HantsRob

With no replies (and hoping a quoted comment may highlight it for you), maybe your wife is correct that you need pairing up when not with her Great offer Steve

Hi gal, may help if you say what colour as this comes in a few variants. Great price by the way

To both of you, When that truly is effective and seamless I would agree with you both. I believe a streamlined process should also allow for interim reviews. But, don't forget this is part of the "zero cost" style licence fee, which will not actually count towards issue and re-issue. It will also include change of addresses (inspections), ad-hoc issues that arise that require investigation, court prep and court time etc. I am all for a licence model that's more streamlined, but if we get to SLA driven then mistakes can be made. I don't disagree with any of you in theory and you're correct in an ideal world. Plymouth is an example of how it hasn't worked, and how the model needs fixing.

A revalidation of a passport would use existing datastreams. A persons life can massively change in 5 years. Consider domestic abuse, mental ill health, losing a job and becoming insolvent, or just having lots of issue with the neighbours. I do understand that if literally nothing has changed it should be a quick check, but the full checks will still be required to adhere to a standard of safety.

I think you have misinterpreted. "we don't need it killing off a lot of once a month shooters" is the meaning behind what was written. So they agree with you.

A passport is validating identity only. A SGC/FAC is to ensure suitability. The time taken for the first can mostly if not solely be done online now. The latter requires a band of civvi's with management, with governance, with overheads etc.

Could you possibly DM me his details please? I have had a bit of an incident last week that will require some dentistry and I am keen to lower costs. Thankyou

I don't think that's a particularly kind comment, and I think it is a little uncalled for. It may be a jaded or negative comment, however it does hold value. Even if just 1 person felt that way genuinely, does it mean it has any less meaning or importance? ------ I would agree with LB that the wording wasn't so great, however I do understand what the OP was intending to offer. Indeed as Konor said it is more transactional, gun+dog for food+shoot. It can just be a "free" shoot day, or it could lead to more opportunities. That said, the wording that got me was a walk around the farm in Tiverton. If I were in a position to have a gundog I would have to consider: Distance of Tiverton from the majority of the country is some distance and time Availability of a working dog Ability to attend with little notice Not already having a prior commitment A walk around the farm sounds a bit rubbish (I am sure it's not, just the wording!) That said you may get: A very happy doggo for "playing" Some decent grub Future opportunities Some birds to shoot Maybe some birds to take home? (this wasn't clarified) There's plenty of negatives and positives. It's a shame I don't have a dog or I'd be tempted as it's only 2 hours drive away. Not a case of "if only I were closer", it's more "if only I had a gundog"! I think the dog and availability will be the biggest issue here for most. @devon fowler I sincerely hope you get someone with a dog for the day and get a chance to have a really fun days shooting. I wish I could help, I would have happily come. Alas, no dog. Good luck and have a great day!

I'd suggest the lack of plaswad ammo Vs fibre in most gun shops (statement from personal experience only) could show that it is a success from the voluntary transition away from plastic. I would be mindful that it is a liberal use of the word "voluntary" as it is not by my choice, but by what is being purchased by the vendor at that price point.

Did anyone else see this going off the rails and has been pleasantly surprised at the quality and wholesomeness of this thread? Great questions and answers. I hope that remains, a proper quality public forum discussion

Woodcock-shot-and-dumped-in-Cheshire-–-Raptor-Persecution-UK.pdf (maryannsteggles.com)

Chap, if you still have them..... yes please!

Graham, I am not sure moderating a public forum where anyone can choose to post or indeed not post is in its best interest. In addition, Conor has made it clear he is posting as an individual and not as a member of BASC staff. I think the obsession is more due to not getting replies to questions that are pertinent and affect the current and future state of affairs in shooting, and sometimes decisions from the past influence the current situation. I also think those who shoot 410's are equally entitled to ask a question in a public forum, and I certainly believe most of the questions in this thread are not 410 related. I don't believe that chats should be closed because one side of the discussion doesn't like how it goes. It also looks like Teal is monitoring the thread so it is being viewed. It does feel a little circular now though, but one persons gripe is another mans passion.

Thankyou. I have no idea of impartiality of Cranfield, however it does add weight to a discussion. I appreciate your point on q2 that you will revert, however I also know that is only if there is something to report. Q1 clears up one of the questions in a sideways motion also. Interesting that CPSA are not in the cohort. But ,if BASC were part of a cohort, there is attribution to saying they suggested non-lead shot even if with others also. I am not going to pick that apart, your answer... well... answers. Thankyou.

Conor, I will ask the question differently. Question 1: Did BASC propose the transition to steel, and then supported that proposal? or Was the transition to steel proposed, then BASC remains/remained committed to that proposal? I can see how it could be that BASC didn't propose the transition, rather to lead the commitment to transition away? Question 2: I note with: https://basc.org.uk/lead-vs-steel-a-question-of-lethality/ it answers some questions in a more scientific manner of shot size and patterning by Cranfield university. I note especially with excitement: With that in mind and it was written in 2021, have any of those additional tests been performed independently by Cranfield University? I would be keen to see the results for lead in various shot size, Vs steel, vs HP Steel, vs "sustainable" ammunition. The above is trying to remain as objective and not old-farty or biased, but hopefully to give a sightly different angle with a view of clarification and maybe more information that I haven't read.

Yes Salomon. They are super comfy, lightweight, dry quickly, and although not great for winter, these are a great shoe for spring through autumn.

In fairness, you have written in your own words why it is not naive..... I have had the opportunity for a call and I have politely declined, as I am not one to make notes and publicly post the outcome as it can always be disputed and bring my reputation into question. I would prefer it to be written transparently. A call does however mean you can "battle" back and forth with opinions, but my fear is that if it cannot be posted online, then it probably wouldn't be shared in a conversation. I do think BASC represents all shooters! Except for clay shooters. Oh and anyone that has a different opinion. Or isn't on the same page with their ideas. Or belongs to another organisation. Or won't let you speak to contacts unless you're a member so they have every detail about you. That said at least there is some communication, even if mostly 1 way.

Gas powered, not inertia then.....

Konor, I like your posts and agree with most if not all. I at least agree with the sentiment. I shoot with a fair few clay shooters, and I would say there is a subtle but actual difference between rolling over and what is by and large indifference or even just "evolving" with the law without resistance. I don't think someone not actively trying to prevent a lead ban means they are rolling over, and to many (with a modern steel proofed 3" OU) the change means very little to them. I appreciate many of those will be clay shooters, but I am sure many bird shooters just want to put metal shot in a tube and shoot it for fun. We do not all share the same passions, my word we see the difference of clay vs game. Within my group I have friends that shoot twice a year if that, and others that shoot twice a week. I wouldn't say any are rolling over, more that they just accept their single voice doesn't count, and they do not wish to invest time in a fight when they have more important things on their personal agenda. I do however agree about your comments about 'old farts' and find that it completely devalues his opinion when that is resorted to. I would hope that maybe you could do the same, as I don't think evolution vs rolling over is really a fair comment and devalues you also. Of course that is just my opinion. I very much enjoy your comments, I feel I sometimes live vicariously through your verbosity. Don't become a member of the old farts club (said tongue in cheek due to content for clarity)

I think there may be a discrepancy between what CPSA and other have recommended in the past, vs what is a direct comparison. https://www.cpsa.co.uk/userfiles/files/CPSA_Booklet_7.pdf Page 32, from 2011. "Steel shot size may be up to 2 sizes larger (3.1mm) than lead shot." This doesn't, of course, mean that it is directly comparable; just that their rules give that lenience/variance. I also appreciate it doesn't answer you, it's just an opinion and thought. I think we also need to factor in this bad boy: https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/guns/ammunition/moving-from-lead-shot-to-steel-what-you-need-to-know-112551/#:~:text=For clays%2C No 7 shot,with 170 pellets per oz. No 7 shot in steel is 2.54mm with 422 pellets per oz, No 7 shot in lead is 2.4mm with 340 pellets per oz. For game, No 4 shot in steel is 3.25mm with 192 pellets per oz, No 4 shot in lead is 3.1mm with 170 pellets per oz. That's to say, it depends if someone is using a universal measurement, or whatever they are using above. I hadn't ever heard of that above and is news to me, and would also add to the confusion for anyone working off of standard measurements rather than the above.

I'd be interested in a job lot, but seems several PMs in flight

Hey Westley, My comment was made partly in jest, however I feel disappointed to read your words. That doesn't sound like behaviours that's suitable, in the same breath that I wouldn't expect a rough shooter to carry a loaded 3-shot around a clay ground either. That behaviour is disappointing at best, and frankly disgusting. I think that is an issue with specific shooters rather than a crossover. Lets hope it's relatively isolated, but that is not good. I know SIM days I have been on have specifically said "this is NOT a game day so you can steal etc" and kind of set the scene that it isn't a game shoot, and is absolutely a clay day. But, it is a shame that people have been that greedy whilst attending.

Yup, and only using pickups to make the flight line eratic?

I'm sure they could stop the traps from working for at least 1 drive, to give more of a driven game shooting vibe when it just isn't working to plan?

Despite your history with Conor on this forum, I do applaud you publicly for writing a post that is non-inflammatory and a fair post. I agree with your post completely, single line included to show which post it was. Thankyou for your reply. It is only informative if the information is demonstrable and fact driven. That's not to say opinions can't be informative, as it is a valid opinion. But, when it is being sold as truths only and unacceptable to challenge when asking for information, it then becomes a detractor. I would love to see a formal reply to Smudger and other comments with facts, as that would really build bridges and confidence in BASC. I really am not a BASC hater, but as the rabbit hole deepens I sadly only see confrontation to questions rather than a transparent disclosure of fact rather than opinion.