Scully

Wow. The engraving is excellently done, but the rest is just hideous, and a gold trigger to boot. Simply awful. If gypsies were allowed guns, that is what they would choose.

As long as they don't use nude models of Barbie and Ken in role play; that'll really confuse them. Or they could get very realistic and include role playing such as divorced Barbie and Ken, where Barbie comes complete with Kens house, car, wage packet and kids. Education is important, but having fun is importanter.

My posts and opinions still stand David. I have much respect for you, and can understand and admire your loyalty, a loyalty I once shared, but my experiences with BASC have soured that loyalty, and although you claim BASC may be uncompromising, at least one in a senior position at BASC, has assured me that all BASC can do is lobby and negotiate for compromise. I'm not claiming any of the other organisations are any more effective, but I'm happy in the knowledge that no one at BASC benefits from my revenue any more.

Kreighoff are in my opinion the ugliest of the doubles; the deep chunky engraving looks cheap ( I know it's not ) and reminds me of those light alloy cast toy guns we had as kids, but I love the floating barrels.

I'm sorry to say that BASC can do nothing to improve on what they are currently doing entirely due to the fact you quoted above. In my opinion and experience they have demonstrated that they are incapable of either, and have demonstrated it many times over many years. Like I said, it's not just BASC. Have a look through the recent past of UK shooting legislation. You don't need to go any further back than the 1960's or 1970's if you want. See what we had when our mainstream shooting organisations came into being, and what we have lost since then against what we have gained, and the role those shooting organisations have played in the aspects of all of this. It doesn't make for reassuring reading.

In what instance, the issue of this topic? Hasn't David BASC explained what they're doing in this instance? I am very happy with the advice I have so far received from my current organisation, but in this instance, or as far as this issue is concerned my organisation isn't involved. The person in question is a BASC member. There are no organisations with the clout I would like, unfortunately. As I've said before, the UK doesn't have the members and most of those members our organisations have don't have the will to complain, let alone fight. Following the shootings by Derek Bird, BASC for once were well on the case, but less than 2% of UK shooters petitioned the Government or the inquiry panel, and they didn't even have to write, simply click a few buttons set up for them by their shooting organisations. If you are happy with BASC, then good for you, many are, but some aren't. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

We take as we find in reality. I was proud to be a BASC member for many years, thinking I was doing my bit; unfortunately BASC weren't doing theirs. It still took me a long time to grow as disappointedly disillusioned with them as I did to the point that with great reluctance I cancelled my membership and gave my money elsewhere. It's not pleasant to realise that the organisation you have put your faith and money into for years doesn't have the will nor the clout that you once thought it had. We all have qualifications in hindsight however, but my biggest regret is that it took me as long as it did, and that during that time Swift benefitted from my revenue for as long as he did. The lack of 'clout' doesn't just apply to BASC either. Don't be fooled into believing that ANY of our representatives will be able to withstand a serious governmental stand against shooting, and don't believe the Tories are the shooters friend either. With the exception of the Liberals, shooters have undergone more restrictive legislation though Conservative governments than any other party.

I remember them well. The special effects are dire compared to present day, but I was well impressed as a kid. My favourite effects back then were those of Ray Harryhausen and the Greek fables. I remember being scared ****less by the Hammer House of Horror films back then also, and my son laughs about the fact that as a little boy he was scared of Jim Carey as The Grinch.

I declared it, eventually, (it's a long story) and everything was fine.

That is hilarious, it really is. For a start, and with all due respect to those in the armed forces who get wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq etc,they voluntarily put themselves in a position of great risk by first joining the armed forces. You don't find many, if any, wounded squaddies bleating on about being shot up. They knew the risks when they volunteered. Showing pictures of someone with traumatic amputation wont make a bit of difference to someone genuinely suffering from depression, anxiety or stress and simply shows your ignorance of the subject. To the OP, the level and type of treatment varies dependant on what the underlying causes are, and in my case simply talking to my GP about it worked wonders as I didn't know what the hell was wrong with me until I did. I was hyperventilating but didn't know why and thought I was going insane and having a heart attack to boot. Depression, anxiety or stress can be very subtle ailments as even though there can be one (or many) underlying causes, the symptoms can creep up on an individual very slowly so the sufferer isn't actually aware that there is something wrong at all until they simply cease to function, as in my case. The thought i may lose my tickets by seeking help didn't even occur to me; I just wanted to get better. I was prescribed beta blockers which made me feel so high and indestructible I never took anymore after the first dose. Very scary. Edited to add my apology also, for jumping on Fenboys initial post without first reading the entire thread, when I would have become aware of his retraction.

We aint going to merge; that is never going to happen so we can forget about that. In fact over the years quite the opposite has happened because of one organisation or anothers lack of impetus or whatever. Soundbites are all well and good, but 'no evidence, no change' is just that. It didn't after all, prevent the current lead shot bans we already have in place. If they weren't based on 'evidence' then what were they based on and why do they now exist? The fact that lead is toxic is beyond doubt, the effect that lead shot has on human health and our wildlife is the issue here, but for some reason JS has attributed the former with the latter. It would be nice to know why.

You have to nip this sort of thing in the bud from the offset. Many people are wary of rocking the boat because of the effect it may have on their application, but if we allow those in authority to walk all over us unopposed, then they will. If you're not getting the service you are entitled to in any way, then tell her in no uncertain terms that you've had enough, and you're taking it further. Personally if I were under Durham I'd have written to my MP long ago.

If the Franchi is the 712 I'd opt for that, if not, the Beretta.

Looks like I'm going to have to watch it on catch up.

Full choke?

We're going round in circles. Why, simply because I refuse to perpetuate this myth? I don't mind being proved wrong. Everytime this topic comes up for conversation there are those who insist it is against the law not to have it reproofed, it just isn't. I can understand perfectly why some RFD's may insist on it if their insurers stipulate it, and I can understand why some with money as an incentive such as the proof house and dishonest RFD's who by perpetuating this myth is to their advantage, but that doesn't make it law. On the point of unscrupulous RFD's, the one my mate used charged 75 quid to have the job done, and was going to charge another 100 to have it reproofed until mate told him it wasn't necessary. We subsequently found out in conversation with someone that the bloke he used to do the work, charged 35 quid; the dealer was charging 40 quid just to hand over the gun to a gunsmith; he didn't even have to deliver it, the gunsmith came round to collect them ! If anyone wants to have their rifle barrel reproofed following screw cut, then by all means have it done, it's their choice, but for some to insist IT IS THE LAW, is just wrong.

Section 111 deems said barrel to be unproved, nothing more.

Works fine thanks, but it still isn't compulsory by law to have a rifle barrel re-proofed following screw cut, sorry. 'Ey up, I see that horse is back at the water, but still not drinking.......

Haven't watched it for some time as I think it is a bit of a watered down version of the countryside; a bit countryfile lite.

Thanks for posting.

Daughter pointed this out to me, (she's only 17 and doesn't yet know better than to read the Mail) but I find this hilarious. No doubt his human rights are being infringed, poor fellah. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

I believe the Jungle carbine was a version of the No 4 Lee Enfield, and named the No 5, which as you point out, would place it post WW1. The gun in the pic is without doubt an earlier SMLE, which of course doesn't rule out its use by Home Guard in WW2.