Buy or sell

[Genghis]

1 hour ago, ryle said:

My mum has had a similar opinion in the past. "Ban guns, get rid of them" she'd say.

I'd ask her "What's your experience with them?" Id also say the only guns you've seen are the one's bieng thrown around in Hollywood films. This is the issue, educated by the tv rather than actually seeing any form of shooting in reality.

They also hear about every mass shooting in America and fail to understand the difference between a Section 2 shotgun and an assault rifle. To a lot of people a gun is a gun. They don’t care about context.

 

It’s also an unfortunate British trait that as a culture we have a history of calling for bans on things that we don’t enjoy on a personal level.

 

My only hope is that legislation drags on until after the next election. There is a small possibility of this but it entirely depends on whether or not there is another prominent shooting incident while Labour are in power. If anything like Plymouth happens before the next election then the response will be draconian.

[wymberley]

5 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

In reality any legislation introduced to take guns from private hands will be, as always, based on fear.

Fixed it for you.

I agree with Old Farrier in as much as we have to enjoy it while we can. As OF says, no one knows what will happen in the future, "particularly long term" (my parentheses). Albeit with changes to practises, game/driven game will possibly continue mid term; as will clay pigeon shooting. Where shooting is deemed the most effective, vermin control will continue but we can only hope that some of the existing legislation - which at the moment is largely ignored - is not extended to include other species and then enforced.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

5 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

In reality it is a CLASS action to take guns from private hands.

Above is what I posted.

[Konor]

It seems from a lot of posts that it’s the inability to see the guns that are owned in a proper context. I used to organise work days out to a commercial clay shooting set up. I’d easily have 35 to 40 people attending,some would drag their partners along. We’d break for a lunch of soup and sandwiches that the venue catered for. Without exception everyone loved it. Occasionally we’d have a quad bike relay race splitting up into 4 or 5 teams it was a great day out but it also gave each person attending the opportunity to talk about the experience and show shooting as a source of enjoyment. When I changed jobs the new place had someone organising a large group of around 20 attending a twice yearly charity shoot ,coaching was available and the targets mostly on the easy side. Burgers and pies for lunch and a raffle on a summers day ,another success and again people being able to put gun ownership in a different context. When any of the people mentioned opted to follow up on their experience it’s amazing how the need to do so through coaching and the increase in expense that occurs had them focused on the practicality of eventually owning their own shotgun to practice and enjoy the day in a more affordable way.

[wymberley]

24 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Above is what I posted.

Yep, apologies, my bad. I should have quoted you and then amended it.

[ryle]

The idea that governments wish to remove guns through thier own fear is in a way tin-hat material...

Except for the fact that there are certain countries and governments that have done just that for those very reasons.

I suppose it shows the importance of inviting your local mp to a clay shoot for them to try and see what its all about. The clay shoot bieng a very 'social' and informal yet overtly saftey conscious and accessible type of shooting.

[Scully]

I doubt S1 would restrict anyone to any particular ground or club; it never did in the past. Clay/target shooting at any approved ground would suffice as ‘good reason’ I would think. 
For live quarry shooting it would probably be on an open ticket as S1 is now…..ie: Clay/target/sporting use and AOLQ. 

[Konor]

58 minutes ago, Scully said:

I doubt S1 would restrict anyone to any particular ground or club; it never did in the past. Clay/target shooting at any approved ground would suffice as ‘good reason’ I would think. 
For live quarry shooting it would probably be on an open ticket as S1 is now…..ie: Clay/target/sporting use and AOLQ. 

I think we’d get by and others following would get on with it not knowing any different. It would be a kick in the pants though if the need for a good reason for everything resulted in you failing to acquire that extra gun on your wish list.

[ryle]

That why I believe that a lightweight english sxs, a modern 32" clay busting machine as well as a 3 1/2" semi are all built for different jobs. The only similarity is the calibre.

You would surely have good reason for all 3.

[Konor]

7 minutes ago, ryle said:

That why I believe that a lightweight english sxs, a modern 32" clay busting machine as well as a 3 1/2" semi are all built for different jobs. The only similarity is the calibre.

You would surely have good reason for all 3.

3 quality guns fitting the description above would satisfy perhaps the majority of owners for those wishing to justify an extended armoury then an open bored side by side ,or over and under, for Skeet with barrels shorter than the 32 inch clay busting machine and a dedicated trap gun could probably be justified .As advice seems to be match your chamber length for steel shot  it would be possible to justify a couple of wildfowling semi autos. The biggest loser is the guy who just likes his guns and makes full use of his present freedom to buy whatever his heart desires. Such a person and his guns would most likely be of little threat to anyone.

Edited February 23 by Konor
Addition

[udderlyoffroad]

I think we do ourselves no favours by imagining how we would follow new as yet unknown rules. Better to respond robustly, but succinctly to the consultation when it happens, and ensure every shooter in your social circle does too. There really in 2025 can be no excuse for not responding.
 

[ryle]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I think we do ourselves no favours by imagining how we would follow new as yet unknown rules. Better to respond robustly, but succinctly to the consultation when it happens, and ensure every shooter in your social circle does too. There really in 2025 can be no excuse for not responding.
 

You're absolutely right.

Sometimes I'm a little pessimistic to avoid disappointment I suppose, thats just me

[Konor]

6 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I think we do ourselves no favours by imagining how we would follow new as yet unknown rules. Better to respond robustly, but succinctly to the consultation when it happens, and ensure every shooter in your social circle does too. There really in 2025 can be no excuse for not responding.
 

I imagine there will be a range of views on opposition just as there are on the lead shot proposals. If for instance for discussion’s sake a limit was set at 6 shotguns I’m sure there are many who would happily go along with that limit added to that there will no doubt be a significant proportion who will have no intention of responding whatever the proposed changes. I don’t see how discussion on the forum regarding people’s intentions on tackling any possible proposed changes would have any bearing on proposals coming in to effect. I agree with your need to respond robustly perhaps if our organisations had done so regarding the lead shot issue and insisted on relevant evidence before opting to support a voluntary ban we wouldn’t be facing the prospect of putting steel shot through our Damascus barrelled guns for clay shooting.

[Rim Fire]

I have just got rid of a 17 hornet 243 and 308 and bought a 6.5 Creedmoor because of the lead ban that's coming in the Creedmoor will shoot copper bullets   i still got my 223 and 22LR for vermin  

[Conor O'Gorman]

8 hours ago, Konor said:

I imagine there will be a range of views on opposition just as there are on the lead shot proposals. If for instance for discussion’s sake a limit was set at 6 shotguns I’m sure there are many who would happily go along with that limit added to that there will no doubt be a significant proportion who will have no intention of responding whatever the proposed changes. I don’t see how discussion on the forum regarding people’s intentions on tackling any possible proposed changes would have any bearing on proposals coming in to effect. I agree with your need to respond robustly perhaps if our organisations had done so regarding the lead shot issue and insisted on relevant evidence before opting to support a voluntary ban we wouldn’t be facing the prospect of putting steel shot through our Damascus barrelled guns for clay shooting.

BASC, CA, NGO and others are encouraging a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. . If you want to keep using lead for live quarry that is your choice and nobody is forcing you to 'put steel shoot through your Damascus barrelled guns for clay shooting' as you put it.

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

BASC, CA, NGO and others are encouraging a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. . If you want to keep using lead for live quarry that is your choice and nobody is forcing you to 'put steel shoot through your Damascus barrelled guns for clay shooting' as you put it.

Perhaps you could provide information on the best way to practice with my Damascus barrelled shotgun on clays in the interests of achieving humane kills should your favoured option of not using lead shot become law ?

2 hours ago, Rim Fire said:

I have just got rid of a 17 hornet 243 and 308 and bought a 6.5 Creedmoor because of the lead ban that's coming in the Creedmoor will shoot copper bullets   i still got my 223 and 22LR for vermin  

I’m holding on to my .222 for roe although a move to the highlands might see me change calibre to cover roe and red with the one rifle.

[Conor O'Gorman]

17 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I think we do ourselves no favours by imagining how we would follow new as yet unknown rules. Better to respond robustly, but succinctly to the consultation when it happens, and ensure every shooter in your social circle does too. There really in 2025 can be no excuse for not responding.
 

The last government adopted a common-sense approach to pressure  for greater restrictions on shotguns, asserting that shotguns were already subject to significant controls that additional restrictions were unnecessary and would have a negative impact on their legitimate use.

BASC has successfully argued the case against knee-jerk ineffective changes in law around shotgun ownership and use for decades with successive governments. So, if the threatened consultation launches, we will again make our case but this time we really will need massive engagement and support from everyone participating in shooting.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

BASC, CA, NGO and others are encouraging a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. . If you want to keep using lead for live quarry that is your choice and nobody is forcing you to 'put steel shoot through your Damascus barrelled guns for clay shooting' as you put it.

Oh come on Conor, please. You know as well as anyone he was referring to the impending ban on the use of lead shot. 
Stop talking to us like we’re six. 

[Konor]

From his reply I don’t think Conor has grasped the consequences of accepting and promoting a voluntary lead ban far less the consequences of reiterating his perceived danger of lead shot use which turns out he has no substantiating evidence to support.

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Oh come on Conor, please. You know as well as anyone he was referring to the impending ban on the use of lead shot. 
Stop talking to us like we’re six. 

The idea that the voluntary transition away from lead shot prompted the post-Brexit UK REACH review of lead ammunition is arguably the logic of a six year old to use your analogy. Next we be hearing how the voluntary transition in the UK has promoted the EU REACH review of lead ammunition taking place.

Edited February 24 by Conor O'Gorman

[Rim Fire]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

I’m holding on to my .222 for roe although a move to the highlands might see me change calibre to cover roe and red with the one rifle.

That was my thinking for Roe and Fallow and Boar 

[Pushandpull]

I am not following the argument for changing to 6.5 Creedmoor. There are good lead free bullets and cartridges available in all the common deer calibres.

[Konor]

39 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The idea that the voluntary transition away from lead shot prompted the post-Brexit UK REACH review of lead ammunition is arguably the logic of a six year old to use your analogy. Next we be hearing how the voluntary transition in the UK has promoted the EU REACH review of lead ammunition taking place.

No one is saying that the voluntary transition away from lead shot prompted the post Brexit UK REACH review of lead ammunition.

This is a typical reply from you Conor ,hiding behind irrelevant political arguments and avoiding the practical repercussions of his crusade to portray lead shot in a poor light to justify BASCs support for the introduction of a voluntary transition.

The point I was making was that a substantial number of people continue to use Damascus barrelled guns in the field, and as you must be aware  it is not recommended that steel is used with these vintage guns. As you should also be aware good practice dictates that competence with one’s sporting weapon of choice is an obligation.

Do you think it is feasible to use bismuth shot to maintain that competence when the cost of each cartridge is £1.50 plus ?

If we are bringing up the logic of a six year old it would perhaps be more relevant to link that to the limited Mickey Mouse logic that sees an all or nothing approach to the use of lead shot. The fact that shooters are not being treated as adults is massively underlined by the proposal that lead shot should cease to be used for clay pigeon shooting on the grounds that it may be used for game shooting should further restrictions come into force regarding lead shot and live quarry shooting. Where were the great minds at BASC when they were needed to take a proportionate view of the impact of lead shot ? Out in the playground?

 

Edited February 24 by Konor

[Conor O'Gorman]

34 minutes ago, Konor said:

No one is saying that the voluntary transition away from lead shot prompted the post Brexit UK REACH review of lead ammunition.

Thank you for finally confirming this. 

[Konor]

13 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thank you for finally confirming this. 

It was never an issue  I have never stated that the lead shot voluntary transition prompted the Brexit UK REACH review. Your accusation is groundless . Perhaps consider apologising for yet more baseless claims. There are however far greater issues involved most of which you seem oblivious too. Still you seem quite happy to spend your time avoiding the real issues involved I see. Perhaps if you have clocked on at BASC you might find time to check out the points previously raised and answer some of the questions posed. Or maybe just put your feet up and turn a blind eye.

Edited February 24 by Konor
Addition