Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts

Dalua

Members
  • Content count

    179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dalua

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

376 profile views
  1. That's what I meant, really. I think centrefire rifles for target-shooting in the UK (perhaps I should limit this comment to the 20th century?), until the invention of what we know today as 'Target Rifle' in the late '60s, were overwhelmingly military - hence the availability of target-type sights for those rifles.
  2. I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that the overwhelming majority of centre-fire target-shooting done in this country before the death of SRa and SRb in ?the late '60s would have been done with military rifles. I suspect that, because the point of the exercise was to improve civilian marksmanship with military weapons - just in case... This link might be useful with repsect to sights http://www.rifleman.org.uk/PH_Service_sights_Main.htm# Looking at some old Parker-Hale catalogues, .303 military rifles and centre-fire target-shooting are pretty much the synonymous until 7.62 starts to appear, and with it transitonal target-rifles such as the No4-actioned 7.62 T4 around 1970
  3. Sounds like an interesting project. Are there different classes within this 'Historic' category? If it is indeed 'Historic', I'd imagine that your choice of sight would be governed to a great extent by your choice of rifle. One would expect appropriate contemporary sights to be allowed which would generally be iron, whether open or aperture. There might also be classes for optical sights, as these existed well before 1955.
  4. Dalua

    Amazing group!

    It was perhaps just sleeping? They are nocturnal, after all.
  5. Perhaps not so much as a ballistic need fulfilled as a commercial opportunity identified and taken?
  6. Dalua

    bes thermal handheld spotter

    That's the one I bought last year, and the place I bought it from. It's a remarkable bit of kit.
  7. Wise words: and from one who knows whereof he speaks. Indeed it is too late to respond to the official consultation. It is not however too late to respond, by dropping a line to your MP, to the apparently-imminent appearance of this Bill before Parliament.
  8. To Phaedra: Sorry - should have been clearer - I didn't get that idea. My post wasn't adressed to you: it was addressed to everyone. Hence the lack of quotation and the inclusion of the resumé. initially I didn't email my MP - I went to see him in person. That will probably make no difference at all - just like the emails. However, if another dozen or so Gorton constituents went to see him it might? They probably won't - but that will not be for my lack of trying. Turns to the audience: do it. Do it now!
  9. Have you emailed your MP about it yet? If not, why not? If you have already emailed your MP about it, have you just now emailed again to express surprise that it's being apparently brought forward before the consultation results have been made public. Quick resumé: Ban rifles of kinds not known to be used in crime in the UK, for no clear reason. Interfere with sales of knives in a way that is superficially a good PR response to the last week's-worth of press coverage of violence in London, but is in fact unlikely to have the slightest impact on such behaviour in the future. Email your MP. Write clearly, concisely, coherently and NOW. It will probably take you less time to do that than to post on here that it won't affect you anyway, .50-cal are too big, MARS just waste ammuntion, and how you haven't noticed that every time a bit of firearms legislation gets passed, it gets closer to taking away your stuff.
  10. Dalua

    Home Office to change Doctors Fee agreement

    I'm not sure what the government thinks about shooters. In many ways it doesn't matter, because the implacable enemies of the public ownership of firearms in this country are demonstrably the Police and the Home Office. GP practices are certainly keen on increasing their income - but I don't think that the amount by which this measure will increase any particular practices' income is likely to be much of a bargaining chip. Apart from anything else, they'll actually have to do a bit of work for it.
  11. Dalua

    Home Office to change Doctors Fee agreement

    As far as I'm aware, the GPs are not initially being asked for any kind of report, but rather a brief statement or checklist, based on facts in their medical notes, confirming the absence of certain illnesses, and perhaps also of other overt causes of concern with repsect to firearms ownership. I'm not aware that anyone has yet made a case as to why this should suddenly have become necessary to safeguard the public, as AFAIK GPs have always been under obligation to advise the police of medical concerns with respect to lawful firearms owners. BASC rather rashly agreed to a system where any further reports required after the initial questionnaire would be chargeable by the medico to the applicant. Not a good decision, I think, for it seems to me that applicants have already paid their share of this process as laid down by statute (which, let us not forget, is not for the applicants' benefit - but rather for the benefit of the public as a whole). If the police and the HO think medical reports of various kinds are a proportionate solution to some public safety problem related to FAC/SGC applications, they should have the courage of their convictions and make a case to justify the necessity of the reports, and so get them funded from the public purse.
  12. Isn't the bullet actually responsible itself for a component of the of the sound until it goes subsonic? If so, does that mean that the last gasp of its sonic crack will be audible before the arrival of the bullet at any point downrange after the bullets drops to below the speed of sound?
  13. On my Northstar, I use a length of camo-printed neoprene tube intended as a cover for the barrels of a 12b double gun. It's lasted years, and I've still got the other part of the tube for when the bit in current use gets too ragged.
  14. Dalua

    closed ticket

    Snakeman This is clearly an area where folk come to their own conclusions - and it is undoubtedly important to know (and perhaps also to feel) that that you're doing shootingwise is lawful. I think the best way to do that is to know the law well; so that in exchanges with the FLD, one is able to tell whether what they're asking for is sensible, lawful, or both before agreeing to it. New(ish) FAC-holders are unsurprisingly apt to feel disempowered and vulnerable with respect their FLDs and the forces of the law in general, and therefore I would recommend them to be in touch with well-informed pals, or the Firearms Department of their shooting organisation, to clarify areas of uncertainly, rather than relying on their FLD alone (or, indeed, an internet forum!) From your last post, is seems that unlike the OP's (which has a standard territorial condition), your FAC actually specified the land over which you were allowed to shoot: so I imagine your FLD wanted the written permission for the new land so that they could add that land specifically to your FAC also? If so, the situation is different from the OP's; and your FLDs request for that letter of permission was indeed necessary for them to add the ground to your more-than-ususally-restrictive territorial condition. I don't see any naivity, other than accepting the stuff about ringing them or telling them when you'll be shooting there. The rest of what they asked for and you did makes sense in the context of your FAC conditions at the time. The idea of shooting 'out of county' is not really a thing with a standard territorial condition: if you shoot in another police area, the land needs to be 'cleared' by the area force, and you need (as always) permission from the owner/occupier to shoot on it. You don't need to tell that force, or yours, that you're shooting there.
  15. Dalua

    closed ticket

    Sorry, Snakeman - I thought you were addressing Kev, whom you were quoting. First, I don't think there is a predicament here: it seems that the OP knows the ground is cleared, has permission to shoot there and holds a FAC that allows him to shoot on cleared ground where he has permission. I don't think things have changed at all in last 10 years. It remains the case that some FLDs make demands of FAC-holders over and above lawful and reasonable requirements - such as those given in your partly crossed-out paragraph. AFAIK there was not 10 years ago and is not now any need in law to provide the FLD with written permission to shoot or info on the times/dates you'll be shooting; nor to give courtesy telephone calls to your own or other FLDs with respect to intention to shoot. If there was uncertainty over whether the land had been cleared by the relevant FLD, then a 'phone call to check that would definately be necessary - but the OP states that the land has been cleared. It is clearly very important to stay within the law. I think it is probably just as important assertively and politely to challenge demands from FLDs that go beyond the law, since dumb compliance with such demands is likely to make things worse for all FAC-holders in the long run.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy