aldivalloch

It's an interesting looking gun. Something that strikes me, from looking at the photographs, is that the positioning of the lever on the left side of the action suggests a gun built to suit a left-handed-shooter. Chady, is the stock cast on or off? Anyone got any thoughts on this?

Why would anybody think otherwise? Well, mainly because a lot of what you've just said is nonsense!

Also spectacularly daft.

Spectacularly daft. Go away, sober up, and cheer up. It's difficult enough to hang on to basic freedoms without people coming up with loopy proposals to further diminish them.

None of what you've said is a given. I've seen twenty-bores that were heavier than twelves, and just for the record, a lot of twenty-eights are actually built on twenty-bore actions, which rather defeats the object of trying to produce a properly scaled-down gun. And don't go thinking that smaller bores will automatically give you better patterns. Well-struck barrels, well-bored chokes, and good-quality cartridges with appropriate charges and shot-size will give good patterns in a gun of any calibre. What a small-bore will do, though, is give you less dense overall patterns because you'll be firing a lighter load (if you're not, you're missing the whole point of using a small-bore gun). But if the gun has been well-made, and the cartridge is right, then the distribution of pellets will be such as to still do what's necessary.

POURED OVER ICE!!!!!! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO?? Or do you make your ice cubes out of water drawn straight from that pure and sparkling spring known as the Ratty Burn.......? Mmmm, how's that on the nose, then. A fruity twelve-year-old with hints of almonds, honey - and diesel!?

And what relevance does this rant have to the original post, which as far as I can see is mainly about teaching dogs to drive, bizarre as it may seem? You're obviously all heart, Nipper. Setting aside the fact that your "proposals" would create as many problems as they might solve, I couldn't entertain the mass slaughter of dogs in order to eradicate a perceived stray-dog problem. Ever heard of re-homing? You'll be advocating the rounding-up and euthanising of the human homeless, next.

Haven't you heard? That particular bottling has been recalled under warranty. I'll PM you the address it has to go back to, if you could just start wrapping it up securely. I wouldn't want it to arrive broken.

It gets WORSE!!!! You can't spell whisky AND you think I'm a WOMAN!!!! I hope the cork crumbles in the neck of your next bottle.

Didn't like to voice my suspicions........ Would it be too hurtful to say that the trouble is that you peely-wally Sassunachs can't cope with a proper, big hairy Highlander's man-drink?

I LOVE these whisky threads!!! Most of you can spell neither "whisky" (there's no "e" in it!!!!!!!) nor the names of the malts you're so enthusiastic about! "glenlievet" is Glenlivet "Dura" is Jura "balvennie" is Balvenie "abalour" is Aberlour "buchladdig" is Bruichladdich "Dalamore" is Dalmore "glenmorgarie" is Glenmorangie "mcCallan" is Macallan If you look at the side of the bottle, you'll find it written there - just copy the letters!

How heavy is your 12 bore, escortmagnum999? And how much of a weight reduction are you aiming to achieve? Set yourself a target and then have a look at some guns that fit the bill. I note you say you'd only use about 500 cartridges per season. Well, the difference in cost between 500 12 bore and 500 20 bore cartridges of equal quality is significant (to me, anyway!). As has been suggested, why not look for a light 12 bore side-by-side? I used to have an AYA 25 boxlock which weighed almost exactly 6lbs, was an easy carry, and performed particularly well with modest choking and Eley Impax cartridges (1oz of no.6 shot). I have to come clean and say I'm no fan of the 20 bore. I bought one some twelve years ago to start my son off, and of course couldn't resist the temptation to have a go with it. I give it a fair trial, but never got on with it. If you want a light gun and don't mind condemning yourself to more expensive cartridges,why not try a 16 bore? My ideal, classic walking-up gun would be a good-quality 16 bore side-by-side loaded with thirteen-sixteenths of no.5 or no.6 shot. You should be able to get one with 26" or 28" barrels, weighing a smidgin under 6lbs, and you'd be surprised at what it would be capable of. A light, lively fast-handling gun with open chokes is very flattering to the average shooter.

As has already been said, this is a pointless discussion. When the British government of the day voted to abolish the death penalty, it also voted separately to set aside the right to any future reintroduction. That notwithstanding, it would also be illegal under European law. Furthermore, it's the case that research and statistics evidence that the death penalty was never an effective dererrent to the commission of capital offences. While it was available, British courts also sent to their deaths a goodly number of innocent men and women. It's a bit difficult to correct a miscarriage of justice after execution has been carried out. I think it's the case that after he retired, Albert Pierrepoint, Britain's last executioner, allegedly became opposed to the death penalty.

You put a 50g cartridge through an AYA 12 bore 3 inch magnum side-by-side?? What on earth were you shooting at? 50g is the equivalent of around one and three-quarter ounces, and should be regarded as a 10 bore load, or even a light 8 bore load, and best suited to a gun weighing around 10lbs and appropriately proofed. How heavy is your AYA? And what service pressure is it designed for? I can't understand this vogue for increasingly heavy loads. Is it some sort of macho daftness? Or a lack of basic knowledge about shooting? Why can't people get it into their heads that they can't stuff increasingly heavy loads into guns without creating high pressures, brutal recoil, and stresses that will shorten the gun's life - and possibly the shooter's life, too? The fact that a particular type of cartridge can be fitted into a gun DOESN'T mean that it's SUITED to it!

The gun is a "ball and shot" gun - in other words, it's built to fire cartridges containing small shot AND cartridges containing solid ball. The leaf backsights are the giveaway - they'd obviously serve no purpose on a conventional shotgun. The gun will have Lancaster's "oval boring" - an alternative to rifling which, instead of incorporating spiral grooves, employed barrels bored elliptically and arranged so that the ellipse twisted from breach to muzzle. I'm not sure about the 2-inch chambers - they seem unlikely on a gun designed to shoot ball, but having said that, Lancaster did introduce a "Twelve-twenty" lightweight gun, so it's not impossible. I note you mention telephone valuations. In my opinion they're a complete waste of time, as condition is everything with regard to old/vintage guns, and condition CANNOT be ascertained over the phone. I certainly wouldn't pay any money for one. I'm sure you've seen that advertisement on television - "Mytextcheck" it's called, or something like that. Text a car registration to the number given to find out whether the vehicle has been damaged or written off, and receive a free valuation. Well, how accurate can that valuation be in the absence of specific information about the car? It might have been treated as a prized possession or thrashed to hell and back without ever seeing a service. Shining like a new pin, or covered in stone-chips. Without Mr "Mytextcheck" having had a look at it, his "valuation" is useless. Same applies when people kid you that they can value agun or rifle over the phone. My advice would be to find a reputable gunsmith who has a good working knowledge of the history of the gun-trade. They're getting thin on the ground, though, so choose carefully.

ANOTHER thread for people with over-active imaginations to fill with macho drivel.

Err.... do you mean "grammatically"? Let's have our pedantry spelled correctly, please. And whilst we are on the subject, some capital letters and proper punctuation wouldn't go amiss......

I'm with Skid on this one. Heavy loads through a small gauge, especially at high velocity, tend not to pattern that well. Think about it - a 32 g load is almost 50% heavier than the the one the 20 gauge was designed to shoot. Unless you've got a gun that's stupidly heavy for a 20 (which is pointless) it'll also give you a good sound kicking.

"Whisky" without an "e" is Scottish. "Whiskey" with an "e" is Irish. If you're gonna be connoisseurs of the amber nectar you need to get the terminology right! And £40 is rather too much money for Johnnie Walker Green Label.

Murdering one another wasn't something that was confined to Scotland. It was quite a popular pass-time in many parts of the British Isles. I reckon it happened because people were bored - there wasn't that much to do in the evenings and at weekends, after all. But it all changed when television was invented (by a Scotsman...), and previously war-like people were able to sit in and watch Eastenders and Jeremy Kyle. Enough to take the fight out of anybody..... And you've been to Glencoe? Risky! I hope you didn't get invited in for a cuppa by a cigar-smoking old guy in a tracksuit..........

Vince, you're an even bigger numpty if you think that the words "proud" and "Campbell" cut much ice to the Scots. You've obviously either not heard of, or forgotten about, Glencoe.

It all depends what you term a "light game-gun" To me that would be 6 lbs (2.75 kg), which would make it perfectly well suited to firing loads of one to one-and one-sixteenth ozs, or 28 g - 32 g. 35 g loads would be more suited to a gun weighing something in the region of seven to seven-and-a-quarter pounds. That's because it's long been recognised by good gunmakers that a sporting shotgun should weigh approximately ninety-six times the charge it is intended to shoot. Felt recoil can be influenced by - obviously enough - the weight of the gun, and also by fit. An ill-fitting gun can dish out a fair bit of punishment. And the ability to absorb recoil counts for more than whether the shooter is heavily or lightly built - think of how a good boxer can "ride a punch". Another factor affecting recoil which isn't so commonly recognised is cartridge headspace - in crude terms, the amount of room the rim of the cartridge has when it's chambered. Some cartridges have thinner rims than others, and so can move to and fro very slightly when the gun is closed. Whilst this movement might appear almost imperceptible, it can add up to a fair bit of extra kick when the firing-pin pushes the cartridge forward as far as it can go, and the explosion of the charge slams it right back again. Some guns (the Darne and the Bretton), which are built very light, have actions which allow the chambers to be cammed up against the standing breech (or vice-versa), thus pretty much eliminating headspace. That's why these guns don't seem to recoil too severely in spite of their unconventional charge / weight ratio (the Baby Bretton in 12 bore with 3 inch chambers weighs only 5 lbs!) I can remember an experiment being done many years ago which was intended to reduce headspace-induced recoil in a game-gun. Very thin circular shims were introduced between the cartridges and the standing breech until all movement within the chambers had been eliminated whilst still allowing the gun to close comfortably. The shims were drilled to allow passage of the firing-pins and then fixed in place with Araldite. Subsequent tests proved that recoil was substantially reduced.

Cadbury's?

May I sound a cautionary note here Mad1? By all means, exert pressure to have your son assessed and tested, but above all try to get to the root of the problem. Just as you'll find people who will try to fob you off, so will you also find others who will take the easy path of just labelling your son dyslexic, even though that may not be an absolutely accurate diagnosis. Remember, labels can be hard to get rid of and can prove to be an encumbrance later in life. How children come to acquire the skills of reading and writing is a fascinating topic. Some authorities maintain that reading cannot be taught - in other words, the capacity to read is something that a child develops. I have to say from my own experience - and because I am a bit long in the tooth and therefore old-fashioned - that I have misgivings about the quality of teaching over recent years. I am not blaming the teachers - just voicing concern at the apparently never-ending stream of new approaches and initiatives that infest the education system. In fact, I've just come back from attending a short presentation on the Curriculum for Excellence which left me and the retired teacher I was sitting beside rather less than impressed. Perhaps a return to just concentrating on the basics during early years education would pay dividends.... I have every sympathy for your son, I suffer from a dyslexia-like condition when I become very tired. Words and letters re-arrange themselves on pages, figures move before my eyes, and I cannot write coherently. Ironically, I first became aware of it when I was studying for a degree in education and burning the candle (spectacularly!) at both ends.

Is it such a daft question? It certainly occured to me after I read the article in the newspaper. I live within just a few miles of a pier that kids dive from and a couple of beaches that are popular places to swim when the weather's right. My daughter used to go to one of the beaches with her pals, and we still talk about the time one of them got stung by a jellyfish and suffered anaphylactic shock. The point is, seals regularly come in very, very close at these locations. I've seen them within ten to twenty metres of the beaches. Now, if a seal is prepared to grab a full-grown Lab, is it utterly beyond the bounds of possibility that the same might happen with a child? I've never heard of it happening, but that's not to say it never will. I'm all for giving wildlife all due respect, and I'd never put my dog in the water if there were seals close at hand. But it's a bit difficult to be aware of their presence when you can't see them for water.