The Tories are not our friends… and other tales of woe







The Policing And Crime Act







And then of course there is the new EFD…

The revised European Firearms Directive


It contains many new provisions, which run the gamut:








Shooting Abroad



In general































Isle of Man









Northern Ireland


















The only other real problem is getting there.

United States













1) Can I buy a handgun in the US?


2) Can I rent a handgun at a rental range?




4) Can someone else buy a handgun for me?




6) Does this apply to rifles?








Targeting the right people




How this all came to pass bears some examination.











The Olympics









And finally, some good news…

According to the recently released Firearm Certificate Statistics for 2002-03, the number of shotgun and firearm certificates in England & Wales have increased, by 26,450 shotgun certificates and 8,670 firearm certificates.  Whether this is an indication of a new trend upwards in certificates or merely a lot of people scared off after Dunblane returning to the sport is unclear, but anecdotally, I do seem to run into new shooters quite frequently, which is a good sign.  (Although I do think sometimes I am gate crashing a Catholic sermon, as I can’t seem to get quite as excited about shooting gallery rifles as new shooters do – but they have no experience of pistol shooting).

However, this is small potatoes compared to the situation in the Republic of Ireland, where the Gardai (Irish police) have been put under pressure by a couple of shooters seeking firearm certificates for a pistol and a 7.62mm calibre rifle – not allowed under a long-standing (since 1972) policy.  As the court date approached, the Gardai threw in the towel, and have begun issuing firearm certificates for handguns and larger calibre rifles again.  This is absolutely fantastic news for shooters in the Republic who have suffered under the most repressive firearms regime in the developed world for many years.

With the ban on handguns being lifted in Poland a few years ago, it also means that Great Britain is the only jurisdiction in Europe where handguns are banned.  Doesn’t that give you a warm, fuzzy feeling?  Sigh.

The Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) are threatening changes to the Firearms Acts there, however, so Irish shooters are not out of the woods yet.  At the moment the proposed changes relate to penalties for firearm offences and secure storage requirements.

Postcomm Pat and his black & white policy

If it wasn’t bad enough that we have to deal with stupid Government policies, Royal Mail has been moaning to Postcomm (the post regulator) about guns (including toys) showing up in the post.  Being fair-minded people they apparently want to change their carriage policy to ban the carriage of anything even vaguely firearm-related.

This is a truly serious threat to shooters in this country given how reluctant other carriers are to carry these items, and it would really help if as many shooters as possible make submissions to Postcomm about these proposed changes.  Especially focus on relating experiences you may have had with other carriers.  This is our submission.  Don’t delay, as the consultation only lasts until March 14th.

“They’ll have to shoot me first to take my gun.” – Roy Rogers, commenting on the proposed ban of handguns in California in 1982.


Labour’s Gun Policy Backfires






“There is a danger.




If it weren’t so serious it would be laughable. 








What would Walter Winans say?



So far so good. 








The pistol events



Capital thinking, Walter. 







Time to vote

Another General Election is upon us, and frankly I have yet to recover from the last one.  Shooters lost a great deal in terms of our freedoms prior to the last election.

Unfortunately, there is very little chance of a change of Government, and even if there were, the likely replacements, the Conservatives, are what got us in this mess to begin with, with laws like the Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1988 and 1997.

Labour has undertaken to bring forth a consolidating Firearms Act sometime in the next Parliament, that in itself is welcome, however, it is a sure bet that the Bill will contain various other provisions not currently in law, such as tighter controls on shotguns.

So how do shooters decide who to vote for, given that in many areas, both main candidates are anti-gun or at best don’t care about the issue?

The first thing to realise is that your vote does count.  The recent fiasco in the United States illustrated that clearly.  If shooters vote en bloc they can facilitate change, but once again, who do we vote for?

The dynamics of this election are a lot more complex than the general media appears to realise.  There is a real battle going on here, but it’s not between Labour and the tories, it’s between Labour and “New Labour” as Blair likes to term the party nowadays.  New Labour forms an identifiable chunk of the Labour party, and in most cases, the MPs who represent that chunk are in far more marginal seats than most of the rest of the party.  This is because many of them have been elected in seats that were formerly under the control of the tories.  It is these seats that Tony Blair is keen to keep in Labour hands, and it is these seats that are the most vulnerable.  If these seats were to be lost, the Labour Government would survive, but there is a real chance it would veer off to the left.

This would make Labour less popular, but it would also make them more anti-gun, probably.  It’s a bit of a conundrum to know what to do.

My personal view remains the same now as it did in 1997.  Forget about who leads what party, forget in fact what party your candidates represent.  Talk to the candidates from the main parties in your area, and figure out which one is the most pro-gun.  If none of them are, attempt to convince them.  Then vote for the best one.

Unlike in the US, there is no party where pro-shooting philosophies can be clearly identified.  The UK Independence Party sometimes makes such noises, but sometimes it makes anti-gun noises, and in any event they stand little chance of gaining real power.

Also, unlike in the US, the power to make gun laws rests almost entirely in Parliament.  Local politicians can do very little about it, the worst they can do is to prevent planning permission being given to shooting ranges or gun shops.

You have to vote carefully, to make a long story short.  Many shooters seem to think that voting tory is the only real option, it’s not, and it is a serious error to think this in my opinion.  The tories have never had a minister as pro-shooting as the current Minister for Sport, Kate Hoey MP, for example.

Certainly a narrowing of the massive Labour majority in the Commons will benefit shooters though, because the smaller their majority the harder it will be for them to get anything extreme through.  Unfortunately, until we can convince the tories of the error of their ways, gridlock is the best option in the “big” picture as it’s called.  Achieving that though I think is difficult.

So remember to vote, but be careful who you vote for, and be sure you talk to the candidates in your constituency before you vote.  It is easy to do, they will soon be assailing you with hotlines you can call, knocking on your door etc., take the time and make the effort.

The future of target shooting

I have been inspired to write on this subject by a recent article in Target Sports magazine by Richard Munday, who is a well-known and respected member of the shooting community, in addition to being President of the British Alpine Rifles.

Richard in his article bemoans the lack of attendance of the events at the Imperial Meeting at Bisley in the short-range (gallery rifle etc.) events, and suggests alterations to them and new events to encourage attendance.

I think Richard has the right idea, but as I have mentioned to him before, I think we are barking up the wrong tree.  The events at Bisley and a lot of other places are in essence the old course of pistol fire adapted to gallery rifles (for those of you who don’t know, these are .22 rimfire or pistol calibre rifles such as the Winchester M1894 or Ruger 10/22).  I personally think it is a serious error to even attempt to adapt these courses of fire for gallery rifles.  It makes some sense for muzzle-loading pistols that are still legal and air pistols, but not for rifles.

The problem I perceive is that the old pistol courses of fire where in decline long before the handgun ban anyway.  ISSF disciplines have grown ever more esoteric and the events ever more poorly attended.  Even when I go to events that are supposedly to ISSF rules now, most of the equipment used is not to ISSF rules or if it is, totally outside the bounds of anything remotely competitive in ISSF competitions.

For example, at the Imperial Meeting, most of the 300m events can be shot with Target Rifles, which are not to ISSF rules.  Pistol competitions I go to in mainland Europe feature mainly customised 9mm pistols, similar to the SIG-Sauer P226 Sport reviewed on this site, rather than the high-end .22 pistols you see at the Olympics and ISSF championships (you do see them, but only about 20% of shooters have them).

10m air pistol for example is an ISSF event, one would expect with the handgun ban that it would have become massively more popular, but no, most people seem to have gravitated to rifle sports or they have adapted the ISSF 25m courses of fire for use with multi-shot air pistols!

Frankly, the courses of fire are simply ultra-dull, they weren’t too exciting with centrefire pistols, even less exciting with .22 pistols, and coma inducing with gallery rifles.

This is not to say they cannot be challenging, but the reality is that with a rifle at 25m the margin of victory is usually only a few points (especially with the ISSF pistol targets).  For a typical club shooter to be able to put up nearly a perfect score without too much practice underlines how dull it is.  Richard even makes the point himself in his article, with a picture of himself with a perfect score on a duelling course of fire.  Could he have done that with a pistol, I wonder?

Certainly some of the new shooters at my local club do find it interesting, but most GR shooters were originally pistol shooters, and while ISSF disciplines adapted to rifles can be made artificially more difficult with smaller bullseyes, tighter time limits and so on, I think it a rather pointless exercise.  There is little point in adapting declining disciplines to try to appeal to equipment that makes them relatively unchallenging when compared to the pistol equivalent.

A different approach

My personal view is that clubs like Wrexham R&PC have got a better idea.

Wrexham have adapted the Sportsman’s Team Challenge from the US for gallery rifle competition.  The Team Challenge has three stages in which steel plates on racks must be knocked down.  .22 rifles are used in two of the stages, and it is this that Wrexham have picked up on.  Several other clubs are also taking a similar approach.

This to my mind is vastly more interesting, for various reasons.  It’s challenging, and perhaps more importantly, it carries more prestige to win it.  Knowing that people around the world shoot the discipline make it seem more worthwhile, which is not the case with pseudo-ISSF style disciplines adapted to pistol-calibre rifles, which are only shot in this country by a relatively small number of people.

Another alternative are the Bianchi Cup-style events, also more interesting than the events put on at the Imperial, but these are few and far between.

Yet another alternative came to my attention recently, and that is IPSC rifle.  Many people will be familiar with practical shotgun and pistol events, IPSC rifle is basically practical pistol with a rifle, at longer ranges.  The Practical Rifle League in this country has for many years dominated practical rifle, but PRL events are similar to service rifle, IPSC is a different kettle of fish.

Much to my surprise I discovered that IPSC rifle actually requires in Standard Division the use of manually-operated rifles.  I suspect most people like myself assumed everyone used centrefire semi-auto rifles.  They are banned in the UK, so obviously international competitions would have been out of the question if everyone used semi-autos – but they don’t.

The main problem with IPSC rifle is finding a suitable range to do it on, but you can use gallery rifles within the terms of the rules (or the more powerful ones at least), so this is an interesting option for the former pistol shooter I feel, something worth looking into at any rate.

Doubtless there are other options, but ISSF duelling and precision with pistol-calibre rifles is like trying to flog a dead horse in my opinion, and in talking to other shooters it is a widely held view.  Sorry, Richard.  If it had anything going for it the current ISSF .22 rifle disciplines would have been taken up in greater numbers, but this has not happened, as my local club with its 50m range set up for ISSF .22 disciplines that no-one wants to shoot can attest to!

Time to innovate.

“The place to practise is at home; there is no economy in paying half-a-crown for every six shots at Bisley, when you can shoot as much as you like at home for nothing.” Walter Winans, “The Art of Revolver Shooting”, p. 125, published 1901.

Five years later…

It is with some shock that I realise that five years have passed since the creation of Cybershooters.

Cybershooters was started in the aftermath of the tragedy at Dunblane, in order to better distribute information among shooters, who were obviously going to be in for a pasting.

We were targeted with kneejerk legislation that went far beyond anything anyone could have imagined in March 1996, namely a near total ban on the private possession of handguns, with very few exceptions.  Virtually all target shooting sports with pistols, with the limited exception of those performed with air pistols and muzzle-loading pistols, were effectively banned a year later in 1997.

Looking back over those five years, it is painfully apparent what a complete and utter waste of time the handgun ban has been.  Lord Cullen, tasked with holding a public inquiry after the tragedy, did not even recommend a ban on handguns, but the issue became a political football with one-upmanship leading to a law that was far beyond anything that could have been justified in the name of public safety.  £100 million was spent on confiscating private property, yet precious little was done to implement Cullen’s other recommendations, especially the ones that didn’t have anything to do with guns.

It was done because “if it only saves one life”.  Yet now one of the organisations that said that, the Gun Control Network, says that the increase in handgun-related homicide since Dunblane is not “statistically significant“.  62 people were murdered with firearms from March 1999 to March 2000 according to the most recent statistics, 42 of them with handguns, apparently the highest figure on record.

What comfort is it to the families of those 42 victims, and the many dozens of other victims gunned down since Dunblane, to know that they were killed with illegally owned guns?  Not much.

The handgun ban was wrong.  It has achieved nothing other than to penalise law-abiding target shooters and waste huge sums of taxpayer’s money.  It has enhanced public safety not one jot.  That unfortunately appears to be one of the main legacies of the Dunblane massacre.  It is not a pretty picture.

What lessons have been learnt?

The only lesson the Government learnt from Dunblane apparently, is that you can appear to look tough on crime by cracking down on legitimate gun ownership.  Want proof?  Look no further than the Sunday Times from the 4th of March, in which Home Office minister Charles Clarke is quoted as saying:

“I am pleased to support the campaign of the Gun Control Network to abolish replica firearms. This is a scheme which has the support of much of the police service and others. There do remain some difficulties to deal with, but the government is sympathetic to this.”

The Gun Control Network point to a large increase in the sale of replica guns after the handgun ban.  The implication is that there is some insidious plot by former handgun owners to replace their handguns with replicas, which we sit at home stroking and drooling over, presumably.

In reality, low power firearms powered by carbon dioxide were removed from license controls by Section 48 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (after having been placed there by a bizarre court ruling in 1986), the same Act that banned handguns, the same Act strongly supported by the Labour Party – and obviously with the controls on them reduced, the sales of them have increased.  Simple really.  Too simple for the Gun Control Network apparently, who would rather perceive a paranoid insidious plot on the part of gun owners to promote the “gun culture” (whatever that actually is).

This is the same organisation that is afraid to let anyone join up in case they are “infiltrated” by gun owners.  Consequently they have a membership of six people.  They claim to represent the “silent majority” of the public, in reality opinion polls show a roughly 50/50 split on whether the handgun ban is a good idea, so one can safely infer that the public would be even less supportive of a ban of replica firearms.

The police (in the shape of ACPO, as per usual) apparently support further controls on replicas, even a ban, so we can assume a squad of coppers will shortly be arriving on the doorsteps of every home in the country to cut off everyone’s hands, in case you should succumb to the temptation to put your hand in your pocket and point your finger at the local shopkeeper and claim that you have a gun.

Truly the insane will shortly be running the asylum.  Let us hope that it is merely pre-election rhetoric.

Women and guns

One thing that always puzzles me is why there are so few women who take part in the shooting sports, at least in comparison to men.  I can understand to some degree why women may not be interested in sports where they are at a physical disadvantage, such as perhaps Practical Shotgun, which requires a lot of running around with heavy equipment, but Target Rifle?  Smallbore rifle?  Clay-pigeon shooting?

What really gets my goat about it is that in most shooting sports women actually have a physical advantage over men.  For so many years I have seen protests by women’s groups demanding equality, one assumes they do this with shooting by simply not taking part.  After all, wouldn’t want to show up the men, eh?

Throughout history, women have demonstrated that they are formidable shooters.  And in fact they are able to shoot better than men.  Annie Oakley is perhaps one of the better known examples, being able to shoot glass balls tossed in the air, using a lever-action rifle while standing on the back of a horse, running around an arena!

Women have an advantage over men because they are on average shorter than men, and their body fat is concentrated lower on their body than men.  This gives them a much lower centre of gravity and consequently they have a much more stable off-hand (standing) shooting position.  In addition, one clinical study I read some years ago indicated that on average women also have better eyesight than men.  Shorter arms also mean less leverage and once again a more stable position, provided the gun is properly fitted.

Joanna Hossack showed what women can do when properly armed in the Queen’s Prize last year at Bisley, winning the Grand Aggregate against all male (and female) competition.

I really wish women would look past the male stereotype of the shooting sports and get involved.  Okay, so it may put me at a disadvantage but it is worth it to witness some of the miraculous shots I have seen women make.

“My greatest desire is that every woman be able to handle a firearm as naturally as they handle a baby.” – Annie Oakley, 1893

The Tir Fédéral 2000











Truly incredible!

This picture shows shooters on the line.



The display of Cantonal flags outside the exhibition hall.





Now you can have a SG550 in blue!

Your editor’s medal!
