Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Neither have I ...point being???

YOU said 'top end IPSC shooters - I said that I don't know any top end shooters who buy their own ammunition.

Thats pretty below the belt Tac...

I'm sorry you interpreted my post in that way - that was a generalisation, not a dig at the Irish team, whose fortunes we followed over here with has much fervour and go-gettit as you did. All we saw was a team of very good shooters, very succesful in their sport, no matter that they had just taken it up, AND we cheered when they won!

There was no mention in OUR shooting press of any details regarding Irish pistol-shooting funding, how the team was supported [or not] or anything else for that matter that would have detracted from the effort they put in. Only 'Here's the Irish team, haven't they done fantastically well and shown the rest of the world the way home!' Their photo from Gun Mart was on the wall in my shed until it fell off.

FWIW, I shot MY 9mm matches with a Canadian Inglis-made Browning made in 1943, that I'd bought for £38 back in 1968. And shot service 9mm in it, since I got that for nothing because of the funny clothes I wore at the time. I only reloaded for the .38 Spec revolver matches.

I don't shoot F-TR because I simply couldn't afford a rifle like that, and to be honest, I find the whole TR world to be slightly unreal and waaaaay too serious. So I shoot a lot of older guns that I CAN afford. Not one of my .22 rifles cost me more than £65. Not one of my vintage military rifles or carbines cost more than £300. My Krico in .308 Win was just over £800, but my Swiss-action TR was only £120 because it was so ugly that nobody wanted it. A bit like me.

All of my guns together couldn't buy a good TR these days.

tac

Sparks wrote: »

the only group not being represented is (as john points out) hunters; and at this stage of the proceedings, it might be better to make some progress before getting shouty.

Now now - who burned their last slice of bread in the toaster???

I was not shouty - I just pointed out that there is no consultation with the shooting associations - which there is not - in my experience there never has been.

There is consultation with a small group - on one range - all of who would probably not fill a mini bus - for this trail.

That is fine - that is all that is needed for the trail as that small group is all it is for.

But when it comes to the explosives materials legislation - which will affect each and every one of us - and everyone that comes after us - there is NO consultation with the shooting bodies - as usual - nor is it likely.

Hunters, Fullbore Target Pistol Shooters, Full Bore Target rifle shooters, Gallery Rifle Shooters, Classic Rifle Shooters, Clay Shooters, Black Powder Shooters, the list goes on and on.

None of them.

As for the FCP - what a joke - it's kinda like a convention for eunuch monks in Vegas - had a lot of potential but just didn't have the tools for the job.

It will however, continue to seek enlightenment and collect alms from the believers ... bless.

B'Man

Bananaman wrote: »

Now now - who burned their last slice of bread in the toaster?

No-one - you misread me

I was not shouty

Wasn't talking about you. I thought I was being clear - I was referring to the current state of play between the PTB and the NARGC.

I just pointed out that there is no consultation with the shooting associations - which there is not - in my experience there never has been.

I think that's a statement that requires you to define your terms carefully in order to be correct. There has been consultation, and there has been consultation on this topic.
What there has not been is us dictating terms to the DoJ, but that would be a tiny minority dictating matters of legislation to the entire population, and none of us here likes the idea of that being allowed, which is why no-one likes what FF and the Greens are doing right now.

There is consultation with a small group - on one range - all of who would probably not fill a mini bus - for this trail.

I think you'd find that that small group are the people carrying out the trial, while the people involved in the consultation would be a slightly more inclusive group.

But when it comes to the explosives materials legislation - which will affect each and every one of us - and everyone that comes after us - there is NO consultation with the shooting bodies - as usual - nor is it likely.

That's just plain untrue, this has been talked about as far back as the first FCP conference three or four years ago.

As for the FCP - what a joke - it's kinda like a convention for eunuch monks in Vegas - had a lot of potential but just didn't have the tools for the job.

I love this kind of nonsense, I really do.
A decade ago, I suggested at one NTSA committee meeting that what was needed was an official forum for us to talk to the DoJ and Minister and Gardai about firearms stuff - just to talk to them, as they were fairly cagey about us because we were an unknown quantity to them. I was nearly laughed out of the room for being a naive college student Today, the idea's so boring and unsexy that people laugh at it as not being dramatic enough - "Oh noes, the FCP doesn't dictate policy to the Minister or legislation to the Oireachtas". The FCP was never going to be able to do that; it's a forum, one we've never had before, and it's worth having just for that.

What it's not, is a mechanism to reign in a wayward Minister, because there's no such thing in Ireland. It's not a means for us to dictate legislation, because there's no such thing in Ireland - and rightly so. It's not a means for us to exercise control over the PTB, because ... well, you get the picture. Laughing at the FCP because it's none of these things is just a poor reflection on your knowledge of the purpose of the FCP.

I figure folk with no patience make bad shooters anyways

I'll get me popcorn!:rolleyes::D

dCorbus wrote: »

I'll get me popcorn!:rolleyes::D

You're three years late - even when we were arguing over who should sit at the table, the point was explicity being made that the FCP was an advisory panel, not a policy-making panel:

Sparks wrote:

Have you even read the terms of reference of the FCP? The FCP does not make decisions. It advises, nothing more.