Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
By chevvron
#1664289
Sooty25 wrote:Two different routes to the same tool, yours leading cadets in to armed service who's ultimate role may be to use any tool given, whether it be a gun, explosives or a drone to effect a kill.

Alternatively, the target shooter using his gun seeking consistent 100 score , the tunnel worker using explosives to release stone for a transport link, or the professional drone pilot searching for missing persons.

I held the same range authorisation as Dave; you're not 'leading cadets into the armed service', you're teaching them respect for all guns knowing that most of them will not be 'joining up'.
I've also shot in civilian competitions (at Bisley and elsewhere) from 10m air rifle to 600yd full bore and everybody I've shot next to has the same regard for guns; it's a sport not a means to kill people.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By defcribed
#1664392
chevvron wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:Two different routes to the same tool, yours leading cadets in to armed service who's ultimate role may be to use any tool given, whether it be a gun, explosives or a drone to effect a kill.

Alternatively, the target shooter using his gun seeking consistent 100 score , the tunnel worker using explosives to release stone for a transport link, or the professional drone pilot searching for missing persons.

I held the same range authorisation as Dave; you're not 'leading cadets into the armed service', you're teaching them respect for all guns knowing that most of them will not be 'joining up'.
I've also shot in civilian competitions (at Bisley and elsewhere) from 10m air rifle to 600yd full bore and everybody I've shot next to has the same regard for guns; it's a sport not a means to kill people.


You're not "leading them into the armed service" (whatever that means) but you are definitely involved in military training when you supervise cadets on the range. I feel there's a distinction there between that and pure target shooting.

I've shot a lot at Bisley (up to 1300 yards, waves willy, nah nah nah nah) and while everyone I came across had a healthy respect for firearms and safety issues, plenty of them had attitudes to other people and the world in general that gave cause for concern. As the local Firearms Enquiry Officer put it: "you wouldn't leave your kids with them".
By Bill Haddow
#1664401
Crash one wrote:
But, why is my licence issued by Police Scotland, for an air weapon it’s power is classed as low power (sub 12lbf)?


You don't have a licence. @Sooty25 please also note there is no mention of "licence" or "licensing" anywhere in the relevant legislation. (The old "Gun Licence" went out the window when the Firearms Act 1968 came in.) The term "licence" implies the grant of permission, whereas what we have are "certificates", which the legislation clearly indicates are a right - "A firearm certificate shall be granted " - subject to some (sensible) criteria being met. Police forces often refer to "Firearms Licensing" in accordance with a common police practice of pretending the law is the way they would like it to be, rather than the way Parliament actually passed it.

On the subject of "weapon", in the context of military range work the conducting and safety officers could be dealing with pistols, rifles, machine guns, sub-cal adapters, whatever so it makes sense to standardise on the term "weapon". In a sporting context, I have only ever heard shotguns being called shotguns and rifles called rifles, I have never heard the term "weapon" used.

Bill H
skydriller liked this
By Bill Haddow
#1664418
Mike Tango wrote:As a former firearms certificate holder and secretary of a shooting club, of course they are weapons.


MT, I'm not disagreeing, I'm merely saying that in my experience, in a sporting context, the only terms I've heard used are "gun", "shotgun, and "rifle", I've never heard the term "weapon" used. I expect some people do use it in a sporting context, but none that I've shot with.

(Cue the scene in Full Metal Jacket where the Gunnery Sergeant has the squad marching up and down the barrack block, rifles shouldered, free hand grabbing crotch, chanting, "This is my weapon, this is my gun, one's for killing one's for fun")

Bill H
By riverrock
#1664423
Bill Haddow wrote:in my experience, in a sporting context, the only terms I've heard used are "gun", "shotgun, and "rifle", I've never heard the term "weapon" used. I expect some people do use it in a sporting context, but none that I've shot with.

What is the collective term for those things? Its not "tools". They don't get put back in the tool cupboard after use.
By Bill Haddow
#1664437
riverrock wrote:
What is the collective term for those things? Its not "tools". They don't get put back in the tool cupboard after use.


Care to point to the post where I used the term tools - after all you've put it within quotation marks as if you're quoting me.

I don't think any of those items have a generally accepted collective term - a swarm of shotguns, a gaggle of guns, a roost of rifles - cannot say I've heard anything along those lines.

Now if it is a generic term you are after, I would suggest "firearms".

Bill H
By spaughty
#1664447
Crash one wrote:A point of clarity.
Air rifles/pistols. Muzzle energy is measured in “pounds force” not “foot pounds”. There are manufacturers that get that wrong as well.


I know nothing about guns, nor the official unit for muzzle energy, (which may indeed have some historic reason for being whatever it is :-) ), but "pounds force" or "lbf" is actually a measure of force (basically the weight of 1lb at the earth's surface, i.e. about approx 32 poundals or 9.81/2.2 = 4.45 Newtons).

"Foot pounds", or more accurately "foot pounds force" or "ft.lbf" is a measure of energy, (equivalent to exerting a one lbf force over a distance of one foot, i.e. approx 4.45N x .3048 m = 1.36 Joules).
kanga liked this
By JoeC
#1664448
Dave W wrote:Good grief.

Is there anything the forum can't have a bad-tempered fight* over?

*Without weapons, obvs.



Mods not heard of displacement theory? Remove the opportunity to argue over politics or religion and we'll argue over something else instead. Best ban this topic too!
Nick liked this
By riverrock
#1664451
Bill Haddow wrote:Care to point to the post where I used the term tools - after all you've put it within quotation marks as if you're quoting me.

I don't think any of those items have a generally accepted collective term - a swarm of shotguns, a gaggle of guns, a roost of rifles - cannot say I've heard anything along those lines.

Now if it is a generic term you are after, I would suggest "firearms".

Bill H

The word "tool" has been used multiple times by various people on this thread. You hadn't used a collective term for those things - which was my point.

The legal collective term is "weapon" as used throughout the Firearms Act 1968 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27
The word "gun" can cover most of the held projectile sending devices but those who use a glue gun might object.
"Firearm" to me suggests some sort of "fire" - so combustion although it is used generically also in that act.

This thread is discussing which word to use. I don't think we are all being bad tempered? :guns: :eye: :shifty:
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1664454
Complaint submitted to Admin team. This thread was NOT started by me, if someone in the admin team feels it is appropriate to split a thread, then they should be the name listed as starting it.

THIS IS NOT MY THREAD!l