Evilv

I saw a Jamie Oliver programme a few months ago. He and his Italian mate went out lamping and they showed them shooting at rabbits. I didn't see any hit, but after Jamie had a few shots (which missed) the next scene showed him carrying some rabbits back to the pickup. Anyway - they cut away to him cooking them and he went on in his usual way about them being totally organic and healthy food - and delicious of course. He did some fried rabbit joints if I remember rightly. Looked OK - like fried chicken. It's quite true that all over the Mediterranean rabbit is an expensive delicacy. I hate the number I am wasting at the moment. Nobody wants them much around here - least ways, not in the numbers I can get just now.

Ah, but that's why we are now ruled by left wing fascists and thieves. If we vote, we can get in better people. It may be true that some are not much better than others, but a bit better is an improvement as far as I am concerned.

Having just read some of the above, I now realise that there is a code involved and that I haven't got the necessary cypher to work it all out. Perhaps I should inform MI5 that there are nefarious messages being passed by people who are in possession of firearms and probably also of dangerous attitudes. I wonder, will those 118 people have the number?

... but only Labour want your guns. Can't imagine Conservatives banning guns. Too many of them and their constituents have them and want to keep on having them. Dave Cameron may be a t**ser, but he knows who votes for him. Now Axe will be after me again for swearing. The word was toaster, but I forgot the 't', honestly.

I used to do sighting in against a thick dry stone wall on one of my permissions. I stopped because it smashed the stones up pretty badly so that I had to rectify them. It;s a small low velocity caliber but it hits pretty hard. On American websites I have often seen the remark that more people have been killed by .22lr than any other caliber.... I am not sure if it is true, since military weapons must surely take that cup, but none the less the .22LR has killed a great many people in the States, one way and another. Because of the danger of ricochet and the substantial lump of lead that whizzes off into the distance when it happens making that horrible whine, I use the HMR for safety reasons mainly. I have never yet had a ricochet with that round, whereas the .22LR did it all the time when the ground was dry. It would also penetrate deep into a soil bank and leave a big old chunk of mushroomed lead buried in there. Stinger bullets dug out of an earth bank behind target -> Mobile phone picture of how far the stingers penetrated under the turf behind the target when shot at sixty yards -> They went in about 14 inches when five were fired at the same target. Obviously, this will depend on the density of the soil and how far other bullets went before the last was fired in, but I wouldn't like to be shot with a stinger, that's for sure.

It's just more left wing fanaticism from New Labour. Just make sure they don't ever get elected again by becoming politically active. I am sure there are New Labour people at this very moment wondering how they can ingratiate themselves into another term by plotting to outlaw all gun possession. Having said that, my car gets 68 mpg on the motorway even at naughty speeds.

I don't think it could ever have been legal in recent times to carry a luger in your back pocket while in a public place. Even to have a firearm in a public place cased and secure, you need to have a good reason, like you are on your way to the club. I'm not sure that going for a sandwich would qualify. Taking it to a gunsmith for an opinion, or transporting it back home from having just bought it would - as long as it was cased and secure. When I recently bought my HMR the seller handed me the winchester in its cardboard box which could be opened in about a second and a half. I asked him to tape up the box since I had a 180 mile drive to take it home. Then I put it in the boot and covered it up. I am sure that the requirement when having a firearm in a public place to have it secured in a case (or box if you just bought it ?) goes back at least to my first owning a shotgun in 1975. Where I shoot in some pretty remote countryside with tiny 10 foot wide roads, the farmers have a very lax approach to this 'secure' business. They think it amusing I when I cross an 8 foot road with grass growing up the middle from one field to another, that I unload and case my rifles, walk over the road (about three seconds, and take them out on the other side and load up again. Like many of us, I am sure I have seen shooters wandering about remote roads with their shotguns in plain view and open. Still doesn't make it legal though.

LOL - it may have escaped your notice that we are entitled to our opinions too. Don't feel you need to leave - it was merely a one line and quite polite observation. EDIT: I felt that some of the feedback to Radioham1's information about his new rounds was particularly negative and I wasn't the only one. Granted, his testing methods needed some refinement, but that can be suggested politely without scathing remarks and then yawns at someone who tried to point that out. Anyway - it doesn't really matter. I'm sure no one will lose any sleep over it. We can all act impetuously at times and bark out some harsh put down.

Please please please tell me these were not free standing shots and you were actually resting on a bag/coat/sticks/tree/wall/fence or something when you used to do this? hi yes when was using the enfield i was lying down I used to have an old Mark 4 enfield back in the mid eighties. It was a good laugh and cheap to shoot as there was tons of old 1950s military surplus ammo. I don't know where it came from but at the time it was 5 p a shot when .22LR was 2p at the time. It was probably as cheap then as firing an HMR is now, which is very cheap for a full bore rifle. I liked the way that thing shot, and the recoil was light too. I mean, you knew it was a full bore rifle, but it didn't give you a head ache or encourage you to flinch. Even with the standard peep sight, you could get a respectable hundred yard group around 2 inches.

Those last two are really mature replies, aren't they. Schoolyard bully stuff that is. I think Radioham1 uses cast lead bullets. He was talking about them a while back as I recall. I'm quite surprised that you can do that in a centrefire rifle, even loaded down. When he gets the right conditions to test them properly, I'll be interested in how small the groups will go. Anything that makes a rifle cheap enough to bang away with without wincing at the cost sounds good to me. As for not wanting to lie down in flooded fields, I quite understand that. I was sighting in a few weeks ago in a field with a lot of water on it. Ruined my day I can tell you. You might say I should have done it somewhere else, yeah, but I needed a place far away from the farm house (noise) and one which had a hundred yard flat stretch that was pointing into the wind with a decent bank behind it. Kind of limits your choices at times. Keep us posted Radioham1. I want to know how these cartridges of yours work when you can test them right - prone, rested at the fore-end and at the butt, without wind. By the way, you can print out targets you can get from here if you have a printer with that computer. I clip them onto an old school 'project ring binder' file with clothes pegs. The stiff card of the plastic covered file keeps the target print out still and if it is up against a dry stone wall, like many of my testing backstops are, it stops the target being ripped to smitherines by shrapnel from the sand stone wall. You can also hang them from a barbed wire fence if there is a bank behind the target. I just run a bootlace through the top clothes pegs and can arrange them how I like. Target Links

Went out again with the HMR. I had more than twice this many, but brought these home for people who want to eat them.

I think you got it there. It is quite possible that an unaccustomed recoil and loud report could introduce a flinch to someone's style. More likely the group size is caused by offhand shooting. People at older ages are also less stable than they were in their prime. I'm 57 and I am sure I am less rock steady off hand than I was thirty years ago. I just do less off hand shooting or restrict the range of it. You adapt your style, as you do in windy conditions.

That's what I thought too. Radioham1 clearly said he was standing up and taking pot shots at his card so I'd be inclined to say fair play to you, but you'll get a much better idea of your ammo's performance if you lie down and support the rifle front and back so you take your own foibles out of the equation. Enjoy your rifle and try it prone Radioham1. Send us some more pictures when you shoot it in ideal conditions, supported front and back. Personally I am very reluctant to shoot off hand at a rabbit at more than about sixty yards or so. I find all the dry stone walls around my shooting a great help. I can sneak up behind the walls without getting on hands and knees, and I can rest on the tops of them and shoot out to quite long ranges with the HMR. Even then, I need to wedge my body to stop it swaying. Perhaps I should restrict myself to five pints of beer before practicing.

Thanks Charlie. I have a passion about letting people take responsibility for their actions. There are two ways of looking at this, or maybe three. At one extreme you operate a system like in the USA where you start from the assumption that people are free and should be allowed to act as adults, taking responsibility for their actions and taking the consequences for their failures if and when they occur. At the other end, we have the Post-War British model which assumes by default that the British are a fools, hooligans, or maniacs who can not be trusted unless and until they have jumped through so many hoops that only the most determined can sustain the interest. I have no problem with a light touch system which asks applicants to show good reason and that they are trustworthy, but after that, I see no reason at all why policemen, worthy souls as they may be, should decide whether Mr Smith or Jones should have a .223 as well as a .270 rifle. Why? Once he has been granted a .270, is it likely that Mr Smith will run amok with his .223? Why should Dixon of Dock Green haggle him down to two rifles when he asks for a .22LR, a 17HMR and a .223? If he is going to make a menace of himself, the .222 will do the job very nicely, so why knock back the .17? We in the UK have been taken over by left wing 'nannyism' and its appeasers - people from within the shooting community who actively conspire with people who want to restrict their lawful activity. In this very thread we have a shooter advocating FURTHER restriction than our already draconian laws allow. For myself, I don't want to give any more power at all to enforcement agencies who will further restrict access of adult people to what are currently lawful shooting activities. Some of these appeasers are no doubt well meaning. They think that in the face of left wing animal rights fanatics and anti-gun freaks, they should show how willing they are to be more draconian even than the law is now. It is a profound mistake. What they should do is to loudly proclaim their rights to act as free people, to shoot on private land, to hunt, to shoot targets and they should attack the fanatics who oppose them by pointing out that their restriction of freedom is nothing more than left wing fascism - something to be opposed and rejected by all free, right thinking people. We have lost confidence in that in this country and turned ourselves into cowering surfs.

If the child dies, the father should be charged with involuntary manslaughter: "Involuntary Manslaughter This arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation." The same charge has been layed at the feet of shooters who discharged firearms in a grossly negligent manner causing death. Take for example the case Philip Rowe aged 51, shot his stepson while out lamping. Times article re lamping fatality If the child survives which we all hope for no doubt, the father should be charged with malicious wounding like the Northern Irish farmer who shot at a crow in his field with a .22 firing towards a nearby school and seriously wounded a five year old child in the head. Farmer shoots boy in schoolyard

That's why we supply character references and our medical history. The person giving a reference has to be a person of good standing, and to have known the applicant over a period of years so that they are in a position to vouch for their maturity, safety with firearms, their social adjustment and to say that they know of no good reason why the police may need to have concern about them being trusted with firearms. Likewise when they approach your doctor to find out whether you have consulted them about psychological, emotional problems, drug dependence or alcohol abuse. They already know whether you have ever appeared in court, and should on the basis of these sources of information be able to weigh up the balance of probabilities that you will walk out with your .223 and cause a major incident, shoot your boss, or discharge it carelessly in the direction of the local village. The firearms acts, tight and restrictive as they are require no period of tuition, only that the police satisfy themselves that the candidate for a certificate has a good reason to acquire the firearms requested, and may be allowed to possess and use them without threat to the public or the peace. These are opinions and nothing more. I happen to agree with the last one, but it does not form any part of UK law. As for the former point about danger, I have already covered that and as an indication that further legislation is required, perhaps you can detail the serious accidents and incidents that show further restrictions should be brought into play. The man who left a loaded air gun with his infant children at the weekend had been vetted or vouched for by nobody at all since the type of gun involved is on open sale to anyone over seventeen years old. We were discussing centre fire rifles not pop guns. Exactly how many people have been shot or injured by sports and pest control shooters using centre fire rifles? There have been a handful or less of tragic incidents over the last five years that I am aware of, mostly from lamping which is an inherently dangerous activity, though I do not deny that some experts may carry it out well. It of necessity involves shooting in the dark with restricted vision. But even so, contrast the safety record of shooting with the tens of thousands who are maimed on the roads each year and the almost four thousand who die. As an indication of the risks involved in shooting as it is, I get £10,000,000 third party liability and membership of an organisation from the Gamekeepers Organisation for £30, but even with a forty year no claim driving record, pay vastly more for car insurance. On these grounds and because it is an attack on liberty, I utterly reject your suggestion that shooters should be further restricted. We already have far too many pettifogging restrictions and should trust the good sense of the already heavily vetted firearms certificate holders of this country who are in the vast majority of cases, mature, careful and scrupulous in the use of their firearms. By the way, pathetic 'rolleyes' icons do not qualify as an argument in any adult discourse, so I recommend that you and the Mod, Axe, desist from their use and supply evidence of why a poster may need to reconsider his views in future, rather than expressing contempt in such a manner.

and my two penny worth...if no experience then a mentor should be an absolute requirement (by law if necessary) as no FAO can catagorically say a person is reasonably competent (Dunblane springs to mind) and IMO no one should be allowed an FAC without first getting experience and NOT on live quarry. It can be useful if different FAOs have different views and interpret things differently but it's also b***** confusing for us mere mortals. Mind you BN I think you're a bit confused about open/semi-open tickets as they're either open or not otherwise the land has to be cleared by an FAO BEFORE being shot over. I completely disagree with you I'm afraid. Hamilton the Dunblane killer had held firearms for years so he was experienced. Using his horrible shooting spree as a means of controlling the rest of us till further is quite frankly a stupid argument for a shooter to bring up. I cant imagine why you would want to do that. On of the biggest faults of this country is the tendency to look at the action of some negligent or criminal and then say - 'Oh look. That's what these kind of people do. We need to control everybody just in case they turn out like them.' The whole relationship between the individual and the state is the wrong way around. The presumption should be that men and women are free and not that they must be controlled. The problem here is that negligent and criminal fools will always be a menace, but MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT NEGLIGENT FOOLS OR CRIMINALS. MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT EVEN JUST STUPID. That is why grown ups should by and large be able to acquire firearms if they like and should be told to use them sensibly. I'm in favour of control of firearms this far and no further, that shooters should be obliged to show themselves to be sane adults of good character and not of subnormal intelligence. Such people are all capable of handling firearms properly and of behaving responsibly. Why should such a person be obliged by narrow minded suspicious fools to have a mentor? It's rubbish and a dangerous trend that shooters should be resisting and not advocating. This country is far too restricted anyway. Has it helped? I don't think so. Always remember that it is criminals, fools and the immature that cause problems with firearms and not the rest of us. What are you waffling on about. If you can't read and understand it, then I can't help you.

I was once standing next to a shotgun that did something like that. The barrel was obstructed and the guy fired it. It was a bit disturbing I have to say, looking at the bent strips of steel that might so easily have taken my head off. I was only about three or four feet away from it at a rifle range where the owner was firing solid slugs. I guess that one in the picture isn't a rimmy though. Looks like there was a fair bit of violence released there.

and my two penny worth...if no experience then a mentor should be an absolute requirement (by law if necessary) as no FAO can catagorically say a person is reasonably competent (Dunblane springs to mind) and IMO no one should be allowed an FAC without first getting experience and NOT on live quarry. It can be useful if different FAOs have different views and interpret things differently but it's also b***** confusing for us mere mortals. Mind you BN I think you're a bit confused about open/semi-open tickets as they're either open or not otherwise the land has to be cleared by an FAO BEFORE being shot over. I completely disagree with you I'm afraid. Hamilton the Dunblane killer had held firearms for years so he was experienced. Using his horrible shooting spree as a means of controlling the rest of us till further is quite frankly a stupid argument for a shooter to bring up. I cant imagine why you would want to do that. On of the biggest faults of this country is the tendency to look at the action of some negligent or criminal and then say - 'Oh look. That's what these kind of people do. We need to control everybody just in case they turn out like them.' The whole relationship between the individual and the state is the wrong way around. The presumption should be that men and women are free and not that they must be controlled. The problem here is that negligent and criminal fools will always be a menace, but MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT NEGLIGENT FOOLS OR CRIMINALS. MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT EVEN JUST STUPID. That is why grown ups should by and large be able to acquire firearms if they like and should be told to use them sensibly. I'm in favour of control of firearms this far and no further, that shooters should be obliged to show themselves to be sane adults of good character and not of subnormal intelligence. Such people are all capable of handling firearms properly and of behaving responsibly. Why should such a person be obliged by narrow minded suspicious fools to have a mentor? It's rubbish and a dangerous trend that shooters should be resisting and not advocating. This country is far too restricted anyway. Has it helped? I don't think so. Always remember that it is criminals, fools and the immature that cause problems with firearms and not the rest of us.

Thanks for the link. I saw the end of the programme, but not the beginning. Juts watching the section on wolves - outstanding TV. I must remember next time there's a scrap between a German Shepherd and a Rottweiler, just to stick my head in between them like the wolf man did.

You are right about the meat damage, but at the moment I am having a lot of fun shooting hundred yard rabbits with no holdover and the odd 150 yard one with the smallest touch of hold over. I literally just have to raise the cross a tad and they fall over dead. The essential thing is not to allow the bullet to pass through the animal's gut or it is full of **** from end to end. 22WMR does the same thing as I recall from when I had one of those, but the HMR is a more accurate round at the same kind of price. No problem about derailing - these are conversations not lectures as far as I am concerned.

I sympathise with your wondering about it, but really, what are the chances that any policeman would be in the least bit interested in exactly what the ammo was once you'd waved your ticket at him? I think that unless shooters have done something really stupid or outright criminal, the cops don't start going through their cupboards with a fine toothed comb. I remember once years ago when I was about 24 sitting outside my mates house at 4 am in the van with a shotgun in the back and waiting for the lazy b***ger to get up and bring his gear out. Cop car drew up alongside and asked me what I was doing there at such a time. 'Waiting for my mate to go shooting,' says I. Cop asks if he can look in the back, I open the door and he looks in, eyes the cased gun and says, 'Got a license for that have you?' 'Yes, I do have one, but it's at home', says I. 'OK that's fine sir. Thanks and sorry to have bothered you.' With only one exception, my dealings with the police have shown them to be pretty hands off with this kind of stuff. As long as when you open your mouth you don't sound like you just stepped out of the caravan, they are not bothered - up here at least. I do take care to remain within the law mind you, as I am sure we all do. Evilv , The reason that i mentioned about having 30-06 cartridges necked down to .270 ,was that like yourself i was stopped by two policemen at 4 00am as i was about to go into a wood to shoot deer ,and like yourself i was treated with respect after i had exlplained to them what i was about to do . I had my ticket with me and it saved me a lot of hassel . One of the cops said that if i had not had my ticket with me he would have had to impound my rifle and ammo . If he had picked up that the head stamp on the cartridges did not match the rifle calibre if he had impounded the rifle and ammo i would have had some more explaining to do . Harnser . Thanks for your explanation Harnser. Of course what you describe there just shows what I was saying - when the cops speak to a guy with a gun going about his lawful business, they don't strip him to his underpants and search his body cavities fro illegal ammunition. They check he looks OK, ask him a couple of questions to verify that he isn't a poacher or a ***** tow rag and they leave him be. I'd take severe exception to anything other than that. I'm not denying anything you have said, but the fact is that in law in this country a man is free to act lawfully and should be left alone unless the police have reasonable suspicion that he has committed an offence. If they mess with you on unreasonable grounds, they are in bother. Now I'm sure there is the odd officious and arrogant fool wearing a police uniform, but this is generally not the case. They have a polite word and check you are OK. I don't think that the law shows any requirement to even be in possession of your ticket while out shooting. If the cops had any suspicions about you, they could easily resolve them by phoning the occupier of the land who could no doubt vouch for you being there. I am also certain that they can radio into their HQ and have somebody check the police database about who has firearms. Presumably, we would have something that confirmed our ID on us. Having said all that, I do generally take my ticket with me.

Oh I know what you're up against. One of my farms has a really bad problem. The walls are undermined and you can break through the surface in the fields as you walk around because they are so burrowed out. It still can get a bit sickening though after about forty. Then there's the heaps of corpses to bury. He started complaining about the smell when I left them lying about. It did stink mind. On the other hand I remember how scarce rabbits were up here when I started shooting in the mid nineteen seventies. I thought I had a hell of a bag back then if I got three. Now they are everywhere. On another farm there's a hell of a lot, but it is a smallish patch of about twelve acres alongside a main road and about 500 yards from a village. I'm scared stiff trying to shoot there in case of a bullet bouncing over the embankment or whatever. There are a few safe shooting lines, but most of the field has to be left alone because of safety issues, so there I am with five rabbits in sight and not a one I dare fire at. The crafty beggars sit too far out for the air rifle as well and I could use that if they would let me get a wee bit closer. Of course, they aren't going to do that. Maybe I should make a hide and get myself into it before they come out and see me. As it is, I sit in the car on a farm track. I know HMR doesn't bounce much, but I'm scared sh*****s about what could happen if it did. The road is about twelve feet up an embankment and behind a wood, but I'm not about to risk it. Meanwhile the farmer is twisting my arm about exterminating them.

When I was shooting my air rifle the Webley Axsor seemed to love accupels. They just hit the same spot over and over and over again. I should sell that outfit since it isn't in use any more, but it really was a great combination. Actually, one of my farmers wanted me to shoot rabbits in his garden last time I went. I was reluctant to use the HMR around his house though I did go and take a look to be a bit obliging. The axsor and a few accupels would have done the job in style, but I just couldn't let of the HMR about his garden.

Yeah it was a great evening. I was driving back up the M1 from London to Newcastle and now and again I could see perfect shooting country with no one in sight. There were places where I was thinking, 'I'd love to take a walk around there with the HMR.' So here I am back with quite a lot of shooting permissions and the weather is windy and wet again. Believe it or not, I went down to meet a millionaire from San Fransisco who flew over especially to buy an expensive bicycle I had for sale. Had a good weekend, even though I didn't do any shooting, but I've never shot as many rabbits as that Rubber Legs. I often get up to forty in the summer, but I generally stop about there because it begins to feel like your a slaughterman at the time of FMD. Although I really enjoy my shooting there comes a point where it can start to be depressing bringing all that death and all.