Glenshooter

When we got our wee cute Westie a few years ago, said dog and wife/daughter were dispatched to the local dog training classes. At these classes, my little Westie befriended a huge (to her and everyone else!!) Rhodesian Ridgeback and they became best pals. They still see each other now and again! Imagine, a Westie and a RR being chums!!! RR was a lovely dog.

Thanks again for all the suggestions. Spoilt for choice now!!!!

Great suggestions, many thanks. Can anyone confirm that all 250 boxes of cts are approximately tbe same size. We tend to use only a couple of brands which are similarly packed and as my lad is only a relatively recent clay shooter, I don't have a lot of experience of buying loads of cartridges! Feel the pain now though - he shoots and I pay!! I did buy a locking 2 drawer filing cabinet of ebay recently which was absolutely useless. Guess boxes of cartridges weigh a LOT more than files of paper!!! Doh!!

Hi all Can anyone advise me on a safe/gun cabinet for holding 250 boxes of 12b cartridges? The Infac B6 6 GUN WITH SHELF 1400X350X250 £188 possibly holds up to 10 boxes but is of course £188!. Anyone got any experience of locking these away? I know I don't have to but for a number of reasons, I want them secure. I want a box of 250 to go in flat and could have over 1000 at any one time. It may need to hold rimfire and centrefire ammo in the future but these are a lot less bulky. Thanks, G

They do. They frequently meet and talk to ministers about issues relevant to shooting. http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/political-affairs/ The Rural Affairs Minister visited the BASC stand at the CLA Game fair and media team are active with the ACPO, Parliament and journalists. http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/docume...316AA61D97B7DF9 It's all on their website. Please don't knock one/any of our shooting organisations that support shooting without informing yourself. They all do a good job in their different ways. Let's leave the job of knocking to the antis?

I find it hard to imagine how the armed police could get to within shouting distance of me without me having unloaded and placed my rifle on the ground before they got close. But if they did, there is no way I would throw my rifle to the ground. I would do all I was asked and argue later except for 'throwing my rifle on the ground' - for at least 2 reasons. It wold be placed gently on the ground in a non-threatening manner with the other arm in the air.

Just phoned my insurance agent for NFU and they have never heard of SACS. (This does NOT mean that SACS is not insured with NFU. But your suggestion, fair one I may add, was to check with the local agent. However, as she isn't based in HO, does not know about business outside her own area.) But most farmers wouldn't even be bothered to do this in any case.

Not just for the insurance. Membership of an organisation says a lot about the person. Don't want to labour the point but most farmers know and recognise some organisations more than others. I gave the example above of the BASA guy who was sent packing as we though he was trying to scam BASC. And I can't have confidence in SACS having their insurance through NFU since I see no mention of it on their website, (and that is not to doubt you). Organisations can change insurers at the drop of a hat. And most farmers will not have heard of SACS, IMHO.

NFU are very good. I have my own farm insured with them. However, the other point to consider is that of credibility in the eyes of farmers. I will not let anyone shoot on my land if they are not members of BASC. I'm sure there will be many landowners who might not care but all the ones in my area only recognise BASC. There have been a few people trotting up with BASA and the like looking to shoot and they have been sent packing. It's bad enough to have to pay liability insurance for those people who are on your land and I for one, don't want ANY hassle with someone who is in an association that I am not familiar with. I know that if there would be any problems then I trust the BASC to help sort things out.

I agree that one organisation would be the best. (And, IMHO, BASC is almost there.) The front page of the BASC Shooting and Conservation magazine for Sep/Oct 09 shows 2 woodpigeon on a branch so guess you have your answer there!!! :blink:

I don't have an insight into Scottish politics but it would be unusual if what you say is true. I work day in and day out with lobbyists and 'media people'. Industry spends a lot of money because lobbying DOES work. I have seen it for myself. But it takes a lot of hard work, persistence, professionalism and mutual respect. That's why I think BASC are on the right lines with their media centre. I can also understand why people who are not involved with this aspect of 'media affairs' may be cynical but there are many millions of pounds spent in lobbying because it does work. (Not all the time, obviously - but you can certainly improve the chances of your point being made if the right people are communicated with in the right way and with the right resources.) I still don't know what SACS does. Their website is pretty scant except saying that they sent a press release in respect of the 2 yr old child being shot in Glasgow and that they 'will' respond to the Edinburgh tragedy. And frankly, if the SACS refers to air rifles as 'weapons', as they do on their website (home page left hand margin, it's no wonder you're so defeatist in thinking that the ban on airguns will come 'no matter what we do'. That is amateurism in the extreme on the part of SACS. The BASC are fighting the proposed ban, by opposing the devolution of any aspect of firearms legislation to Holyrood as well as their other work on deer stalking etc. So that's why I don't think they are the 'same'. And that's why I will stay with the BASC and recommend that others do as well.

BFG, seeing that you think SACS and BASC are the same other than price and the excellent BASC firearms dept (IMHO through experience) can you tell me then what SACS are doing in terms of protecting shooting anywhere, but particularly in Scotland where Kenny Macaskill is not exactly a supporter and judging by what some people are saying in the forums is trying to ban/licence airguns? I would have thought of all people, those who live in Scotland would be very keen for an organisation to be very active in public relations / media work?

Well, I can't speak for Mark but I can say that when I needed help from the BASC over a tricky licensing issue that was not of my making nor my foolishness but was potentially serious, the BASC were superb. Nothing was too much trouble, they gave me excellent advice - working with the local regional director and the 'experts' in their headquarters and it all ended very well for me. But if it hadn't been for the BASC, their knowledge, their 'understanding' of the licensing systems at local/ground level, their readiness to help, things could have been very different. So that is another reason why I recommend BASC to all my shooting friends. And they help protect our ability to shoot in the future.

Well if you haven't got any numbers you can hardly say that 'members are jumping ship at an alarming rate'. Five, 10 or whatever number of people who come on forums mentioning that they are moving from the BASC is hardly going to have a huge impact on a growing membership of 130,000. Thankfully many people see the long game and realise that shooting is under threat in the UK and we need some organisation to protect it - in addition to giving membership linked insurance cover. So please folk, join an organisation that fights for shooters - not just gives the cheapest rates. It doesn't have to be the BASC but I have asked several times what SACS does for the future of shooting and have not had a reply. And that is surprising given that Scottish shooters must be the most likely to have restrictions on their sport. The BASC are campaigning for Scottish shooters but what about SACS? The CA are very effective campaigners for the hunting cause but they are not primarily a shooting organisation.

So how many have left according to your 'quick look'? Because the current membership is around 130,000 and IIRC, is thankfully growing. 'Thankfully' because I see no other organisation taking on the antis and the media in the way that the BASC are doing. And I want to be able to shoot for the rest of my life and for my lad to do the same.

And for me BASC as well. They are a forward thinking professional organisation that is prepared to take on the anti-shooting bias so prevalent in political and media circles. We (rightly) moan like hell when there is another anti-shooting press article. I am delighted that with their investment in the new Media Centre, BASC can better portray shooters as normal sensible people enjoying and helping the countryside. From their 'Facts for Journalists' download to their well informed help desk, they are well equipped for making sure that both I and my children can shoot today and in the future. I work with the media in my day job (hence my interest in this) and have been told by several journalists that they respect the BASC's professionalism and that they "show shooters in a good light". I have also met my MP who respects them as well. You don't get that from operating out of a portacabin. Undoubtedly more expensive but if you can afford it, please go with the best.

What do SACS do for the future of shooting in the UK? Or even Scotland. Do they do any proactive lobbying or any significant PR? I would be reluctant to join an organisation that does not 'invest' in the future of shooting.

The most sensible thing I've read on this thread. I had 2 people this week wanting to shoot and I detected an attitude similar to some people on here. They aren't shooting on my land, and as I am active in the farming associations, there are plenty of farms they won't be shooting on. OTOH, a decent young chap who offers to help out, particularly in the lambing season, is reliable and demonstrates an understanding of the issues that I have to deal with, is shooting quite happily on thousands of acres. I was out with him lamping last night and we got 2 foxes. Farmers are legally responsible for what happens on their land and they can do without hassle or 'attitude' from people who use farmer's land for their own enjoyment. If I have the slightest doubt about people out with guns among my livestock they lose permission instantly. And that usually means neighbouring farms as well and vice versa. All IMHO of course.

I'm sorry to disagree but when it comes to shooting, I have zero tolerance for mistakes. OK, this wasn't necessarily a safety issue but could be in the farmer's eyes. I have to pay for liability insurance to make sure that if some unwelcome guest, for what ever reason, has an 'incident' on my land, I am legally covered. To spell it out, if you took someone to shoot with you on HIS land and your 'guest' has an accident, the farmer could be sued. I would be very unhappy if anyone did this on my land. Especially as I have to pay for the necessity of insuring myself. And to be honest, shooters frequently overestimate the value of the service they provide to farmers. It is rare that pests get to levels that cause major problems and when they do, there are normally more effective ways to deal with them than shooting.

Not knowing you Joe, I can't really say but this post of yours does you no credit at all. It's his land, you made a mistake, (he has to pay insurance to ensure people on his land like you don't sue him) and then you display an attitude like this?

Condoms work well.

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=15930 Have a look at this thread and the site in general. May be some useful stuff - saw it this morning in response to another optics question. Good luck.

This might help - taken from the SWFA site. *************** 30mm scopes were first made in Europe years and years ago for two reasons. 1. Everything was done by hand and a large tube was needed to be able to build the scope. 2. They are on the metric system. When we started building scopes in the U.S. technology had advanced some and being on the Standard system we built our scopes with 1" tubes. The German scopes were and are superior because they use better glass, better coatings and better craftsmanship. Most people assume that bigger is better and that must be the reason why German 30mm scopes are brighter. It did not take long for U.S. and Asian scope makers to catch on to this and start offering 30mm scopes. It worked for a while but more and more people are learning the truth with the advent of the Internet. When Leupold first offered a 30mm tube in a hunting scope, they named it the Euro. 30. A competitor dissected one and said, B.S. that scope has 1" guts with a 30mm tube. Leupold's spin doctors quickly changed the name of the new 30mm line of scopes to LR or Long Range and released press releases stating that this new line of scopes has 1" internals with a 30mm tube to allow for more elevation adjustments. Bottom line is 30mm scopes are 30mm because of the Metric system, they can be brighter than a 1" scope with all other things being equal (# of internal lenses and diameter of objective especially) if the maker takes advantage of the larger internal lenses in a manner that manages the light better (cutting down on distortion and stray light loss). 30mm scopes are also stronger and usually heavier. Biggest advantage is more internal adjustment travel for long range shooting.

As I understand it, the only advantage of a 30mm tube is that there is more adjustment potential. They are obviously heavier and don't help (significantly, if at all) with light transmission. If you are dialing in for short to (very) long range shooting, I can see the argument but I use 1" scopes were I can.

I think I tried these years ago and am left with the memory that they're not as good as you might think due to the effect of parallax in viewing the shot/clay ie you still don't know if you're behind or in front. May take someone off to the side to have a better view.