Optimus 45 Tank burst - Todays excitement.

Hi Rik..

Just reading through this thread to read your pipe cleaner idea. Only yesterday evening i stripped down my Turm Sport to find the wick in a pretty bad state. I think FUBAR comes to mind.
I am off to the shop soon and will try the pipe cleaner idea. Thanks for the idea !!!

 

Richard, you have an eagle's eye! Being a lefthanded shooter myself I had not noticed this.

Regards,

Wim

 

Hey, Wim,

Nor me, my Friend! I shoot rifles left handed, too, and missed that completely. Gettin' old and short-sighted, I guess....! Nice rifle, Snow Goose, and I'd love to learn more about it, if you would care to share with those of us who are also shooters. Take care, and God Bless!

Every Good Wish,
Doc

 

Being busy away from CCS at the moment I'd missed the whole revival of this thread!
Interesting reading though.

 

First, a note for Rik...my Dennison smock is original and I still have it.

Now the rifle...and an illusion...first the illusion...This self portrait from 1971 was taken on my old Ashai Pentax that I bought in 1968 and when I used to do all my own processing...the negative was reversed in the enlarger...the rifle is actually a conventional right handed bolt action.

The rifle..it is a Czechoslovak BRNO 0.22 LR fitted with a Parker Hale sound moderator. My brother has one similar but he has the carbine version which is much smaller.

A note for our American friends…I know that SM’s are illegal in the US but in the U.K. they are normal on 0.22 hunting rifles and now almost everyone has one on their centre fire rifle..in fact for some professional stalkers they are mandatory ….as the organisations they work for e.g. The Forestry Commission are scared to death of being sued under Health and Safety legislation….in case the stalker goes deaf!!!

In books, particularly novels…you will read that silencers degrade accuracy…that is bullshit by people that have not walked the walk. I have shot tens of thousands of rounds through rifles fitted with silencers. A silencer does not effect accuracy one iota.

A silencer on a 0.22 is very, very effective. If one uses subsonic rounds e.g Eley subsonic hollow point (1050 fps) all you hear is a phutt and the smack of the round hitting flesh. In a centre fire rifle where the round leaves the muzzle at 3000 or so feet a second you here the crack but it is greatly reduced…e.g. a 7.62mm round will be reduced in sound to that of something approximating a unsilenced 0.22 rimfire.

On the hill, when culling red deer hinds, when a centre fire rifle is used with a silencer for the first time they are very effective…the deer here the crack but it is so subdued they don’t hear where the round has come from. However deer are very intelligent animals and they do hear the “smack” of the round entering the deer that has been shot. In no time at all as soon as they hear the smack the adjacent parcel of hinds are up and away! The only useful purpose of a centre fire rifle fitted with a silencer is for the ear protection of the stalker. My own opinion: silencers for centre fire rifles are over rated and heavy. If one is worried about going deaf…wear a set of ear defenders!

 

Best issue the Coyotes and Wolves in those countries that haven't previously screwed up the higher order predator balance with rifles then.

Rather than hijack Kerophile's thread further I'll start another one in the Lounge in the next couple of days. Thus far the discussion on this part of the thread has been remarkably deviod of any sembalnce of fact. So to start remedying that here's a starter for ten. I agree in principle with Snowgoose's comment above. Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that wounding rates (i.e. not outright kills) are 48% with rifles, and 60% with shotguns. As the skill of the marksman increases the kill rate increases. However the percentage wounding rate stays the same. I.E. The better the marksman the higher the kill in pure numbers, but also the higher the wounding in pure numbers. Initially sounds counter intuitive, but think about it.....

I'll pull together a bunch of my research, along with attributions, that contributed to the formation my own opinions on this subject and overcame my initial emotional response. It probably won't overcome other's responses to the image of fox hunting in terms of the mumbo jumbo ritulistic enjoyment of people who hunt - that's an entirely different discusion compared to the end result of managing wildlife in a way that is more natural than that currently employed.

Cheers, Graham.

 

That will be an interesting debate I'm sure. For now I have made some edits to certain parts of this thread.

 

Or I'm happy to let sleeping dogs lie (pun entirely intended ) if there's a view it might get too emotive. The subject isn't really even remotely stove related.

Cheers, Graham.

 

Since when did that matter?

 

I suppose some hunters will use classic camping stoves for making a brew?

Regards,

Wim (not a hunter myself but once fairly good at handgun & rifle shooting)

 

I've seen clips for attaching stoves to bicycles, but not horses

Cheers, Graham.

 

But then horses carry saddlebags!!!

Regards,

Wim (who has been riding a horse only once, so also fell off one only once )

 

Hi
Not stove related, you do cook and eat your fox don't you?
Expect to see it in the recipes section.
Already gone.

 

The Svea 123 works better in my saddlebags than my Op45 would, I think. But I need one of Gary's BD mini-caps: the noise would probably spook the horses.

Maybe I need to start collecting different stove-appropriate saddlebags. Anyone know if the military produced anything?

Alex

 

Only if they've already eaten my neighbours chickens - saves stuffing them myself

Actually I don't believe there's any reason why a fox could not be eaten? Other cultures breed dogs for food, so in my mind there's no difference. It's just what's deemed "acceptable" within the culture we live in! Not tried it but would be perfectly willing to add it to my list of other foody tries such as crocodile (waste of time - tasteless and rubbery) snake (fiddly and not a lot different from eel), frill neck lizard (not unpleasant, but didn't particularly taste of anything), frogs (crunchy), Buffalo (a bit tough, but that might have been the chef), camel (surprisingly tender and tasty - recommended), zebra (same as horse), horse (same as zebra) and the old Australian Outback tourist favourite witchety grubs (creamy). None of the preceding list is, in my opinion, as disgusting as oysters (salty, gritty snot)

One of our local game dealers imports African game hence the zebra steaks is a real try. Yet to try gazelle but I imagine it wouldn't be much different from venison.

Cheers, Graham.

 

Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

1996 Chapter 3

An Act to make provision for the protection of wild mammals from certain cruel acts; and for connected purposes.

[29th February 1996]

BE IT ENACTED by the Queens' most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. If, save as permitted by this Act, any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering he shall be guilty of an offence.

2. A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason of-

(a) the attempted killing of any such wild mammal as an act of mercy if he shows that the mammal had been so seriously disabled otherwise than by his unlawful act that there was no reasonable chance of its recovering;

(b) the killing in a reasonably swift and humane manner of any such wild mammal if he shows that the wild mammal had been injured or taken in the course of either lawful shooting, hunting, coursing or pest control activity;

(c) doing anything which is authorised by or under any enactment;

(d) any act made unlawful by section 1 if the act was done by means of any snare, trap, dog, or bird lawfully used for the purpose of killing or taking any wild mammal; or

(e) the lawful use of any poisonous or noxious substance on any wild mammal.

3. In this Act "wild mammal" means any mammal which is not a domestic or captive animal within the meaning of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 or the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912.

4. Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence under the provisions of this Act and that evidence of the commission of the offence may be found on that person or in or on any vehicle he may have with him, the constable may-

(a) without warrant, stop and search that person and any vehicle or article he may have with him; and

(b) seize and detain for the purposes of proceedings under any of those provisions anything which may be evidence of the commission of the offence or may be liable to be confiscated under section 6 of this Act.

5. - (1) A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.

(2) Provided that where the offence was committed in respect of more than one wild mammal, the maximum fine which may be imposed shall be determined as if the person had been convicted of a separate offence in respect of each such wild mammal.

6. - (1) The court before whom any person is convicted under this Act may, in addition to any other punishment, order the confiscation of any vehicle or equipment used in the commission of the offence.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument and subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, make provision for the disposal or destruction in prescribed circumstances of any vehicle or equipment confiscated under this section.

7. - (1) This Act may be cited as the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996.

(2) This Act shall come into force with the expiration of the period of two months beginning with its passing.

(3) This Act shall not apply to Northern Ireland.

(4) Section 6 of this Act shall not apply to Scotland, and so much of section 4 as refers to that section shall also not apply there


so rik throwing your discus stove would come under stoning i believe and if caught you face a £5000 fine or 6 months inside or both 8)

Graham i hope you report any of your farming chums for gassing foxes as they could face 6 months imprisonment for each animal killed plus a £5000 fine per animal

 

I would totally agree. If I found clear evidence of anyone gassing foxes I would most certainly contact the police. For the avoidance of doubt, none of the farmers who are my personal aquaintances gas foxes and are equally disgusted by the activity. It's more of something that we've heard reported in the press (local and national) but unfortunately I don't have any direct evidence myself - who knows, may be one of those urban myths, but given it would be the lazy thing to do then I suspect it does occur.

Anyway, here's a picture of fox hunting in progress:

If you are not morally offended or squeamish, click to see actual fox hunting in progress

Spoiler

 

To gas a fox .... Propane or Butane ?
Coat on ....

Nick

 

if you read the David Brian Plummer he tells a tale in which he was asked by a local Chinese restaurant owner if he would sell him foxes for eating