Evilv
-
Posts
817 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
PW Shop
Posts posted by Evilv
-
-
i dont vote - cos it utter bloody pointless.
And therein lies the problem. People in other parts of the world risk a beating or worse in order to be able to vote. Yet large swathes of the UK don't bother even trying to change anything. Not having a go at 19_Ferrets, but this attitude of shooters and other country sports enthusiasts not bothering to vote will only lead to further restrictions and/or bans on country sports. You can bet your bottom dollar the antis will all vote for whoever gives them the best chance of achieving what they want. Its about time all those field sports enthusiasts started doing the same.
yep apathy let this lot in, may not count for much 1 vote but its surprising how many people died to give you that voteAs a minority sport, shooters themselves will never make a difference through the ballot box to the continuing freedom to own guns and shoot. Do the maths and you'll see that (you don't even need to do the maths - it's obvious after thinking about it for a second) but in any case, people SHOULD VOTE just because democracy is better than the alternative. On the shooting thing, we need to actively campaign so that other people see that freedom to continue country sports is important. To be honest, we will never be able to convert the vast majority to see it in a friendly way, but we could convert a lot of Conservative activists and prospective parliamentary candidates to see it as a libertarian issue. Labour is by and large a totally lost cause as far as any kind of freedom is concerned, and in any case, their candidates are all wedded to lefty non-sense and gun control, being so lazy that they equate owning firearms with inner city gang shootings.... I mean, we all know these drive bys by the home boys in London are done with CZ425's like mine with 24 inch barrels aren't they? It's a different world as anybody who wasn't a lefty fool would know.
-
The bones in rabbit are a pain.
I remove the glands and do the overnight soak (when I have time the soak, but the gland removal is a must).
I joint them throwing away the ribs which only have pointless amounts of meat anyway, then I part cook along with about a third as much by weight of belly pork, or other cheap pork cuts in a pressure cooker for about 20 minutes, let them cool and strip the meat in large chunks off the bone. Small scraps go to the dog, decent white chunks of meat which is most of it goes into a pie mix with some part cooked vegetables and herbs. The only parts with a worthwhile amount of meat are the hind legs and the back in my opinion - maybe the shoulders too. Thirty five minutes in a pie dish should see the pastry cooked, a fine meal and usually - no bones. Tiny bones can make the meal far from enjoyable so get them out of the way beforehand and discard them.
Last year I was making rabbit burgers with a proportion of lamb - about 30%. These were very good really and easy to make. Good seasoning and herbs really make a big difference.
-
I'm a recent HMR user and the round is astonishingly good, but I still like my 22lr. The luxury of just pointing the gun right at rabbits between 30 and 120 yards is something I'm not used to. I shot a few rabbits last night at between 90 and 120 yards all instant kills with dramatic damage from the Hornady 17 grn varmint bullet. It does make a hell of a mess of them though if you wanted to sell them or eat them.
The eleys sub .22LR is a great little round though for work up to about 60 yards and dirt cheap. Completely silent really and very effective. Why not put both on the ticket and get both as and when you can afford it?
I got my Hornady varmint express for £10 a box by haggling and buying 500 at once. The dealer wanted to charge £12.50 and I just said, 'I can get them for £10 a box. Match the price and I'll buy a good few'. He got his calculator out and a book with costs in it, did a few calculations and said, fair enough.
As for noise, where rabbits are already gun shy, they'll run at the whisper of an eley sub. Where they aren't, as long as they can't see or smell you, they'll sit tight. I'm shooting an un-silenced HMR which is pretty loud and I often shoot groups of rabbits with it at about a hundred yards when they are stting out on a warren. They just sit there while their mates explode and roll over. Quite amazing, really.
-
You need to be clear about this fact: a .22LR with subsonic ammo and a moderator is quieter than almost any air rifle that I know of. It is astonishingly quiet. There are about 80 horses on one of my places. They run around whatever I am shooting, but that's horses for you - they like running and its why we keep them. How many people want to ride a cow? They don't run much, horses love running. These horses come up and see me while I'm shooting, then they run off and come back again.
Also, a cz 452 is probably cheaper than a decent pcp on its own and you don't need a charging mechanism (also expensive).
The Eley subsonic LR round is pretty cheap unless you are shooting thousands of rabbits, and it will hit much harder. Add to this that it shoots much flatter and you will hit more rabbits at much longer ranges. The killing power of the eley sub is FAR higher than fac air. It is far more humane in my opinion and far more tolerant of minor inaccuracy of shot placement. A rabbit hit in the head, neck, shoulder or chest by a .22 hollow point is dead pretty quick if not instantly.
Get the LR is my advice, unless you are shooting a tiny place, around buildings or right in amongst stock (which would be dangerous in itself).
The LR is a little beast for ricochet though if the ground is stony or hard. I have a PCP and it has never been out since I got the LR. I now also have an HMR which is a little devil for 100 yard rabbits. Blows off their heads at 110 yards quite often - I mean they are really smashed wide open and inside out, though not always for some reason I don't understand.
It's hores that at stabled so its the noise thats the problem with it as i dont want to spook them with the bang. i have had a fair few with the PCP i use at the moment but there just the ones off the edges of the long runs.i have a meeting monday with FLO so i'll ask but being not so coy when talking i know i'll put my foot in it.lol.
right off to mount a cabinet....................................................
.....not that sort of mount..........hehe
-
two things i have tried and cant eat are brain and lungs. makes me throw up
the rest of the rabbit makes a tasty meal and i have a feeling it will appear on a "jamie oliver" supermarket shelf soon. just hope they dont take the smell away and make it all "plastic".
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.
-
i dont vote - cos it utter bloody pointless.
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.
-
Interesting experiment. Thanks for doing this. As stated, a lot of people suggest .22lr is a mickey mouse caliber but it seems to be capable of quite some damage.
Now, do more tests
We want to see what it does at 100yrds.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.
-
Correct.
It was Dunblane that saw the end of the handgun. However, my post was intended to highlight the generally laid back attitude that led to the gun controls. After all, how many of us tolerate the loner individual that has an obbesion with guns (rather than the sport of shooting).
The chap that used to wander around with a luger in his pocket, did have it unloaded (even back then carrying a loaded Luger in a public place was illegal).
Great thread!!
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.
-
Oh Please,
Schoolyard bully, Where do you get off?
This, in case you hadn't noticed is an internet forum. This is where people are enetitled to their opinions. I find the "People who hide behind a computer" comments boring and hence the yawn post.
If you don't like it don't read it, personally I can no longer be bothered with you complete bunch of ANAL ******* and I will not bother to post on here.
**** YOU ALL
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.
-
but before i got licensed i was shooting deer with an old lee enfield .303 with open sights no scope and no bipod up to around 180-200 yards
so i guess im ok to shoot as i never had any complaints
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.
-
Went out again with the HMR. I had more than twice this many, but brought these home for people who want to eat them.
-
what has the recoil got to do with your groupsize?
are you flinching when you pull the trigger on a larger calibre?
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.
-
This guy has just got a rifle and is it seems having a bit of a play. I dont think that people should take such an opinionistic view. 3 inch at 100 standing is ok as far as I am concerned. I dont think he was out doing a bench rest load test and I agree testing loads in this way is pointless as it is not a secure enough position. It seems he was plinking and good luck to him. It is a shame people cant get their point across in a more constructive format instead of outright criticism which would serve to help and advise.
Steve b
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.
-
Evilv
That Sir, says it all. I wish I could have posted so eloquently. My sentiments exactly.
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.
-
My mention of the Dunblane experience had nothing to do with it’s use as a means to restrict holders of FAC but to illustrate that no one, not even FEOs, can tell a person’s true worthiness at a single meeting.
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.
My reasons for stating (as I’ve done on here many times) that people wishing to take up shooting sports should be mentored or at the very least have some lessons (from a professional NOT their mates) is that they are handling dangerous tools, weapons, call them what you will and should learn to handle them safely (note the guy who’s child has just been shot) AND if wishing to shoot live quarry should learn to give that quarry the proper respect BEFORE hunting it.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.
-
to me a lot centres round chinese whispers,
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.
-
to me a lot centres round chinese whispers,
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.
Car Tax
in Off Topic
Posted · Edited by Evilv
Pretty well completely right, except that the Tories are our only hope as shooters. The Lib Dems are further left than the Labour Party of the eighties and anyway they are all running after rent-boys, asteroids and the Cheeky Girls, or are looking for a zimmer frame.