HantsRob

As well as recoil, less muzzle flip with the bottom barrel. Therefore in sporting targets you are "on it" quicker with the second bird. Overall, better accuracy between two birds for both recoil and muzzle flip reasons. I hadn't thought about SxS, interesting and of course makes perfect sense. Scully, that must be a bother if you have 2 different chokes for different style targets. What chokes do you usually use? Of course, no issues if they were both 3/8 for example.

£500 for the gun and all slips and ammo to help ya out Not a serious offer as i wouldn't be that rude, but sad to see another shooter leave the fold. I hope you get an easy sale and hopefully you come back to it one day

@rbrowning2 Good post! I retract any comment around not needing a licence or similar to purchase. But that is also explicit around purchase rather than ownership. That's to say you can gift them and lawfully posess.

Gents, thanks for the answers. Good learning all round! Connor, did you find a box of commas you needed using up? Thanks to BASC and other parties for their help on this topic, regardless of how big or small the contribution is.

I am NOT a rifle shooter. Is there any reason you wouldn't use a moderator? I am wondering if there would be a need to change it to be a necessity as a condition of a licence holder, but but without licence control?

That's on a few pages which seem to have cut and pasted from each other. Again, nothing in the firearms act says anything of the sorts. No, it would not. S.11 of the Firearms act, 1968 (updated 2/5/17) 11 Sports, athletics and other approved activities. (1)A person carrying a firearm or ammunition belonging to another person holding a certificate under this Act may, without himself holding such a certificate, have in his possession that firearm or ammunition under instructions from, and for the use of, that other person for sporting purposes only [F1; but where the person carrying the firearm or ammunition is under the age of eighteen, this subsection applies only if the other person is of or over the age of eighteen] . (2)A person [F2of or over the age of eighteen] may, without holding a certificate, have a firearm in his possession at an athletic meeting for the purpose of starting races at that meeting. (3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)A person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range (whether for a rifle club or otherwise) or shooting gallery at which no firearms are used other than air weapons or miniature rifles not exceeding ·23 inch calibre may, without holding a certificate, have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, such miniature rifles and ammunition suitable therefor; and any person may, without holding a certificate, use any such rifle and ammunition at such a range or gallery. (5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)A person may, without holding a shot gun certificate, use a shot gun at a time and place approved for shooting at artificial targets by the chief officer of police for the area in which that place is situated. (11(3) repealed (1.4.1997) by 1996 c. 46, s. 35(2), Sch. 7 Pt. III; S.I. 1997/304, art. 2, Sch. 1 11(5) omitted (31.1.2017 for specified purposes, 2.5.2017 in so far as not already in force) by virtue of Policing and Crime Act 2017 (c. 3), ss. 130(2)(a), 183(1)(5)(e); S.I. 2017/399, reg. 4(f)) Fantastic, I hope you have lots of very happy shooting together!

If they have personal posesssions insurance whilst "out of home" then yes, but this may be negated if there is any due care issues. They could contact the shop to view CCTV and if it were left on a table and unsupervised, you could argue it was negligent. It is certainly worth a call all the same.

I'll change tact slightly to help. GPs are typically self employed, working in surgeries. Whilst the NHS activities are paid for, any time spent on "private appointments" (and for the sake of clarity, checking your records and performing due diligence and then putting their medical licence and reputation on the line to sign your form) is not funded either by the surgery or the NHS. On top of this, any such service will go through reception and back of house staff, meaning that the GP won't take that fee, but rather a percentage will go to the operation of the surgery, pay for receptionists, power and heat, pay for wastage of people not turning up to appointments and what not. The GP themself will only take a portion of the fee. Whilst Blandford Forum is a lovely place to drive through, it is rather small and pokey. That's not to criticise this part of Dorset; after all you have one of my favourite clay ground, monkey world, and a tank museum nearby. It is to suggest a serious lack of GP surgeries and hence lack of options, and they have somewhat of a captive audience with a lot of military who probably get a subsidised service. In 2012 there were 3,900 people working in the town, 55% of whom worked full-time and 45% part-time (thanks Wiki). Someone has to pay their bill to keep the doors open. Support local?.... Anyway, in the tl;dr stance, google is your friend. https://www.simplymedicals.co.uk/firearms-medical/ = £69 https://www.medcert.co.uk/ = £60+VAT https://www.shootcert.co.uk/ = £75+VAT There are more out there, depends how much effort you want to go to in order to save a few quid. Good luck! Oh and if you wish to ask the government to take ownership of costs, you could speak to your PCC (Police and Crime Commissioner) to start with: David Sidwick 01202 229084 pcc@dorset.pnn.police.uk Or maybe your local MP: simon.hoare.mp@parliament.uk 01258 452 585 "Fun fact" (said like Sheldon Cooper)..... Simon Hoare is pro hunting. I am not sure this helps entirely, and rather believe not at all. But, as I have been dull long enough, one last comment as I was genuinely surprised an MP being so bold with an opinion that may stop some constituents voting for him: Simon Hoare MP Unsurprisingly, I have received a raft of e-mails concerning fox hunting. These e-mails have been argued with passion and commitment on both sides of the case, and please be assured that I have read each and every one. Due to Parliamentary and constituency duties I hope constituents will understand that it has not been possible to reply individually. You will doubtless be aware that the Government has decided not to debate the issue in the Commons at this time and we all await developments of interest. I have always made it clear, and certainly right throughout the election campaign, that I am in favour of hunting. It is important to recognise that what the Government was proposing was not a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004, but an amendment to it to allow the use of more than 2 hounds to flush a fox to a gun. This is exactly what happens currently in Scotland. You may be interested to see my question to the Leader of the House in the Commons yesterday (hansard 14th July 2015, column 747): Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con): "Will my right hon. Friend undertake to discuss with colleagues on the Treasury Bench the introduction of a general animal welfare Bill in the next Session covering foxhunting, wild animals in circuses, the clipping of chickens’ beaks and other such issues? All those things could be covered in one large umbrella Bill that the House could discuss and then vote on in the proper way." It will be interesting to see if the Government advances my proposal. https://www.facebook.com/simonhoarenorthdorset/posts/unsurprisingly-i-have-received-a-raft-of-e-mails-concerning-fox-hunting-these-e-/1612716002339805/ (shocking result from 2015 - spoiler alert: he was 'shot down' https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2015-07-14/debates/15071433000004/BusinessOfTheHouse )

Sadly not, as standard. It would be the OPs responsibility to keep it safe and has to take a level of care to keep it from theft. From the description it doesn't sound like the business took any responsibility for that item in any form of care, repair, responsibility. Just..... sad.... if the SGC/FAC holder is found, I hope their licence is treated with as much disregard.

I believe there is lots of good practice, site policy, and not too much law discussed here. The Firearms Act is prescriptive. Section 11(6) of the Firearms Act 1968 states: "A person may, without holding a shotgun certificate, use a shotgun at a time and place approved for shooting at artificial targets by the Chief Officer of police for the area in which that place is situated." It does not put any regulation around the purchasing of ammunition. The closest I can find to a government document is scottish and out of date, but states: 2.50 A shotgun certificate is not required to possess or acquire shotgun cartridges containing five or more shot, none of which exceeds .36 inch in diameter. All ordinary shot cartridges are covered by this description. However, a shotgun certificate (or firearm certificate authorising possession of a section 1 shotgun) is normally required to purchase shotgun cartridges. All single bulleted ammunition, for example solid slug, spherical ball or projectiles for birdscaring equipment, is subject to the requirement for a firearm certificate. (ref: https://www.sceguk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2015/07/Home-Office-Guide-on-Firearms-Licensing-Law.pdf ) I have read the firearms act a few times over the years and I do not know of any part of UK legislation that means a valid SGC or FAC needs to be shown to purchase "normal" shotgun cartridges, and it is an industry best practice that suggests you need to show a licence. I would extend this to an 11(6) exemption, that only what is required is purchased. I see no reason to purchase more than that. That said, I think that's good H&S, good industry practice, and indeed possibly even an insurance caveat. I can see why someone wants to pay the thou price and buy a thousand shells to pay £7 a box rather than £12 a box at some grounds. I also don't see a legal necessity to preclude them keeping spares. I think a new shooter should consider a factor that it may not look healthy in the eyes of an FEO to have a thousand spare carts before getting a licence, however wouldn't stop a licence issuance as it's not illegal. If anyone can state the law where you must need a licence to purchase ammo either as a SGC holder or a non-holder (excluding those persons not allowed to own or handle a gun due to legal convictions or health), then I'd love to read that. My caveat that "I think HantsRob is right" is that many grounds may have rules, insurance, best practice that complements the law by being more restrictive. But, in police talk, policy cannot override law. In this instance, I believe policy is actually helping the law by being stricter. Agreed. With the addition of: Prohibited persons as defined by Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 (If known) must not be permitted to be in possession of guns or ammunition. TC, I don't necessarily agree with the law aspect, however this resonates as good/best practice regardless, and is sage advice as usual. A ground that's interested in keeping all shooters safe and provide safety briefs or lessons is one that has diligence and responsible owners. Before I got my licence, and when I have taken friends out who don't own one, I always checked the ground had an 11(6) and any necessary rules I'd need to follow.

Paul Whilst I appreciate your distaste, it is not an NHS service and in essence you are paying for a practice's private time for a non-NHS related activity. They are able to charge what they like as it's a private service, and the government and police really have no say in this. As per any consumer service, your feet doing the walking will be your best bet. £80 seems distasteful if you have a clean health record, but for some people it could be a decent hour or two of reading and analysing and then completing the form. That's the issue with standard pricing, you have to pay their mean or median cost based on time, and also due to practice costs. You are welcome to go elsewhere by changing doctors, by using a third party service (there are at least 2 on the market), or by electing to not continue shooting and accepting this overhead cost. I do agree it would be good for a standard national cost for this, but currently this doesn't fit into the remit of any body or department to press that point. Also, GPs are legally allowed to be conscientious objectors, meaning they don't have to sign your form. https://www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/professional-standards-for-doctors/personal-beliefs-and-medical-practice/personal-beliefs-and-medical-practice#:~:text=In addition%2C some legislation%3A,prohibits particular treatments or procedures. This document from a specific surgery is quite transparent around fees: https://www.ashleymedicalcentre.co.uk/website/Z00256/files/whygpchargefees_tcm41-175120.pdf BMA information also: https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/fees I hope this helps clarify your point, and it would be good for fees to be nationally standard. However, there is nothing standard about the medical, and from experience when you have to set a tariff it would usually err on the side of caution and mean that most people have to pay more, rather than a few paying less.

Ugh, missed a cartridge treat here! Well done to the buyer

I assume that price was for materials and labour, rather than overheads of the building, machinery, design, patents etc? I can imagine that's a fair raw cost.

Several on ebay USA? Browning Auto Five/ A5 shotgun, FIRING PIN- 12/ 12 Ga Mag. new, part# 1165, b14 | eBay For example. Wouldn't hurt to contact a few and ask them if they'll ship it to the UK and what the cost is? Even if it costs you $100 USD all in, still cheaper than your current options.

Thanks team That answers that, and as I am not currently planning on going FAC it's not an issue, but I was curious!

So I am not an FAC person..... Question.... if you are allowed 150 of a bullet type, this means you can legally only own 150 maximum, whether in transit or storage. Questions: If you know you're going to a busy comp, and you have 150 at home, but need to but some at the comp, you technically can't buy another box of 25 at the comp? Or is there a touch of legal leeway? Do the shops trace/audit/submit any data on what's bought? Or do they look at your licence and sell up to the max value? Anything stopping you asking another shopkeeper to sell the same amount (minus a colleague noticing you)? FAC guns need "Using" to show a purpose. How do you prove usage if you don't keep stats on what's shot? Or is this based on trust? I'm guessing it's mostly goodwill and trust throughout all of this? It seems like a sensible approach as the governance is around issuance and monitoring of licencees.

I hope she finds a good home once you let her go, I bet she's still a fun old girl even if she kicks like a mule! Good explanation from @enfieldspares, thankyou!

I often feel sorry for many cabinet queens that don't see sunlight for years if not decades!

Excellent price for a gun that shoots so well. If I didn't have a semi I'd have snapped this up! Just wanted to share some ❤️ for this beaut

There is a lot of medical research going into that to form opinions. I don't think it's fair calling it faith based. In work I see a lot of suicide, and whilst anecdotal, there is a higher rate of suicide with persons who have identified to have body dysmorphia. I can only comment on personal experience on that. I do agree we should really separate those who are lesbian and gay, from a lot of the other persons in the "alphabet soup". This is mainly due to there is no issue with what bathrooms they use, they identify as their birth gender etc. Many of the other issues I have mentioned lays with the birth gender and identified sex being different. I do agree that young folk who are gay (as a collective term) have historically had a higher risk of suicide, and still do even though it is far more acceptable today than it ever has been. Your second point I am actively going to avoid replying to, as I do not agree fully with what you've said and I am sure I will offend by replying with my honest held belief. Regardless, yes there are people who are horrific excuses for humans, and will fetishize and abuse positions to get a sexual kick. That's as best as I'll do on that topic, and will probably not be replying further as I think we are completely off track from the women in shooting topic.

Get the old lady out and give her a stretch sometime! I bet she shoots like a dream! I'm a little jealous

I agree it doesn't need bringing into this, and unnecessary. As for autogynophiles, that is an outdated model/term. That was a long time before DSM5. I believe gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder. I believe they are at a higher rate of suicide compared to a CIS person, and indeed you are of course correct at a statistical higher risk of violence towards themself. That said, it would be the suicidal statistic that could preclude them of being a licence holder, rather than being at risk of violence upon themself.

I think that's all it should be. Then you are being inclusive to all, minus those legally or medically unfit to own and handle a gun. A few comments on this thread are uncomfortable and could potentially keep some people away from shooting if they heard or read it. I believe this sport/hobby/lifestyle should be open to all.

Conor, it would be naive with how the (typically) younger generations are seeing sexuality, assigned genders etc to now only think in binary male or female. My point was partly flippant and wasn't a critique on yourself or BASC, however I do believe targeting money into getting more women into the sport is short sighted and ineffective. I appreciate there are motives to get a better percentage, but I will remain in the "more of any shooters" that of course are safe and sound. Many won't want to comment for fear of being laughed at. For example there seems to be a drive to say LGBTetc is a mental illness. I believe this stems from the gender question, however I would believe they are ok with the "LGB" side of the acronym. 30-40 years ago they may have said being gay is a sin, wrong, immoral, mentally unwell etc. With several comments that are not necessarily supporting the letters nearer the end, people may not wish to put their head above the parapet. For the record, I don't care who the next shooter identifies as, as long as they shoot safely and are deemed safe by medical professionals. That is why you are an amazing mentor and an advocate I have always admired. that tickled me. Of course, scientifically correct. My point is that many who were biologically male and on the list as male may identify as female, having gone through gender reassignment surgery. But as a topical question, I do not believe I have seen anyone that goes by a different gender to birth at a clay ground, their interests and focus do not seem to be on smashing clays. A good clubhouse at Barbury for food and drinks certainly helps the Belles. I think many grounds don't give that environment that's conducive to the social element. I have seen the same with men taken shooting also in fairness. But I think this is a massive contributor. Maybe have-a-go needs to be more affordable.

I like the idea of trying to gain more female shooters. Barbury do a great job at having "The Belles" and they have a successful shooting fraternity made up of women. On a balance, some people are disappointed that often a lot of stands are taken out of action for "women only" events, so then you have a debate of affirmative action vs positive discrimination. Be careful, positive discrimination is still very much illegal and is often covered up by rhetoric of trying to give fairness and balance, but by discriminating. For the record, I am all for affirmative action, and I hope BASC go the right route. See Colin Port trying out positive discrimination for A&S Polce (spoiler: it didn't end well). Then you have a case of a regional Police force who tried desperately to "have a Constabulary that is reflective of the community". They spent a lot of time and money trying to recruit more persons from a Sikh and Gurkha descent. In short it fell flat, because they mostly just didn't want to do. There are a few reasons and I am not opening that can of worms here, and it also caused issues with fast tracking of ethnic minorities purely for good credentials, rather than trying to employ the best workforce possible. I would wish (if I were a member) for the money being pumped into this by BASC to tackle issues that are real to current shooters, rather than an agenda to get B-Corp or something political that actually doesn't help anyone. I would prefer seeing the efforts into ANY new shooter joining the sport, to enable the best chance of the future of shooting. If by those stats over 90% are male, then it would actually make more sense to target everyone fairly, and accept that probably 90% will be male. As we opened the LGBetc lettering..... Connor; how many of that 93% that are male and 7% are female were that gender at birth? (I am not actually expecting an answer as I am positive you don't know - but we can't be talking about this subject in this climate without appreciating the nuance you are 5 years behind in BASCs overall statement) I've heard the same from some ladies only groups.... Shame. Mendip is nice, I like some of the new traps. Maybe see you (both?) there sometime for a couple of clays and a brew? The 2 ladies I know from Barbury; one has no interest and wants to shoot with the wider masses to have a "less girlie targeted day", and the other is of the opinion it's too clique-y. Shame, because Josh always puts a great clay layout on and as many stands are unusable during a ladies only shoot it can put a dampner on a day when you can only shoot the practice/beginner stands.