PeterHenry

👍

I did have second thoughts - and decided to leave them be. I don't have a great track record with this sort of thing. Wouldn't I have to cover them in gel? 👍 I'm the same normally - either a motor case or a 'razorback' gun slip if pigeon shooting, which is practically as solid. But anyway, neither was used in this particular instance.....

Agree 100%

The gun(s) survived hopefully? I discovered they fit in the boot on the way back... I never even thought about it, because most of my guns have longer barrels and from experience won't fit. These have 26" barrels and fit like a glove... I have a nice one that fits both as well..... I'm kicking myself for not using it...

👍 👍 Both excellent advice thank you

Probably a daft question - I certainly feel daft for allowing it to happen in the first place..... This afternoon I had my pair of AYA's in a double gun slip on the back seat of my car, when I had to perform an emergency stop. The result was the guns flying off the seat and landing with a thud on the floor of the back footwell... I'm on friendly terms with my local gunmaker (and was on my way there anyway to have the bores / chokes measured). He checked the barrels, and confirmed there was no damage to them - and checked over the stocks as well and said they were also fine / no cracks, but didn’t remove them from the actions, etc. Now, for some stupid reason I have got an idea (I imagine, entirely baseless) in my head that the stocks may have been damaged in some way that is internal / unseen. I have no evidence for this, and my logical mind says this is unlikely and not to worry - but nevertheless, worry I do.... The guns in question are AYA no.2's If anyone with any knowledge of stocks would care to jump in - thank you in advance for any advise / humouring my delusions....

Chapmans is another good English make - I've ended up with quite a few of their gun slips / game bags / etc, and have been very impressed

Personally, I'd be in favour - I can't really see a downside. Maybe if I'd have been asked 10 years ago I'd have said leave things be - but after all the fuss and performance over the last few years? There's not really any downside.

I agree, but only to a point - like shooting, fishing often brings with it benefits regarding habitat creation / maintenence. Those are goods in their own right, and we do it a bit of a disservice is we start categorising it as the least defensible. I know this is perhaps more psychological than anything, but there would be less wedges driven / hackles raised if we put the onus on shootings best points, than some of fishing more arguable ones. It you wanted to insist that it was the least defensible - its always possible to take succor from that fact that it maintains a far greater social license than other field sports. I'm sure there's something we can extrapolate from that.

Bit of shock to the system that you could buy paper cased cartridges from Holland and Holland for £7.50 a box only 12 years ago..... I know things have gone up, but still....

That's excellent news

If you follow Conors link, it has to be an extant activity- so hare coursing is out. Morris dancing did spring to mind - but off the top if my head, I'd bet there are more game shooters than morris dancers in the UK. I know very little about pigeon racing, so can't help with that sorry.

Off the top of my head - doesn't the law in relation to firearms center around pressure bearing parts and availability of ammunition? What I'm presuming you have there is a pressure bearing part of a 12 bore - so regardless of its age it would still require a licence to possess - even minus the barrells.

👍

Fieldsports are the traditions, and there are working class strains within them - that's my argument. Putting aside the issue of the foreshore for a moment, you've said yourself, entirely correctly from a practical perspective, that historically and up until this day, all land is owned in this country - that's part of our cultural tradition as a country. The fact that historically fieldsports have happend on that land over centuries by the consent of the owners is traditional in itself - it might not be 'traditional' in the sense of 'traditional' hunting in America or France - but its nevertheless traditional from a British perspective. And again, the fact that it happens by consent, doesn't fundamentally prevent it from being working class. Coarse fishing is by consent and is widely viewed as a working class sport. If you look at America, where vast swaths are owned by the state (and on a tangent, actually all of our land is owned by the Crown in an ultimate sense....) its still hunted over by consent - consent of the owner, who just happens to be the state - which is the same situation as the foreshore in Scotland (and historically in England). And yes, I know Jorrocks was a fictional character - but he was caricature / stereotype of a certain sort of working class sportsman. Hence the whole genre of cockney sportsman prints and books. These types of people existed - and in good enough numbers to be written about and caricatured. Anyway, who wouldn't rarther be a Squire than a Grocer (except perhaps Messrs Fortnum and Mason) - it might not be your argument, buts it is mine that there were sportsmen drawn from the ranks of both, and others besides. I have a feeling that we are not going to agree on this, so in the spirit of good faith and good humour, I'll bow out now - but I grant you the fact that other counties have broader egalitarian hunting traditions - its just not the case that we didn't have them either.

Very nice

The exception proves the rule though, doesn't it. The fact that it could be done (and still can be done in Scotland) means there was that opportunity. Maybe not on the same scale, but it was there nevertheless. I also understand that you use to be able to pay a small fee to shoot on land owned by the railway (even after nationalisation) - so again, everymans shooting on state owned land. Like I said before, just because you have to pay for something doesn't make it non working class. To top it off, what about all those old single barelled shotguns - greener gp's or argyle's and the like? They existed to provide affordable guns for the working man. Jorrocks was a cockney grocer for a reason - because there was a very strong tradition of working class sportsmen in the east end - hence all the cockney sportsman prints.

I'm not going to argue that a lot of shooting, fishing or hunting wasn't done by wealthy pepole. I'm also not going to argue that most land isn't owned by wealthy individuals. I'm just arguing that it's never been so black and white as a lot of pepole seem to think. However, I was under the impression that until 1999 it was more or less the same as in Scotland now - that anyone could shoot from the foreshore owned by the Crown. A bit like sea fishing. Re hunting with hounds - it's difficult to be a farmer if you're not a tenant or landowner - but there were a lot of Welsh farmers who hunted that would today be described as working class. Likewise with the packs run by coal miners. There are also sections of law in relation to farming tenants rights to shoot pest species, regardless of the views of their landlord. I also dont agree with the idea that the fact somone had to pay or lease ground to shoot, fish (or as it were, hunt), made it essentially a non working class pursuit - it just doesn't hold up if you look at coarse fishing / the miners hunts / ferreting / coursing. Infact, there's a whole genre of sporting prints and stories - known as 'cockney sportmen' / Mr Jorrocks respectively, that center on the (London) working class.

Very nice

I was thinking more in the past 200 years, which in my experience tends to be the sort of time frame people invisage when being critical of field sports - pepole in tweed with guns and in pink coats on horse - because it often speaks more of recreation that necessity - as you said. However we did have places until fairly recently - and in Scotland continue to I understand - where you can freely shoot, and with less fuss and performance than on the continent - the foreshore. But here in England, that most egalitarian entry to our sport vanished. Still, wildfowling clubs are fairly close to what you are describing - everymans shooting on state owned land?

It's strange though, isn't it - because it's not actually, and never has been truly the case. I know i'm telling you how to suck eggs, but for the sake of the Internet- rabbit shooting or shooting on the foreshore were traditionally very accessible to anyone. Likewise with hunting to hounds - there was always a strong working class aspect to it. Not to mention a lot of those on horse back were farmers, and not remotely aristocratic. Anyway, as you identified - there's a strong loathing by some, of anything deemed remotely to be on the wrong side of the 'class struggle'. I talked to a chap at the weekend on the train, and he was visibly furious that people had voted for things that he didn’t agree with.

Excellent approch - culture tends to underpin law, so reinforcing it can only do good.

As its largely about the working class rising up to overthrow the bourgeoisie, it doesn’t really touch on gun control as a book. Also, one of its authors was incredibly keen on fox hunting....

Very much an amateur here - but Purdeys are complicated guns - if it hasn't been shot since 2002 it may well just need to be serviced.

👍 - hopefully, it would be a case of shooting proving its credentials. We all know a lot of conservation work goes into shooting. If events conspire against our sport, it would be wonderful to think we could divert to an outcome like this. Hopefully not, for the reasons others have outlined below. I don't mind a duck drive on a shoot - my syndicate puts a few down. But i'm sure we've all seen shoots where its less that ideal for one rrason or more. That's interesting to hear - I've never seen one on our land. Despite hearing that there were plenty about in the 80s / 90s. 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍 👍