..

You'd better bring your sack with you, as potato sacks over here are
molished from multi-layered brown paper, and not *QUITE* the thing for a
visit to an archbishop. After all, the ashes don't get to work their way
in and mortify the flesh.

And of course, His Grace's carpet..... Rusty
Should I bring a few extra farthings as a tip for his worship...after all I
do remember 'summat' about the widow's mite....H

Maybe he might donate to my church even tho it has been somewhat 'at rest'
for many a year....oh yes, I do have a church with members... perhaps did
would be a better word....mail order church...had fun with that a number of
years ago...a fellow out in California that claimed he could neither read
nor write but could preach established what is known as the Universal Life
Church....millions joined it.....it did have some distinct advantages which
the internal revenue did not like so the church landed up in
court...eventually the case landed up in the Supreme Court of the USA...the
ruling was that it was a legitimate church and the Internal Revenue service
was ordered to leave us alone and do our thing.....I still have a valid
Press Pass from "our" church but of course no longer think of using
it....have an Honary D. D. (that was expensive...cost me all of
$25.00).....also a minister with all of the so called priveledges of any
other minister...free to marry folk etc. and accept their confessions
etc.....also a Bishop in the church (inactive of course)....as with the
masonic order once a mason always a mason and thus once a minister always a
minister unless defrocked and such a good boy as I defrocking would never
take place. Enough of that and now must get back to my bread baking.....H

p.s. Any specifics on walking attire?

The message
from "Harold Walker" contains these words:

Should I bring a few extra farthings as a tip for his worship...after all I
do remember 'summat' about the widow's mite....H

If you've got any, but mites are half-farthings. Play your cards right
and dress snappily and the widow might...

Maybe he might donate to my church even tho it has been somewhat 'at rest'
for many a year....oh yes, I do have a church with members... perhaps did
would be a better word....mail order church...had fun with that a number of
years ago...a fellow out in California that claimed he could neither read
nor write but could preach established what is known as the Universal Life
Church....millions joined it.....it did have some distinct advantages which
the internal revenue did not like so the church landed up in
court...eventually the case landed up in the Supreme Court of the USA...the
ruling was that it was a legitimate church and the Internal Revenue service
was ordered to leave us alone and do our thing.....I still have a valid
Press Pass from "our" church but of course no longer think of using
it....have an Honary D. D. (that was expensive...cost me all of
$25.00).....also a minister with all of the so called priveledges of any
other minister...free to marry folk etc. and accept their confessions
etc.....also a Bishop in the church (inactive of course)....as with the
masonic order once a mason always a mason and thus once a minister always a
minister unless defrocked and such a good boy as I defrocking would never
take place. Enough of that and now must get back to my bread baking.....H

Many, many years ago, we had a new minister inducted, and the weather
was scorching and humid. Many years later he confessed that it was just
as well he wasn't unfrocked on that occasion...

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In message , Jaques
d'Alltrades writes
The message
from June Hughes contains these words:

I thought I had taken the relevant bits out but probably my typing was
naff. Sorry

You probably left the 'foobar' there.

That was the bit I thought I'd removed. Probably was a bit trigger
happy on the back-spacer key.
--
June Hughes

The message
from "Harold Walker" contains these words:

Perhaps one more work of advise...am picking up steam on my three speed
Sturmey Archer Raleigh bike.....do I need a helmet these days....would hate
to break the law again over there...last time I did got fined 35 quid and
that was back in 1955...was caught poaching with about 25 grouse in the
car....received the fine in the post the very day I sailed for the
USA.....H

Oh, to explain the difference between knee-breeches and plus fours to a
Norwegian lady mycologist, I put this page up on the wibble: For casual
wear, and for golf, you are expected to derss like the chappie on the
right of the bromide print. (Rememebr, for golf, the check should be
loud, and the colours of the hose should dazzle at 100 paces.) The
necktie is mandatory, but the gun is optional, but if you wish to be
accepted in polite society, they should be a pair, and by a good
gunmaker.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/temp/game.html

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

On 26/6/05 17:11, in article ,
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote:

snip
the gun is optional, but if you wish to be
accepted in polite society, they should be a pair, and by a good
gunmaker.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/temp/game.html

I'm told even over and unders are acceptable nowadays, though I find that
hard to credit!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

The message
from Sacha contains these words:
On 26/6/05 17:11, in article ,
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote:

snip
the gun is optional, but if you wish to be
accepted in polite society, they should be a pair, and by a good
gunmaker.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/temp/game.html

I'm told even over and unders are acceptable nowadays, though I find that
hard to credit!

Much favoured, too. The original (flintlock) doubles were
over-and-under, side-by-side found favour because, IIRC, it was cheaper
to make.

Many of the Guns use 20-bore O-&-Us - even the posher ones.

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

On 26/6/05 21:58, in article ,
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these words:
On 26/6/05 17:11, in article ,
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote:

snip
the gun is optional, but if you wish to be
accepted in polite society, they should be a pair, and by a good
gunmaker.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/temp/game.html

I'm told even over and unders are acceptable nowadays, though I find that
hard to credit!

Much favoured, too. The original (flintlock) doubles were
over-and-under, side-by-side found favour because, IIRC, it was cheaper
to make.

Many of the Guns use 20-bore O-&-Us - even the posher ones.

I'll take your word for it - I'm certainly not up to date! Many years ago
(at least 20) when my ex-husband shot with matched Purdeys, over and unders
were literally shudder-making to the cognoscenti who I remember as being
very snooty about such guns. Now, my memory fails me, but is there
something about O&Us being more accurate, or am I imagining that? I know
they were popular for clay shooting.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

O&Us

Much favoured, too. The original (flintlock) doubles were
over-and-under, side-by-side found favour because, IIRC, it was cheaper
to make.

Many of the Guns use 20-bore O-&-Us - even the posher ones.

I'll take your word for it - I'm certainly not up to date! Many years ago
(at least 20) when my ex-husband shot with matched Purdeys, over and unders
were literally shudder-making to the cognoscenti who I remember as being
very snooty about such guns.

might I be so bold as to suggest that by 'cognoiscenti' he meant
'wealthy'? Those who weren't up with the history of gunmaking...

Now, my memory fails me, but is there
something about O&Us being more accurate, or am I imagining that?

They're lighter, so can be brought to the target more quickly, and being
lighter, the kick is heavier, leading to the (mistaken) belief that they
are harder-hitting.

I know
they were popular for clay shooting.

They still are - you seldom see a side-by-side in serious competition
these days.

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Sacha wrote:
On 26/6/05 21:58, in article
, "Jaques
d'Alltrades"
wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these
words:
On 26/6/05 17:11, in article
, "Jaques
d'Alltrades" wrote:

snip
the gun is optional, but if you wish to be
accepted in polite society, they should be a pair, and by a good
gunmaker.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/temp/game.html

I'm told even over and unders are acceptable nowadays, though I
find that hard to credit!

Much favoured, too. The original (flintlock) doubles were
over-and-under, side-by-side found favour because, IIRC, it was
cheaper to make.

Many of the Guns use 20-bore O-&-Us - even the posher ones.

I'll take your word for it - I'm certainly not up to date! Many
years ago (at least 20) when my ex-husband shot with matched
Purdeys,
over and unders were literally shudder-making to the cognoscenti
who
I remember as being very snooty about such guns. Now, my memory
fails me, but is there something about O&Us being more accurate, or
am I imagining that? I know they were popular for clay shooting.

I think there is a theoretical improvement in accuracy, though it's
hard to see exactly why. But interesting to see what Rusty said about
manufacturing cost: the late great Thurlow Craig told me that O-U
were much easier to make to an equivalent standard than
side-by-sides. I think the prejudice was just snobbery because O-Us
_were_ actually cheaper and perhaps don't look so nice. I don't mind
snobbery about self-loading automatics, though, which is about
sportsmanship, not money.

--
Mike.

The message
from "Mike Lyle" contains these words:

I think there is a theoretical improvement in accuracy, though it's
hard to see exactly why. But interesting to see what Rusty said about
manufacturing cost: the late great Thurlow Craig told me that O-U
were much easier to make to an equivalent standard than
side-by-sides.

They are now, with breech-loading, but when double-barrelled guns were
first made there were two main types: the one-lock with turn-round
barrels, and the fixed barrels with two locks. The former was cheaper to
produce than a twin-lock gun but could suffer from wear and working
loose because of the repeated hammering it got from the shots. The other
had twin locks and the barrels were fixed.

There were some really fine guns made to both patterns, but the best O&U
ones I've seen were the fixed barrel types.

Side-by-sides only really started quite well into the flintlock period.

I think the prejudice was just snobbery because O-Us
_were_ actually cheaper and perhaps don't look so nice. I don't mind
snobbery about self-loading automatics, though, which is about
sportsmanship, not money.

The Captain of at least one of the local syndicates uses an
over-and-under - indeed, I've never seen him with a side-by-side...

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

On 27/6/05 0:11, in article ,
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

O&Us

Much favoured, too. The original (flintlock) doubles were
over-and-under, side-by-side found favour because, IIRC, it was cheaper
to make.

Many of the Guns use 20-bore O-&-Us - even the posher ones.

I'll take your word for it - I'm certainly not up to date! Many years ago
(at least 20) when my ex-husband shot with matched Purdeys, over and unders
were literally shudder-making to the cognoscenti who I remember as being
very snooty about such guns.

might I be so bold as to suggest that by 'cognoiscenti' he meant
'wealthy'? Those who weren't up with the history of gunmaking...

I really don't know how wealthy they were and don't now remember any names -
I do know that this was a shoot in Hampshire to which he was invited
occasionally (he didn't shoot all that often) and that the idea of a O&U was
apparently a serious 'no no'.

Now, my memory fails me, but is there
something about O&Us being more accurate, or am I imagining that?

They're lighter, so can be brought to the target more quickly, and being
lighter, the kick is heavier, leading to the (mistaken) belief that they
are harder-hitting.

I know
they were popular for clay shooting.

They still are - you seldom see a side-by-side in serious competition
these days.

Where can you get clay traps for 'home use'?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On 27/6/05 1:35, in article ,
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote:

The message
from "Mike Lyle" contains these words:

I think there is a theoretical improvement in accuracy, though it's
hard to see exactly why. But interesting to see what Rusty said about
manufacturing cost: the late great Thurlow Craig told me that O-U
were much easier to make to an equivalent standard than
side-by-sides.

They are now, with breech-loading, but when double-barrelled guns were
first made there were two main types: the one-lock with turn-round
barrels, and the fixed barrels with two locks. The former was cheaper to
produce than a twin-lock gun but could suffer from wear and working
loose because of the repeated hammering it got from the shots. The other
had twin locks and the barrels were fixed.

There were some really fine guns made to both patterns, but the best O&U
ones I've seen were the fixed barrel types.

Side-by-sides only really started quite well into the flintlock period.

I think the prejudice was just snobbery because O-Us
_were_ actually cheaper and perhaps don't look so nice. I don't mind
snobbery about self-loading automatics, though, which is about
sportsmanship, not money.

The Captain of at least one of the local syndicates uses an
over-and-under - indeed, I've never seen him with a side-by-side...

Is it possible that the O&U prejudice started not just because they were
cheaper to make but because they actually *are* more accurate and therefore
gave the birds less of a 'sporting chance'?
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

Where can you get clay traps for 'home use'?

Any of the major shooting suppliers. They come in all types from
cheap and tinny up to the expensive ones used in shooting schools.
I don't know if any are well-adapted to using by a single person.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

There were some really fine guns made to both patterns, but the best O&U
ones I've seen were the fixed barrel types.

Side-by-sides only really started quite well into the flintlock period.

I think the prejudice was just snobbery because O-Us
_were_ actually cheaper and perhaps don't look so nice. I don't mind
snobbery about self-loading automatics, though, which is about
sportsmanship, not money.

The Captain of at least one of the local syndicates uses an
over-and-under - indeed, I've never seen him with a side-by-side...

Is it possible that the O&U prejudice started not just because they were
cheaper to make but because they actually *are* more accurate and
therefore
gave the birds less of a 'sporting chance'?
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Somehow or other I suspect that the gun I used for poaching does not belong
in "this arena"....it was a .22 BSA airgun...H

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

/snip/

I'll take your word for it - I'm certainly not up to date! Many
years ago
(at least 20) when my ex-husband shot with matched Purdeys, over
and unders
were literally shudder-making to the cognoscenti who I remember as being
very snooty about such guns.

might I be so bold as to suggest that by 'cognoiscenti' he meant
'wealthy'? Those who weren't up with the history of gunmaking...

I really don't know how wealthy they were and don't now remember any names -
I do know that this was a shoot in Hampshire to which he was invited
occasionally (he didn't shoot all that often) and that the idea of a O&U was
apparently a serious 'no no'.

Misplaced snobbery, then. I wouldn't mind betting that all your top
gunmakers do pairs of 'best' over-and-under guns.

I do remember when I was a regular customer with Thomas Bland in 1959
and for some years, I was shown a pair of 'best' side-by-side guns being
hand-made, and was amazed to hear that they were expected to cost around
£3,000 - this would have been around 1961 - I'd recently bought an
as-new Webley and Scott single from them for £14. (If I'd bought it in a
provincial gunshop it might have been as much as £5...

Now, my memory fails me, but is there
something about O&Us being more accurate, or am I imagining that?

They're lighter, so can be brought to the target more quickly, and being
lighter, the kick is heavier, leading to the (mistaken) belief that they
are harder-hitting.

I know
they were popular for clay shooting.

They still are - you seldom see a side-by-side in serious competition
these days.

Where can you get clay traps for 'home use'?

Any gunshop or gunmakers will either have one, or get one for you. Or
look in Shooting Times and buy one by mail-order. (I got mine at a
public auction for IIRC, £4 - and that included the home-constructed
sit-on mounting.)

--
Rusty
Emus to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/