Have any of you read the email Peter Sarony has sent out opposing the proposed abolition of the Practicle Rifle discipline and the proposed change in the NRA name
What does this mean to us as PR shooters, and what can we do as PR shooters to support Peter and PR shooting in general
My understanding was they wish to only change the name "practicle" to something like civilian. Other than that things will be more or less the same (Unless you use a muzzle brake)
Does this right or am I missing something
haven't seen it, can you forward it on to me
I haven't been involved in these disciplines for any longer than a couple of months, so I have no real idea of what is going on. But it does look as if some people have cause for concern.
I myself sent an e-mail to Paul about changing the sniper match's name. Don't people realise that to be a sniper is a special thing, and that people should realise the amazing skills a sniper has should not be underestimated and that it is an honor to be bestowed with that title.
That really did piss me off, but as said I don't know enough about how this stuff operates to pass serious comment.
OK, I'll wait until you forward it on to me, but in the mean time I can go on what I already know.
It's true that the NRA (or some of the narrow minded members at least) want to change the name of the Association. I think they are under the impression that the public perceive our NRA to be somewhat similar to the US NRA, which is a very pro-active and political organisation. This is simply not the case as our NRA is merely a governing body.
They want to rename it with a more PC sounding title, and I believe have been granted permission to use the term "Royal" in it .
Now with regards to PR..."Practical" is not a popular term, and in light of the upcoming publication of the HO report, which specifically mentions "Practical Shooting", I think they're just trying to fend off the inevitable.
But nothing is definate, or has been decided. These sre just initial proposals.
How will it affect us?? It won't. We'll carry on shooting the same disciplines, just under a different name, that's all.
The term "Civilian Service Rifle" is the most popular one and I have no problem with that.
And neither do most others.
We all have our own opinions of Sarony, good and bad. I seem to have been taken off his mailing list and he's even said a few other things about me. Why??? I don't know. maybe he see's myself or the HRA as some kind of threat. But I don't know what to.
It's true that he has done a lot for PR. But he's also done us a fair amount of damage too, with his attitude.
He's a man who doesn't like change and thinks that he should be allowed to do whatever he wants. And that's just not possible.
He used to be the PR rep on the NRA committee, but all he ever did was rub them up the wrong way.
The new PR rep has acheived far more in the last 18 months than PS did in all the years that he was "representing" us.
There's nothing to worry about
I've read it now. Thanks.
Here it is:
I have to admit to supreme disappointment at the apparent move, that you relate, to banish Practical Rifle as a Discipline. When I asked that you take over as the PR representative on NRA Council from myself, It was my understanding that you gave me your very positive assurances that you would not be "persuaded" to adopt any stance against or in any way other than in the best interests of the discipline of Practical Rifle, as established in the UK since the late 1970s and accepted by the NRA as a bona fide Discipline, carried out under their overall banner. "PR" is not Service Rifle, nor is it High Power Rifle, nor is it McQueens, it is specifically "Practical Rifle". SR and HPR etc practices are fixed and can in no way begin to compare with Practical Rifle's ever changing combination of all weather, year around, multi positional etc., etc., marksmanship challenges. There is no cause whatever for any stigma to be attached to the sport or its true participants, and it enjoys an unblemished record of safety. It is also one of the very few truly athletic shooting sports, and its philosphy is undoubtedly the closest to the original tenets of the NRA and those upon which the Royal Charter was bestowed. You appear to attempt to justify your apparent support for Service Rifle to extinguish Practical Rifle by suggesting that most PR shoots tend to be SR based these days, which is not the case in any event but may have become temporarily more so in the Bisley area this year due directly to the closing of MoD ranges such as Ash, Henley Park, and Stoney Castle etc to civilians, due, we are led to believe, to the dishonesty of MoD range staff!
It is even more astounding to learn that the hierarchy of NRA Council appear determined to also wipe away the title "National Rifle Association" for some yet to be decided alternative, in some totally misguided alledged move to appease the anti-shooting supporters of the likes of the Gun Control Network, as if the NRA should accept some blame for the madness of Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan and the atrocities they perpetrated at Dunblane and Hungerford. All informed shooters and Certificate holders know full well that these were in fact caused directly by the failure of the relevant police licencing authorities in their duties to apply the specific checks and balances incorporated in the then firearms legislation to prevent such "persons of unsound mind or intemperate habits" from lawfully acquiring or possessing firearms or ammunition! I see no reason whatever to be anything but proud to be one of the founders of this fine, very challenging and bona fide sports shooting discipline, and I must ask you to formally convene a meeting between those responsible for the above mentioned propositions and those truly representing the Practical Rifle fraternity, in order that the real situation be set down in full and proper formal arrangements be put in hand to canvas the opinions of and ballot all those affected.
Founder Life member & Chairman
London Practical Shooting Club.
For your information....I have been shooting PR for 7 years now. I've won the league 4 times and have also won the PR Nationals. I've also won the SR Champs twice and been on the winning Methuen Cup team 6 times, so I think I'm in a position to give an informed opinion about these things.
As I said, I've been shooting PR for 7 years, and have never in that time...seen Peter Sarony attend any PR comp except his own. What does that tell you about our former PR rep???
The part where he says there is no similarity between PR & SR proves how insular he is.
His own club members are living in fear of him and daren't speak out.
He has no influence on the whole PR scene.
Sarony is so out of touch with the ground-swell of opinion. There is no problem whatsoever regarding a name change for PR.
BTW, the mailing list originated with me and most of the recipients are HRA members. Funny how my name's missing off it
(Mark firstly sorry for not gettin the email to you n time, been training)
Looks like it's a name thing
I don't give a shit what it's called as long as I can carry on shooting
I am new to the PR scene. this is only my second season but I have managed to shoot nearly all the comps on the circuit, and a few more
The Methuen cup being by far the most enjoyable, I hope to do a lot more of this type of shooting at Bisley.
I have met some interesting people and made some good new friends, HRA lads get a special mention
So for all I care they can call it what they like, as long as I can keep shooting
I only posted the note as the contents of the email looked quite bad, I don't know Peter that well so I could only interpret it, as it was written.
I read both Pauls original mail, and then Peters reply - but I can't link the two. Paul was talking about a name change, with no apparent associated change to the actual shooting (as I understood it!)
Peter, on the other hand, is talking as if its the end of everything!!
That's pasta for you
Two little dicky-birds sitting on a wall.
One called Peter, one called Paul
Fly away Pater, fly away Paul
Fuck off Peter, that is all
oooh pink AR's me! me!
I did actually ask Matt last year if me could make me a satin chrome M4 with pink furniture - you can guess his reply.
I guess its just the IPSC shooter in me - that, or I am teh ghey
As for Paul's email...... I understood it perfectly well........ Seems to have been blown out of all proportions.......
Sorry Vito, not shiney enough! but I do like the Glock (40,000+ rds through mine and I can only remember one stoppage(in competition, naturally))
My Initial E-mail:-
I attended the NRA Shooting Committee yesterday, one of the key points raised was the use of Muzzle Brakes.
Please if you are shooting at Bisley, please could you let the Range Office know that you are intending to use a Muzzle Brake. This is to allow them the opportunity to squad you away from other shooters who may complain about the potential side blast. Obviously more of a problem when lanes are used by three shooters, than our traditional use of one shooter per lane......
Basically, some users have been complaining of the disturbance caused by muzzle brakes, the option was presented to the committee yesterday of banning their use at Bisley!
Fortunately, that has been intercepted and rejected, for the time being! It is therefore important that we are sensible and aware about the effect they can cause to others. Especially those of us shooting the larger bores!
They also proposed that a shooter firing alongside a 'muzzle braked' rifle user should have the right to ask the muzzle break shooter to stop firing, "if the blast was causing undue disturbance". Quite how that would be enforced was never fully covered........
I did propose that the NRA invest in making some portable baffles to accommodate all shooters needs! the matter is under investigation. And a trial will be conducted in the next few weeks.
This discussion was conducted in an adult and very sensible way yesterday, with all points being accepted equally, there is / was no witch hunt against muzzle brake users, just some concern that on a weekend there are people conducting TR / MR / F Class match cards that have suffered distraction due to the side blast they produce. All they are asking is that a way of minimizing this disturbance is found. We have the option to help out from the outset, which should prevent things getting out of hand!
The NRA are to take of the administration of Range Licenses from Landmarc within the next few months, no more dealings at Regional Level.
They will also be looking to co-ordinate range bookings through nominated regional reps. I would suggest that anyone in a position to do this should volunteer their services pronto, or you could find your range booking being handled by someone who is unfamiliar with PR / SR...........
The McQueen Sniper competition is now the Precision Snap shooting Match. A request from various PC groups to remove the word Sniper , N.B. the shoot remains the same. More on names later.......
Electronic Targets are on the way, we all await developments
You could potentially be advised to carry your rifle around the Camp in a bag or case, rather than slung or openly carried. Fortunately, there was some reluctance to make it a directive, so common sense prevailed.
Outline plans for the Next years Civilian Service rifle competition include:-
An update to the way the scores and results are processed.
A retention of the Moving Target Match, as a stand alone shoot, SASC permitting.
No use of Bi-pods on the Monday and Tuesday events at ranges of 300 yards or less.
However, you would be able to rest the magazine as per the Mil rules. Note, a fore-end vertical grip is viewed as a bi-pod ;-)
A revision of the Classes, due to the number of entries, to simply be Any-Optic or Any-Iron.
All scoring remaining as the optic series, as per this year.
The change is required to reduce the number of 'stage prizes' awarded in line with the fewer number of entries. If we have more competitors enter then this would be revised.
However, there would still be a Civilian Service Rifle Championship Trophy for Any Optic / No.4 / SMLE / Any Iron. So you will need to list your rifle type for stats.
The Old Soldiers Match, would be replaced by a Veterans Championship with a corresponding Veterans Medal, entry eligible for those over 50.
The course of fire will be identical, except that it will not include the QM run-down. N.B. Trophy required!
You may, if you are over 50, choose not to enter that competition and remain shooting in the main championship. However, you will not be eligible for both prizes :-)
Those under 50 still have to do the run-down or fire the two rounds at 500 yards and the retire from that stage. This is after all SR not TR!
The approval to enter a UK CIVILIAN SERVICE RIFLE TEAM ( N.B. the NRA approved Official Name) to shoot alongside in the International Service Rifle Match on the Thursday Afternoon.
They would be competing for a challenge Trophy (being sourced) purely between the GB Military Team and the UK Civilian Team, with the 'proposal' of being awarded NRA Gold medals if they win the overall event, along with individual record score certificates if applicable.
Team selection would be done by that years Any-Optic Civilian Service Rifle Championship winner, with the team drawn from those shooting in the Any-Optic class in that years NRA Civilian Service Rifle Championship.
More details to follow in time. However, I am pleased to report that we are able to keep making progress in SR/PR!
With the proposed name change to the NRA in the offing. There is also some discussion on removing the word 'Practical' from our shooting title, and replacing it with Civilian Service Rifle.
I would be interested to hear peoples views on the matter. It would not effect any of the shoots we currently run, nor as I see it currently any of the PR shoots, as most tend to be SR based these days...........
Strange that Practical started to 'Brand' it's self away from Military shooting, and now we are integrating back into the fold!
You have see Peter's Reply, my response:-
I have not signed up to any removal of the discipline of Practical Rifle.
However, I have been asked by the Chairman of the NRA informally, on a number of occasions now, about changing the name Practical Rifle, as he feels it is historically too emotive. Particularly in a climate where the NRA are actively engaged in Parliament in trying to acquire surplus MOD ranges; combine all the Shooting disciplines under one organisation and pursue the reinstatement of the use of Pistols.
I have politely resisted on each and every occasion!
There is no incentive or hidden directive for us to change at this time, and as you so verbosely recounted, there are the historical and administrative penalties.
If circumstances do change and it become an attractive proposition, then and only then would there follow a full consolation process.
With regard to the other points raised in your e-mail:-
I cannot recall any PR shoot I have been to in the last few years that didn't have the course of fire taken from SR stages.
The Kemble and Nationals keep the same format / stages each year, not very practical according to your definition.
The vast majority of the members of the 'our' shooting world, not just myself, have expressed that they would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the current PR and SR.
More people participate in SR then PR, so therefore events are run to attract competitors and pay for the range and administration.
I might politely suggest that you, as one of the founders of Practical Rifle, take a look outside the Kemble and Nationals, you may be surprised at what you see.
We all have to look at the 'big picture' from time to time, do we keep matches going for 20 competitors, when a few minor changes can attract 80 ?
The last 'true' PR match I attended was run several years ago by Adrian Bull, who put a lot of effort into using different objects on the firing points to provide cover / obstacles.
Since then the matches have all been the same. Furthermore, with increasing restrictions as the MOD tighten up range procedures, in line with updated H&S; It gets harder and harder to run practical matches. Realistically a 'true' PR match can now only be run on a non-MOD range such as Bangor or Diggle.
Finally, the NRA name change:-
This is scheduled for debate at the NRA General Council Meeting of 30 September.
As I have been informed to date; The background to the proposal instigated by both the Chairman and the Secretary General of the NRA is to provide a vehicle for the integration all the Shooting bodies into one organisation. This would be more easily accomplished by having a change of name. Therefore all parties would start afresh.
There is no time scale for this proposal, if it was implemented. However, as more background information, the NRA have been given approval to use the word "Royal" in any planned name change.
The timing, as I have been informed, has been chosen to achieve maximum political impact on the run up to the Olympics.
Obviously any changes would need be approved by the NRA membership by ballot.
PR has evolved and continues to evolve. I am working hard to continue to support the similar disciplines of *Practical Rifle, Civilian Service Rifle and Highpower at every meeting.
( * N.B. I use all three, as the any Representative has a duty of care over all the shooting disciplines without prejudice)
As I've stated on previous occasions....Peter Sarony is an idiot
You are spot on, keep up the fight
What was Sarony on about??? I think he has misinterpreted what was said
Maybe a visit outside of Bisley would be a good starter
Mark has summed it up
Pistols at dawn it is then! I'll be yer second.............
This is Sarony's response...
I am astounded that you agreed to put yourself forward for election as the Practical Rifle Representative on NRA Council when you make statements now that clearly prove that you have no idea whatsoever as to its content, history or philosphy! PR practices owe almost nothing to Service Rifle practices. I have designed the majority of those courses of fire over the past 28 years and there are scores of them, all recorded on past programmes. If you think the Kemble and the Nationals are the same every year, ask one of the top competitors and they will tell you that they are very similar but invariably incorporate subtle but vital variations that will catch out all those who have not studied each practice. There are some that have become Classic practices, such as the 1000 yds snaps, the Kabul, Rourke's etc etc., but even those change regularly.
Adrian's PR became a short range affair, rather like Practical Shotgun but with rifles. Our disipline goes back to the beginning of the 20th century, for example in 1902 a book by a prominent NRA shooter was published for the benefit of civilian shooters entitled "Practical Musketry".
As for Health and Safety issues, there have been no accidents on the range or in the butts associated with PR, but many serious incidents with slowfire NRA type disciplines, including from standard TR targetry falling onto people in the butts, even very recently, resulting in serious injuries to NRA members.
As for the NRA Chairman persuading you that the word "Practical" is emotive and counter productive to their aims to take on the conduct of MoD range bookings for civilians, let alone the alleged reinstatement of pistol shooting, that is quite outrageous. The NRA/NSC currently appear quite incapable of managing the simplest of target bookings at Bisley, despite written confirmations etc., and implemented range development programmes that shower shot and clays onto rifle shooters and butt markers, and for which we are all still paying the price. They appear not to have been scheduled for involvement with the 2012 Olympics and seemingly had no semblance of a business plan to support that costly development work that we were advised would be handsomely paid back by the last Commonwealth Games - Oh really!! The reality is also that the NRA, who had themselves imposed a ban on self-loading rifles in the late 1970s ( when I believe it was claimed that a 7.62 rifle bullet had strayed from a civilian shooter's rifle on Short Siberia range and travelled over 8 miles to kill a painter on a scaffolding, rather than a military user on a range less than a mile away), pulled the rug from under the PR shooters when Parliament was deliberating the post Hungerford ban on self-loading rifles. They claimed that there were less than a handful of civilian shooters participating in Service Rifle disciplines, which was true, but what they didn't add was that they only allowed that many places to be offered to civilians! Here you suggest that all is subsumed under the title Service Rifle, whereas in the parliamentary debates more than one prominent National Shooting Organisation spokesman stated that those who wish to shoot military type disciplines should join the TA! A similar pretext could, on the proposal you appear to support, wipe away all our most popular disciplines at a stroke!
PR is far more widely supported than SR, McQueens, F Class, 3 Position, Silhouette, Benchrest and many more, though the marksmanship challenges offered by PR are useful in all those other disciplines. That is the nature of the sport as implied by its title "Practical" (dictionary definitions)..."concerned with application to useful ends, given to actual practice [a practical farmer], realistic and sensible about everyday activities, work etc., ..."
From the statements you have put forward in your last emails it appears that you have made up your mind to accede to a plan to implement the demise of Practical Rifle shooting and do not wish to be confused with the facts and realities, however if I am wrong in that respect I would be delighted!
More to follow
This was my reply to Sarony...
This is getting ridiculous. I was not going to get involved in this, but if I’m going to be bombarded with this clap-trap, then I might as well wade in here.
This is not about the demise of “Practical Rifle”. It’s simply about a name change. It’s only a proposal. And an initial one at that.
What does it matter what the discipline is called??? It’s only a name, and it hasn’t even been decided or voted on.
Get over it.
You’re going on as if it’s the end of Practical shooting altogether. Nobody said that was ever going to be the case. Stop scaremongering and trying to twist everything.
Now, moving on…
I have not signed up to any removal of the discipline of Practical Rifle.
What part of this are you having trouble understanding???
>>I am astounded that you agreed to put yourself forward for election as the Practical Rifle Representative on NRA Council when you make statements now that clearly prove that you have no idea whatsoever as to its content, history or philosphy!<<
This sounds like a personal attack. Both insulting and belittling, and totally unnecessary. I for one am very happy with the job Paul’s doing, and I’m positively sure that others feel the same. For a change, it’s nice to know what’s actually going on, rather than just being kept in the dark and fed the same anti-NRA bullshit that the NRA are nothing more than a bunch of bastards who have it in for us. I also feel that this is just being used as an opportunity to bash the NRA.
>>PR practices owe almost nothing to Service Rifle practices.<<
Shoot many PR comps except you own, do you??? I have been shooting PR for around 7 years now, and have never, I repeat never, seen you attend any of them, except for those run by the LPSC. Therefore, I believe that there is a groundswell of opinion that PR is dying in it’s present format and really does need addressing.
Sadly Peter, I think you are becoming out of touch with what I believe to be popular opinion.
>> I have designed the majority of those courses of fire over the past 28 years and there are scores of them, all recorded on past programmes. If you think the Kemble and the Nationals are the same every year, ask one of the top competitors and they will tell you that they are very similar but invariably incorporate subtle but vital variations that will catch out all those who have not studied each practice. There are some that have become Classic practices, such as the 1000 yds snaps, the Kabul, Rourke's etc etc., but even those change regularly.<<
We all know you have, and we do know the work you’ve done. You keep telling us so J. Some of them are very good and enjoyable practices. I have been fortunate to have shot some of them, and those that I haven’t, have enjoyed listening to your enthusiasm in telling us about them. But we can’t keep relating back to how it was done in the “Good Old days”. Times have changed and things have moved on. And it’s not just about the types of firearms that were used, it’s also about how range regulations have changed also, which means that some of these practices are practically impossible to run nowadays. I have been saying for some time now, to anyone who would listen, that stages and matches are becoming too similar. There’s not the variety anymore. And I include the Kemble and the Nationals in this.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy both matches and hope to continue participating in them. And with that, it does appear that PR and SR are indeed very similar these days….Standard Practises.
The Kabul hasn’t been shot since P.Bloom stopped running the SW PR Champs, and the Rourkes only changed because no-one could manage the timings anymore.
>>Adrian's PR became a short range affair, rather like Practical Shotgun but with rifles.<<
What Paul meant here was the last PR Comp at Moody’s Down 2 years ago, where there were obstacles and other challenges to overcome.
>>Our disipline goes back to the beginning of the 20th century, for example in 1902 a book by a prominent NRA shooter was published for the benefit of civilian shooters entitled "Practical Musketry".<<
Not many of us can remember that far back, and besides that was a far different time and era.
>>As for Health and Safety issues, there have been no accidents on the range or in the butts associated with PR, but many serious incidents with slowfire NRA type disciplines, including from standard TR targetry falling onto people in the butts, even very recently, resulting in serious injuries to NRA members.<<
This is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, (besides it wasn’t a shooting incident) but can be said for many of the shooting sports. Every one claims that their discipline has the best safety record etc etc.
But I know of at least 2 incidents where “accidents” have happened in PR competitions.
>>As for the NRA Chairman persuading you that the word "Practical" is emotive and counter productive to their aims to take on the conduct of MoD range bookings for civilians, let alone the alleged reinstatement of pistol shooting, that is quite outrageous. The NRA/NSC currently appear quite incapable of managing the simplest of target bookings at Bisley, despite written confirmations etc., and implemented range development programmes that shower shot and clays onto rifle shooters and butt markers, and for which we are all still paying the price. They appear not to have been scheduled for involvement with the 2012 Olympics and seemingly had no semblance of a business plan to support that costly development work that we were advised would be handsomely paid back by the last Commonwealth Games - Oh really!! The reality is also that the NRA, who had themselves imposed a ban on self-loading rifles in the late 1970s ( when I believe it was claimed that a 7.62 rifle bullet had strayed from a civilian shooter's rifle on Short Siberia range and travelled over 8 miles to kill a painter on a scaffolding, rather than a military user on a range less than a mile away), pulled the rug from under the PR shooters when Parliament was deliberating the post Hungerford ban on self-loading rifles. They claimed that there were less than a handful of civilian shooters participating in Service Rifle disciplines, which was true, but what they didn't add was that they only allowed that many places to be offered to civilians! Here you suggest that all is subsumed under the title Service Rifle, whereas in the parliamentary debates more than one prominent National Shooting Organisation spokesman stated that those who wish to shoot military type disciplines should join the TA! A similar pretext could, on the proposal you appear to support, wipe away all our most popular disciplines at a stroke!<<
I really do get the impression that you are just anti-NRA. That’s up to you. But as has been pointed out to me on several occasions, the banning of self-loading rifles and handguns was bad policy and the NRA did very little to support those affected, but there is no-one on the NRA committee/council presently who was involved at the times of the bans. So it does no good whatsoever to keep on blaming them for past errors.
I for one, like most of the people I shoot with, never owned a self-loading rifle, so therefore it’s not right to keep going on about how they took our SLR’s away from us when we never even owned them in the first place. And besides, as someone who is fortunate enough to get to shoot self-loaders and even full-auto, (albeit abroad) at least once a year, take it from me, it’s no big deal.
Like it or not, we have a new NRA these days, and they have a very different agenda. And it’s a positive one
>>PR is far more widely supported than SR, McQueens, F Class, 3 Position, Silhouette, Benchrest and many more, though the marksmanship challenges offered by PR are useful in all those other disciplines. That is the nature of the sport as implied by its title "Practical" (dictionary definitions)..."concerned with application to useful ends, given to actual practice [a practical farmer], realistic and sensible about everyday activities, work etc., ..." <<
I don’t have any figures to dispute this but I’m sure there are a damn sight more people who shoot McQueen’s and Service Rifle disciplines than shoot PR.
>>From the statements you have put forward in your last emails it appears that you have made up your mind to accede to a plan to implement the demise of Practical Rifle shooting and do not wish to be confused with the facts and realities, however if I am wrong in that respect I would be delighted!<<
I have spoken to Paul at length about this and he has told me, as he has made clear in his emails, that he has not accepted anything that the NRA have said about “The Demise of Practical Rifle shooting”.
They are not insisting on anything, it’s just that some of them would prefer a name change. And to be honest, I can’t see what the problem is.
There are no plans to “implement the demise of Practical Rifle shooting”. I can’t see why that’s not clear.
Now, as I said at the beginning, I’m very happy with what Paul has achieved in his time as PR rep.
We have 2 PR matches as part of the Imperial meeting. We also have an extra SR match, the Moving Target match. There will probably be an extra match included in next years event, the Fibua Match. And we also have the inclusion of a UK Civ SR Team in the International Match.
We also get ammunition issued at no extra cost to ourselves, and a full set of rules have been formulated and adopted and are included in the Bisley Bible, not to mention having a PR representation at the NRA’s open days.
What’s not to like??
If you wish, we could continue this in person (which would probably be better than battering each other via email). I will be there, as will Paul, at the next open day, doing what we enjoy….representing PR.
I’m sure you will be there too….on the McQueen’s point.
His reply sounds like fighting words............. I'm offering 5 to 1 odds...............
This is the latest installment from him..received only a short time ago....
Yes Mark, I should have expected just that biased diatribe from you, knowing you are a close family friend of Paul and Jennie. I will resist the temptation to respond further to you on this issue as you clearly aren't worth the bother.
I think he's starting to lose the plot.
And Elucidate has started on him too
Andy, welcome to my world
Toasters at 5 paces might be more fun?............
How did you get him to look like he was p***ing his pants?
Looks more like he's having a dump
Personally the highlight so far has been finding out Jennie bakes "bitch'n" cookies.
The rest of the saga is making golf look a tempting option.
Cool, which shoot was that, Denzel Washington came!!
It was the Methuen Cup day at the Service Rifle meeting.
I've just seen a very well worded e-mail from Davey Man.
I notice that the majority of people who seem to be heavily involved enough with the sport to care, are also HRA shooters.
The e-mail after Marks e-mail was just plain rude and I'm glad to see the people I have only just met on the shooting circuit pulling together and striving to keep our sport going, even if it does mean changing things a little bit.
We all sit there and take the piss out of each other most of the time, but when it matters, the HRA people really do pull together. There is a lot more bikering in the TR world, and the Airgun world.
Lets try and keep the vast body of the shooters united like now. And maybe Peter Sarony would like to answer my questions when I see him on the 3rd at Bisley. Mark's e-mail was very well presented and he raised some very important points. I have yet to see an e-mail or reply from Peter on that subject.
OH, and if Peter shouts at me and its not a safety issue I'll shout back and a northerner shouting beats a southern softy any day.....
By heck........ I agree!
Round One, 3rd Sept, Bisley
Bring hard hats!