Most practical sword from albion

>>33376082
Watch some Skallagrim.

File: Whole Rod.jpg (77KB, 1600x1584px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1600x1584px

>>33376082
>I want to buy a sword for prepping.

Prepping for what...?

>>33376082

I rather buy from helm forge. Amazing weapon smith who has made "Battle ready" swords and shit for last 15 yrs. One of his swords, he went and chopped down like a foot thick live oak tree. No damage to the blade. He won't also cost you and arm and a leg.

File: Dies_the_Fire_Cover.jpg (49KB, 360x560px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 360x560px

>>33376313
He's prepping for this, gotta use those SCA skills and survive! I'm already in southern Oregon so I am a lucky man, don't have to worry about the cannibals as much.

File: wizard.gif (453KB, 400x327px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 400x327px

>>33376313
the retaking of Constantinople

>>33376082
Elves getting up in my business is a serious concern as well.

>>33376410
DEUS VULT!!

>>33376082
>I want to buy a sword for prepping.

I am a professional swordsmith. I work with museums internationally, my work sells for $3000+ prices.

(no I'm not saying who I am on an anonymous Tuareg camel-trading board.)

Dont fucking waste your money.

you want a tool for "prepping"? Buy a $20 tramontina machete.
you've got extra cash? get a Gränsfors Bruk axe.

A sword is a waste of your money, and your time. They are obsolete. you're not going to make a chariot for travelling around in. A sword is the same. any edged tool you will need is exactly that - a tool. A specialist weapon that has absolutely no utility in general construction, brush-clearing, etc is dead weight.

its utterly fucking stupid. And I'm saying that, as someone who makes them for a living. I have spent nearly 20 years studying HEMA, and how to use them. I'm not a world-class expert duellist, but I'm still pretty fucking good with them. And if "SHTF" really did happen? I would go grab one of my 12-inch hauswehr sets with 2 6-inch utility knives and a sharpening steel, a folding knife, and I'd leave every one of the swords in the workshop there to rust.

if anything I'd be more likely to take an un-used bar of 1086 steel, and a hammer, because that would be more useful in the future if I need to make any tools.

>>33376082
Swords aren't a great idea for shtf.

>>33376394

The only thing I hated about these books was how they took a shit on survivalist types.

>HA HA, YOU DIDN'T PREPARE FOR THE MOST RIDICULOUSLY IMPROBABLY SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES FAGGOT! ALL THOSE BULLETS AND GUNS ARE USELESS NICK NACKS.

File: Untitled5.png (412KB, 1600x860px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1600x860px

>>33376451
i'm picturing you as a small, fat, sweaty, asian man

>>33376466
I liked the first three books, because people actually tried to be inventive despite the circumstance. The books after the initial three are all trashy in my opinion, just pandering to low fantasy nerds. I wanted more of the first three where they actually try to solve shit and not live like fucking fire and sword nut jobs, that's exactly what they were fighting against in the first books then they just turn into that later on.

>>33376313
Anything really.

>>33376492
6' tall, lanky, sweary anglo-saxon who looks more like Lemmy without the warts.
the sweaty part is entirely dependant on if I've been working in front of a forge or not. that bit is hot as Satan's Jockstrap.

but I'm not going to post a picture on this Egyptian hieroglyphic-carving wall.

File: All my big things.jpg (71KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x600px

>>33376082
Just get a machete.... or a swordchete even. They are a lot less maintenance, almost 100 times cheaper, more durable, and you wont have to worry about messing them up if you want to do stupid things.

This is why I own two real swords... and a bunch of machetes. I only bring the real swords out a few times a year for autistic water bottle cutting, I use the machetes many times a year for brush and autism.

>>33376394
>>33376466

To be fair, even the greatest badass in the series, Mike Havel the Bearkiller, gets caught flat-footed with that one.

File: dcap_sabre_kydex_1200.jpg (28KB, 1200x571px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1200x571px

Despite the cringey gimmick Zombie Tools don't make half-bad "modern swords". The D'capitan is the one I would consider best for an all-rounder.

>>33376082
The most practical are any sword from the Maestro line:

http://albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-maestro.htm

They are made for sparring and training, which will help to get you fit and generally improve your health- which makes them ideal for "prepping".

>>33376082
At the very least learn how to properly use it OP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NCvm0pC_r8

>>33376313
the bull

File: Tramontina bush machete.jpg (51KB, 520x221px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 520x221px

>>33376082
>I want to buy a sword for prepping.
>So I can get killed by a Mexican with pic related when SHTF

>>33376499
Agreed, it really goes downhill after the original trilogy. And even then, some of the stuff like Wicca Forever was annoying and felt shoe-horned in. I did get the strong suspicion that the ASBs were actively taking up roles as pagan deities, though, including indirectly intervening when called upon by a pious-enough supplicant.

All that said, the basic "no power, no guns, no engines" scenario is a fun one to work through in your head; I've learned a lot about a wide variety of subjects while toying around with it.

>>33384012
When I started reading it when it came out while I was young my dad and I would make up plans about what we would do. Eventually we can to the conclusion that airships was the way to go, attach flamethrowers to it and rain fire down upon your enemy. Hell we even found a way to make basic computers work with Babbage engines and what not. We tried our best to plot ways to make the best civilization in that situation. Fun times.

>>33376466
>>33376394
>>33376499

I've never read these books but it was my understanding that the premise is just that all the technology goes out. Why wouldn't guns work anymore?

>>33376451

Gränsfors makes good stuff.

>>33376082
>I want to buy a sword for prepping.
thats fucking retarded

t. guy who owns what most people would consider "way too many swords"

now for historic recreation, HEMA cutting practice, having something that isn't mallninja tier to display in your home or work office, etc. an albion castellian, regent, duke, etc. or one of thier italian wars single handers would be pretty nioce

>>33385226
It's believed (and the author implies it more and more in the later books) that aliens did it to us, for unknown reasons. Guns (along with most other forms of fast combustion) are rendered useless by means of a small change in physics; specifically, the way that gasses build and release pressure. Even steam engines won't work; Stirling engines *do* work, but very poorly.

>>33376082
Well any blade over 18 inches is impractical for modern combat since modern combat takes place in urban environments.

Two handed swords are obsolete.

get a falchion.

>>33376451
I doubt this but take a Silky folding saw and a spare blade or two instead of two full sized knives, not much heavier and you're going to be doing a lot more with a good saw made with modern metallurgy and on modern machines that will shut off forever if it ever does happen on the scale going on the woods with a couple blades is better than hanging around where you are.

>>33376082
>>33376313
In a realistic SHTF scenario, swords would not be practical unless you find yourself in a situation where you have to fight another human being who only has a melee weapon. But wouldn't you just use something like a spear anyways?

Let's say you absolutely had to pick a sword though. In this case, a one-handed sword with hand protection like a 19th century saber or basket-hilted broadsword would be near the top of the list. Another viable option would be a rapier for reach and speed. Fighting against rapiers is extremely difficult.

Personally, I'd carry two handguns, ammunition, a tomahawk, and a knife. If I had room to carry sword, I'd take a 1796 light cavalry saber or a cutlass.

>Longsword
-Annoying to wear
-Good at cutting and thrusting

>Katana
-Two-handed, but not much reach

>Swords in general
-Have to be maintained
-Susceptible to breaking or bending
-Not as good as firearms

Light cavalry sabers are awesome. That and a reliable handgun would probably be the best bet, yeah. And a knife is always a handy backup tool to have on you.

>>33387371
this
if you really think you need a sword just get a gladius, good enough for the romans, great in closed environments and better than anything your average melee variety enemy might carry.
Remember to stab, not swing.

>>33385979
Well, if we are going by that fantastic logic, would crossbows not make a huge come back?

>>33388525
You don't watch the walking dead, huh?

Hanwei tinker now fuck off

>>33387371
>Another viable option would be a rapier for reach and speed.
A rapier is as long as a longsword on the lower end of the scale and it's about as heavy, you also use it with one hand. Now tell me again where the speed advantage comes from?

>Fighting against rapiers is extremely easy.
Fixed that for you.
A rapier is only good against another rapier. You can't block a bulkier sword for shit with that long antennae blade and have zero strength in a bind.
I see all your knowledge comes from videogames so I'll put it in terms you will understand: If you fight with a rapier against someone with a more traditional medieval sword you'd get your blade bashed to the side and run through like in Dark Souls.

>>33389036
Rapiers don't use passing footwork though which lets you have slightly more reach assuming the sword length is 42+ inches. An experienced rapier user can make very quick lunges and recovers before a longsword user has time to react. Why do you think longswords fell out of favor?

>A rapier is only good against another rapier. You can't block a bulkier sword for shit with that long antennae blade and have zero strength in a bind.

Why would you bother parrying much at all? And that's complete bullshit. It's very possible to parry using the strong against his weak. The longsword user will definitely have the advantage in most binds, but it's not impossible.

>I see all your knowledge comes from videogames so I'll put it in terms you will understand: If you fight with a rapier against someone with a more traditional medieval sword you'd get your blade bashed to the side and run through like in Dark Souls.

k

>>33389036
Rapier can oppose longsword strikes just as fine as another longsword. In fact, rapier is typically harder to deal with and overall superior to longsword in 1vs1 because of reach and better protection.

It seems that you aren't immune to video game logic as you should have known that rapier blades are extremely stiff, based on blade binds and are nothing like épée.

>>33388257
While the blade style shape and length of a gladius or spatha is Ideal, I'd like to have a handguard.

>>33388608
Ever read War World?

>>33389071
The longsword "fell out of favor" because it's a battlefield weapon you twat. The rapier is a civilian weapon, hence why it proliferated more after it's inception.
>implying you can't lunge with a longsword
>implying you would lunge against a longsword in Pflug or Alber if your sword can't bind for shit and can barely deflect
>implying the rapier is meant for anything more than self-defense and duels
As for footwork, the very stance of rapier fighters could spell certain death, if a bind happens and it turns into grappling. You have shit balance standing sideways. You'll eat dirt and get stabbed and cut like a roast.
The rapier also has shit STOPPING POWAH in the context of a life or death single combat, save from very select few zones. Even if you do manage to land a lunge you would still probably get your head cleaved in half, leaving you dead on the spot and your opponent with a small puncture wound that may or may not prove to be lethal in the next several hours.

I don't even like longswords, but you retards are forcing a comparison between a weapon meant for battle and a weapon meant for civilian use. It's like comparing a Marlin .22LR to a FAL.
Learn that CONTEXT of use MATTERS.

>inb4 some faggot says rapiers were used in battle
study the context behind their use

>>33389748
You seem quite bitter.

>The rapier is a civilian weapon

Of course it is, but it's practically king when it comes to unarmored duels. The tool doesn't win the fight, but it sure gives a significant advantage.

>As for footwork, the very stance of rapier fighters could spell certain death, if a bind happens and it turns into grappling. You have shit balance standing sideways.

Who says you can't adapt? Granted, I'd be more inclined to retreat rather than get into grappling distance, but the stance doesn't have to remain static.

>The rapier also has shit STOPPING POWAH in the context of a life or death single combat, save from very select few zones. Even if you do manage to land a lunge you would still probably get your head cleaved in half, leaving you dead on the spot and your opponent with a small puncture wound that may or may not prove to be lethal in the next several hours.

Why does stopping power matter? You don't even have to cut or thrust with much force to kill or wound your opponent. As I mentioned before, it's possible to lunge, recover, and retreat very quickly to avoid counter hits.

>I don't even like longswords, but you retards are forcing a comparison between a weapon meant for battle and a weapon meant for civilian use.

Longswords were used in judicial duels too, no?

>>>inb4 some faggot says rapiers were used in battle

Are...are you a descendant of George Silver?

>>33388257
Gladii and Spathae are for use with a shield, they are shit without them due to the short length and lack of decent guard.

>>33376082
I fucking hate it when people on /k/ talk about swords, a topic 99% of the noguns and noswords on here know sweet fuck all about

>>33387371
>susceptible to breaking and bending
?
From what experience?
I've never had swords break in me ever ever very intense use in sparring, drilling, or cutting.

That's like saying knives are shit because they require sharpening every so often.

>>33376082
Get a good knife and a spear instead

>>33390136
Better, get a bayonet

>>33390108
Great input.

>>33376082
A knife
People won't be getting into melee
And if they do, knives are the most effective against single, soft target
especially serrated survival knives

File: deus vult.jpg (63KB, 948x535px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 948x535px

>>33376313

>>33390195
Knives are great, but OP was asking about swords.

File: 50.jpg (14KB, 394x299px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 394x299px

>>33390041
Listen up, the rapier is "king" when it comes to unarmored duels because that was the en vogue weapon among civilians, it's not only what they had at the time, it's also a safer weapon, because most duels were held until first blood and even if you get stabbed you can more or less recover from most wounds, not to mention their cutting edges were so negligible they leave a glorified paper cut.
In rapier fencing doubles are more or less a by-product of the lack of INTENDED stopping power of the weapon. Why intended? Because people back then, just like today, would rather not die in a duel over a dumb insult or something equally meaningless. You have a first blood duel with longswords chances are one of the two duelists is still going to die.

You raised the point of the non-passing footwork of the rapier and that's mostly due to the stance, you change the stance, you change the footwork.

>As I mentioned before, it's possible to lunge, recover, and retreat very quickly to avoid counter hits.

See this is where you're wrong. I don't mean it as an insult, but you either don't fence, or you are studying under a Leychmeister. In fencing speed matters of course, but it matters a lot less than tempo. In combat each tempo you take leaves your opponent to take his tempo, which is why it's so important to cover opposition lines and never leave yourself open, even when you are 100% sure a strike will land. The lunge being a linear move is severely lacking in tempo efficiency, because with the lunge you have no flow out of it. You go forward, stop and then move back. Those are 3 tempos for 1 attack that covers a single opposition line by sheer virtue of it being the line you attack in. Do you see the problem here? This is the reason you don't use a sword to strike horizontally or vertically, because there is no flow out of such a move and you lag on tempo. Think of it as a chess game. You move once, your opponent moves 2-3 times.

>>33390716
>because most duels were held until first blood
Depends where, in France it was commonly to the bitter end so that many travellers from Spain and Italy thought that late 16th c. French were quite crazy with their sword feuds (they were right for that matter).

Also if you think that people weren't ready to die for meaningless stuff... well just read some history of duels for a start. Men have routinely kill each other for smacking their scabbards, blaspheming and saying bad stuff about one's parents or lord. Just look at the Duel des Mignons for one of the most perfect example of this.

>and even if you get stabbed you can more or less recover from most wounds
Yay... well... unless you purposedly train to hit the upper chest, which again was the typical way to do it. Smallswords likewise were extremely deadly, more so than cut&thrust swords because 75% of the hits were given to the chest, because it was a very quick weapon and because thrusts are much harder to treat than cuts.

>You move once, your opponent moves 2-3 times.
Yay well except that reality disagree with you. Thrusting is typically more direct and take less time than cutting, it's fairly common in sparring to see people cutting hit by a thrust and starting to react only when the other guy is already back en garde.

Fighting isn't a turn by turn rpg. I mean, theoretically you're right, but a theory that isn't based on practice is meaningless. You aren't exactly right, but thinking that you can cut 2-3 times in the time it takes to thrust is being delusional.

File: ol5m1bxFnM1rbgia9o1_500.jpg (70KB, 480x585px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 480x585px

>>33390041
>Are...are you a descendant of George Silver?

>>33376082

I've done some lookee lookke into this myself and as a result of a bunch of research into hand to hand fighting, swords, penentration, what causes fatal wounds etc etc I'd recommend a modern sort of cutlass.

1. Your probable opponent will not have thought of, let alone acquired, any sort of actual body armour. This negates the usefuless of the longer, thinner, medieval sword which stayed that shape, primarily, because it could be held by the blade to have its tapered point RAMMED through armour gaps. If you were cutting down peasentry, its edge did the job.

2. People semi-instinctively WHACK with a melee weapon. Even though a straight stab was long determined to be a better way of killing, and was more psychologically disabling for an enemy only someone who was force to do so would remember to thrust. Heavy cav carried thrusting swords in the 18th/19th but they only worked BECAUSE heavy cav charged boot to boot. You simply had to stab. The far more numerous light cav carried the curved sabre, because they could, would and did skirmish with other light cav. Skirmishing meant you could back the fuck up and the human mind instictively will when it can, making a slashing cut the cut more likely to be instinctively delivered.

3. A sharp sabre or cutlass also has the advantage of quite possibly lopping a fucking limb off (need to be a big fucker of a cutlass / curved arabian sword really), and will certainly spread more blood around, to greater psychological effect.

>>33390953

I must add...

A lot of you cunts posting about "I just shot u" don't seem to realize that us poor britfags have about as much chance of acquiring a firearm as licking out kate middleton

Yes, assmad, btw.

>>33390988
If you aren't armed the hoards of Pakis will be. Spend a few of your squid currency and get a drill press and a bunch of files/hacksaws if you can't be arsed to go to the eastern bloc.

>>33391004

What the fuck are you talking about you absolute fudd?

1. Where do I get that shit?
2. Where would I store it
3. What would I actually make with it that wouldn't be a piece of shit?
4. Where would I purchase the ammunition for my piece of shit?
5. Where would I learn to fire it without being heard?

Just goo geddem muh fuckin DRILL PRESS an make me a fucking AR15 YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAWWWWW

I honestly doubt you could do that even in your own country and get away with it.

>>33391079
I assume you can buy ammo easier than making a gun and if you have no fucks to give a home made suppressor and down loaded ammo will allow quiet but single shot practice.

If you can't do that then make a trip with a Polish plumber.

>>33390838
>Also if you think that people weren't ready to die for meaningless stuff... well just read some history of duels for a start.
Obviously people did that, otherwise we wouldn't think they did, but it was not the norm to fight to the death over minor bullshit.

Nobody is denying you can die from a thrust, nor am I saying rapiers aren't deadly, but as I already said, it's like comparing a low caliber leisure and hunting rifle to a dedicated battle rifle. You can kill with both, yes, but it's a matter of efficiency.

As for the tempos, yes, you can cut/deflect 2-3 times in the time it takes to perform and recover from a LUNGE, not a thrust. A false edge can also perform a cut and each cut flows into another one, because cuts are never in a linear horizontal, vertical or straight fashion.
Yes you CAN gain tempos by sheer speed, but to gain/make up a single tempo would require you to be twice as fast as your opponent under regular conditions. Of course in practice things vary sometimes due to experience, hesitation etc. but you can't possibly want to make a valid comparison unless you accept that all other factors are equal (skill of user, physical condition, speed;)

>>33391131

>I assume you can buy ammo...

And that is why you are a fucking dickhead.

>>33391191
Enjoy your caliphate, I guess because I can guarantee they have actual guns and not butter knives on sticks.

>>33391237

The entire premise of our conversation has been "I cannot buy guns or ammuniton and I think this is wrong" and you try to imply

>Lol, wants a caliphate

How fucking retarded are you?

File: indiana.jpg (105KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 640x360px

>>33391256
I'm not saying you want one, I'm saying that's what is probably going to happen to chunks of your country if the Happening ever occurs because the trash you let in have no problems getting actual guns and raping/ killing anyone paler than them while you will contend with glorified cleavers. Funnily enough this scene in reverse.

>>33391302

There is little to no evidence that the follower of allah de sallah wallah patta sucka a lot a cummah can into firearms in the UK. They've got fuck all going on there.

The gubbermint is in possession of hideous quantities of firearms but the criminal element has nearly fuck all. If it ever pops off it will be who can seize those arsenals and IN THE FUCKING MEANTIME it will help to have a good edged weapon. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Don't bother replying to an issue of gun ownership, demographics, and strategic situation of someone else's country if you are so fucking ignorant you are not even aware - as has been demonstrated - of their domestic gun laws, never mind the distribution of those weapons.

>>33391392
Get a cutlass then and train, no one is going to be wearing armor, at least no one who probably won't be on your side and it's ideal for closer quarters while still being able to keep people at distance with the point.

Also the most dangerous areas are ones that are mostly pakis, the cops there are the best armed and least likely to continue to give a shit when they have thier own families to defend, what they can't carry out of the armoury is going to the pakis

>>33391188
>but it's a matter of efficiency.
People from the late 16th century have found the rapier plenty efficient. To think that there is a vast difference in potential between the longsword and the rapier is silly really, the comparison with the rifles is absurd as the rapier wasn't anything about leisure, it isn't apt at all.

The late 16th c. people were just as ruthless and dangerous as the late medieval ones, the rapier was en vogue with many people who fought in the endless wars of the century. If anything, the rapier is actually more technologically advanced than the longsword. To portray it as some sort of fancy gentlemen thing is completely wrong at that.

>>33385979
Sounds like a desperate sword fag trying desperately to get his retarded toys to be more practical than firearms in any situation. That is like playground logic

>>33391423

....Jesus fucking...christ...are you the same guy I've been replying to?

My first post was "get a cutlass". And you've just repeated everything I've posted.

Am you fucking trolling me buoy?

>>33391599
No I'm another guy. I'm on mobile so reading entire chains is hard.

>>33391428
>en vogue
Not that anon but that depends on what you mean by "rapier," what we usually refer to as a rapier in the modern sense is a long, slender, almost purely thrusting sword with a blade between 105 and 115 cm in length or so. Such a weapon was never widely used in warfare at any point in history. Espadachines mostly used true cut-and-thrust swords, landsknechte used katzbalgers (and of course their famous two-handed swords), the English seemed to prefer their backswords if I remember correctly. Sabers, of course, have been popular almost everywhere since around the 16th century, and earlier if you count the Messer and other variations.

I came to HEMA from a sport fencing background and I enjoy rapier fencing immensely, but in my opinion "True" rapiers are too unwieldy to be of much use outside a duelling or self defence scenario.

>>33391726
The english nobles were quite happy to bring italians (just like most people in Europe) to teach them rapiers, though they might have been more cut&thrust-y than the longest capoferro-esque ones, don't know that much about Saviolo, but Di Grassi's rapier is definitely close to a sidesword rather than the "ideal/true rapier".

What I meant with,
>the rapier was en vogue with many people who fought in the endless wars of the century.
Is that a lot of soldiers and officers used rapiers in their city life rather than them using "rapiers" in war. Most of what's called a "war rapier" is closer to late sideswords than really rapiers (according to my view of the definitions anyway), not that there is a lot of differences between the two.

>>33390988
A double barreled shotgun would put you ahead of 90% of the population.

>>33376313
Fun experiences

F U N
U
N

>>33391550
it also makes for good fiction

which is, you know, what he's writing

>>33391931
Your conviction is commendable, your intelligence less so.
Start fencing one day. You might realize why you're wrong.

>>33392280
what was he wrong about in that post?

>>33392280
>your intelligence less so.
Do you realize where you are...?

>>33390208
why is darth vader hunting shark doggos

>>33376082
So your specific picture of an emergency you need to survive is one in which 15th century civilian duels become dominant?

>>33392335
That's probably his least dumb post, but if I followed the thread correctly he made some extremely outlandish statements based on no evidence other than his own presumed expertise.

>>33388525
They do, although the author does side with longbows more than he should, given that the survivors have modern materials to work with.

During the first big war that happens ~10 years in, multiple armies have various quick-spanning crossbows that can be operated from the prone position; however, he didn't know how they should work, so he largely hand-waved the details.

Despite one of his big points in the series being "Don't be a period Nazi", he does fall into the trap of using historical weapons and tactics himself, rather than things that might make more sense with today's salvaged materials and knowledge. That's always going to be a factor with post-apocalyptic works, though.

>>33376082
get a kukri and be done with it.

Unless you're REALLY worried about shit hitting the fan. Then get a rapier.
If you're worried about armored opponents use a zweihander and half sword the mofo

>>33392561
Don't we all...?
What "evidence" mr longsword provided than his own expertise?

>>33391550
It's not just "swords", it's a what-if that removes most technology past medieval. It's just the less-common inversion of Connecticut Yankee (and indeed, a companion piece to the author's earlier CY-on-an-island series).

The part that makes it interesting (to me, at least) is that survivors retain their knowledge of history, basic physics, etc., and are therefore free to adapt to the new circumstances rather than being pigeonholed into the way that people lived in one particular time or place in the past.

>>33392033

When will burgers understand our pain?

>Getting a gun
>In england
>For any purposes
>Is well nigh fucking impossible.

In the case of a shotgun the questions from the police will be "Why do you need that? You don't even live on a farm do you?" and boom. You're done. You've got fuck all to say back to them because you obviously cant say you want a shotgun for target practice.

Fucking hell.

>>33393437
>In the case of a shotgun the questions from the police will be "Why do you need that? You don't even live on a farm do you?" and boom. You're done. You've got fuck all to say back to them because you obviously cant say you want a shotgun for target practice.

What a crock of bullshit.

shotgun certificates are "shall issue". Unless you go in saying "I want to shoot people!" they are obliged to issue if you fill in the forms right.

You have absolutely no clue what the hell you're talking about. Fuckoff to a local range, lean something, and get membership. bingo, shotgun. no ifs or buts.