Tonka54

Maybe to stop unauthorised use till they are rented out again.

As an addition to my previous post, I think I can see what has happened here, It looks like your landlord issued you with an alternative garage to use whilst your existing one had a repair carried out to a leaking roof. Upon the contractors arrival to do the work, they discovered that the garage was still locked but because you had been given an alternative garage to use they assumed that you had moved out and just locked it up afterwards. I further assume that the contractors contacted the landlord to tell them the garage was locked, and that the landlord, (thinking that you had moved out) instructed them to force entry. After doing so they discovered your stored belongings still in the garage, realising that your belongings would be in the way of them making a repair to the roof leak, they either took it upon themselves to remove them or more likely, was instructed by the landlord to remove them, themselves assuming that you had moved into the alternative garage and what you had left behind was unwanted. So it's possible that if you make a claim on them for you stored items, they may counter claim on the grounds that you was instructed to move out of your original garage into an alternative garage so that they could carry out repair work, you had failed to move your belongings into the alternative garage and, as the needed full access to affect a repair to the leak they had to get rid of your belongings. Never the less, they had a contact number for you and should have informed you of their intentions should you not be able to remove your belongings post haste.

Agree with this 100% timps, The way this reads to me in layman's terms is that they are saying any shotgun that has been nitro proofed to at least 930 bar, has no serious damage or wear to the barrels, should be ok to use with standard steel shot. However, should a shotgun that has been nitro proofed be being considered for use with HP or superior steel shot, then the user, for their own peace of mind and the health and safety of themselves and others around them whilst the shotgun is to be used for this purpose, should consider having the gun reproofed up to the required 1320 bar. Now, whilst some have pointed out that at present there is no legal obligation to reproof a shotgun for HP steel shot, and the owner/user, if he so chooses, can take the risk and decide to put himself and possibly others at risk by putting HP steel shot through a shotgun that may or may not be suitable and could fail at some point, purely to save the expense of a reproof is morally very wrong in my eyes.

There are a few interesting comments about who burns what in this older thread : Personally I used any wood offcuts or scrap wood I could get. On the proviso that it was clean and dry, unpainted and untreated. Just be aware that purely burning wood tend to soot up your flue/chimney quicker than using a solid fuel.

Quite a few RFD's are under the opinion that should steel shot become mandatory across the board, clay shooters who have guns that remain ( Nitro proof to at least 930 bar ) will be able to continue using those guns with standard steel shot, with the appropriate choking of course. Not being a "game" shooter I do not know if standard steel cartridges would meet all the requirements, If not, it could be the case that even nitro proofed guns used for game would have to be reproofed for HP ( SUP ), repurposed for clay sports or even become obsolete, even if guns used for game meet the required level of proofing ( at least 1320 bar ), according to BASC they would still have to be stamped as Fleur de Lys. ( see attached )

Yep, I feel for you Pops, Perhaps another member that's had their grant/renewal processed by Hampshire can give you a clue about the time scale. As previously posted mine, through Leicestershire took 119 days, but each authority is different. Just have to hang in there bud, it will happen eventually. Not much of a consolation I know but at least it's the winter period now so after boxing day you won't be missing out on to much.

Again I would think reclaiming the rent would be almost impossible, after all they provided an alternative garage whilst the repair was carried out. No, your claim would be for the property which they removed/destroyed without your permission, it does not matter in the least that the garage "looked" abandoned. The fact is, they had a means and a duty in law to contact you before even entering the garage , never mind removing your property, especially as you continued to maintain payment throughout.

My 2 pence worth is this, If you rented the garage you have a "landlord". Assuming the leaking roof was not caused by damage that you had inflicted, it would be your landlords problem. You say " I was moved " , This would indicate that somebody, (presumably) your landlord or one of their representatives was aware of the leak and more importantly, made arrangements to move you temporarily whilst the repairs to the leaking garage roof were carried out. Again presumably, The garage you were moved to was also the property of your land lord and if this is the case, surely it was just a matter of continuing to pay rent for one garage whilst the other had its roof repaired. The fact that, whoever repaired the roof did not liaise with the landlord, who presumably, arranged for the repair to be carried out in the first place, is not your concern, nor is it your concern, or for that matter, your responsibility to ascertain when the work to repair the leak had been completed and whether you should move back in or continue to use the garage you had been moved to. It was your landlords responsibility to make sure that all parties involved "knew the score" , and it was also down to them to inform you of proceedings. Now the fact that you "(got a phone call a year later) again presumably from your landlord, indicates that they had the wherewithal to contact you at any stage, regarding the leak repair but more importantly ( before illegally removing your property without your consent ). I would strongly suggest that you do not get involved with your landlords insurance provider. Instead contact your landlord pointing out the above points. state that you have been paying rent for the one garage that you initially rented, and continued to pay for it throughout the repair period and beyond. Work out a value for the property they removed and claim that back under threat of legal action if they do not comply. I would suggest going through the "Ombudsman" if you have to resort to legal action, as in my experience small claims or CCJ's take a very long time and usually cost you more than you will eventually recover.

I have been using these for a couple of months now, I have a problem with over ear protectors myself, I find they get in the way a bit when wearing some headwear, glasses, hoods etc. etc. I can well imagine that young children would feel the same way, plus, as we all know, protection for kids is secondary (in their eyes)to looking cool. Whilst a pair of these SportEAR x-pro's buds won't offer quite as much protection as a good set of dedicated shooting over ear muffs, the protection level is not to bad at all, plus they fit nice and snug in the ear when using the foam inserts and are very comfortable to wear. Reviews for them generally are a bit mixed, with one of the problems being that it's hard to tell which mode they are in ( shooting or speaking ) because the mode button works like a ball point pen, click on click off, the button returns to the same position so you cannot see which mode has been selected. However, once the buds have been placed in the ears, it's a simple matter of tapping the button with a finger, if it rattles the valve is in the open (hearing) mode, if it's a thud with no rattle the valve is closed (shooting ) mode.

The fact that you can take it out and read "lead only" means the choke is not fixed. As said before, nothing seems to be clear cut about the steel situation. I guess it would have to be a certainty for a fixed choke shotgun that is proofed for HP steel to be factory fitted with HP steel proof chokes ( of the appropriate size ), however, the situation with HP steel proof multi choke shotguns is not so clear cut. I don't think gunmakers themselves are a 100% sure what the final situation regarding HP steel proof guns and choking is going to be, but they have had to "best guess" to a certain extent in order to get new guns out there in readiness. So I think it's a probability that most gunmakers including Browning, Have gone with the general consensus of opinion (at present ), that half choke or equivalent is the max size HP steel proof choke they will supply with an HP steel proof shotgun, and any further but tighter chokes supplied will be lead only. Having said this, cartridge manufactures are coming out with new innovations and technologies periodically so it's all a bit fluid at the moment.

I can help you with this bro, assuming you have windows as your operating system, transfer your photo's to your computer or laptop, then in the menu search box type in paint 3D. When this program opens drag you photo's into it and chose resize, when your photo's are resized save them as a .jpeg to desktop. When making your post in pigeon watch, simply chose to drag your photo's into the post or click on "chose files" / desktop/ and then the photo to attach them. If you don't have access to a windows computer then the easiest way to do this is by phone, take your photo's with your phone then go to an image upload site such as : https://imgbb.com/ drag your photo's (one at a time) into this site and they will upload to it, when they have uploaded you can get a url link which you copy and then paste into your P/Watch post and when you submit the post the photo's will be there. Hope this helps.

A warm welcome Bernard, Congratulations on becoming a new joiner. I wonder if you could quote me for hanging a front door?.😁

Yes, your argument makes sense Scully and for all I know you could well be right. I'm just repeating what I have been told, but then again everyone is second guessing at the moment. Just a case of wait and see really. And yes that's my understanding also, modern full steel proof guns will come with full steel proof chokes, or be fitted with them if they are fixed. Otherwise they would not be totally steel proof.

Don't shoot the messenger, but I have obviously made enquiries about steel for my own guns, Opinions vary, greatly, but the general consensus of opinion by RFD's that I have spoken to is. Most of the older guns will not cope with H.P. steel unless they have been re-proofed. However, with the correct choking, they will be able to cope with standard steel shot. It is also a fact that fixed choke guns may eventually be able to use standard steel if choked no tighter than a 1/2 so as to avoid any possibility of "ring bulge". There is a school of thought that fibre wadding "cups" will prevent any subsequent damage to the internal barrel surfaces, due to the fact that the steel shot will remain in this fibre cup till it has left the barrel. But as I say, rumour and speculation is rife at the moment, so I think it's a case of watch this space.

Yes indeed, I second the use of a come-along, in fact I prefer it to a winch, I find it much more versatile, when used in conjunction with "D" shackles, recovery rings, webs and a couple of good nylon ropes you can rig up for just about any situation. All this gear packs into a single 30ltr plastic tub and the come-along sits on the top, it fits nicely into the boot of my Duster. As a back up system when I need all the boot space, I keep a couple of 75mm 10ton ratchet straps inside the spare wheel rim, one is used as a brake whilst the other one is adjusted, takes a while to recover anything but it is surefire.👌

The nitro proof mark should be on the barrels somewhere. Most proof marks can be found here : http://www.nramuseum.org/media/940944/proofmarks.pdf

Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year to all on PW

Think I have seen you on the way to fill up at Tesco.

🤣 Store supervisor did the same to me at morrisons, asked me why I was parked in a mother and baby, told him that we spend £130+ on our weekly shop there and I don't use a normal space if there are lots of mother and baby spaces available because I don't want car door or trolley damage. However if that's a problem, I could always spend the £130 else ware. He walked away.

Yes tell me about it, I always use a mother and baby space if possible or park a bit further back from the store, people give you a bit of a stare if you park in mother and baby spaces, but it's better than trolley dings.

I have a Dacia Duster prestige at the moment, 2017 model 1500 4x4 diesel. Had it from new and used it for towing small caravan, fishing and shooting, had no issues with it at all. Not the most powerful 4x4 on the road but quite comfortable, and good for all but the most serious off roading.

Dasher the bottom line is this, the specifications for the light fitting you have states that each bulb of the 3 should be no greater than 42w equivalent. As previously said, when changing from the old (Incandescent) light bulbs to the new LED/halogen bulbs, the matching up should be done using the brightness of the bulbs, (Lumens) not the power rating (Watts). The nearest LED bulb that matches a 42w equivalent brightness is a 5.5w, this would be equal in brightness to an incandescent bulb of 40w as both have a Lumen rating of 450. In fairness though, if you decided your 5.5w LED's are not quite bright enough, you may be able to get away with LED bulbs that are 60w equivalent brightness ( 750 to 900 lumens) as they will only draw slightly more power at ( 6-8 watts ). My advise to you would be not to chance going beyond this slight change as to do so would be against the recommended specs for your light fitting, this could not only be a fire risk but could cause insurance issues in the event of a claim. Incidentally, you do not mention in what context the lighting is being used for, although the individual brightness of your bulbs is only equivalent to a 40w bulb, the 3 together add up to 1350 Lumens, this is equivalent to an incandescent bulb of 120w, that's pretty frigging bright. However, if this light fitting is in the centre of a largish room, and all the light from it is just downward directional, then you could expect a very bright area directly under the light fitting but the corners of the room would be quite dim in comparison. This is why shops, garages and factories etc. etc. mainly use florescent lighting within diffused light fittings, because the light from these is omni directional and therefore each individual light covers a greater area with diffused light rather than a concentrated downward beam, it also means that the bulbs/tubes do not have to be such a high wattage to achieve the same brightness.

Your light fitting is designed to take 3 LED bulbs, Each of these bulbs can be a max equivalent of the old (incandescent) 40w bulb. This is so that the wiring within your light fitting does not overheat, therefore causing a fire hazard. This would mean that the 5.5w LED bulbs you have would be correct for your fitting as the lumens match that of the old 40w bulbs at 450 lumens per bulb. Having said this, it is normal policy to apply a rating that is only half of what appliance's are normally tested for, so in theory, you may well be able to get away with a 10w bulb but would you really want to risk it.

The way I understand this is, your fitting will take 3 Edison screw 27mm (E27) bulbs, Each of which can have a maximum equivalent of 42w. This will give you a total maximum wattage for the light fitting of 126w equivalent. When replacing traditional lighting with LED's you match the lumens not the wattage. (see chart below) A. 40-watt incandescent and 9-13 watt CFL bulbs give 450 lumens and can be replaced with 4-5 watt LEDs B. 60-watt incandescent and 13-18 watt CFL bulbs give 750 to 900 lumens and can be replaced with 6-8 watt LEDs C. 75-100 watt incandescent and 18-22 watt CFL bulbs give 1100 to 1300 lumens and can be replaced with 9-13 watt LEDs D. 100-watt incandescent and 23-30 watt CFL bulbs give 1600 to 1800 lumens and can be replaced with 16-20 watt LEDs E. 150-watt incandescent and 50-55 watt CFL bulbs give 2600 to 2800 lumens and can be replaced with 25-28 watt LEDs. What this means is that your 3 bulb light fitting can be expected to be of equivalent brightness to that of a single old type bayonet bulb of 120w power rating, but because the new bulbs are LED's they will only draw 5.5w per bulb. If this is not bright enough, you have two options. 1) fit another of the same light fitting in parallel, 2) purchase a fitting that can cope with more powerful bulbs.

Yes it is very misleading. in the wording of the document he displays it looks like there could be a word before grants, but its out of shot, if there is it could be "new" or "all", so the title is based on his "interpretation".