All people seeking membership must contact admin after registering to be validated.
https://ns1.full-bore.co.uk/
to the badger.Quite a lot. See my earlier post, sorry, read my earlier post. You've been to ONE event at which re-enactors were attending.HH1 wrote: Hmmm, so what REALLY is the difference between any Deact and a non working replica? They are all nothing more than useless curios.
Both, though Airman/Gunner, not pongo. The difference being that as a re-enactor, the trips were totally funded by myself to the tune of several hundred pounds per time...with the outlay being several times that for kit/uniforms/equipment, etc.HH1 wrote:Well if you did those miles as an enlisted soldier you have my greatest respect....
Again, "look right" = compared to what? (& from WHAT distance?)HH1 wrote:Well the guy I spoke to had spent quite a lot of time getting the details of his "home-made guns" to look right. The enactment guys were there just as an attraction..... it was a day out for them all.
Contrary to the 1968 Firearms Act then?HH1 wrote:Awwww poor you... by that age I had my own air pistols
Mmm - moving the goal posts? Live firing is NOT blanks, LIVE firing is LIVE rounds.HH1 wrote:That is what I meant.... correct caliber blanks
With you, but only as far as agreeing that it is not good to see "perfectly good rifles" chopped into de-acts; shagged out, worn out or out of proof tat? = have at it & cut them into de-acts & hang them on the wall.HH1 wrote:Ok, I agree with the use of deacts when it comes to items that are now Section 5..... but as regards butchering perfectly good rifles so that people who would not be granted an FAC can play at pretending to be soldiers is a bit sad
No, I don't have a problem with people who do living historyRDC wrote:HH1 wrote:
As much as I hate to see good rifles deactivated, isn't it a bit presumptuous and judgemental to assume that those reenacting wouldn't be granted FACs? Some people simply don't want to, or arent able to (for reasons other than their character) to possess active firearms.
it seems you have a problem with those who choose to do living history, and rifles being deactivated would appear to more of a justification rather than a legitimate reason to look down on them. Your choice of language throughout this thread would certainly suggest as much.
Two of our club officials dress up in period costumes and give demonstrations at various game fairs which is very educational and entraining ..... but they are typically using blank firing ammunition through fully functional rifles held on the club's FAC. No, actually I am finding this subject interesting. An insight into something that I ought to learn about.meles meles wrote:Sadler: don't waste eloquence and facts on him, his mind is already made up...
For those who think re-enacting and so on is 'sad', and the re-enactor a 'wannabe' or 'Walt, consider the words of Sir Henry Newbolt
snayperskaya wrote:saddler wrote:
Very FEW re-enactors portray a specific relative - so next to no-one WILL have the ACTUAL rifle that that particular relative carried: so zero validity of that argument (HOW would they be able to source the exact issued rifle even if they knew the serial number, unless it was sold to their relative or "lost" & brought home by them?
Just reading that bit about the serial number reminds me I have a notebook from the Great War that was my Grandfathers......and on the inside of the front cover, written in pencil, is his rifles serial number!.
I wonder what the chances are that someone owns it and shoots it today?.
HH1 wrote: As to the former paid occupation - I hear they're after recruits. Why not apply? (Or can I assume like some of your assumptions that you'd not pass muster?)
.
Yes, you are correct... given that I was diagnosed last year with pulmonary hypertension and heart disease, I probably would not meet the grade despite it being "low-level" and that I am fit otherwise. Besides I enjoy my job and my very specialised skills help to save many thousands of lives so I don't have any plans for a career change.HH1 wrote:Awwww poor you... by that age I had my own air pistols
Contrary to the 1968 Firearms Act then?
I was shooting before I could walk..... and that was before 1968My Dad bought the air-pistols/rifles and while some of them were "mine" he obviously locked them away when we weren't using them.
With you, but only as far as agreeing that it is not good to see "perfectly good rifles" chopped into de-acts; shagged out, worn out or out of proof tat? = have at it & cut them into de-acts & hang them on the wall.
Agreed
BUT, as to your blanket assumption that re-enactors would not be granted an FAC, or they are "playing" - well, great to see your wealth of experience being put to good use!
I don't think I said that..... but if a person has a FAC and can shoot the real thing, would they really be that bothered about having a deact version of the same gun? It would be like "second-best", yes, it would have some use for re-enactment or training but otherwise, it is just a wall hanger....
]
While they are reproduction weapons it would be more accurate to think of them as deacts in this case. "Battle ready" swords etc are designed to be as safe as possible while being as authentic as possible and strong enough to withstand the rigours of re-enactment and unfortunately a deactivated firearm fits the bill nicely. I still don't like firearms being deactivated but I understand why re-enactors would use them over a replica - it would be like using a latex LARPing sword instead of a "battle ready" one.HH1 wrote:
Battle re-enactors don't use historically important "live" blades, axes spears etc.... they use blunt reproductions / replicas so why can't people use replica rifles as well?
