I have no idea how long it would take in humans compared to rats / cats as that's not the way I did it. But the papers did state that if you could train your brain to use a particular eye then the extra use of that eye would indeed change the pathways as it was being used more. In my case I was clearly left eye dominant now I’m right eyed, the two schools of thought are a physical change to the visual cortex or subconscious learnt superimposed dominance. Both are plausible and have been proven, as to which I have isn’t going to be found out soon as I like my eyes in my head for the time being, however, if you run any of the normal dominance tests on me now then I am right eyed dominant and I don't have to think about it. It is a very interesting subject to say the least.
  6. There are a lot of things that can increase or decrease velocity the question is whether the drop is meaningful in the real world. In terms of barrel length and porting most of the meaningful acceleration is carried out in the first few inches however like you say if there is a pressure differential behind the wad then there is a force still acting on the wad therefore it continues to accelerate but at a reduced rate compared to the first few inches. If the ports are so large, they are able to dissipate all the pressure before wad reaches the end of the barrel the wad will slow due to friction. However, if the ports don’t dissipate all the pressure it will continue to accelerate but at a reduced rate depending on how much pressure is dissipated. In terms of figures Neil Winston found that in a 30-inch barrel that there was enough workable pressure to cause increase in velocity between full choke and cylinder due to Giovanni Battista Venturi’s principle:- “The average increase in the measured speed through the full choke compared to the cylinder choke is about 50 fps.” “The speed-increasing effect of choke began with the smallest constriction, 0.005 inches. As the degree of choke increased, so did the speed,” “the tighter the choke, the faster the reported speed.“ http://www.claytargettesting.com/study2/pages/study2a.html Now in the real world 50 fps difference is nothing but it does prove there can be a difference in velocity at the end of a 30” barrel due to pressure. Therefore dissipating this pressure by ports will cause a decrease in velocity, whether this is ever noticeable to the shooter is a whole other question.
  7. I did read it a bit back, I was interested in atmospheric pressure and did it effect the pattern in any noticeable way. Neil Winston did some tests on Central Thickening at altitude and the decrease in air pressure did tighten the centre of the patterns significantly. But as I doubt, I’ll be shooting at the 7000ft he used anytime soon it was just out of academic interest for me.
  8. While not exactly what you are after it does touch on fibre v’s plastic but its mainly about lead v’s non toxic so might be of some interest to you. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1382490/1/396689.pdf
  9. Having shot a DT 10 for 15 years and now a CG for 3 I’d have to disagree. Absolutely nothing wrong with the DT 10 but it doesn’t outclass (or I’d still be shooting it) and I’d doubt it would outlast my CG either but I’d have to wait another 12 years to compare what I had to have fixed on my DT 10 in that time. You are of course entitled to your opinion as am I, but people are quick to put CG down without ever living with one for sometime to know what they are like to own. I owned both for 2 1/2 years to make my decision before settling on CG.
  10. In CPSA registered shooting I’m predominantly a hedge monkey. I shoot CPSA registered sporting, FITASC (mainly in the winter), sportrap and all round. All round consisting of 25 Single Barrel DTL, 25 ABT, 25 English Skeet and 25 English Sporting is about enough of the other disciplines I can manage in one day I’ve only ever owned Browning, Beretta and CG. I can’t say I’ve been disappointed with any of them. However the importers of Browning and Beretta seem not to listen to what people want and instead tell you what should have like it or lump it. Where as with CG they do seem to listen to people’s views and try and accommodate accordingly.
  11. Its always subjective to what your personal preferences are. I personally went for a Summit Ascent, it weighs the exact same as my DT 10 at 8 pound 6oz the balance point is between the hands on both guns. The DT 10 has a slightly rearward bias and the Ascent slightly forward I think I prefer the slightly forward balance. Both guns soak up recoil nicely and handle great. The adjustable stock is streets ahead of the plastic memory system on my Beretta’s and a doddle to set up. I like the tapered raised rib of the CG ascent, I tried the full on raised rib from another model and couldn't stand it but this one sits in between and I just like it a lot, it was one of the reasons that attracted me to this gun. I seem to see more with less clutter without being too far disjointed from the gun, shooting it I actually forget it has a slight step in the rib, the same cannot be said for the full on raised rib which just freaks me out. The comb, forend and grip are all slimmer than on my DT 10 but I have never come across a DT 10 with wood work close to mine in the UK. It was a 2nd hand import from a Doctor in the USA and not too sure if it's custom or the USA have different dimensions. Either way I prefer the slimmer set up of the Summit and it doesn't feel razor slim like my 682 did compared to the DT10, sitting somewhere in between and just right for me. The trigger position is adjustable infinitesimally and the trigger pull is really good, better than my 682 gold E but not as good as the DT10. My 682 never missed a beat but then it doesn't get used much, the DT 10 has had a new locking bar, the coating on the receiver flaking and 3 separate issues with ejector timing over its 15 year life with me but never let me down for a shoot and it has shot a lot of targets in that time. The CG had a slight issue with the forend being a bit loose when hot, one phone call to CG and it was sent to them Monday and back with me on Friday fixed free of charge no problems since over its 3 year life with me. In terms of scores CPSA registered sporting comps hi score with DT 10 is 91 ex 100 and the CG 89 ex 100 so not much in it but I seem to be a lot more consistent with the CG and genuinely prefer shooting it hence why the DT 10 went. The new Beretta range didn't inspire me so I cannot comment personally on them as I have never felt itch to shoot one. As I said at the beginning it is personal preference and your experience may vary to mine. Malmo are still listed as CG dealers and that’s where mine came from brand new in 2015.
  12. I used to shoot a DT10 for quite some time and I’d never thought I’d change. I swapped to a CG Summit Ascent a couple of years back and never regretted it. I finally sold the DT10 recently as it was just gathering dust.
  13. Where would you get one of them from? The guild of international hitmen? The dark web? ahhhh.... Google... oh no they fund Bellingcat best scratch that one. How would you know they were any good, by them sending an extensive portfolio of successful hits to an anonymous client? Yep sure way of keeping it secret. No, you do as every country in the world does use your own guys, Mossad does the same thing, they were successful but identified in Dubai and what about polonium in sushi bar they got away with that one. As for being a massive failure Novichok was undetectable by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Central Analytical Database until sometime in 2016, the Russians were obviously caught by surprise on our capability and treating of it and detecting it. If the Skripal’s had gone inside and not come out they would have died and there would have been just a coroner’s inquest which would be just an unexplained death no need to hide from CCTV or the like… Well that was the plan …. Not the first time this there has been an unexplained death of a Russian on UK soil... Just this one was exposed because the Skripal’s went out again. Well there is my conspiracy theory on it, I might starting writing for the independent as it's as good as any I have read so far...😉
  14. I personally think the independent article is terrible, a lot of words that doesn’t say or prove anything. This is a classic piece of narrative over any fact. Pretty much all of the questions she asks have answers or are so irrelevant that its untrue. The statement “But no UK court would convict them of even attempted killing on the “evidence” that has so far been produced.” That is the case in every instance in the UK, we don’t have trial by media, the police never release all of the evidence before a trial to the media. All they release is the evidence they need to help identify persons of interest which is what they did. That in itself explains the majority of her questions of plot holes on available evidence. I agree with her on Bellingcat funding though and I quote “ That need not cast doubt on its findings.” So at least on that we agree. I also probably agree on the intelligence services giving Bellingcat a hand, every news agency in the world has a source. Think of Deep Throat and Watergate, does this mean Nixon really wasn’t a crook due to the push in the right direction from a source. Easiest way to sort this is put the 2 tourist and the 2 doppelgangers in a room on TV at the same time, using the logic in the independent article means because this hasn’t happened means they are guilty due to lack of credibility of not succumbing to the media circus.
  15. And yet again how does this membership prove he falsified evidence, not impartial? I have been on a few advisory panels in construction to give an opposing/independent view, it didn’t mean I agreed with the panels views or aims or that my advice was ever taken. You do realise you live in a NATO country so by your logic you are also not impartial and anti-Russian? Impartial and independent proof and percentage of all Bellingcat articles that are anti-Russian please? You see were I am going with this, you require proof to counter your view but none to support it. Yes I am ok with his fact finding, like I have said before facts are the same the narrative is not. If a left wing anti-monarchist media outlet said Princesses Diana was dead do I not believe them because of their agenda, is she still alive because they are not impartial? Now if the narrative is Prince Charles or the Queen ordered the hit then yes I require a bit more proof but the fact Diana is dead does not. Are you ok with the official story given of two gay Russian tourists going to look at a church, who are really rubbish at booking return flights and they have doppelgangers in the GRU? That’s my point really, the official Russian story did not add up, so people looked into it and found out why. If the Russians hadn’t tried to hysterically cover it up maybe I wouldn’t be so believing of Bellingcat but the stupid official Russian cover up spoke volumes. They had something to hide. Ahhhh I see completely made up by the BBC and debunked by you in seconds with no proof or fact checking on your part. You do realise they edit and film stories for dramatic effect there will be a lot more boring background research to that piece not caught on camera and the last bit will be staged for film.
  • Create New...