SxS

The largest shoots are an extension of the broader shooting community and, I would wager, are responsible for much of the game output… those 400+ bag days several days a week won’t all be going home in the cars of the guns/beaters/dog teams. They’re also obvious targets for calls of elitism and “excess”. There certainly aren’t many people who can pay the sorts of money they demand and want such big days. Candidly anyone shooting those numbers should be able to afford to switch to non-toxic - even if (and I accept this is a really radical idea) they had to drop 50/100 birds off the bag to keep the costs similar. My personal view is that the big shoots need to be leading by example, not ignoring the issue for one simple reason: if they don’t then there’s a real risk of a ban that will affect grass roots shooters. The types that maybe shoot in small syndicates or undertake pigeon control where the birds do get taken home and/or are consumed by people who don’t object to lead in their meat. Take away too many of those and the strength of any collective voice against an outright ban gets weaker.

What’s in it for them? Their future. They are already in the firing line, including from a non-trivial number of game shots, for enormous bag sizes… not to mention the money involved and perceived “class” of guns on big shoots placing them right in the cross-hairs of labour’s ideological warfare. I agree that a ban on sales of game shot with lead would make sense but there’s a practical issue around testing and compliance. I am sure, for example, that many have shot on drives/shoots where non-toxic has been needed, for say a duck drive, and most of the empties in the sack look remarkably similar to lead shells… how on earth is a dealer/butcher supposed to ensure full compliance? The simple answer is they can’t, so if the penalties are too draconian then they’ll simply stop buying/selling game - at which point the arguments around sustainability, free-range, etc vapourise if there’s no outlet for surplus shot game.

That’s mixing two things: the transition itself and the logic behind it. Given the agenda of other parties, we can’t just say “the science is flawed so we’re not doing it” and then expect that our hand won’t be forced at some point. Similarly, the cartridge manufacturers will continue to make what sells. I’ve used bismuth when I’ve had to (even though it is bloody expensive) but will admit that I’m yet to shoot steel (but I may try some soon through my pump). Do any estates insist on lead free shot? Aside from duck drives where the need for non-toxic is sometimes mentioned, I don’t recall being on one that did (but will caveat that I’ve not shot a lot for the past couple of seasons).

A voluntary transition that nobody seems to be making. It’s almost as if people want to believe that everyone else will transition so that their own personal use of lead becomes immaterial and it isn’t banned (which it probably will be if enough people don’t start making the switch). In some ways it surprises me that sporting estates/shoots selling game aren’t insisting that their shooters switch. Much like many are “fibre only”. My gut feeling is that they don’t want to be having that conversation with guns paying big money to shoot there (who may go elsewhere if the wish to shoot lead).

This is a truly astonishing thread: amazing to see BASC, when very reasonably asked about whether they had sought statistics to understand the extent of the problem, go on the offensive against those raising such queries. How on earth can the correct response have been anything other than “we’ve reached out to the NCA in an effort to better understand the scale of the problem”??? The information received, which would likely be much more forthcoming to BASC than to a private individual making a similar request, would be genuinely helpful in helping address either public perceptions or making shooters realise the true extent of a problem (that, right now, few believe really exists at any significant level). Instead it’s been personal attacks, accusations of paranoia, and folk effectively told to go away/do it themselves (in spite of some having tried and been fobbed off). BASC really should reflect on their position on this…

“Wish washy” is perhaps a very generous evaluation! People need to think about how these things might play out longer term There are already moves afoot to increase the costs associated with licensing and the current government is also, if the hunting announcement on Boxing Day is indicative, still quite anti-fieldsports. if I were an anti wanting to twist things to suit my own agenda, I’d be pointing to BASC’s article as an implicit admission by the largest shooting organisation that there is a problem with certificate fraud… something I think most shooters wouldn’t believe is actually the case. A small problem can still justify vigilance, but it’s a mistake to put out articles that could quite easily be used against shooting That said, it always surprises me that the current licensing system seems so archaic. No idea why we’re still on paper based certificates when it wouldn’t be difficult to have a driving license style card (that didn’t disintegrate if you carried it) with a database for checking/transferring ownership.

From the BASC link ^^^. Not really much need to look further when it looks like BASC agrees that other mechanisms aren’t caught… it would seem that if you have AOLQ you’d be fine to use S1 pumps etc. Not that they’d necessarily be the first choice but if that’s what you happened to have available you could.

Once again, that’s not what the extract of the WCA says. It makes no reference at all to S1. Do you have a link to some other legislation that forbids the use of S1?

Not after an argument, but you do seem to not be seeing (or wanting to see) that the WCA doesn’t say “S1” but instead makes reference to a specific subset of S1 firearms based on certain characteristics that don’t apply to all of them. I am well aware that a pump can indeed cycle quickly. The only non-SxS is shoot is a Benelli Supernova It will be interesting to see how the HO responds but it would be easy for them to miss a nuance and, ultimately, it’s what’s written in law that matters more.

I’m sorry, but that’s just doesn’t seem to make sense as an argument if based only on the WCA? There would be no more logic to arbitrarily saying that a different mechanism would be caught than there would be to saying that different mag sizes would. You’d be hard pushed to ever get it tested in court, as it would never get that far if the only reliance being placed was on that section of the WCA. Anyone faced with such an action would just need to point out that it very clearly applies only to automatic and semi-automatic firearms. If the intention was that it caught all S1 firearms then that’s what it’d say… It seems likely that when the law was drafted the intention was to avoid putting a lot of rounds into the air in quick succession and a perception that this could only happen with semi/automatic firearms with pump/bolt actions being quite deliberately omitted.

People keep saying that there is a blanket S1 ban, but nobody seems to have posted a link to the relevant legislation? S1 isn’t explicitly banned under the WCA definition posted earlier (6 Nov by eightlittlebits) in the thread: that only refers to semi and automatics with magazine capacities of more that 2 shots. All guns meeting that description are S1. But there are other S1 guns - such as high capacity pumps, or FAC air rifles - that don’t meet that description (because although they have high mag capacities they are neither semi nor automatic firearms). If it’s the case that S1 isn’t specifically banned as a complete class of guns, then there might just be a general (and understandable) confusion that because the guns most shooters think of when they hear “S1” (high capacity semis). if the intention had been that all S1 guns were banned, it would have been clearer for the law to simply say so instead of making reference to the specific characteristics of guns in the WCA.

The illegality, according to the quote posted higher up the thread, seems to be for semi/auto. So a S1 pump would not be illegal. That isn’t to say that it would be the right gun to use, but it wouldn’t appear to be illegal? Similarly, that Mossberg bolt-action isn’t s semi/auto.

I usually go to ranges whenever I’m on holiday in the US. Ones close to tourist areas don’t often allow solo shooters but like many places in the UK, it’s attitude that counts. if you want to spend a decent amount of time and shoot a few different guns take your own eye protection / ear defenders / SGC and/or FAC as government issued ID. Immediately differentiates you from a tourist who has never even seen a gun close up (I’ve been at ranges and seen range staff never leave the side of those, which is how it should be). Worth reminding them that we don’t get to shoot handguns in the UK, tends to usually result in a quick refresher of how to check clear, load mag, operate safety, etc. If it doesn’t then just ask. I’ve had times when I’ve checked in, asked to start with a 9mm handgun and it’s basically been gun, mag, box of ammo dropped in a tray and “range is that way, have fun!” and it’s not cause any awkwardness when a refresher has been requested Tell them what you want to shoot and they’ll usually oblige. Some will let you check a gun out, shoot a bit, swap for another. Some will run a tab for ammo, watch out it can soon stack up. The more touristy ones are more likely to offer a package, some of which can be fun but slightly sobering when you shoot ARs and the such like, see what they can do, and start to wonder if civilians should really have them. That’s a different debate though. Last time I did it in Orlando, a few years ago, was at The Armories. If is was going back I’d see if they were still in business.

How old is it? I bought a 3 year old approved used Custom just after the model changed a couple of years back and people were upgrading. The screen was a bit temperamental (random bars across it, then started flashing on and off intermittently). Fortunately it started playing up whilst still at the tail end of the approved warranty so ended up back with Ford for replacement.

With NFU you always end up with the local office, it’s how they work. I insure my home, farm, and some extra land with them. Every year they ask about insuring my cars, every year they want to go through the ball ache of doing it the old fashioned way where you read them all the details over the phone.. in office hours of course. much harder than simply entering online at a convenient time. Whenever I’ve bothered to try, they then always say that they can’t cover the vehicle I want to start insuring first (usually my Range Rover as that comes up for renewal around the same time as my home insurance). That I’ve insured other stuff with them for years and haven’t had a car insurance claim for around 20 years doesn’t stop them saying that they “want to get to know us” for car insurance before they’ll insure the RR. Invariably, as a result of having wasted so much time trying to get a quote I don’t bother doing it again when the next car comes up for renewal. They’re probably OK if you’ve already managed to get car insurance with them but otherwise it’s nowhere near as straightforward as other insurers. Tbh, the overall impression I have of them from my other insurance with them is that they like to keep things paper based and quite bureaucratic which is a PITA if you try to deal with admin in an evening/at weekends. By coincidence, also just binned Hastings (mentioned by another poster) for a policy after it went up 50%. You need to be very firm with them (and actually call them) when you want to stop your policy auto-renewing. Quite a hard sell to get you to stay, even if you’ve already bought a new policy elsewhere. Comparison site came up with a quote less than the previous years.