yorkierm

Accuracy International .338 chassis and furniture for sale. Used but in good condition. Bipod not included. £500

Price Drop on Trigger Mechs Will take £65 each posted. Yorkierm

Having sold my 12b 870 Magnum, I keep coming across spares that I no longer need. I have 2 trigger assemblies. £80 each including postage. Yokierm

Yeah I am certain new proof marks are added and you cant remove the old ones... I have also never worked on an underlever locking gun, but looking at some online the barrels sit flush or lower than the fences of the action, so if the barrels of yours sit proud of the action then I would suggest that's not quite right. And if anything could be the result of a poorly done rejointing in the past, prior to your ownership, rather than having originally been made that way. How old is the gun? Like I say can you get any pics up? And are the strikers hitting centrally?

Is it possible to put up a picture of what you mean? Sleeving won't move the position of the lumps, so if the barrels are sitting high on the action, it is unlikely to be a result from the sleeving process. Are the strikers hitting centrally on the primers?

Depends on the re jointing method used mate. Fitting a new hinge pin will pull the guns barrels both back, and down, so if there is already no gap, then you have a lot more adjustment to do with a file, as you have to carefully file the hook in order to bring them back into place. This is done by smoke blacking the barrels, assembling the gun, and seeing where they touch, then filing the hook to adjust, before finally honing the barrels back onto face with a fine stone. TIG (or laser as its far more precise) welding the hook is another acceptable method, where by you add beads of weld to the hook to add material. Again you need to hand file it all back into place, but by being clever with where you add the weld on the hook, you can move the barrels slightly relative to the position on the flats etc. Tightening the gun simply adjusts the amount of bite the locking lug gives, as a user you would notice that the top lever sits more to the right, as opposed to over centre. regards Yorkierm

A shotguns barrels should not sit on the flats. The small gap exists to allow the barrels to close square on the breech. The better the gun, the smaller the gap. Truthfully the size of the gap is (within reason) meaningless I think as it has no bearing on the strength of the guns mechanical lock up, that being achieved by the breech face, barrel wall thickness, and hook, lump and hinge pin etc... But it does have cosmetic value. As long as your barrels are on the face (test by removing the forend and seeing if they wobble on the action), and your strikers/firing pins are hitting centrally on the primer then your gun, while not looking quite perfect, should be ok. But as with all these things, if it concerns you or you think your gun is loose or off the face, take it to a reputable gunsmith to either repair or ease your concerns. Also remember that a gun can be loose, but still on the face and simply require tightening...but a gun that is off the face requires re jointing... While tightening an off the face gun will give the impression (for a few shots) that it is back on the face... regards Yorkierm

just seen on the news that the weapon used was a shotgun. so subject to its recovery I assume (and seriously hope) that it was an illegally held shotgun in the very first instance... My concern is similar to that of wandering star...we now have a situation in this country where criminals have upped their MO's, and armed themselves with a firearm in order to commit what in effect and thus far appears to be nothing more than a simple house burglary, albeit targeted as the victim was clearly very wealthy. we are on the slipperiest of slopes...how long before you or I as simple working class folk without such wealth face similar attacks. While I still wait with interest the true outcome of the investigation over mine and everyone else's speculations...I remain extremely concerned about this level of crime filtering into our country and the possible effect it will have on our sport again,

There are a few speculative circumstances going round my head about it...which only time and Police investigation will hopefully answer. Thus far the police are saying they do not beleive that the victim was known to his attackers.

Just seen this on the news. Dreadful. Two things cross my mind...firstly, as I cannot think of another... Is this the first example of a man being killed in his private residence with a firearm as a result of a botched burglary? and secondly is there any indication as to the type of firearm that was used?

Cheers again timps…and that makes far more sense. I still think that the police would be hard pressed to say he is a risk to anyone else. But fully accept that he broke the firearms act, which is the likely reason he will get his SGC revoked. but as he wasn't charged with breaking the firearms act, can that stand? like you say time will tell. Just a shame our laws cant be written to support him more…I did think that when they assessed self defence law a few years ago that it offered more support to people in such circumstances… Doh. Seems derogatory may have been the wrong choice of word. There I was thinking it only had relevance if talking about a person…for example when commenting on a persons weight being a derogatory comment… Seems I was wrong and my critique of some of the police approach to firearms is derogatory. Every day is a school day…note for next time… I make no apologies for my statements, they are on the whole from personal witness or from conversations with other people taking it from their personal experience. And I am sure others on here will have similar opinions towards the unfair portrayal of firearms owners by the police, and tactics they use to lead the non shooting public astray about our sport. But for my incorrect use of the English language I do apologise. No offence is intended to any police officer. Inevitably it is only ever bad examples of anything we tend to remember, policing, waiters who spill food on us…refs who make bad decisions during the vital game… So by way of readdressing the balance towards favourable policing… To the police officers who daily risk life, diving into cold lakes to save kids, or the copper who (many years ago now) pulled me over on a Sunday night for it to transpire that I had no road tax (oversight) but instead of throwing the book at me, questioned what was first on my list of things to do on the Monday morning…giving me the chance to sort myself out, which I duly did…before making it plain that if he saw me again without tax I would be in for it… And all the police officers who we see on thing like police camera action dealing with the utter scum of the earth…Well done guys and girls. I have no objection to being corrected or educated, I have an objection to being disagreed with yet having nothing offered other than a basic no, or juvenile insult. Gordon if you could have approached in a manner such as timps then I would have listened. Incidently he is not giving me a spanking, he is attempting to get a rise out of me which he isn't achieving. I'm not overly worried about what a faceless internet bloke thinks about me...especially one who is unable to do anything but condescend and offer no real advice of merit...yet...I am prepared to admit my failings,I get things wrong from time to time, i am human. But I am entightled to my thoughts and opinions. If he can be gentlemanly and do the same then we can hopefully converse again in the future. And if he is as educated as he is trying to make out, or some of you think he is, then in future perhaps he could offer that education in a fair, free and good willed manner. All I ask for.

Gordon switch off and let someone who has something worth listening to have a say, even if they disagree with my feelings or thoughts at least they might, as in timps example, be able to do it without being condescending and attempting to belittle someone else. I answered about risk in a previous post...yes the police have to assess it, but as there are cases of people with actual convictions from their past with SGCs, due to the rehabilitation of offenders act, and the bit of the firearms act that says less than three years must wait 5 years before being allowed... then a man who has no convictions should surely not be barred from owning a SGC... The whole idea of forums such as this is to be able to have a reasoned debate, in order to learn from others and discuss, without the need to be rude, subjects of interest to us. You dont seem capable.

Gordon... Grass roots, bobby on the beat policing is a very hard job and has my utmost support. It is a hard and dangerous job which they do, mostly, to the very best standard. And yes there are always examples of bad practice,but on the whole they do a fine job... that said... Which of my statements about the police do you find to be untrue. While Many cops may support shooting sports...it is true that the many higher echelons have an undue negative attitude towards it... All we ever hear on the news is police negativity towards guns and shooting. Firearms amnestys which supposedly remove deadly weapons from criminals, with pictures of a few old air rifles that probably dont work, coupled with some crime commissioner telling the presenter just how very very dangerous they are...misleading the general public spectacularly... And yes they can be heavy handed...To rock up at the old mans house fully equipped claiming to be looking for hostages? where did they get that intelligence from? I do think that was over the top, you may not. It is the higher police ranks that have say in how firearms law is written and implemented...and to date I have seen very little that is supportive of our sport. Some forces are enforcing mentoring systems for FACs where you have to have additional proof from the land owner or other FAC holder that you are fit, having been out shooting with them on a number of occasions, to have an FAC...this is not official Home Office guidelines, so yes making up the rules to suit themselves... And yes bullying...I know of a gentleman who wanted one of them lever release rifles...but his police force told him not to bother as they would be banned soon...turns out was just because they dont like them... isnt that bullying? seems to me you should know a bit about that. Yes the police grant certificates, so if they decide you aren't fit to have it...you wont get it...even if there is no reason not to. They have to provide 2 written reasons why you cannot be granted a licence. There are reports of people just being refused yet given no reason... The head of the MET did blame licensed holders...apparently we are more likely to be the target of criminals who want to steal our guns in order to kill people... Pistol shooters some years ago got shafted totally by police ineptitude. Because of it we are all tarred with the same brush, and to me the police, who should be there to support the innocent, have made very little real effort to convince the non shooting public that on the whole legal firearms owners are not a risk to society. Yes it does see to me that the rights of victims are massively overshadowed by criminals....or perhaps you are happy that someone can get sent to prison and be allowed all the luxuries that the rest of us work hard to have to pay for. To any serving police officer on this site/forum, you have my blessing and respect. I wish you safety and health. and hope that as you proceed up the ranks you can start to possibly swing the balance of common sense back to where it needs to sit.

Oh my days Gordon... I have read your views, and accepted your take on things...you feel that he was in the wrong to go out with his gun, though you are happy he got off...but you do not think he will get his gun back, but say you would accept if he did...yet you offer no level of real support in if you actually think he should get them back or not. Despite him being found innocent it seems to me you still feel that he is a danger to society and would prefer him not to have them...But do not have the courage to say that his act of self defence possibly saved his and his wifes life. I have countered that with the argument that i do not see that he is a risk to anyone else, not that the police do not have to assess the risk, I have stated that I find it hard pressed for the police to argue he is a risk. I have not said the police have no regard to risk...I have said that in this instance i do not feel there is one. You mention that if he got his gun back and then shot someone else the whole system would be in ridicule...but seem unable yourself to differentiate the possible use of any other item to be used as a weapon. I am simply saying you do not need a gun to have a weapon... I also have not attempted to portray the police in a bad light. I have said nothing derogatory about them...but it is true that the police and government are actively trying to reduce legal gun ownership, and that the laws are not run in a shooters favour. And some forces are very much more anti than others. So my sentiments that gun laws are unfair and not 100% workable are at least about right...

Hi Timps, cheers for your thought out reply. I had considered, and read, the crown immunity aspect of the firearms act. Crown immunity covers a wide variety of things, but it does not cover the use of force on UK soil. So while an armed copper, or other servant of the crown may be exempt to the firearms act, allowing him to have a firearm without relevant licences while on duty, it does not completely exempt them from how they use it. Any decision into any use of force is still judged in the same way. IE that no more force than is reasonable may be used. And that the use of lethal force is the absolute last resort. And I maintain that as we all have, and are judged by, the same inherent rights and laws, as UK citizens, that just because a servant of the crown is armed with a firearm and using it as an offensive weapon, they have no greater right than anyone else to the use of additional nor excessive force. Just because they have a gun does not give them the right to use it. That would be legalising murder for the authorities. One only need reminding to the case of private clegg, the former soldier who went too far and shot at a fleeing vehicle killing its occupant, well outside the bounds of self defence and subsequently charged accordingly....or the case just a few years ago where armed police shot mark duggan...were investigated in accordance with the RoE (which is the extension of the right to self defence to those with a firearm on duty) as they thought he had a gun about to fire at them, in immediate threat to life which they are allowed to counter with equal force....and are back on active firearms duties. Now I also respect there are more to both cases...but thats just a very quick mention of them, no need to get into the intricacies of any possible cover ups etc... With regard to section 16 of the firearms act (possession of a firearm with intent to injure)… I fully appreciate this, no it is not a just reason to own a firearm simply for defence in this country. And yes, his admission that he took it for self defence on the night in question raises eyebrows…but as, in this case, self defence has been proven…to me that negates the intent to injure fact, as the law on self defence makes allowances for things that under any other circumstance to be illegal, to be taken into justification. Had he continued to follow the fleeing pair down his road firing at them then yes i would support a ban, and indeed would agree that it was not self defence. But that was not the case. In this case, to me at least, his shotgun is no different to any other possible weapon, a knife or bat. He probably grabbed the first thing he thought he could use to defend himself. Had that been a pitch fork, which is just as capable of inflicting severe trauma and possibly death, which again on any other occasion being turned into an offensive weapon would be illegal, he would have been equally justified, as now is proven, he acted in self defence, meaning he was entightled to use the force he felt at the time he required. And from that, despite the two being just as deadly, he would not likely be facing loosing his guns. I do accept though what it is to me, and the police are very different. But I still see no full legal reason for him to be refused it. Considering that there are people out there with actual convictions on there record who hold SGC, then a man who has none should not be barred…So with consideration to the polices view on if he is a risk or not…if he is refused it back I would suggest he looked into how many other people have an actual conviction yet still have there SGC… Though sadly as you also clearly state there is no distinction between good guy and bad, there is also no distinction between offensive and defensive. Any act that causes harm to another is offensive, no matter what the reason. And as they say, sometimes the best defence, is a good offense. But yes this is very likely the stance the police will take on it. Despite how strongly I may feel about it. And again timps, thank you for your helpful input. And Gordon, oh Gordon… Dear oh dear… Sir I do not have a bee in my bonnet about the Police. I fully respect them, the job they do in what can only be described as challenging and sometimes dangerous conditions. They, on the whole, get my full support. I do however have severe misgivings about UK firearms laws, which are governed by the police. As stated before I feel they are outdated, not in keeping with modern society, and formed from knee jerk reactions. I object to my guns being called and referred to as weapons in law. I don’t know about yours, but my guns are pieces of sporting equipment, as they were not made to cause harm to anyone (as is the definition of an offensive weapon). I do however respect the fact that they could be used offensively, as a weapon…but no more than any other item available to us, ie kitchen knife, axe, car…or even the pillow on my bed if someone were to break into my house and suffocate me with it. While we do not have to agree on things, you would be the first I have ever spoken with who actually thinks our gun laws are where they need to be. We abide by them because we are law abiding people. Criminals by there very nature don’t give a rats *** about laws…so we as shooters are paying the price for it…And while I also respect that our laws are very unlikely to change for the better…there is even less chance of us achieving a good workable standard while the in fighting and "I'm alright Jack" mentality that you are displaying still dogs the shooting sport world. The lack of morale back bone being displayed in support of a man who has clearly been dragged through it to me is utterly disgraceful. As far as not understanding what I copy /paste…thus far you are the only person here who has been unable to offer any form of reasoned debate without simply jumping on the back of anothers posts and ending yours with a snidey comment about how the other has no idea about what he is writing… I will however make the apology to you about misreading one of your earlier posts, where I exclaimed you didn’t think he should have his guns back, and accept that you stated you didn’t think he would get them back. So with that in mind, and in the words of my dearly beloved and sadly departed grand mother… If you can think of nothing nice, helpful nor constructive to say…then despite the assumed strength of your typing hand…I respectfully request you refrain from risking any form of RSI, and not waste your energy replying. Cheers.