There's actually quite a few of us out there.

English

@@blitz380 still British mate. 🙄

@@Grover91 No, it’s not. ‘British’ is a passport status

Absolutely my experience with SG too. I too normally use a rifle but just in case, as you say, a few BB in the inside jacket pocket is always a good thing to carry.

I did forget to add that through experience I found the larger pellet size used meant a reduction in range with shotguns. AAA are 5 mm or. 20 and are ballistically efficient but you need at least 1 1/4 oz or 1 1/2 oz to keep a good pattern. 12 guage slugs are just too dangerous on Fox due to range and "shoot through", iv seen them used on wild boar "danger close" from a shotgun. Just my opinion/experience. All the best Sam. Regards Tony

I've also found AAA to be effective, better than the alphamax.

Thanks for watching Jason :)

Good brief

And Crumpets !

In the UK we have AAA shot which is similar sized, about 20 pellets the size of .22lr so kind and similar to 4 buck. And yes a comparison would be good

SSSG or AAA. Goodluck finding either

There is BBB, F & T between those in bird shot. I use BBB for Canada Goose

Thanks for watching Ross :)

Is alphamax just a glorified bird shot ?

@@halfcantan1208 Alphamax go all the way up to Magnum Sg, I like these as well as the AAA which is 36 pellet & still marketed as a heavy game cartridge. There is quite a range in between the 2 demonstrated ...

@@halfcantan1208alphamax are usually 36 gram no 4 shot, they are known in the UK for fox shooting I have used them on ducks also they are good allrounder

Not common in the uk or ireland buckshot alone rare enough

You really do have serious problem if you have boars in your shotgun mate.

@@SHOT_GUNNER yes they are identical to double ought buckshot in the US. 9 pellets in a 2 3/4 inch shell.

@@srspower very nice 😊 thanks

Yeah after looking in to No.4 Buck I would agree it seems to be the best of both worlds in terms of power vs pattern. We don't really have an equivalent in the UK that I know of though. I did get hold of some Remington 00 Buck at a show a few years ago but I think that was very old ammo. Normally we don't get Buck varieties here.

@@srspower After a quick search, the good news is that if you want to test it out brownells.co.uk can get you 5 pounds of Hornady #4 buck shot for £45.30 with free shipping on orders over £100.00. Of course you will have to load your own, but that's pretty straight forward. I saw that they also have OOO buck shot in stock, if loading 8 pellets of .36 cal pellets sounds fun, although I would imagine .36 cal round ball is freely available for you folks due to the popularity of black powder handgun shooting in England and Wales.

@@srspower You can get AAA shot which is slightly smaller than no.4 or sometimes ssg pops up which is slightly bigger. But AAA from gamebore buffalo range seems to be our best choice.

Well given a shotgun with SG produces about 1700 ft pounds of energy in total it does seem crazy that a 40 ft lb air rifle would be section 1 when a shotgun with SG ammo is section 2.

Yes you can

I bet he regretted the shot!

srspower he certainly did,luck enough a few lads drove up the road and seen we needed help and give him some liquid metal ( putty ) . I think I cried laughing so much I could have filled the radiator.

I refer to it as the 'old common' meaning it was once common land. Not anymore not for at least a couple of generations.

@@srspower so you can shoot on "old common" land?

AssortedVideos I bet the land is now privately owned, so as with other private land all shooting has to take place with the permission of the owner.

@@ATH_Berkshire so frustrating, I wish we had common land shooting laws like in the US. Its so hard to get permission to shoot on land in some areas

Hi most police forces will insist on. 308 for wild boar in uk. Hope this helps or check with your local feo. Cheers Tony

At present there is no legal minimum ,though firearms guidance recommends a minimum of 270 .

how about a 30-30 or 45-70?

@@shrimpy8188 not in the uk sadly our wonderful goverment would not trust us

When government takes you gun, it's because they're about to do something they know you're going to shoot them for.

I do have something planned, not until spring though!

@@srspower yessssssss

I'm from Worcester :)

Mad Dog Survival as a yank I’m quite flattered. I do love your Island!

we do ! article 7 of the bill of rights 1688 ! all consitutional acts of parlimeant overule all other acts of parlimeant unless they have expressly repalled ! the fireams acts 1988 and 1997 have not expressly removed article 7 thus the handgun and semi auto centre fire rifle bans are illegal, null and void !

@@geezerp1982 The English Bill Of Rights (1689) states "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" and "By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law". A licensing scheme was brought into being in 1870 for people who wanted to carry gun outside their homes but no restrictions on what people kept in their own homes. The 1903 Pistols act also imposed more restrictions such as anyone "Drunk or insane" being denied ownership. This was followed by the 1920 Firearms Act, which introduced a registration system and allowed local police forces to deny a licence to anyone who was "unfitted to be trusted with a firearm". In turn the 1937 Firearms Act banned most fully automatic weapons. The 1967 Criminal Justice Act brought in the necessity for shotgun owners to have a licence. The 1968 Firearms Act consolidated existing laws and gave the Home Office the right to set fees for shotgun licenses. After Hungerford in 1987 the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 came into being, which banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles; weapons which fire explosive ammunition; short shotguns with magazines; and elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles. Registration was also made mandatory for shotguns, which were required to be kept in secure storage. After Dunblane in 1996 the Conservative government drew up legislation banning handguns above .22 calibre. Labour introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which outlawed .22s as well. The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 was introduced and made it an offence to manufacture, import or sell realistic imitation guns; doubled the maximum sentence for carrying an imitation gun to 12 months, and made it a crime to fire an air weapon beyond the boundary of any premises. It also increased the age limit for buying or possessing an air weapon from 17 to 18. All of these became "Statutory Laws" when they were passed. A statute law is a written law produced by Parliament which originates from decisions made in other courts and the country’s "Written constitution". It is the highest type of law which passes Acts onto the Houses of Parliament where they debate whether the Act should exist or not. So, all of the aforementioned acts WERE constitutional acts thus making article 7 null and void many years ago. There is NO constitutional right to bear arms in the UK.

@@DoriasLives not quite, in the Thoburn v Sunderland City Council before Laws CJ and Crane J , ruled that implied repeal does not apply to consitutional acts of parlimeant, they can only be expressly repealed " the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental [...] And from this a further insight follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). "In this category of "constitutional statutes" Laws identified Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Acts of Union 1707, the Reform Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972. Such statutes are, because of their constitutional importance, to be protected from implied repeal and, whilst not entrenched in English law, can only be repealed by the express intervention of Parliament...." thus, no act of parliment has expressly repealled article 7, the fireams act 1988 section 5, 1997 firearms act section 1 are illegal, null and void ! an example of where an article of the bill of rights was expressly repealed is article 7 (the right to jury trial) which was expressly repealled by the Juries Act 1825 (c. 50), s. 62

@@geezerp1982 That being said, should you use any kind of firearm or other implement as a means of "Self Defence" in the UK article 7 of the 1689 Bill of rights would offer you no defence whatsoever in a court of law. Usage would constitute premeditation and prosecution under said acts, not including assault and/or murder charges. This alone renders article 7 both moot and redundant. I will go into why later. Go along to any RFD and order or try to buy a semi-auto centre fire and/or pistol contained under section 5 of the firearms act of 1988, they are not for sale...why? because they are illegal to buy, sell or own under said act for anyone except some RFD's, Section 5 owners etc... every amendment of any firearms act is done under constitutional law by the parliament and so renders preceding statutes either obsolete or updated. Article 7 was very specific about the right to bear arms. Such wording also makes it very specific about the conditions under which it is to be upheld. Citizens in the UK do not have "Rights" to gun ownership, if anything it is a "Privilege". If you believe that you have a constitutional right to both bear arms and own a semi-auto centre fire under article 7 of the English bill of rights of 1689 and that all successive laws are non lawful under that bill of rights then ok. Like i said, the article is very specific about its purpose "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law"....ergo the laws have changed and define very specifically and rigidly gun ownership in the UK.....the article states itself "as allowed by law". It does not need to be repealed, because it validates itself and the successive laws that follow it by it's own definition. This the Government know, the law courts know and various bodies that offer representation of the public regarding firearms know. Hence there is no movement by organisations such as the BASC or anyone else to take the government to court to push through any change in law for gun ownership by the government. The bill itself negates that by it's wording...thus rendering any perceived perception of "Constitutional Gun Rights" null and void. It is law, it is legal, it is constitutional and it is absolute. You can try to ignore it or fight it if you wish, you can try to find grey areas if you wish, loopholes etc....but it remains fact, article 7 itself establishes "Suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law", the law does not allow anyone rights to bear firearms without a licence in the UK. All successive firearms laws stand without any need for repeal due to the very nature and wording of the bill you are using as an example. I am sure the governments over the last 340ish years have been well aware of that fact and therefore have no obligation or need to repeal an article of the bill that makes their laws lawful regarding the right to bear arms. If you understand that the English Bill Of Rights is wholly legal and the basis of both Government and Crown Secession and that the Magna Carta is a binding national document and charter of rights then by that very definition the Article you quote serves to underline and make absolute the successive laws regarding the right to bear arms. Simply put, the 1988 Firearms act is completely legal and is not in breach of article 7, it is in fact lawful by article 7's very wording. Therefore centre fires have to be bolt action or straight pull etc. So, i still say no....Article 7 of the English Bill Of Rights does not make the ban on semi-auto centre fires null and void, no, it does not give citizens the right to bear arms. It only gives citizens the right to bear arms under conditions of the law. The law states that you must have a license for gun ownership and has strict laws upon what kind, under law defined by article 7 itself. What we are left with is a right to apply for firearms and/or shotguns, but only under the law as set down by the English Bill Of Rights. So, no...we do not have an unconditional constitutional right to bear arms in the UK. Only a constitutional right to bear arms suitable to the condition of the bearer and as allowed by law.

You clearly don't work on a farm!

Perhaps you would like to tell my 8 of chickens that were taken last night that they don't do much harm

It's done for a reason !!!

@@richardcatterall2976 I know and I agree with rabbits and shit but foxes, cmon

Yeah because morons like killing

So protecting poultry and lambs makes people morons? That's news to me.

Number 6 shot is more than enough.

Out of the 2, BB but like the other fella above says no 6 is more than enough. 30 gram 6 with Fiber wad is my cartridge of choice for all shooting birds and rabbits