CliveG

I would think that small camera tripods will not be designed to carry that sort of weight. Also, the "classic" tripod leg arrangement gets in the way for prone shooting. Stands specifically designed for shooting (Freeland, Tucker, etc.) solve this but are not cheap. Most of them provide the standard tripod screw mount for attaching the scope horizontally rather than vertically as is normal with cameras. For this reason, and to get the angle of the eyepiece correct, it is best to have a scope that allows the mounting bush to be rotated around the barrel of the scope and fixed in the desired position. The weight of scopes means that the ball-and-socket panhead devices are just not strong enough to be stable. Your best bet (after asking here, which you have done!) is probably to keep an eye on ebay. Alternatively, Chris Fordham of Bedford Target Supplies sells a small and basic stand for about £50-ish. This is not a recommendation, just information!

Should be automatic, shouldn't it? Mine seemed to change itself OK

Well, the obvious one is the NSRA, although you might have to phone them to find out what they have in stock. It might be worth while trying Fultons as well.

Don't forget the NSRA shop and Fultons (both based at Bisley in Surrey) sell second-hand rifles, but I would echo Rob's advice - get some advice from your club (instructor or experienced shooters) about the sort of rifle that you should go for. There are different models available to suit different types of shooting and different types of people. If you leave it to a trader to advise you, you might end up with what they want to sell you, rather than a gun that is right for you.

Well I don't think anything would have been lost - it was a really, really quiet weekend on here - all the chatterboxes must have been otherwise engaged at Bisley!

I think the problem is something like this... The appearance of the new post markers is controlled by the timestamp of each post, and the "last visited" date, which as others have noticed, isn't getting set correctly. However, when you log out, and log in again, the last visited date IS set. So the problem seems to be when you leave the forum without logging out - i.e. when the server times you out. I'm thinking that this is probably a bug in the IPB software, and while we wait for a fix, the work-around might be to log out when you have finished a session on the forum, and therefore having to log in again the next time you visit. A bit of a pain, I know, but it might just make life easier!

Does seem a little strange. Posts I've read are marked as unread and posts I haven't read are supposedly marked as read? That and everything since 18th October is a new post?! As a bit of a techie I've been racking me brains a bit, but I have to admit I'm slightly clueless. Have cleared all cookies, authenticated sessions, history, everything else and still the problem prevails wherever I access the forum. Must be something to do with the database? Any ideas Neil? At first I wondered if it could be a problem with the clock on the server... but it looks like most date and time-related stuff is working OK, so that is unlikely. But I wonder if it could be the database serve that has got its clock wrong. In any event, it looks like things started to go wrong on the 18th, so what was changed then? Neil?

Phew! I'm glad its not just me!

And they let you play with guns ????????

Clive Take a look at the later version of the firefox browser, it has a spelling checker built in to it. Works for most things including this board www.firefox.com J Julian, I discovered IeSpell some time ago, and as Neil has said there is now an integrated link in the forum post editor. It all seems to work well, once you have given permission for the active-x control to run.

Yup, I would vote for the blue "as is". Only you didn't give us a voting option for that, Neil! Would this be a forum-wide change, or would individuals be able to choose the new or the old?

Robin, Don't forget your other projects, like the recovery of the smallbore.info wiki...

Some years ago, I was working at a large phamacutical company with a multiple pipes to the internet, dedicated lines to the states and other parts of the world, etc. But internet browsing during peak hours was so slow that once I had time to get my laptop out, plug in the dial-up modem, connect to my ISP and browse to a web page in the time the desktop PC connected to the company network took to browse to the same page!

Its not the nearest school, which we would not have wanted him to go to anyway. The council will only help when the nearest school is more than 3 miles away. I think their help is financial, and I would guess only for the child. Since he is only 6, he needs to be accompanied. My point was how much longer the journey would take using public transport. As I need to take him, I need to get back again as well. That would take an extra 2 1/2 hours out of my day (morning and afternoon), time that I just cannot afford.

Its not just simply about cost, either. To take my son to school in the morning takes about 20 to 25 minutes each way. To do the journey by public transport would involve:- - a 20 minute walk to the bus stop - wait for a bus (5-10 minutes? not sure) - 15 minute bus trip to the underground station - 5-10 minute wait for a train - 6 minute train journey - 20 minute walk to the school Thats about 1hr 15 mins, or about 3 times as long as it takes in the car! And then there's getting back again... When it comes to transport, the usual rules of supply and demand elasticity don't apply. Most of the journeys that people take by private car are because they have to. Certainly in and around London, you only use the car if public transport is not suitable for your journey. That is why, despite what Mr. Livingstone says, the congestion charge has made very little impact on the number of vehicles inside the zone. Like speed cameras, it is first and foremost a revenue generating scheme.