Shooting Times

[Fellside]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

The popular view (I could not comment from experience) is that steel does not break clays as well as lead does and people more experienced than me talk about lower scores around 5% 

For a top line clay shooter a loss of 5% is close to not being worth turning up.

I'm also told from another source that muzzle loaders will be exempt from the lead ban. So there is the answer

Yes that’s what I’ve been told also. A shooting ground owner told me that it wasn’t really performing on the rangier clays. More suited to average distances apparently. 

[Old Boggy]

12 hours ago, London Best said:

I had to buy my own from ‘65. 
Reason I stopped was because almost every week I felt I had read it before.

Totally agree.

It was never the same for me since the likes of John Humphrey’s, Colin Willock, Fred Taylor etc sadly passed.

OB

[Accuspell]

I was lucky enough to work on Shooting Times as a regular freelance, through the editorship of Tony Jackson, then a couple of quick changes of editors that didn't suit the title until Jonathon Young, who then took over The Field from Julie ? and Patrick Fong who was the picture editor. Those days magazines meant something, they were regarded greater respect because the information was vetted several times before publication and the contributors were carefully selected. What we have now is the result of only going to the lowest bidder. I remember going to the Christmas Party in The Guards barracks (club?), right opposite the Hyde Park lake. The editorial teams were seen as 'costs' and advertisers seen as 'revenue'... and that was when the contributors' paymnents were cut but advertising rates were increased and the start of 'The Great Slide'.

If you want good journalism and photography you have to pay properly. To put it into perspective, I was being paid more in 1986 than in 2006, not pro-rata, actual fee, to the point where had I continued to work for them I would have been working for less than £30 a day, this is in the last 10 years. It is little wonder that the standard of content has diminished.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Accuspell
spelling

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Sadly that is true in many parts of life.

The good days have gone forever.

[Bigbob]

Ive stopped getting all my magazines Shooting Times , Countrymans weekly and Sporting gun  . And am now reading a boxfull of diffrent mags from the 50s-2000 my son gave me for my xmas a few great reads in that lot 

[HantsRob]

14 hours ago, Vince Green said:

The popular view (I could not comment from experience) is that steel does not break clays as well as lead does and people more experienced than me talk about lower scores around 5% 

For a top line clay shooter a loss of 5% is close to not being worth turning up.

If everyone is shooting the same cartridge, it isn't a handicap to the shooter.

[PeterHenry]

16 hours ago, Vince Green said:

I'm also told from another source that muzzle loaders will be exempt from the lead ban. So there is the answer

That would be sensible - and even more so if it was extended to homeloading. I cant see someone who uses a lot of cartridges going to the fuss of loading thousands and thousands of the things - but for someone who has some nice pre 1950's guns, it may well be a good way of keeping them happy.

Edited February 13, 2022 by PeterHenry

[button]

20 hours ago, London Best said:

I had to buy my own from ‘65. 
Reason I stopped was because almost every week I felt I had read it before.

15 years is a long time to work that out

[London Best]

12 minutes ago, button said:

15 years is a long time to work that out

Yeah, I’m not very bright!

[Vince Green]

11 hours ago, Accuspell said:

I was lucky enough to work on Shooting Times as a regular freelance, through the editorship of Tony Jackson, then a couple of quick changes of editors that didn't suit the title until Jonathon Young, who then took over The Field from Julie ? and Patrick Fong who was the picture editor. Those days magazines meant something, they were regarded greater respect because the information was vetted several times before publication and the contributors were carefully selected. What we have now is the result of only going to the lowest bidder. I remember going to the Christmas Party in The Guards barracks (club?), right opposite the Hyde Park lake. The editorial teams were seen as 'costs' and advertisers seen as 'revenue'... and that was when the contributors' paymnents were cut but advertising rates were increased and the start of 'The Great Slide'.

If you want good journalism and photography you have to pay properly. To put it into perspective, I was being paid more in 1986 than in 2006, not pro-rata, actual fee, to the point where had I continued to work for them I would have been working for less than £30 a day, this is in the last 10 years. It is little wonder that the standard of content has diminished.

I wrote a few bits for magazines back in the day but the fees were hobby level

Not shooting times but people like Clive Stevens who wrote for target gun. The amount of research he had to do was eye watering developing loads etc

I can't imagine he saw much back for all that effort. The editorial staff must have been rubbing their hands

[scolopax]

On 11/02/2022 at 20:36, Scully said:

Grand. We all see what we want to see. Aren’t they ‘fowl’, and ‘wild’?  🙂

No, it is commonly accepted that wildfowling only takes place on the foreshore. The pursuit of the same quarry inland is mere duck shooting or goose shooting.

[WalkedUp]

From the grizzled wildfowlers I know: ducks and geese are wild fowl, whereas wildfowling is the shooting of wildfowl on the foreshore. Shooting wildfowl inland is (deletes the word ‘murder’ which one guy said to me) decoying, flighting, walked up shooting, or driven shooting et cetera. To conflate the two is considered akin to describing throwing a tennis ball against a brick wall as ‘tennis’. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by WalkedUp

[Scully]

9 hours ago, scolopax said:

No, it is commonly accepted that wildfowling only takes place on the foreshore. The pursuit of the same quarry inland is mere duck shooting or goose shooting.

It may be ‘commonly accepted’ but they aren’t a different breed; they’re still wildfowl, share the same season and can be shot on the coast as well as inland.

Wildfowling is the shooting of wild fowl. 
Wildfowlers may shoot exclusively wildfowl, and while it wasn’t necessarily dedicated wildfowlers doing the shooting ( though no doubt geared up specifically for the job ) with the local knowledge of wildfowl or goose guides, wildfowl are being killed in such big numbers commentators have described it as the ‘killing fields’. 
Like I said, we all see what we want to see. 

[WalkedUp]

I wildfowl on the foreshore, decoy geese on stubbles, and flight wild duck on ponds. It’s all great fun, but in my eyes they are very different disciplines. 

Interesting to see this in the top results when you Google for a dictionary definition:

 

[WalkedUp]

As a small island, most of the UK is within striking distance of a morning on the foreshore. Large areas of the US is not, consequently their use of the term is different to ours. 

I guess it is another US import, like that anyone under 30 now says:

‘Sked-yule’ rather than ‘Shed-yul’. 

[Scully]

I’ve just Googled wildfowling; BASC term it as the hunting of geese and ducks ‘usually’ on the coast and estuaries. Usually, which isn’t the same as exclusively. The Americans describe the same as water fowl and describe the hunting of such as the pursuit of geese and ducks. 
You can shoot them on your pond, in rivers, the coast, estuaries and stubbles; they’re still wildfowl. 
Pheasant are still pheasant whether you’re on a driven shoot or a rough shoot. 🤷‍♂️
Wildfowl are being killed in huge numbers in some places, it’s as simple as that. 

[WalkedUp]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

usually

Yes I spotted that too.

With the pheasant analogy I would say ‘driven’ would be similar to ‘wildfowling’ as the term for the style of shooting rather than the quarry. However I’m no expert and it appears there is no definitive answer that is universally accepted, just opinions each way. 

[Scully]

On 13/02/2022 at 10:59, HantsRob said:

If everyone is shooting the same cartridge, it isn't a handicap to the shooter.

This. 

[marsh man]

On 11/02/2022 at 15:08, dipper said:

My first shooting times were from 1958 still at school then cost 9p old money

You beat me by 2 / 3 years , my first ones were 1/3d and then they jumped up to 1/6d which was a fair ole jump for an apprentice brick layer , I have still got a few old copies and looking now at the prices of guns and cartridges it would make your mouth water , one advert I was looking at was a Holland and Holland 4 bore with all the accessories for the grand sum of £70 , how things are going you might soon be able to put a few nought's on the end .

[dipper]

Remember going in a gun shop in Farnworth  early 60s.The guy who ran the shop was Duggy Nabs .Always had something interesting.in  the window was a single tolley 8 bore and a box of cartridges .£35 .He came over asked if I wanted to buy it .He said you can get it on the drip if you can put £5 down .I got the bus home went round to my mates .We managed to raise £5 between us .Got the bus back the gun had been sold.😩

[marsh man]

8 minutes ago, dipper said:

Remember going in a gun shop in Farnworth  early 60s.The guy who ran the shop was Duggy Nabs .Always had something interesting.in  the window was a single tolley 8 bore and a box of cartridges .£35 .He came over asked if I wanted to buy it .He said you can get it on the drip if you can put £5 down .I got the bus home went round to my mates .We managed to raise £5 between us .Got the bus back the gun had been sold.😩

We knew very little about the cost of guns in the 60s and the make didn't mean much neither , well one of the fowlers who is about five years older than me worked at the local wood yard , one of the workers knew he went shooting and asked him if he wanted to buy a gun he had at home , so when they left off he went round this chaps house to have a look at it , when he got it down from his bedroom and laid it on the table he couldn't believe his eyes , it was double 8 bore with a stock like rose wood , he looked it up and down and asked him what he was trying to sell it for , after a bit of thought he said what about £35 , that was a lot of money and I believe he got for a couple of quid less .

After a while it started to change hands and I was offered it for about 30 quid , the bloke who had it then done a bit of fowling and asked me if I wanted to try it out first , so we took one of gun punts out and rowed up the river to find something to try it out on , after a while we spotted some Tufted duck sitting well out from the estuary wall , we laid down in the punt and this chap used the pushing pole whilst I was up front with this gun lying on the deck , when we were level with the duck we swung out from the wall so we had it in the back ground and started to push on to these Tufted duck , we got within 60 yds or so and they started to split up , we carried on for a few more yards and the necks went up and they were ready to jump , this chap knew the range of the gun better than me and I heard him say , go on give em one , so I did and after a loud bang and after the smoke cleared there was one left after the others had scarpered , to this day that was the only shot I had with a eight bore and still maintain one duck for one shot , and no I didn't buy because the cartridges were to expensive , if only I knew then what I know now .