Prince's girl friend uses suppressed rifle on hunt?

Johnny Guest · February 8, 2008, 08:27 PM

In London's Daily Telegraph site, there's a news story from last October, about Prince William and friend Kate Middleton on a hunting trip to the Royal estate at Balmoral, Scotland. Miss Middleton seems very taken with the sport of “deer stalking,” and looks good in camo gear.

Interesting to me is the gamekeeper handling a scoped rifle, apparently stainless steel, with a large tube attached at the muzzle. The one image of her shooting doesn't show anyone wearing ear protection.

I wonder what kind and caliber rifle she's using, and the brand suppressor. The link shows other images. Click and see what you think.

Johnny

ssilicon · February 8, 2008, 09:52 PM

Not to bash you for your post at all, but here's what I have to say about prince fancy pants or any so called "royalty", English or otherwise...

"Who gives a -blank of your choice here-!"

Free men don't recognize royalty.

M14fan · February 8, 2008, 11:31 PM

I think hunting with a supressor is a great plan. It would allow you to use natural hearing to help locate game while not risking their hearing to gunfire. I don't know if it is legal anywhere in these United States but it should be.

Scorch · February 9, 2008, 01:06 AM

Hunters in England are required to use a suppressor when hunting with a gamekeeper. They are concerned about hearing loss in the gamekeepers.

Kreyzhorse · February 9, 2008, 07:40 AM

After living in the UK for 4 months, I think it's cool the possible Queen of England is hunting. Perhaps it might do something to ease some of the restrictions on firearms and hunting in the UK. In my opinion, the UK is a "model" of gun banning for the US. I'd love to see their gun ban be chipped away a little.

Chipperman · February 9, 2008, 08:50 AM

Why would she give a rat's petunia about the Commoners' rights?

armoredman · February 9, 2008, 09:34 AM

If she's not born royal, than the highest she could go is Pricess Consort. Queen in all but name, but the royal family in England has very little real power.

p99guy · February 11, 2008, 02:28 PM

The firearms suppressor is a very practical thing(were firearms not such a touchy subject, it would probly be endorsed by OSHA, because of exactly the same reason they put mufflers on your riding lawn mower(and cars/motorbikes) it saves your hearing and that of others, contributes less to "noise pollution" and bothers the neiboring farm animals and people far less.
You can thank hollywood for giving the suppressor its air of sinister, as its inclusion in the gun control act of 1934 had nothing to do with gansters, it had to do with poaching, which there was a fair amount of during the depression(folks were broke and hungry strangly enough). People has been conditioned to think of it solely as a tool of the asassin by the spy movies and such, when really its just a muffler..like that sinister one on your chevy silverado pickup.
its ubeleivable how normal everyday gun owners act when I take my suppressed 10/22 to a public gun range(that allows them) its the one time you will see some of them do Chuck Shumer and anti gunners proud.
and to see the look of utter disappointment when the range master wont do anything about me having one...good lord. we have to contend with nonshooters AND gun owners over an item that they themselves own on every loud thing they have that produces exhaust gasses,other than a firearm.

SpiritWalker · March 13, 2008, 02:55 PM

IIRC, I read an article concerning suppressor use in Europe way back in the 70's. The author contended that public perception there was that not using a suppressor whenever possible was rude and inconsiderate towards bystanders, fellow shooters/hunters and the public at large. Always made sense to me.

Nnobby45 · March 13, 2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

"Who gives a -blank of your choice here-!"

I'd say Johhny, who started the thread, and those posters who've participated.

How crushed the UK must be that ssilicon doesn't recognize British Royal--- but it isn't really a freedom issue.

British Royalty is traditional and symbolic only (there are no more subjects), and recognized by free choice.

I opologize for deviating from the topic of the thread, so to get back on track, I have to say that is a rather large looking suppressor, and she does look good in cammo.

guntotin_fool · March 15, 2008, 01:26 AM

I have family in sweden and many of them hunt on private logging company land and on Crown land, and the laws say they must use a can when hunting on crown land. its considered uncultured not to respect the others who are enjoying the quiet.

February 8, 2008, 11:31 PM	#3
M14fan Senior Member Join Date: March 26, 2006 Location: Tennessee Posts: 777	I think hunting with a supressor is a great plan. It would allow you to use natural hearing to help locate game while not risking their hearing to gunfire. I don't know if it is legal anywhere in these United States but it should be. __________________ "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." --George Washington

February 9, 2008, 01:06 AM	#4
Scorch Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: Washington state Posts: 15,248	Hunters in England are required to use a suppressor when hunting with a gamekeeper. They are concerned about hearing loss in the gamekeepers. __________________ Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs. But what do I know? Summit Arms Services

February 9, 2008, 07:40 AM	#5
Kreyzhorse Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2006 Location: NKY Posts: 12,463	After living in the UK for 4 months, I think it's cool the possible Queen of England is hunting. Perhaps it might do something to ease some of the restrictions on firearms and hunting in the UK. In my opinion, the UK is a "model" of gun banning for the US. I'd love to see their gun ban be chipped away a little. __________________ "He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson

February 11, 2008, 02:28 PM	#8
p99guy Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2004 Location: Haslet,Texas(DFW area) Posts: 1,506	The firearms suppressor is a very practical thing(were firearms not such a touchy subject, it would probly be endorsed by OSHA, because of exactly the same reason they put mufflers on your riding lawn mower(and cars/motorbikes) it saves your hearing and that of others, contributes less to "noise pollution" and bothers the neiboring farm animals and people far less. You can thank hollywood for giving the suppressor its air of sinister, as its inclusion in the gun control act of 1934 had nothing to do with gansters, it had to do with poaching, which there was a fair amount of during the depression(folks were broke and hungry strangly enough). People has been conditioned to think of it solely as a tool of the asassin by the spy movies and such, when really its just a muffler..like that sinister one on your chevy silverado pickup. its ubeleivable how normal everyday gun owners act when I take my suppressed 10/22 to a public gun range(that allows them) its the one time you will see some of them do Chuck Shumer and anti gunners proud. and to see the look of utter disappointment when the range master wont do anything about me having one...good lord. we have to contend with nonshooters AND gun owners over an item that they themselves own on every loud thing they have that produces exhaust gasses,other than a firearm. __________________ Lighten up Francis!.....;Actor Warren Oats, in the movie "Stripes"

March 13, 2008, 02:55 PM	#9
SpiritWalker Member Join Date: January 10, 2007 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 61	IIRC, I read an article concerning suppressor use in Europe way back in the 70's. The author contended that public perception there was that *not* using a suppressor whenever possible was rude and inconsiderate towards bystanders, fellow shooters/hunters and the public at large. Always made sense to me. __________________ "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell

February 8, 2008, 09:52 PM	#2
ssilicon Senior Member Join Date: May 5, 2005 Posts: 459	Not to bash you for your post at all, but here's what I have to say about prince fancy pants or any so called "royalty", English or otherwise... "Who gives a -blank of your choice here-!" Free men don't recognize royalty.

February 9, 2008, 08:50 AM	#6
Chipperman Senior Member Join Date: January 31, 2000 Location: Live Free or Die, Baby! Posts: 1,550	Why would she give a rat's petunia about the Commoners' rights?

February 9, 2008, 09:34 AM	#7
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	If she's not born royal, than the highest she could go is Pricess Consort. Queen in all but name, but the royal family in England has very little real power.

March 15, 2008, 01:26 AM	#11
guntotin_fool Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2004 Posts: 1,446	I have family in sweden and many of them hunt on private logging company land and on Crown land, and the laws say they must use a can when hunting on crown land. its considered uncultured not to respect the others who are enjoying the quiet.