Storage of ammunition / explosives

juice1304

tudderone wrote: »

Just seen this on another website, the police chief of Gothenberg in Sweden warning that unless he gets more help, the bombings will continue. Sweden had 250 bombings last year.

Even during the height of the troubles, i don't remember that many. Maybe thats why the police here are so resistant to reloading/blackpowder etc here ?


https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/police-chief-warns-migrant-mafia-gangs-are-turning-sweden-into-gangster-s-paradise-1.1093049

They could argue that in the media and to convince willfully ignorant politicians. But you can buy nitrocellulose in the form of ping pong balls so its a moot point, and all the chemicals on their explosives precursor list like nitric acid, hydrogen peroxide, hexamine, ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, potassium chlorate etc... in other forms like concrete cleaner, hair dye, camping fuel, cold packs, stump remover, etc. So if they were challenged by any means they would fail, that is of course if we didn't live in a banana republic whereby the law of the land is decided on the day by some godly being. :rolleyes::pac:
Anyone who actually wanted to do harm could to the extent that you can nitrate potash with your own piss to create potassium nitrate as that is how it was historically made. Its all just about control not justice or what is logical or fair.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Reloading is a hobby in itself, which is why its a pity it is not available to other shooters here.

F Class ,Benchrest and reloaders...The technical nerds and anoraks of the shooting world.:P:)

Zxthinger

The Donegal case?
Is there a possibility that it sets a precedent. Mexican match is better that nothing?

Also I have never seen this manufacturers legislation? Who has? Could you share it here.

Finally, Cass, you are asking 'who has applied for reloading'. I love to know too Maybe an FOI would open up the some figures..
I just don't even see how you apply and at that I still don't see how the home loader needs anything more than a secure wooden box to keep a few pounds of"pixie-dust".
There are people here reloading Black powder for historical and educational purposes,
Back in the 80 there where shooter here with calibre over .22 and AGS would only give them out to select people who could rock the boat. Could that be happening again here with reloading.

Also there is some In Council Order that was cited in some of the previous threads related to reloading.
What is actually needed is a reloading group to represent Irish shooting folk, unifying their voice into a resilient coherent message..

juice1304

Zxthinger wrote: »

The Donegal case?
Is there a possibility that it sets a precedent. Mexican match is better that nothing?

Also I have never seen this manufacturers legislation? Who has? Could you share it here.

Finally, Cass, you are asking 'who has applied for reloading'. I love to know too Maybe an FOI would open up the some figures..
I just don't even see how you apply and at that I still don't see how the home loader needs anything more than a secure wooden box to keep a few pounds of"pixie-dust".
There are people here reloading Black powder for historical and educational purposes,
Back in the 80 there where shooter here with calibre over .22 and AGS would only give them out to select people who could rock the boat. Could that be happening again here with reloading.

Also there is some In Council Order that was cited in some of the previous threads related to reloading.
What is actually needed is a reloading group to represent Irish shooting folk, unifying their voice into a resilient coherent message..

From memory, it's in the 1875 explosives act. And they make you store black powder in a metal box here. Makes so much sense to store a highly combustible propellant in a sealed pressure vessel that can produce static electricity.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

Finally, Cass, you are asking 'who has applied for reloading'. I love to know too Maybe an FOI would open up the some figures..

Not sure its an FOI item as GDPR might come into it. It'd be like asking for people's licensing details, type of firearms, etc.

However it shouldn't be needed. From a club/range/group point of view a few simple calls or visits would answer which ones have ever applied for it. Might not get you far, but would be a starting point.

I just don't even see how you apply

The initial scheme was done via invitation by the Doj/AGS. Now i'd imagine it still goes to DoJ or the office of the Minister.

Back in the 80 there where shooter here with calibre over .22 and AGS would only give them out to select people who could rock the boat. Could that be happening again here with reloading.

Think its more a case of the PTB not knowing how to deal with this on an individual level and hence they put in place such expensive requirements as to make it unaffordable for most people on an individual basis.

Also there is some In Council Order that was cited in some of the previous threads related to reloading.

Grizzzly_45 would be the man to ask. He has done far more research into this than I.

What is actually needed is a reloading group to represent Irish shooting folk, unifying their voice into a resilient coherent message..

This is not a partisan issue.

The original scheme, as said above, was offered to all groups and persons to make applications for a "license" to run a scheme similar to the Midlands one. I say the Midlands, but its actually the NRAI that applied, hence the reason its only for F-Class shooters and not all members of the MNSCI range.

There was one other application i'm aware of, however the group submitting it had no range of their own, no facilities to put in place the requirements as laid out by AGS, DoJ, Fire Service, County Council, etc. so that ended without starting.

All other groups, associations, and ranges either refused it [reloading] as it was unnecessary for their particular sport or simply didn't apply. The DoJ even extended the term for receiving applications but no more were forthcoming.

Perhaps after 10+ years some now want it, but I don't know if any have applied for it since. So as said previously its not a partisan issue like so many other aspects of shooting sports, its a simple case of no other group taking up the offer to apply. To that end there is no need to "unite" as there is no fight to be had.

On a personal note i think more places/groups should have taken it up and even now i don't believe its too late to do so. The biggest issue with reloading, and the only way for it to filter down to individuals, is for the various shooting bodies to apply for a scheme, and show there is not only a need but a want for reloading. If you think about it as far as the DoJ/AGS are concerned only 100 or so lads in one range, off one association, wanted it and applied. Out of some 150,000 firearm owners. They must think reloading is not wanted from such a poor response.

tudderone

I checked with the lad i know in the UK who shoots a lot of blackpowder for cowboy action shooting (another harmless sport thats great fun). Yup, all he needs is a wooden box large enough to store the powder and caps in. Even in the UK where the police are dead nuts on anything firearms, it was no real problem for him to get going in that sport.

No little scrote is going to live down plugging someone with a cap and ball revolver, Its a glock or makarov innit bruv, ya get me :rolleyes: ?

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

On a personal note i think more places/groups should have taken it up and even now i don't believe its too late to do so. The biggest issue with reloading, and the only way for it to filter down to individuals, is for the various shooting bodies to apply for a scheme, and show there is not only a need but a want for reloading. If you think about it as far as the DoJ/AGS are concerned only 100 or so lads in one range, off one association, wanted it and applied. Out of some 150,000 firearm owners. They must think reloading is not wanted from such a poor response.

Yes, but to reload, you have to head to the club. I'd say like me, a lot of lads live a fair step from their clubs, its about 40 miles for me. So if i wanted to load, 20 or 40 rounds for a hunting outing, i've to travel 80 miles round trip to an ice cold shed in the middle of nowhere ? Thats the problem. Reloading at home or forget it.

ESetter

tudderone wrote: »

Yes, but to reload, you have to head to the club. I'd say like me, a lot of lads live a fair step from their clubs, its about 40 miles for me. So if i wanted to load, 20 or 40 rounds for a hunting outing, i've to travel 80 miles round trip to an ice cold shed in the middle of nowhere ? Thats the problem. Reloading at home or forget it.

My sentiments exactly! Im not into target shooting so have no interest in joining a target club. Reloading to me would be making hunting ammo that are not possible to get in factory rounds.

Grizzly 45

FWIW as having a relative who reloads.
Unless you are running an obscure calibre or are interested in developing performance loads for your specific firearm,which would be Benchrest or F class...It is NOT a money saver, least of all if you are only reloading a few rounds for the deer or duck season or the like.

By the time you have bought the equipment, done whatever necessary courses to obtain your powder license, built or modified a structure to reload in it.[You won't be reloading in a high rise apartment for example in Germany] bought the equipment and set up your reloading benches, you will be in the red for a good while.

Shotgun ammo and pistol ammo, he still buys in bulk as well as "standard" rifle ammo for hunting. As it is still cheaper, and in his opinion, a better mass-produced quality-controlled product.

On some other news,apparently, the DOJ has been restructured last year and there is now a policy unit which looks at our legislation. Apparently reloading is one of these bits being reviewed but its again, an understaffed overworked unit looking at other legislation as well, so there is a chance we "may" get some info on recommendations in 2021 on this point of the legislation...
Good or bad...Who knows...

Cass

tudderone wrote: »

Yes, but to reload, you have to head to the club.

You're missing the point. Forget about the distance to the range, my point that you quoted referred to the fact that 99% of people when asked 10 years ago if they wanted to reload said no. The only crowd to want it, need it and go for it was the NRAI, an association which has nothing to do with hunting, stalking or anything outside F-Class. Remember the range did not apply for it, it was the NRAI.

ESetter wrote: »

My sentiments exactly! Im not into target shooting so have no interest in joining a target club. Reloading to me would be making hunting ammo that are not possible to get in factory rounds.

Then the NARGC and/or various hunting clubs should have applied. Hell even some lads that got together, pooled their money, and apply as a group might have worked. They didn't.

The NRAI have no obligation to anyone or any group except their members. I think it wa also a life saver because had the NRAI not applied and got it people would now be asking how to get reloading in instead of how to get it filtered down to everyone. IOW reloading would have been gone altogether.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

FWIW as having a relative who reloads. ........It is NOT a money saver, least of all if you are only reloading a few rounds for the deer or duck season or the like.

Its not. As i said earlier in the thread:

Cass wrote: »

There are days of prep, weeks of testing, all of which incur costs. Speaking of costs you save NOTHING by reloading. The first batch using new bras actually costs more than buying factory and the first batch may be a failure. The second batch will be cheaper as you get to reuse your brass but when i say cheaper i mean the cost is about he same as a factory round, maybe slightly cheaper. Every reuse of brass, and assuming you have some components left (bullets/primers/propellant) gets a little cheaper, but then you get to the point you've used up everything and the brass has been used multiple times and needs replacing then you're back up to the initial cost of every component new..

Grizzly 45 wrote:

By the time you have bought the equipment, done whatever necessary courses to obtain your powder license, built or modified a structure to reload in it.[You won't be reloading in a high rise apartment for example in Germany] bought the equipment and set up your reloading benches, you will be in the red for a good while.

Like guns, the cheaper you go the more hassle you'll get in terms of reloading gear. On the cheap side you'll get going for a few hundred. I spent almost two grand when i started (the dies alone were nearly €300), but i know lads that spent €2000 on the scales alone. Anything i tried to save money on ended up costing more when i had to buy the better gear. However that was for F-Class where the smallest discrepancy means the difference between a V-bull or a three. For hunting you don't need that precision, but factory ammo would work just as well as the "average" reloaded round and with no real cost saving in the long term i personally wouldn't bother considering the work load involved.

I think people have too much of a romanticized version of reloading. You put the bits together and can hit the v-bull at 1,200 yards within a few rounds. Doesn't work that way. If you only buy a different batch of the same propellant you might find a chance in POI and have to tweak your load. Even in the states where its as common as muck they won't share loads out of a safety concern so you have the book loads as a starting point and work from there. Trying various loads, testing for pressure, various propellants, various bullets, various seating depths, various neck tensions, various brass, various primers, etc. etc.

You also have to make at least 5 rounds of each for testing purposes. So to test ten rounds with only a few thousandths of an inch variation in seating depth requires 50 rounds.

As i said earlier when you get the right load its great. The accuracy and consistency is so satisfying and reassuring, and vital for F-Class. However if you scale it [the testing process] back for hunting you're still talking a lot of testing, and costs, for the same performance you'd get from factory ammo. In most cases.

Shotgun ammo and pistol ammo, he still buys in bulk as well as "standard" rifle ammo for hunting. As it is still cheaper, and in his opinion, a better mass-produced quality-controlled product.

Agree with that.

ESetter

I understand that its probably cheaper to buy factory ammo..if we were in this for the cost/money we would have packed it in years ago.Where i am coming from is where you cannot get factory ammo..ie 243 85 grain hp. That was a super deer/fox round but cannot be got anymore. I know a few lads that have 17rem and cannot get ammo at all...the 204 39 grain sierra blitzking is another factory round no longer available and a lot of 204's were got rid of when this round was discontinued.
If i am reading this correctly, the deer groups/nargc did not take up the offer. I am only guessing but was it offered to them on the same basis as the midlands set up, ie a central reloading area? If it was i can see why they were not interested.

tudderone

ESetter wrote: »

I understand that its probably cheaper to buy factory ammo..if we were in this for the cost/money we would have packed it in years ago.Where i am coming from is where you cannot get factory ammo..ie 243 85 grain hp. That was a super deer/fox round but cannot be got anymore. I know a few lads that have 17rem and cannot get ammo at all...the 204 39 grain sierra blitzking is another factory round no longer available and a lot of 204's were got rid of when this round was discontinued.
If i am reading this correctly, the deer groups/nargc did not take up the offer. I am only guessing but was it offered to them on the same basis as the midlands set up, ie a central reloading area? If it was i can see why they were not interested.

Oh i've been down that road. I had a .270 that was only accurate with two loads, one was difficult to get and the other discontinued by the manufacturer. Everything else was scattergun. If could have reloaded at home i could have worked up a load that would have been accurate, but couldn't obviously. I don't see why the doj cannot look to the UK and Europe, reloading at home isn't going to cause homes to spontaniously explode.

Feisar

tudderone wrote: »

Oh i've been down that road. I had a .270 that was only accurate with two loads, one was difficult to get and the other discontinued by the manufacturer. Everything else was scattergun. If could have reloaded at home i could have worked up a load that would have been accurate, but couldn't obviously. I don't see why the doj cannot look to the UK and Europe, reloading at home isn't going to cause homes to spontaniously explode.

One also needs a range even if it's for hunting loads since we cannot informally target shoot. It's a bit of a stretch for lads to load up at X location and head to a range then to test.
At the investments Cass is talking about a new rifle sounds like a better idea!

Grizzly 45

ESetter wrote: »

If i am reading this correctly, the deer groups/nargc did not take up the offer. I am only guessing but was it offered to them on the same basis as the midlands set up, ie a central reloading area? If it was i can see why they were not interested.

Correctomondo! The NARGC even derided the idea at the time and virtually threw it under the bus with anything else that looked odd. like IPSC, cowboy action shooting, in 2006/7 Stated it was "nothing their members would be interested in!" if I recall in an article in ISD around the time.

The deer crowd,I don't think ever copped it was open for the offer and just bimbled off on their ways missing many other opportunities to make life easier for themselves, as they are wont to do.

Yes,the Midlands is/was on the overkill, but remember WHAT and WHO you were dealing with in authority in power with this project! And probably still are TBH.

People who already have a natural distrust/dislike/ of shooting sports.

People who see criminals /the "RA"/"latent psychopaths if they have any sort of interest in firearms", under their bed every night.

Propellant/powder = explosives of near nuclear strength capable of ground zeroing a city centre with just ONE can, thanks to Hollywood. So the chance of any of the above groups getting it, must be prevented at all costs. IOW totally ignorant of the effects of such propellants, and not wanting to learn either.

A mindset of ABC CYA on this project, having never really dealt with something like this ever before in their careers. Hence it was totally over engineered for purpose,but based on this commercial manufacturing of ammo legislation

ESetter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Correctomondo! The NARGC even derided the idea at the time and virtually threw it under the bus with anything else that looked odd. like IPSC, cowboy action shooting, in 2006/7 Stated it was "nothing their members would be interested in!" if I recall in an article in ISD around the time.

The deer crowd,I don't think ever copped it was open for the offer and just bimbled off on their ways missing many other opportunities to make life easier for themselves, as they are wont to do.

Yes,the Midlands is/was on the overkill, but remember WHAT and WHO you were dealing with in authority in power with this project! And probably still are TBH.

People who already have a natural distrust/dislike/ of shooting sports.

People who see criminals /the "RA"/"latent psychopaths if they have any sort of interest in firearms", under their bed every night.

Propellant/powder = explosives of near nuclear strength capable of ground zeroing a city centre with just ONE can, thanks to Hollywood. So the chance of any of the above groups getting it, must be prevented at all costs. IOW totally ignorant of the effects of such propellants, and not wanting to learn either.

A mindset of ABC CYA on this project, having never really dealt with something like this ever before in their careers. Hence it was totally over engineered for purpose,but based on this commercial manufacturing of ammo legislation

Im getting the impression that if there was someone with a bit of gumption or foresight at that time, we could have got a "leg in the door" as far as reloading is concerned. Am i right in thinking that the problem really is the powder and primers? All the other components can be got legally at present with a firearm licence.

Cass

ESetter wrote: »

I understand that its probably cheaper to buy factory ammo..if we were in this for the cost/money we would have packed it in years ago.

It won't actually be more expensive than factory, just there is not the saving you think there is and if you count the initial cost of the equipment then you'd buy hundreds of rounds for the cost of the gear before you reload a round.

Where i am coming from is where you cannot get factory ammo..ie 243 85 grain hp. That was a super deer/fox round but cannot be got anymore. I know a few lads that have 17rem and cannot get ammo at all...the 204 39 grain sierra blitzking is another factory round no longer available and a lot of 204's were got rid of when this round was discontinued.

I agree on that, but some of it is also the RFDs. I've seen more and more RFDs stop carrying certain stock either because it's hard to buy/get, they have to buy so many thousands/tens of thousands and cannot/won't pay it, or its simply not available to them anymore.

One RFD, that was great to shop with, used to buy me in ten thousand of a particular 22lr round i wanted and store it for me so i could buy it a few thousand at a time.

However i've also missed out on some good ammo. 178 A-Max was my favorite 308 round. I bought the last 200 another RFD and since then he got no more in. When i asked he said that Hornady want him to buy 3,000 minimum and as it was only me and one other that bought it he said it's not cost effective.

If i am reading this correctly, the deer groups/nargc did not take up the offer.

Correct.

I am only guessing but was it offered to them on the same basis as the midlands set up, ie a central reloading area? If it was i can see why they were not interested.

Nope.

There were no guidelines at this point in the process. It was only an invitation to submit for the permission. the regulations were an ongoing process and as they stand now it would be hard for any person to do, but not so much a group/club. The cost could be spread. However these regulations, as said, were not in existence when the first invitation went out. It was simply not wanted.

Cass

Feisar wrote: »

One also needs a range even if it's for hunting loads since we cannot informally target shoot. It's a bit of a stretch for lads to load up at X location and head to a range then to test.

Thats the kicker in Irish law that doesn't exist in any other country. Target shooting outside a range is illegal so if you get a perfect load from someone and only had to load and test them you need a range. IOW you're caught on all sides.

At the investments Cass is talking about a new rifle sounds like a better idea!

I sound like a anti reloading argument, but i'm simply laying it all out rather than sugar coat it.

Reloading is and always will be a great way to make perfect ammo, consistently. It turns an average rifle into a true sub 1/2" moa rifle.

However the way Irish law is and the attitude towards reloading and guns in general the current system is simply not set up for such a pastime. Things would need to be relaxed, better legislated for and rolled out for home use.

tudderone

ESetter wrote: »

Im getting the impression that if there was someone with a bit of gumption or foresight at that time, we could have got a "leg in the door" as far as reloading is concerned. Am i right in thinking that the problem really is the powder and primers? All the other components can be got legally at present with a firearm licence.

The problem is or was, that it was famine here so long on the firearms front. When the Brophy case happened and all sorts of wonderful things, that you could only dream of owning and ogle in foreign magazines, you could actually own and god preserve us, shoot.

I think people were just caught cold and were overwhelmed by it all, orgs included. Then of course there were the fudds, who just didn't need all these pistols, reloading, and silly big rifles thank you very much, we often forget how many of them are or were in charge of various organisations here.

Cass

ESetter wrote: »

Im getting the impression that if there was someone with a bit of gumption or foresight at that time, we could have got a "leg in the door" as far as reloading is concerned.

We did and we have. The NRAI. If not for them and the MIdlands range reloading would now be a pipedream. As it stands its only available to a select few but its still there and can be, eventually, rolled out.

Am i right in thinking that the problem really is the powder and primers? All the other components can be got legally at present with a firearm licence.

Correct.

The propellant is classed as explosives and so too are the primers. This means they run foul of the explosive act (even though its 150 years old). The rest of the stuff is covered under your license as the brass and bullets are inert pieces of metal. IOW not explosives.

Feisar

Cass wrote: »

However i've also missed out on some good ammo. 178 A-Max was my favorite 308 round. I bought the last 200 another RFD and since then he got no more in. When i asked he said that Hornady want him to buy 3,000 minimum and as it was only me and one other that bought it he said it's not cost effective.

This is the problem here, we just don't have the buying power/critical mass. You sort of touched on it earlier, 150,000 licences but only a handful of people took up reloading. When one takes out shotguns/.22LR licences how many potential reloaders are there? Remove the hunters that shoot a box of ammo a year. Then realistically a range sympathetic to the cause is needed. While the Midlands and NRAI are separate there is a fair bit of crossover.
Fair play to them though, reloading is a reality because of their efforts.

Cass

tudderone wrote: »

I think people were just caught cold and were overwhelmed by it all, orgs included. Then of course there were the fudds, who just didn't need all these pistols, reloading, and silly big rifles thank you very much, we often forget how many of them are or were in charge of various organisations here.

Sorry to be argumentative but no, not at all.

No one was "caught off guard" here. The invitations were sent out and given 6 months initially and then after only one submission a 3 month extension. Still no other submissions.

Considering some groups and coalitions of groups have, without coercion from the PTB, petitioned the DoJ to ban semi auto rifles, put a ban on night shooting, have ballistic testing for all firearms, ban even more pistols (22lr ones), and have time lock safes for all how does it come as a surprise to anyone that they would make the unilateral decision to refuse something without consultation with their members.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Considering some groups and coalitions of groups have, without coercion from the PTB, petitioned the DoJ to ban semi auto rifles, put a ban on night shooting, have ballistic testing for all firearms, ban even more pistols (22lr ones), and have time lock safes for all how does it come as a surprise to anyone that they would make the unilateral decision to refuse something without consultation with their members.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And 5 shot mags/cylinders in our .22 pistols.
Fuddism, little autocrats in our organisations that have made their little kingdoms in organisations because no one else would challenge or no term limits in the constitutions thereof, or the line the pocket off the backs of your fellow shooter's crowd. We really are our own worst enemies.:mad:

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Zxthinger;115536685]

Also I have never seen this manufacturers legislation? Who has? Could you share it here.

FINALLY found this!!!.
Now someone please NAIL this into a reloading thread /sticky before I lose it again. It's the Stores for explosives order 2007 SI 804

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/si/804/made/en/pdf

Now how does this all apply to us? As we are handling an "explosive"[nitro powder] and "manufacturing munitions" this is the order they will be using to make sure we are compliant.
This is fine legislation if we were building and operating "Grizzlys ammo works" and supplying ammo by the container load on commercial levels.
But total overkill for Grizzly reloading in his cellar for deer season.

It also explains why the Midlands range has what looks like atomic blast-proof bunkers for reloading.:rolleyes:


LATER
After having a quick read of the replaced legislation of 1955.[ Stores for Explosives Order, 1955] .

There was an actual provision in the previous legislation for reloading on a small scale!! And exempted it from requiring a factory or commercial licensing!!! The 2007 legislation never took this into consideration and has now lumped home reloading into a commercial situation.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

Sorry to be argumentative but no, not at all.

No one was "caught off guard" here. The invitations were sent out and given 6 months initially and then after only one submission a 3 month extension. Still no other submissions.

Considering some groups and coalitions of groups have, without coercion from the PTB, petitioned the DoJ to ban semi auto rifles, put a ban on night shooting, have ballistic testing for all firearms, ban even more pistols (22lr ones), and have time lock safes for all how does it come as a surprise to anyone that they would make the unilateral decision to refuse something without consultation with their members.

If you mean SCOVI, they were nothing to do with shooting, and all to do with money. Some little snot had an idea, seen euro's in huge piles in his bank accounts etc.

Cass

Not just them. At some point the NASRPC, NARGC, SCOVI and even the IFA stuck their oar in without consultation with any other group that would actually be directly affected by the secret submissions.

There are numerous threads on the topics over the years.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

Not just them. At some point the NASRPC, NARGC, SCOVI and even the IFA stuck their oar in without consultation with any other group that would actually be directly affected by the secret submissions.

There are numerous threads on the topics over the years.

A lot of the time i just don't understand the Irish mindset. The ability to meddle in things that don't concern you and the readiness to lob other peoples interests under the bus.

Feisar

tudderone wrote: »

A lot of the time i just don't understand the Irish mindset. The ability to meddle in things that don't concern you and the readiness to lob other peoples interests under the bus.

Was it an attempt to curry favour or done out of a fear that the spotlight was on shooting sports, better make sure our heads are well below the parapet?

Really made lads with an interest in anything remotely off the beaten track look like bushwhackers though!

ESetter

It looks like a complete balls up was made of it but I wonder is there a different attitude there now in the nargc/deer societies? If they could get their act together and put a united front to the powers that be ..could it be changed? Even if they allowed home reloading on a very small scale ie limit the amount of powder sold/or held it would be a massive leap in the right direction. Id say the dealers would be delighted!! Reloading seems to be very common in the UK

Cass

It would take a concerted effort by all groups and individuals to show the need and interest is there, but yes.