Jump to content

Uilleachan

Members
  • Content Count

    307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Uilleachan


  1. With fiocchi I find it best to look at the box label for the actual size in mm, 2.2 .23 are usually both marked as 8 on the box, I have some TT1's marked 8 that are actual UK 8's  (2.2) my TT2's are also marked 8 (2.3) are actually UK 7.5 where as my FBLU marked 7.5 are nearer UK 7 (2.4), all clay rounds.

    It pays to check if it's a specific size you're after. Good confidence inspiring ammo for all that. 


  2. 13 hours ago, grrclark said:

    Are you not just better to learn to shoot DTL with the gun as it is?  Lock the trap so it is firing straight out in front and learn what the sight picture is, then do the same with extreme left and extreme right.  Once you have your sight pictures established you will be sorted.

    That involves blotting out the bird with the end of barrels, which isn't ideal. If I could see a little more rib I reckon I could up my average. Thinking a match width up on the comb, but I'd need to pattern it to see where it's throwing to decide. My sxs throws high and I can adjust to that easily enough so I'm thinking I can do the same with my main gun. 

    In an ideal world I'd have a trap gun too, but to date I've done so little trap that at the moment I can't justify the expense nor, more particularly, the space. 


  3. 5 hours ago, daveboy said:

    I looked at both of these, In the end I went for the sporter with the adjustable comb.

    Me too. The 525 to rule them all is the "sporter" IMO, clay game and fowl, it has it covered. 

    I'm a fairly big guy so with the adjustable comb flat to the stock and cast a few mm to the right I'm seeing no rib and shooting flat. Fitted a butt pad shim moved the trigger forward and bingo, the gun is fitting well and I shoot it well. 

    Next time I'm in the vicinity of a pattern plate I'll be finding the height the comb needs to be for a decent DTL trap sight picture then I'll make a gap tool so I can replicate the comb height simply and quickly. 

    I did think about setting it up with a bit of rib showing so that I could just get used to that for all my shooting, but I like the flat shooting characteristics and I do little DTL, so having the adjustable comb is well worth it, in my opinion. 


  4. 35 minutes ago, Scully said:

    Not in my opinion; I don’t give anything a ‘sporting chance.’ I’d even do a big bag day if the shooting was varied; but driven pheasants can become predictable after a while. 

    Think I’m out now; we’re going round in circles. 

     

    Not giving something a sporting chance doesn't detract from the enjoyment and thrill you get doing it, the enjoyment and thrill is in and of it's self actually the meaning of the word. 


  5. 14 hours ago, Scully said:

    Yes, I kill wild animals because I enjoy the thrill of putting my skill with a shotgun against winged quarry, and for no other reason.  I love it with a passion more than I can convey.

    I love driven shooting and decoying; especially those high wind driven fast curling pheasants and fast jinking and twisting pigeons. I love to see those challenging birds fold up dead in the air after I’ve whipped the muzzles through, and come crashing down to earth; and with pigeons that explosion of ‘chaf’ as they fly through a stream of no6 shot from a full choke. I find it exhilarating beyond belief. I’ll do it all day if possible. It isn’t ‘sporting’ because at the risk of sounding big headed I don’t miss much. I do miss of course, but not often. I also wound, like everyone else, but it doesn’t deter me at all. The more difficult it is the better. The more memorable the shot the better, and it can take just one cracking bird enough to make my day, but if the birds aren’t there I’m disappointed to the same extent I’m disappointed if the birds don’t show when decoying. 

    I wont shoot easy birds ( unless decoying ) not because they’re ‘unsporting’ but because there is no challenge in it and it ruins the meat. 

    Bolting bunnies to guns is on a par with decoying as far as that  ‘buzz ‘ is concerned. 

    It isn’t sporting because if we do our part the quarry doesn’t stand a chance; every conceivable advantage over the bird is given to the shooter. 

    ill debate with antis also, and have done so in the past, and when they ask me why I do it I’ll tell them with honesty; because I love it.

    It’s quite hard to put my finger on it as I’ve had to explain that while I don’t relish seeing things die, and I especially regret seeing them wounded, i don’t care enough to stop doing it.

    I don’t despise antis because they oppose what I do, but because of the way they oppose what I do, with hypocrisy, deceit and dishonesty. 

    You carry on, and sincerely enjoy yourself, but at the end of your ‘activity’ leading up to that point,  you’re still killing for your own satisfaction and enjoyment, and everyone knows that. If you’re not then leave your gun at home; you can hunt without the kill. 

    I don’t shoot foxes anymore because I always felt remorseful afterwards, and I don’t trap anymore in case I kill a mustelid, which I adore. Pheasants and pigeons I could shoot all day; the former ( like grouse and partridge )  are catered for and to for no other reason than to be shot. Man exploits them for his own benefit and enjoyment; they are bred for no other reason. ‘Sport’ ? Really? 

    Yeah and, you describe the true meaning of the word wonderfully above :yes:

     


  6. Over complicating the word "Sport".

    In this wiki link they run off with the hijacked modern usage, competitive energetic activity. But further into the page we find the true meaning. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport

    Quote for the link:

    "Etymology

    The word "Sport" comes from the Old French desport meaning "leisure", with the oldest definition in English from around 1300 being "anything humans find amusing or entertaining".[9]

    Other meanings include gambling and events staged for the purpose of gambling; hunting; and games and diversions, including ones that require exercise.[10] Roget's defines the noun sport as an "activity engaged in for relaxation and amusement" with synonyms including diversion and recreation"


  7. 22 minutes ago, Scully said:

    We’re mostly singing from the same song sheet, but I still can’t consider shooting game as ‘sport’. Don’t forget that it wasn’t the general public who banned fox hunting but a sympathetic government lobbied by ( amongst others ) The League Against Cruel ‘SPORTS’! , both riddled with class hatred.  

    The reason we don’t shoot game on the ground ( as someone else has just pointed out ) is that there’s no fun in it; the challenge isn’t there. If you were shooting to sustain yourself and your family then you would shoot game on the ground, just like my dear old Dad used to do by head shooting pheasants and fowl with his .22. 

    You and me don’t need to do that but because we contain the hunting gene we do it for recreation. 

    If you want to give your quarry a ‘sporting’ chance throw your gun at it. Everything about wing shooting is biased towards giving every conceivable advantage to the shooter, not the quarry. 

    Like someone said; forget about the antis, but you try telling a member of the general public you kill live quarry for your own entertainment and see what their reaction is. 

    Clay pigeon shooting and other target shooting is a ‘sport’ and is recognised as such by the Olympic  Committee and the world at large. Killing live game for any other reason than sustenance is entertainment. 

    Ill totally agree that the relevant commercial shoots need to get their act together to address the situation regarding wastage, but trying to dress up what we do as anything else other than what it actually is, isn’t fooling anyone

    Then we are roughly on the same paragraph. However, I'm a sporting shot (all be it not one of the best).

    Lets not lose sight of the meaning of the word "sport". It's a hijacked term thats now used to describe athletics and "wholesome" activities. But it's a wider term that encompasses everything from betting on the horses to shooting for recreation, many of us remember the pre highjacked term and how it's applicable to what we do. Be that snooker darts shooting running etc. lets not forget either that the much vaunted modern wholesome idea of "athletics" is an artificial modern construct, athletics were originally a sport in the true sense of the word, it was a cash prize sport with keen betting on the side.  

    Just as "Forest" doesn't just mean a big stand of trees, actual meaning is: uncultivated ground set aside for game hunting. "Hill" isn't a humpy bit of land it's: uncultivated land set aside for summer livestock grazing. 

    The meaning of terms changes over time, but that doesn't mean we have to up date the descriptions of our activities to suit modern interpretations imposed by changing fashions punditry and media hype. If you like, there's a distinction in the terms Sportsman and Sports man. 

     


  8. 40 minutes ago, 243deer said:

    Everyone involved in shooting needs to 'recruit' as many folk as possible by introducing them to game meat in order to increase demand. Preparing it for them if they do not have the skills or possibly the stomach for it. 

    However many folk you have 'recruited' in 2017 try and double it in 2018.

    Gamekeepers could really help us all do this by putting far more effort into advertising that free birds are available so that this can be achieved. They can easily do this via forums like this. Yet I have never once seen this done.

    Problem there is that sold or given, by the estate/farm/shoot on an official capacity, i.e. "free game birds/low cost game birds" is that we're into food hygiene regs etc... a minefield most don't want/can't get into, hence the existence of game dealers. If there's so much that supply is leaving demand in it's wake to the extent that game dealers can't cope with the sheer volume then we have an issue. 

    Perhaps the answer is to have the guns take the birds. Thus shifting the burden of responsibility away from the shoot and placing it on the individual.

      


  9. 10 minutes ago, ips said:

    totally agree. As I said earlier if an estate can ensure a 400 bag goes into the food chain then it isn't a big bag. This is my point the size of the bag is irrelevant its what happens to it.

    if an individual rough shooting takes four pheasant knowing he only has room in the freezer for two then that was a big bag, unless he gave two to a neighbour, then it isn't ?

    Absolutely. Knowing friends or neighbour will take game means you can take more should the opportunity arise, in that sense then bag size is relative.

    Fishing is the same for me, I do a lot of that and on occasion there's opportunity to exceed one's capacity to use it all. A couple of years back I caught 50+ pan sized finock, half to three quarter lb, I kept 6, a brace for me, a brace for the GF and a brace for a pal who's disability means he can't access that spot, the rest went back. My rule is that I'll only take for people who've specifically asked, with game or fowl people who've asked and I know can deal with a whole bird, although I will prep a bird for someone who can't, occasionally.  


  10. "Thing is what is a big bag" 

    For me it's all you can use.

    The only time I've ever shot something I haven't planned to eat has been shot in the name of pest control, or been so shot up to be unusable. 

    Was at an estate 40 bird sporting shoot on the 2nd, not that well attended on account of the weather but attended well enough for there to be a good spot of craic. I shot so badly last year, and on the first stand this year to not be in a place contention, but well enough this year to win my first bit of silverware on the shoots handicap system. Might not be much but I was really pleased to be able to add my name to the 47 year old trophy.

    Take a prize win a prize, one lad brought a brace of french partridges from a covey that had appeared on their ground. Being the handicap winner I had 4th dibs from the prize table, there were still a bottle of nice spirits but I made a point of taking the partridges, which was nice when the lad that brought them was announced as 2nd in the handicap meaning he got the bottle.

    Had them last night with my mother for dinner, which she enjoyed very much and, I can smell that my partridge soup stock is coming along nicely, as I type. 

    I think if we (royal all inclusive "we") have such a surplus of driven game that it can't be used, then I thing we have a problem. IMVHO, game has to be eaten to justify taking it. But other opinions are available.   


  11. 42 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

    Pigeon shooting is Sport/pest control, pigeon are wild and their number are naturally high when big bags are harvested, this activity is mostly done for sport, not money! Grouse are wild birds too, they are harvested in season whenever there are adequate numbers by paying guns, which contributes to employment on and the upkeep of the moor In the form of a cash crop for the land owner, commercial driven game shoots release artificially high numbers of capitive bred birds to provide sport for their paying guns, it is a service provided purely for commercial profit!

     

    The difference I have tried to describe above is between artificial/commercial shooting and natural sporting shooting.........the waste from commercial shoots just adds more negativity to the argument surrounding released game and big driven days!

     

    Shooting must keep its own house in order....or sooner or later someone will do it for us!

    Makes sense to me. Had a post pop up on Facebook last week from the aftermath of a pheasant shoot (given the poster I suspect somewhere in East Lothian) showing a pile of birds being burnt. Perhaps posting that type of stuff on FB wasn't the wisest move, but then if that sort of thing wasn't happening there'd be no image to post.  


  12. 7 hours ago, Smokersmith said:

    The sno seal sounds interesting for my brogues ... does it darken the leather at all?

    Yes, but just a bit. Remember that for shoes it's more or less a one off treatment, with perhaps a touch up on the creases, where the shoe bends and, over the stitching, every now and again. I say one off but applied, in my case, after each resoling, with a touch up in-between. Having resealed, I just polish as normal with my usual polish 


  13.  

    1 minute ago, Uilleachan said:

    I've two pairs of Hogg's Roxbourgh veldtchoen made brogues.

    http://www.shotgunuk.com/hoggs-roxburgh-veldtschoen-shoe.html (good price that too).

    One pair for special occasions or work when I've got to be smart, the older other my everyday wear. Muddy wet and rural where I am so the waterproof veldtchoen style sole helps. Sno seal on the uppers sees the shoe fully waterproof.

    My highland trainers. Those shoes have tramped the mountains of persia the deserts of arabia the red soil of sub saharan west africa and trotted a fair few bogs closer to home, in the 10 years I've had that particular pair. Ruined by a rogue brogue repairer in Inverness, saved and restored by the very good and helpful artisan shoe repairer at Sole Saver in Perth, on High Street. 

    Of course originally the brogue was full of holes to let water escape, but now we favour dry feet. Even my last faux holed brogue style shoes, with all the extra stitching and little water gathering recesses, I could still get them more or less waterproof treating them with sno seal, it's just a case of taking the time to do it properly.

    They're not wellies and I do try and keep out of wellie territory in my shoes, but I can, and have, stand for a couple of hours in an inch of water and the shoe is still dry inside and the water still beading and running off the upper, and did so recently having forgotten my wellies, although I had to choose my route carefully but there was no getting away from the water on that particular hillside. Thats plenty waterproof for me, any water getting in is getting in via the big hole at the ankle join of my foot. 

    The other thing to consider with footwear is maintaining fit. All shoes and boots will stretch with time until adjusted to the individual foot. Once there it would be a pity to have them move further because you've used dubbin or some other leather softening product. Bees wax does nothing to the leather other than seal it and it stays put and won't migrate around the leather. 

    For boots I'm a fan of meindl, for fit and for the fact that I don't have to do anything to them at all, nothing and they're still remarkably waterproof. 

     


  14. 11 hours ago, johnnytheboy said:

    Snow seal for me, leave the excess on it helps with abrasion resistance! Heat it once applied to smooth it out! 

    With hill boots for sure and certainly how mine were before the advent of composite hill boots and I gave up on traditionally made leather boots, on cost.  

    On my welted brogues no. I'm heating them up then applying the sno seal, leaving it to set, tidying them up and then polishing to a mirror finish with a decent polish on top. That said I only re treat with sno seal when the shoes come back from a resole, as the wax doesn't move the brogues usually only require a touch up to keep them waterproof in-between.  


  15. Sno-Seal for waterproofing real leather. It's basically refined bees wax.

    http://www.atsko.com/sno-seal-wax-8-oz-jar/

    For laminate or breathable barrier made uppers it's always best to use the recommended treatment, but for traditionally constructed boots and shoes there's nothing better. When the boot or shoes won't take anymore bees wax, let them stand over night in a cool place, give them a buff to remove the excess and then polish, at which point shoe polish can be used for colour. Great stuff.   


  16. Last year I was tackling sporting clays skeet and quarter, changed this year to quarter and half and noticed a marked improvement on longer birds. On the croft we can recover missed clays to use again as the ground tends to be soft as it's covered in soft rush which undoubtedly helps with landing survival.

    When picking thrown clays it's interesting to note that very many have been chipped but haven't broken, even found one whole with three holes in it. For christmas I've bought myself another half choke and plan to start shooting half and half. Reasoning is; I can hit everything I'm hitting with the quarter with the half.

    I like buze's idea of using 3/4 for practice, so once I've settled into half & half I'll make a point of trying a few practice rounds half & 3/4 and see how I get on. 


  17. 3 hours ago, DanBettin said:

    Thanks mate. Silly question - would they always be blown evenly (on both sides), I don't feel like a particular side (or even front/back) are worse than others, just generally when I go over something it feels like the whole car is cracking, not nice at all. Is it tricky to check this myself ye? Thanks again

    When I blow a shock I can tell straight away as everything starts to knock and bang, but for the life of me I can't tell from the drivers seat which it is, only front or back as a wet finger dab. If you press down hard on each corner the corner should press back firmly, if it's soft bouncy or not quick in coming back that's a good indication that it's a shock absorber. Also you can look to see if there's any oil leaking from them, best done when the car's been dry for a day or two. 

    With the state of the roads generally, blown shocks are quite common. Not saying it is, but it'll cost you nothing to check it out , even if it's just to eliminate the shockie angle..   


  18. Sounds like a blown shock absorbers to me. Take it to a garage if you don't know how to test them yourself. It isn't a huge job, but even if the problem is just one corner it's always best to change them in pairs.


  19. Shot Cluny for the first time today, enjoyed it too. Great layout and some interesting (read tricky) pairs. Lads were working hard to keep everything running due to everything being frozen, despite the slightly above zero air temp, I rather fancy it was a losing battle. Still managed to have a great time and still managed to pop a slab, most definitely be back, when the weather improves.

    Shot Auchterhouse, in the snow, yesterday as well, which was great as always. 


  20. 22 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

    You can take it from me the Slovenian country folk are not happy about the situation of the wolves being allowed to re enter Slovenia. A few tree huggers probably but they close their eyes to the damage wolves do. The brown bear is also now starting to venture into towns. my last visit I saw video a friend took of a large female walking through the shopping centre.  Again magnificent animal and fortunately the Slovenian Government agency are allowing the harvest of brown bears to try and keep numbers down. Bear goulash was on offer at my hotel last time I was there. Delicious.

    Bear steak too. Popular in Macedonia. Tasty especially with a few good tots of good palinka   


  21. 3 hours ago, Walker570 said:

    Re introduced wolves in Slovenia have been a serious pain and are becoming so all over mainland Europe.  Deer control, don't make me laugh. Wolves are not stupid and a fat old ewe sheep is a darn site easier to catch than a roe deer or even a red hind.   Fabulous animal but even in the wilds of Scotland there is just not enough room and in my view totally crazy to suggest returning them.

    Wolves weren't "reintroduced" to Slovenia, they never left. Sure they may have been shot out from time to time but they're part of the balkans and from the european wolf stronghold in Romania they simply move back in. There's also a population in Italy that may or may not be connected genetically with those in the balkans. The italian wolf is expanding into France via the maritime alps, not sure about the Julian alp and surrounding mountain zone, a cross roads between Italy Slovenia and Austria. 

    The wolf is recolonising other parts too, not just France, Germany, Austria, western Poland etc. they've even had a road killed wolf recovered from the Netherlands, it's reckoned to be only a matter of a decade or two before the eastern populations reestablish genetic contact with the isolated iberian wolf. The brown bear to is staging a remarkable comeback, with some help in places but off their own back too.  

    For or against is irrelevant, if wolf packs can reestablish territories in the above countries they have plenty of room in a place like Scotland. Which has 15,000 msq of uninhabited ground, there's no space like that anywhere in western Europe. The eurasian wolf has a different pack behaviour to their grey cousins, viable packs are smaller and don't need the vast territories that are required in the americas, they're also more accustomed to living cheek by jowl with humans in a man made landscape, as thats how they've evolved.    

    I say irrelevant because it matters not what you or I think, policy like this will be decided by townies, townies = the people who subsidise the rural areas of the UK through tax, tax for infra structure, tax for agricultural subsidy. Only a fool would imagine that the townie tax payer will have no say on rural matters in brexit Britain ;) 


  22. 10 minutes ago, Mice! said:

    I've not sorry, just had a look to see if I still had it but I've not, the fella who wants to shoot the wolves is such a joke, I like pretty much everything Gordon Buchanan does, his living with predators is good sharks, golden eagles and Hyenas. 

    I do remember the program saying that the reintroduction if wolves had changed the landscape, deer elk moose couldn't just graze at will allowing trees to grow again, and they decimated the coyotes which benefited smaller mammals a good watch.

    There no doubt about that. They'd do plenty good, especially in the open expanses forcing deer off the better ground and ridding the high hill of foxes, which tends to be a bit of a bastion for the fox now that there no one on them 24/7 this last 50 or 60 years. . 

    I can see it from both sides, I've friends and family on both sides of the argument so normally tiptoe around the issue. Stalkers would need to re learn their patch as the deer would be favouring different ground and, livestock would certainly be on the menu. Then there's the little red riding hood irrational fear the wolf instills.   

    That said, the wolf is making his own way back to former ranges on mainland western Europe, with a lower than expected impact, exaggerating compensation addicted French sheep farmers aside.

    It could be done, where public subsidy applies recipients are going to have to be a little more accepting of different views on land use and more accommodating, especially when subsidies are back in the hands of westminster as they'll be a little more visible to the largely urban tax payer. Something I've argued for quite sometime among my largely rural posse. The times they are a changing and we're all going to have to adapt to the new realities.

    If wolves don't work out, someone would have to go shoot them. In this day and age they've no place to hide so we've little to fear....  


  23. 21 hours ago, al4x said:

    Simply sit back and give your insurers as much as you have.  It helps if you were stationary at the time of impact.  

    The downside is the scroat may well get 50:50 as it’s a country lane and proving anything else may well cost your insurer more than they want to pay.  At that point you just have to stay calm...

    Or knock for knock, single track, as we'd call that and why I always take out No Claims protection, being crashed into is an occupational hazard on single track/narrow lanes. It isn't good, especially when your the one driving with care. As said by others give your info to your insurers and let them deal with it. 


  24. 2 hours ago, Mice! said:

    I'm not from Scotland fella but have you watched the BBC wildlife doc with Gordon Buchanan on the re introduction of wolves in the USA, a really good watch, shows a bit of both sides, I cant imagine there being enough space nowadays for wolves given the amount of roads and sheep and people but who knows?

    I used to think that until I started spending time in eastern Europe, plenty people livestock less room and plenty wolves. Different husbandry practice, shepherds spend more time with their flocks and those flocks are defended by Carpathian sheep dogs, scarier in every way than wolves.    

×
×
  • Create New...