timps

Now all sold

Teague Beretta Optima flush fitting chokes for sale, used in my DT10, AL391 and 682 Gold E. 2 X Teague flush - 3/8 UK (light modified US) - £20 each inc P&P (not Optima plus or HP Optima) 1 sold 1 still available

From my memory the 85 to 88 were very similar producing 60 + hp with a ridiculous low end power designed by beelzebub to send you straight to hell. Then from 89 to its end they redesigned the head and exhaust to lower compression which was supposed to aid starting and make it more user friendly. I think that produced about the 55 ish hp. I know plenty that raced the 86 put two base gaskets on to help starting and tame it. The jetting was off from standard as Honda jetted it rich on the 86 to aid starting as well. I don’t miss trying to kick the thing up that’s for sure but I did miss racing it. The later models behaved like an 86 with to gaskets on so I always wondered if Honda had listened to the complaints.

I Raced an 86 CR 500 for 2 years, the kickstarter ate through a pair of Axo boots in 2 months. I look forward to the next instalment

He will have had the chance but the disqualification itself is handled by shoot management of the ground or the jury appointed by them not the NSCA. According to the rules :- “Shoot management may disqualify or expel a member when a complaint has been filed in writing and after giving both parties (the party filing the complaint and the party complained of) an opportunity to be heard prior to disqualification or expulsion.” Obviously by the fact he has now been disqualified he has had the chance to appeal so either his appeal against disqualification failed or he never lodged an appeal against the disqualification with shoot management. As to which it is we wont find that out until after the NSCA appeal is heard.

According to the NSCA "Northbrook has rerun the shoot results, and the current posted results are the final official results." Therefore based on the above statement he cannot appeal the disqualification and that stands. The NSCA have then looked at the evidence and the NSCA Executive Director, have reached a decision if any additional disciplinary action should be taken, this additional disciplinary action is what is being appealed not the disqualification from the shoot. It would be an interesting turn of events if at the meeting of the NSSA Officers they come to a different decision to Northbrook and the NSCA Executive Director seeing as they have stated the results with him removed are final, but at this moment in time he is not innocent he is disqualified from the shoot and the current NSCA disciplinary action is in effect until the appeal is heard. Regarding his sponsors I see he is absent from the list of shooters on their respective web pages when before the incident he was listed.

Just an update for those who are following this. From the NSCA Facebook page: ”EDITED: The disciplinary case from the World English Sporting Championship is under appeal. It is NSCA policy not to discuss the details of any disciplinary matter, but we can explain the process being followed, which is dictated by the NSCA Rule Book, Section IV “Rules of Conduct,” starting on page 11. This prescribes how rule violations are to be addressed and how disciplinary actions are undertaken. http://nsca.nssa-nsca.org/rule-book/ Following notification of an appeal, according to rule IV-E-1, “… the NSSA Officers shall hold a hearing on the matter, which will take place at the next regularly scheduled quarterly meeting of the NSSA Officers.” This meeting will take place on January 16, so the case will remain on appeal until that time. The decisions of the NSCA Executive Council will remain in effect during the appeal process. Following the meeting, NSCA will make a final statement on this case. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we follow our established process.”

you can read the full judgement or listen to countless Boris interviews where he said it wasn't about Brexit. Like I said the decision of the court was not about Brexit, he took a gamble on procedure they have not said he lied but left the two choices up to parliament to decided. this is not a remainer rant just a reckless prime minister rant, it was a gamble that lost my respect not that any of them have my respect now.

Yes it does, what was said and how it was done is not in any dispute by either side, there are procedural records. The reasons given were not Brexit related however the court deemed they had an impact. So this was Borris either lying to the Queen for his own political gain or he just was incompetent and didn't mean it to happen. Therefore Brexit related means lying and non Brexit related means not thinking of the ramifications, by your stance of it being Brexit related you believed he lied.

With that stance then you have a prime minister that actively lied to the Queen proven in a court of law.

I don’t think he has, it’s nothing to do with remain or leave it is to do with Boris was found out by the supreme court to have acted unlawfully as either constitutionally feckless or lying to the Queen for his own political gain, the supreme court doesn’t say which but neither is good. If he leaves without a deal then that’s court case number 2 because of the Ben act, he is going to face so much political pressure if he tries to break the law twice now. God knows what happens next but he is in a worse position now that’s for sure, trying to ignore the Ben the act is so much harder now.

The thing is if Boris says that the supreme court is trying to frustrate Brexit by the ruling then he has admitted that he lied about the reason and therefore the supreme court was right. If he stands by his original stance that the prorogation was for convenience and the Queen’s speech and nothing to do with Brexit then the supreme courts decision doesn’t affect Brexit in anyway. He cannot have it both ways, we cannot have a prime minister that doesn’t agree with the rule of law however unsavoury it may be to him, the prime minster (senior law maker) stating he doesn’t agree with the supreme court means we can do the same should we ever find ourselves in court. Not a good stance from our political leader regardless of your stance on Brexit, his advise not to give evidence to the supreme court was so wrong, they had no sworn evidence to prove his assertions.

Nope the European Court of Human Rights or the Court of Justice of the European Union cannot overrule the UK Supreme court. What actually happens is any cases that are directly applicable European Union law are referred by the UKSC to the Court of Justice of the European Union and not heard by them.

Well we will find out more sometime around October the 10th. The NSCA posted on their website :- “On September 12, the NSCA was notified by Northbrook Sports Club that it has disqualified one of the shooters at the 2019 World English Sporting Championship. Northbrook has rerun the shoot results, and the current posted results are the final official results. Following an investigation of the disqualification to determine if any additional disciplinary action should be taken, the NSCA Executive Council, along with the NSCA Executive Director, have reached a decision. The NSCA EC and Executive Director feel that their decision is appropriate, given all evidence. The decision will be disclosed once all interested parties have been notified and the appeal process expires 21 days thereafter.” Until then no official comment will be released.

I think the ground have jurisdiction on running the shoot they will have a jury in place and if they decide to disqualify then that is final, the NSCA are not going to overturn the DQ. However the NSCA may feel further sanctions are needed or just leave it at the DQ for that one shoot depends on how bad they think it was I guess. What Mr.clays alleged was a very ingenious way of getting the master card to match the altered travelling card. But how true his assertions are or if they can ever be proved I doubt we will ever find out. I also doubt the NSCA will go into the gory details, however just my opinion on this would be. NSCA no further sanctions = “bending the rules” NSCA long ban = maybe Mr.clays was telling the truth

For a bit of background information a chap called Mr.clays on shotgun world has been quite vocal about all of this including bringing it to the attention of the relevant authorities. Most of his posts and the biggest thread on it have been deleted, mainly because there where those that thought due process should be followed rather than Mr.clays being judge jury and executioner on an internet forum and were equally as vocal. The video in question was not the sole reason of Mr.clays allegations, he did post up and I believe it is still there a picture of the travelling card for the shooter in question (you need to be a forum member to view it), which for some reason was written in pencil. The card in my opinion (yours may vary) appears to be change on what looks like 4 different stands. The question that isn’t answered is who made the changes and for what reason, ref altering a genuine mistake, ref bullied into it or just plain shooter decides to alter his score. Obviously this is where due process comes in, the ground has made the decision to disqualify, the NSCA are now reviewing the submitted evidence and might even come to a different decision and that’s where we are at.

I don’t doubt it Hamster, it’s why I have said we are all different, and there is no one cure for every instance, the paper linked quite clearly states that Stimulus selective response potentiation for one eye was seen in some rather than in all cases. However the research seems to state that while everyday pointing or suchlike you will be left eye dominant but with the stimulus you have trained with (gun or bright bead) you will be right eye dominant and the neurons that transmit this stimulation will have been upgraded but not necessarily any other of the neurons making you only dominant to the intended stimulus. I am in no way inferring you have changed dominance or been upgraded only that it certainly can be done in some instances and it gets quite heavy on the details so I have never bothered reading further.

There has been a lot of rubbish written about eye dominance, I spent a fair while sifting through it and posted most of the relevant scientific papers (not old wife’s tales) on a very long thread on shotgun world a few years back, not that it did any good. True eye dominance is governed by the neural pathways and the visual cortex, this was the sticking point until a few years ago as it was thought eye dominance was set for life once adulthood was reached. Subsequent research, however, proves ocular dominance plasticity exists in adults so dominance can be trained or shift natural either by trauma or stimulation. The ocular dominance of binocular neurons in the visual cortex is actively maintained by competition between synapses serving the two eyes. The dominant eye has in layman’s terms a fibre-optic connection while the non-dominant eye has dial up. The brains default setting is to pick the faster connection and fill in the missing bits (things the dominant eye cannot see) with the dial up connection. Simplistic way to alter dominance was to deprive the dominant eye for a while by use of an eye patch or occluding the eye and the brain would rewire the dial up connection to fibre-optic. The same process can happen through age if the dominant eye is not giving the visual information the brain requires, it rewires fibre-optic to the other eye to compensate. However, with Stimulus selective response potentiation:- (Perceptual learning, resulting in improved perception through repeated sensory experience, occurs in adults as well as children. This broad category of learning is characterised by an exquisite selectivity for the experienced stimulus.) The thinking has changed a bit, the above is how brain training works, how the D Rail, easy hit work and can explain dominance shift in some adults. Basically, it has been noted in some instances, gains in perception can be restricted to the eye through which the stimulus has been viewed. If only one eye can see the sight then it alters the pathways to see that sight quicker even in a non-dominant eye, bearing that in mind it also sees the rib and clay through that eye making it the dominant eye should that stimulus come into view (i.e. as you mount the gun). Obviously, there is a case as in my instance where dominance switches due to eye condition. For me one eye sees close for reading and one sees distance, my brain switches to my right eye due to Stimulus selective response potentiation and training so the right eye always sees the rib, the brain then does the rest with the left eye to see the clay. If I wear prescription glasses which has a distance lens in my right eye then all is carried out by the right eye. This is one of the reason there is no one cure for every instance we are all different. There are a lot more papers on it but a bit of light reading here😁. It shows that there is clear evidence that Hebbian plasticity may underlie adult perceptual learning so dominance shift and dominance training can and does happen. Last time I posted about this in this detail on shotgun world it caused 10 pages of dominance can never change posts 🤣 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019003 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2013.0284 https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/26/11/2951.full.pdf

With extremely heavy chokes I can and did notice the difference. My Browning B425 ultra xs had extended Midas chokes which seemed to be made out of the heaviest substance known to man combined with the heavy barrels made it very noticeable. Without them in the gun felt much better, with them in it felt like a pig on a shovel. So I bought some lighter and ported to reduce even more weight extended chokes, the gun did feel better, however, I got to despise ported chokes with a passion even though the gun felt better. With my DT10 I never noticed the difference between Standard, Muller or flush Teague so just put it down to the ridiculously heavy Midas chokes.

My guess is he got his wires crossed, the law did change in 2017 on needing authorisation in writing from land owner/ lease holder to lend a non licence owner a gun even if the said owner was present it still has to be in writing. However using your own gun is not mentioned in that bit of legislation so non needed if you have a shotgun certificate. A little knowledge is dangerous 2+2=7 springs to mind.

Still doesn’t alter the fact you need specific written permission from the farmer to lend your gun to others. Unless you are in a position to tell the farmer who can and cannot shoot on his land.

Without written permission from the farmer stating you can lend your gun to others and you fall foul of the above act. Verbal permission is not allowed under the act it quite clearly states it.

Just to clarify the exact wording of the act is :- The first condition is that the borrowing and possession of the rifle or shot gun are for either or both of the following purposes— (a) hunting animals or shooting game or vermin; (b) shooting at artificial targets. (3) The second condition is that the lender— (a) is aged 18 or over, (b) holds a certificate under this Act in respect of the rifle or shot gun, and (c) is either— (i) a person who has a right to allow others to enter the premises for the purposes of hunting animals or shooting game or vermin, or (ii) a person who is authorised in writing by a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) to lend the rifle or shot gun on the premises (whether generally or to persons specified in the authorisation who include the borrower). (4) So on a farm you either have to be in a position to control who does or doesn’t enter the premises for shooting or have written authority from the person that does have that authority stating you can lend your gun to others either directly named or anyone in general . Permission to shoot even if you are the only one allowed is none of the above.

The original amendment was in Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: Then subsequently The Firearms Rules 1998 So it’s been worded like that since 1998. In regards to the police turning a blind eye many probably did however after several audits and check up on procedures that is not the case in many areas now with RFD’s being threatened with revocation.

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.