aldivalloch

Mike525steel - it's a common misconception that the smaller bores throw a smaller spread. They don't. The difference in spread between a full-choke 28 bore and a full-choke 12 bore is negligible. And a .410 cartridge, loaded to achieve the same velocity as a 12 bore cartridge and firing the same size of pellet, will have the same killing range. The critical factor in determining effective range is PATTERN. Density of pattern depends primarily upon degree and quality of choke, and weight of load. Generally speaking, a .410 cartridge carries a lighter charge of shot than a 12 bore cartridge. If each has the same degree of choke, and the pellet size is the same, then the .410 obviously has far fewer pellets with which to form its pattern and so the pattern will begin to fail, i.e. become patchy, at a considerably shorter range. I'm always surprised to hear people sing the praises of the 3-inch .410 cartridge. It's technically enormously flawed in that it packs its already excessive load into a long, thin column. Long shot columns bring higher pressures, higher pressures cause more shot deformation, and the long shot column causes stringing and inherently poor patterning. If you want to fire a load of twenty or so grammes, the most effective way to do so is through a 20 bore. Horses for courses!

Gentlemen, I hesitate to disillusion some of you, but a gun that is stiff to open and close is nothing more than a nuisance. I don't know whence comes the notion that "stiff" should be synonymous with "new", and therefore a desirable trait; it is, in fact, nothing more than an indication that the gun hasn't been properly adjusted during assembly. It's lazy engineering on the part of the manufacturer to get the tolerances too tight and then expect the customer to wear the gun in! Sadly, most modern mass-produced guns display this failing. A properly assembled gun should open and close smoothly, without any more resistance than it takes to re-cock the firing mechanism and the ejectors, and without any play or slop at the hinge or breech-face.

This forum's starting to lack imaginative contributions. NOBODY has yet suggested Claymore mines......

Here's something to consider, gentlemen..... Many years ago - back in the seventies, I think - a Shooting Times contributor did some exercises on maintaining a sustained rate of fire. This was, of course, back in the days when there was no limit on the magazine capacity of pump-action and self-loading shotguns. As far as I can recall, the pumps and self-loaders proved unsatisfactory because after the initial five or eight shots were rapidly discharged, there followed the palaver of reloading their magazines. To cut to the chase, the most efficient gun, the one able to provide the highest rate of sustained fire, was....... a self-opening side-by-side. For those not familiar with self-openers, the process is as follows:- load gun; fire both barrels; push top-lever across; gun opens itself, ejecting the spent cases while other hand brings two fresh cartridges from belt, pocket or bag to breech. Gun is snapped shut and the process repeated. It's fast! The only disadvantages with self (or assisted) openers are cost - they're not cheap! - and resistance to being closed, as it's the act of closing the gun that "cocks" the mechanism which throws it open. Wouldn't it be interesting to do a re-run of these tests, pitting modern pumps, self-loaders, over-and-unders and side-by-sides against each other, to see how quickly they can fire twenty cartridges each? Anyone out there got a self-opener?

Bleeh There's actually quite a good analogy in what you say - not the bit about putting the car up on bricks, because there's obviously a world of difference between road springs and lock springs - but in the sense that road springs are always fitted in conjunction with shock absorbers. Snap caps are the eqivalent of shock absorbers when live ammunition isn't being used! Check back some time and see how many posts you find about firing-pin problems - broken pins, worn pins, stuck pins, mis-fires, etc. I wonder how many of these are due to abuse?

I wonder why some posters are dismissing snap caps as a waste of money? I was taught not to put a shotgun away cocked as in the longer term it could cause the springs to take a set, i.e. start to take on their compressed configuration. Perhaps it's no longer so important, given the constant improvements in the quality of metal, but it's my understanding that users of spring-powered air-rifles are still advised not to keep them in the cocked state any longer than necessary and certainly never to store them cocked. The other thing I was taught is that it is not a good idea to drop the hammers on empty chambers because there is nothing to take up the blow transmitted to the firing pins. I assume that many of us still practise our swings; to be wholly effective, each practice swing should culminate in the pulling of the triggers. The whole point of putting snap caps in the breech is to cushion the blows upon the firing pins. Any gunsmith worth his salt will tell you that repeated dry firing can eventually damage them. Snap caps are, in fact, a wise and inexpensive investment!

Ever heard the expression, "You can't polish a ****."? Well, these gentlemen have certainly tried to! What a waste of time and effort. And he had the brass neck to suggest that gun was aesthetically pleasing!!!

simon123 Looks like I've hit a raw nerve! I'm not going to get into an argument with you; all I'm going to say is that we Pigeon Watchers are all using a public forum and so must expect our posts to attract bouquets or brickbats. You're absolutely right; why should you listen to me? But if you're not prepared to accept other people's reactions, why DO you post on Pigeon Watch? I come on here to read what other members have to say, and, occasionally, to add my own tuppence worth. If my contributions are well received, I'm flattered; if not, I try to take it in good part on the basis that many people who post on here are far more skilled, experienced and knowledgeable than I am. I've been shooting with shotgun, air-rifle and rifle for forty-three years now but I'm still willing to read, listen and learn. I've found it to be a very constructive thing to do, so I recommend it to you. And I do sincerely wish you well with your shooting.

Maybe it's because I've got to go back to work tomorrow that my mood is deteriorating - or maybe it's due to just having read the last two posts.... Here we have samh6 and simon123 telling us that they shot at foxes at "about ten yards" and "about 8 yards" respectively, with 32 grams of steel and 52 grams of BB, again respectively. Neither fox was killed outright - in fact, it would appear that both made their escape. Not that terribly long ago I had some discussions with a veterinary surgeon friend regarding the acquisition of a suitable tool for the destruction of horses and cattle. Following further guidance from within his profession he then purchased a 12 bore shotgun and some cartridges containing 32 grams of no.6 shot, because this combination is deemed powerful enough, with a shot to the front of the head, to despatch animals the size of bulls, Clydesdales and Shires. Do you get my drift, gentlemen? I can tell you categorically that a clean hit IN THE RIGHT PLACE by either of you would have knocked your target off its feet, ending its life immediately. The energy of a 12 bore shotgun at ten yards is immense with even a comparatively light load. samh, I see you say that you won't be shooting at foxes again "with anything under 42 grams lead". simon123, you say that "you don't want them to be too close to you when shooting at". Perhaps you'd both like to come back with some explanation for these statements, particularly the latter. I think that you would both do very well not to shoot at foxes with anything at all until you sort out your range estimation and your shot placement. I'm not sorry if this post seems critical or negative, or if it hurts your feelings. Two consecutive posts which, in essence, relate how two animals have been condemned to lingering deaths through sheer incompetence, and which neither show remorse nor seek advice, are never going to appeal to the sunny part of my nature.

kdubya I'm really sorry to hear that your trip was a let-down. Sadly, I think your experience has to stand as a warning to anyone else who has high expectations for a 'fowling trip to Orkney, given the current circumstances. As I said in my previous post, I don't know enough about any of the guides to pass judgement upon them. However, I think I can safely say that very few - if any - of them will have much in the way of exclusive access to land, and I wouldn't rate highly their chances of securing such a thing. This is because Orkney is a small community and farmers and landowners are unlikely to have much appetite for barring the friends, relatives, neighbours, employees and business contacts who have shot over their land for donkey's years. I can quote from personal experience of this - a farmer on whose land I have permission to shoot told me a couple of years ago that he had been approached by a guide who promised spot payments (in cash!) for access to goose shooting. My farmer friend accepted the offer on the basis that the guide was obviously charging his guests for his services and should therefore expect to have to share his good fortune. However, he made it abundantly clear that their arrangement could never, and would never, impinge upon the rights of the locals who already had permission to shoot there and would continue to do so. Your account of your guide's efforts to get you out and about before the locals - and, possibly, his competitors - makes for uncomfortable reading. It does indeed smack of a man trying to protect his livelihood in difficult circumstances. However, it has to be said that he has chosen to enter into guiding as a business, and so must seek to overcome any factors affecting his capacity to conduct that business in such a way as to give value for money to his guests. It is clear that for the duration of your visit he was unable to do so due to circumstances that he was unable - and probably will never be able - to control. He needs to see this as a major - and potentially insuperable - obstacle to the viability of his enterprise. One last matter before I take myself off to bed:- what might be the legal consequences of a shooting accident involving separate parties whose guides have handed over money to a landowner in return for permission to shoot upon his land? I have no knowledge of the law, but I wonder whether the landowner might be deemed, by dint of accepting financial payment, to have assumed some responsibility for the health and safety of persons entering upon his land for sporting purposes. Food for thought? Goodnight!

The Orkney situation is a convoluted and unhappy one. Difficult to know where to start. Perhaps it's worthing stating at the outset that in recent years there has been virtually no formal shooting in Orkney - it's all rough-shooting and wildfowling (and I use the term "wildfowling" loosely, as in fact most duck- and goose-shooting is done inland, away from the foreshore). A consequence of the lack of any formal scene is that shooting has hitherto had no real monetary value, and so it is that casual access has long prevailed - a word with the landowner to get permission and on you go, gratis. Sadly, some people, both locals and visitors, continue to fail to observe this basic courtesy and so unauthorised shooting is far from uncommon, but little is done to counter it. Fifty years ago the winter goose poulation in Orkney was very small; in the interim it has grown like Topsy, and now in excess of 75,000 birds descend upon the islands in late autumn. Not surprisingly, Orkney's farmers do not much look forward to their arrival as they cause significant damage. Inevitably, this means that the agricultural community sees geese in much the same light as it saw rabbits in pre-mixomatosis days - as vermin. Now, if one combines ease of access with the farmers' desire to encourage maximum reduction of the goose population, whether by local or visiting 'fowlers, one arrives at a situation whereby a number of sportsmen are shooting over the same pieces of land. Very few landowners make any attempt at monitoring who is on their land, at what times, and at what intensity, with obvious consequences - recently I have heard a few spine-chilling anecdotes about fowlers finding, in the half-light of dawn, that they were well within gunshot of well-concealed fellow shooters with whom they didn't expect to be sharing their morning's sport..... It is only in comparatively recent times that fowlers "fae sooth" and from further afield have started to go up "on safari" and this has given rise to professional guiding. Now, I don't know enough about the individual guides to be able to comment with any authority; however, it seems to be the case that there have already been some unpleasant incidents around land-rivalry. There have also been reports, some substantiated after intervention from the authorities, that illegal electronic callers have been used. It may even also be the case that protected species have been deliberately shot. And, of course, stories continue to circulate about big "bags" obtained with the assistance of guides who do not impose limits. I recently heard of one party which allegedly killed more than two hundred geese on one trip. That's more than twenty geese per gun. I wonder what they did with them? Sadly, I am sure they were encouraged by the host farmer who saw it only as a welcome reduction in the "grass-guzzlers" which were ruining his fields. Even more sadly, I know it to be fact that some farmers, desperate to control the goose population, have been shooting relentlessly and just dumping the dead birds. So what are the potential consequences of all this? Will the police at some point have to deal with the land-rivalry? Heated arguments and loaded shotguns are a bad mix. Will someone accidentally be shot by another wildfowler, who will then plead that he didn't know his victim was there? Will the general public become aware of the big bags and/or the dumping of carcases, and cry out in righteous protest? Will the hard-pressed geese, tired of being constantly harassed and shot at, vote with their wings, overfly Orkney, and put an end to what might, if properly regulated, have become a useful and lucrative adjunct to the local tourist industry? Who knows! But if you do decide to go up, Spaniel, take great care with your arrangements and choose your guide and your accommodation carefully. Ask the former whether he or she is registered with BASC and properly insured; whether there will be bag-limits; how much ground is available; whether access is exclusive or at least regulated in the interests of safety; and whether authority to shoot has been expressly granted by the landowner. Best wishes to all for 2012.

Interesting and impressive to see from that video that the 4wd Renault could confidently be driven through puddles and along unmade tracks, and that it could keep going in a couple of inches of snow. Don't know how I've managed without one. Oh, on second thoughts, I do! Because just about every bog-standard car I've ever had could have made a fair fist of keeping up with it!

I reckon 3,047,831. Merry Cristmas and a Happy New Year, everyone!!

Matone responded to your double post suggesting some 60's/70' magazines - and he's absolutely right!! I used to have a subscription to Sporting Gun (Christmas present from my wife) but I ended it - I got fed up with the generally poor quality of the articles, the uninformed opinions, and the repetitive content. Have a look at a copy of Shooting Times from, say, the early 70's. You'll find articles by Gough Thomas, Colin Willock, BB, Whiteface and Lea McNally, amongst others - the elder statesmen of field sports. These were men who not only knew their subject, but knew how to write about it as well.The stuff you'll find in today's magazines just doesn't stand scrutiny. And as for Gunmart..... Well, let's just say I'd rather buy the Beano. I spent a holiday in Norway a couple of years ago. On the way back, I browsed the magazines at Bergen airport. Believe it or not, I found forty-six different publications dedicated to rifle and shotgun shooting. How I wished (still wish) I could speak Norwegian!

138.5mph gust recorded at the wind turbine at Hatston industrial estate, Kirkwall, Orkney, just before 8.00pm on 8th December. Sustained wind speed was in excess of 100mph.

No offence intended, Wildfowler12, but I think you've been a touch naive.... You've bought a heavy car (over one-and-a-half tons), made heavier still by all the extra kit that's included in a top-of-the-range model. Being a tough-looking soft-roader, it hasn't exactly got cutting-edge aerodynamics..... It's got four-wheel-drive and so has more moving oily-bits which need lots of lovely unleaded to keep them turning. You've been tempted to use the toys. Cruise control does indeed dent economy. Whereas the average driver will quite naturally lose a bit of speed going uphill and gain a bit going downhill, cruise control relentlessly maintains a constant pace. I bet you've been using the climate-control, too! Well, it knocks spots off your fuel economy as well, because the energy to power the compressor has to come from somewhere. And you need to be realistic about the vendor's position. New cars come with a set of consumption figures that are the result of tests carried out at particular speeds in an artificial environment, dictated by standards set down by the motor industry and possibly by law. Manufacturers are not allowed to quote any other figures. Whilst it goes without saying that the figures don't reflect what's achievable under real road-conditions, what these figures do permit is COMPARISON, inasmuch as they allow you to gauge whether one car is potentially more economical than another. When cars are sold used, salesmen inevitably hark back to these original, flatteringly unrealistic figures. What the salesman quoted you is actually probably achievable - but perhaps only on a downhill slope on a warm day and with a tail-wind - and with the climate control and cruise control switched off! And when all's said in done, would you really have expected him to say, "It's lovely motor, sir, but it absolutely guzzles fuel and you'll never be a way from the pumps!"? He's a CAR SALESMAN. He has to shift cars to make a living!

Horrocks, that's a really nice looking gun. If it's in good condition it would be worth buying, and worth a little extra to get it fitted to you. Its maker, Bate, commenced in business in Birmingham in 1850 and if you do a quick Google, you'll find that the firm is still in existence. It might therefore be possible to get some information on the gun's age and history. As for it being a non-ejector, don't give it a second thought unless you regularly take part in driven shoots that send the birds over in big numbers. For general shooting, as others have said, you'll be spared having to look for, and pick up, your empties! Here's my argument for getting your plastic out:- It's a good-looking gun that wouldn't be out-of-place on a "formal" day. It's got heritage and tradition. It's got elegance. It will almost certainly have a grace, balance and handling which no over-and-under can match at the price (and which no pump or self-loader can match at ANY price). As I've grown older I've come to appreciate that, like most of us, I shoot for enjoyment, to get closer to nature by spending leisurely days in the countryside and to continue an activity in which my family has been involved for more than 125 years (my great-grandfather started his keepering career in the service of Queen Victoria, c. 1875). I don't need maximum efficiency. It doesn't matter if I miss some, as long as I hit a few to carry home for the pot, to justify my evening dram. I like the tradition, the nostalgia, the feeling that I'm maintaining what went before. The side-by-side is still the traditional British shotgun, and I like the things inherent to it - the elegance, grace, balance, liveliness, beauty, and the fact that every older gun is a talking-point in a way that no modern over-and-under can be. I rest my case.

Yes, I saw that. But as you'll have seen from their site, EMEC is right at the forefront of the development of marine energy and their equipment is far too sophisticated to be telling porkies. Probably worth noting that at roughly the same time, a windspeed of just over 130 mph was recorded at Hammar Hill, Evie, on mainland Orkney. I know that the storm was at its height around 6.00 am as I was awake then, and thinking our bedroom window was going to cave in! Maybe the big wind was accompanied by the big wave.

Following on scolopax's post of 24th November.... I've just been looking at EMEC's website. EMEC has some wave-measuring devices sited just off the west coast of the Orkney mainland. At around 6.00 am yesterday morning (Sunday 27th Nov) one of them measured a wave of just over 40 metres in height. I'm glad I was at home in bed and not out at sea.....

As far as I'm concerned, simple's GOOD! There seems to be a tendency nowadays - possibly driven by all the pretentious foodie programmes on tv - to plaster food with all sorts of unnecessary additional stuff, with the result that the taste of the main ingredient is masked or lost. You can't do much better than go out, shoot, prepare and cook. Gets you in touch with nature, gives you a great sense of satisfaction from your effort and success, and puts top-quality food on your table. So come on, tell us how it tasted!!

No it doesn't, pigeon street! Longer length means more recoil, higher pressures, more pellet deformation, shot stringing, and consequently, POORER patterns. The 3" .410 cartridge is a horrid device. If you need more than than the 2.5" can offer, it's best to buy a bigger gun.

With clapshot (swede and potatoes cooked together) and a big spoonful of braised steak mince.

Just out of interest, has anyone ever come across a 3 inch chambered 16 bore? I'd be very interested to know the make and configuration.

I get the impression that more than a few people who post on here don't do much reading and/or research for themselves - witness Dr_evil's admission that he'd been told (and presumably believed) that 36g steel loads in no.4 "were the best shells out there for wildfowl shooting". It's no secret that, compared to other materials, steel is balistically inferior. When I was a youngster, starting out in shooting, I inhabited a more shooting-friendly world, and was lucky to get a lot of good advice from family and other contacts, and from the local gunshop. But beyond that, I made a point of reading anything authoritative I could get my hands on that was relevant to shooting. I subscribed to "Shooting Times", (which, I have to say, was a far better magazine then than it is now); haunted the local library; and put books on my birthday and Santa lists. I've still got all those books and most of them are as relevant today as they were in the 60's and 70's. Some of them should be required reading - for example, Gough Thomas's works ("Shotguns and Cartridges", "Gough Thomas's Gun Book", and "Gough Thomas's Second Gun Book") in which he explores pattern and ballistics, amongst a whole host of other topics. Just for the record, Gough Thomas was gun editor at "Shooting Times", and his reviews and tests set a standard for rigour and consistency no longer attained by the so-called experts of today. While I'm at it, I suppose I might as well say that I continue to be baffled by the number of people who get 20 and 28 bores (which by and large are made too heavy), then stuff them with magnum-type loads. What on earth's the point? There's no appreciable weight reduction over the 12 bore - if there were, the recoil would be punishing - and it was established long, long ago that big loads were better suited to big guns, relatively speaking. It's worth remembering that the bore of a gun was, and still is, determined by the weight of a solid lead ball, exactly fitting the breech, as a fraction of a pound of pure lead - 12 bore, twelve balls, each one-twelfth of a pound; 20 bore, 20 balls each one-twentieth of a pound. And that's how the notional load for each of these bores came about. Similarly, it was determined many, many years ago that in order to arrive at a compromise between portability and manageable recoil, the optimum weight for a shotgun was around 96 times the load the shooter intended to fire. Consequently, a 12 bore game-gun firing one-and-an-eighth ounce loads would be made to weigh about six-and-three-quarter pounds; a 20 bore firing three-quarters-of-an-ounce loads, four-and-a-half to five pounds. The one-ounce load went (and still goes) best in a light 12 bore or a 16 bore. The huge loads contained in the various 12 bore magnum cartridges of today would be better accommodated by 10 and 8 bores. There's a whole lot of stuff in books written by far more knowledgeable people than I, that deals with the adverse effects upon pellet shape, pattern and pressure of the long shot columns which are an inevitable consequence of stuffing big loads through small bores. A few years ago, I came by a 16 bore side-by-side. It weighs just under six pounds, and shoots fifteen-sixteenths of an ounce of no 6 very satisfactorily. It's no burden to carry, has a liveliness you won't find in obese seven-pounds-plus 20 bores, and it kills very satisfactorily if held straight. Try one and be surprised, pleased and, I hope, converted.

No use to me - no .17 HMR barrel......