is this?

[Guest Fireball]

I think this thread ought to be locked Sporting shooter.. It contains too much shite

[SportingShooter 0]

I think this thread ought to be locked Sporting shooter.. It contains too much shite

Maybe, but thats my decision.

[sully5328 0]

My apologies to those concerned then. However just read my FAC my condition states (a) the shooting of vermin or, in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife. So what does other wildlife mean? Fox or no fox. Time to ring the FLO for clarity me thinks. Again apologies if thats a stupid question.

[SportingShooter 0]

My apologies to those concerned then. However just read my FAC my condition states (a) the shooting of vermin or, in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife. So what does other wildlife mean? Fox or no fox. Time to ring the FLO for clarity me thinks. Again apologies if thats a stupid question.

The FEO will be the most important port of call From that condition, it is so vague, you would never be able to tell.

 

That sounds similar to the condition that I have on my FAC for Expanding ammunition

[davyt63 1,845]

fook me what did i start?

did any one read the link i put in???.i know!! its a grey area and not the prefered!! caliber.

 

but my point was that a "police officer" who is in the A.R.U shoots fox with a rimfire, to me its not showing a good example to new F.A.C holders.as i have not long had my home interview and just waiting to here! back.

rant over

regards

 

davy

[HUnter_zero 58]

So what does other wildlife mean? Fox or no fox.

 

 

FAC conditions are literal, so if your condition stated "shooting animals" for example you can shoot anything that can legally be shot with that calibre of rifle. So "Wildlife" will enable you to shoot fox / vermin / ground game.

I can remember having a slot for .308 RIFLE, I had to take my FAC in to the office for an amendment and the clerk took one look at the slot and said ' I have to alter this, it means you could buy any .308 from a single shot to a machine gun...'. Okay I know that no RFD in his right mind would sell such a thing but it goes to show that the conditions are very literal and as stated with more specific conditions being meant as restrictive for example 'fox and rabbit' would mean that is all you can shoot period. I personally like having nice little pigeon holes for everything but I also know it's not necessary on an FAC.

 

John

Edited August 24, 2009 by HUnter_zero

[HUnter_zero 58]

"police officer" who is in the A.R.U shoots fox with a rimfire

 

 

There is nothing to stop him. As stated the rim fire will kill foxes at close range but is by no means a suitable fox calibre.

I'll tell you a true story. I know a chap who after reading a forum on the internet believes that is HMR is the dogs dangles and having read of the force and killing power of his HMR he believes it is more than capable of killer Fallow deer. Further more a PM he got, stated that shooting deer with his HMR wasn't illegal unless he was caught and that deer can be killed with a standard airgun if shot in the right place. How many other people are out there shooting deer with HMR's?

The fact is that if we made a generalised statement suggesting that the .22rf is a great and most suitable fox calibre we would have idiots trying their best to lamp foxes at 100 yards with a rifle that is not up to the job. IMHO there is a big difference with personal tuition in the field and making generalised statements with no actual practical back up on the Internet.

Yes in certain instances the .22rf will kill a fox but more to the point it is not the most suitable round for fox control.

As a group of people we have to depend on each other to keep our sport and way of life. The last thing needed is some guy out there shooting and injuring foxes with a round that is not suitable because some guy on the Internet who seems to have knowledge has told him it is okay. Then when we actually look at it the guy on the Internet is a house bound paraplegic who plays Tomb Raider all day.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you know in general something is wrong or not suitable, then say it's wrong or not suitable because there will be some guy out there shooting foxes with an airgun because he has read on this forum it is legal. Next you will see a newspaper quoting this forum suggesting as they do that Internet shooters are out injuring foxes every night with airguns.

What we tend to forget is that 'Dad's are not teaching their sons to shoot anymore' and a whole breed of shooters exist on information technology and the knowledge gained from the Internet.

 

John

[Fidgety 8]

Good point H Z

Edited August 24, 2009 by Fidgety

[Mr_Logic 5]

It is a good point. Personally I think we should always say what does and doesn't work accurately. I.e. Post God's honest truth but with all legal and practical caveats. Otherwise the armchair brigade will argue vehemently that a .22 can't kill a fox at all.

 

The other thing with having all the information is that it highlights all the crap areas of firearms licensing, with fox on a vermin ticket being perhaps the greyest of them all...

 

Btw John5, you can PM me now!

[HUnter_zero 58]

the armchair brigade will argue vehemently that a .22 can't kill a fox at all.

 

 

Which IMHO is no bad thing for a new shooter. I'd rather see a new applicant refused a .22rf for fox and be told to use a .22rf for a few years on rabbits and then apply for a centre fire rifle for fox control. Not so many years ago, we started with Starlings in our gardens shooting a meteor, then shotguns and then rim fires and then centre fires. That was the way it was done, our initiation or apprenticeship if you like. If we were lucky our Fathers would be shooting men and would teach us the rights and wrongs. No, there is little doubt in my mind that this was the best way to learn our craft. These days with all the freedom of information people seem to be granted firearms with no real knowledge or understanding of the tools in hand and more more I see people with a completely misguided understanding of the countryside and the role in which shooting plays. That's not to say I believe shooting should be an elitist sport but it is to say that in general people should start at the bottom and work their way up.

My point of view is simple, I know I can kill foxes with a .22rf and many before me have killed plenty of foxes with a .22rf. If you knew me and you knew my level of skill, you would be well positioned to either recommend I could or could not use a .22rf for fox control. Sadly in our current times, people tend to take short cuts and can not be bothered with the ways of old. If they are browsing the Internet and come across a thread where half the posters say a .22rf can kill a red deer and the other half say it can not but all say it is illegal. The fly-by-night shooter will simply understand that the .22rf can and is suitable for red deer control but because the police and government are idiots they have made it illegal. Next time he is sitting up a tree trying his best to shoot foxes at 200 yards with his .22rf and a deer trots past he will take a 'pot' shot at the deer, safe in the knowledge at least fifty percent of the people on the Internet agree with his actions and then wonder why everyone has ago at him when he posts a dialogue of his actions on the very same forum, to which he draw the conclusion that there is still nothing wrong with his actions, it's just everyone is jealous he is a deer stalker now. Any way, that's my feelings on the matter. No need for arguments, I just think that people need to air on the hard side of caution before recommending things.

 

John

Edited August 24, 2009 by HUnter_zero

[cyclonebri1 8]

OP, this query gets asked more times than any other. The usual suspects reply in favour or otherwise. Me I sit out for rabbits and maybe twice a year a fox pokes his head out and bang goes the .22. So thats me.

 

The question I always ask, and I've yet to hear a yes in answer is;

 

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for taking a fox with a rimfire?, assuming fox is not specified on their ticket.

Edited August 24, 2009 by cyclonebri1

[HUnter_zero 58]

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for taking a fox with a rimfire?

 

 

I have another question, has anyone ever been prosecuted for killing a fox with a bow and arrow?

 

One thing that we tend to forget is that the law is an "ass" and until a judge has ruled upon a bit of legislation that bit of legislation will always be open to debate. It is not the actual wording of the law that has to worry us, it's the path leading to the court and the judge that we have to be constantly aware of. We can all debate and fumble over the law, it means nothing. However all it would take, is for you to be out with your .22rf and wound a fox and for just one person who wished to push the issue to take it up and bring you in front of a court. It is then, you will be worried if you had the misfortune not to follow recognised expert advice, the same advice open to one and all. I'll quote just one, which makes good reading and written by the BASC a government advisory body. In the modern world, being shown to be incompetent and not using recognised and recommended methods is being guilty of an offence as we all know. A bit like the drink drive laws, there is a set limit but if an officer feels that even the smallest amount of alcohol has effected your driving, potentially a court can prosecute you.

 

a) Rabbits and other small quarry. The .22 Rimfire (R/F) is almost universally used for rabbit shooting. It is powerful enough to ensure a humane kill without damaging the carcase so as to make it unattractive in the market. It is not sufficiently powerful for the humane shooting of foxes unless the range is very short - 50 yards or less - and circumstances allow the bullet to be placed with great precision.

 

The rifle will usually be fitted with a sound moderator (often erroneously called a “silencerâ€), and used with “sub-sonic†ammunition. This is ammunition designed to propel the bullet at just below the speed of sound (about 1100 feet per second), thus avoiding the sharp crack of super-sonic bullets and making the moderator much more effective.

 

More about sound moderators later.

 

There is also a .22 R/F cartridge which produces twice the energy of the standard Long Rifle round. This is the .22WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire). Despite the similar name, the two cartridges are not interchangeable. In an accurate rifle this cartridge is useful where rabbits must be shot at ranges of 100 yards or more and it is also sufficiently powerful to be a humane choice for fox control as long as shots are not taken beyond about 100 yards.

 

The recently-introduced .17 rim fire calibers (HMR & HM2) are a good choice for shooting rabbits and other small pest species at longer ranges; it is at its best when used beyond about 90 to 100 yards, and it compliments the .22 R/F which is preferable for shorter ranges.

 

Fox, hare, feral cat and similar. From here on, all cartridges will be centrefire and the bullets they fire will be jacketed since lead would strip off in the rifling at the higher velocities unless protected by (usually) a copper jacket. Either a hollow point or an exposed lead nose ensures that the bullet expands on impact and thus transmits the maximum of energy to the target for a sure, clean kill.

 

There is a plethora of .22 centrefire cartridges firing bullets of about the same size as the .22R/F but at much higher velocity. Those usually encountered in Britain are, in ascending order of power, the .22 Hornet, the .222 Remington , the .223 Remington (which is the same as the 5.56mm Nato cartridge) and the 22/250 Remington. Very occasionally you may come across a .220 Swift.

 

You may also meet or be asked about the .17 Remington which fulfills the same function using a lighter bullet of around 20 grains weight at about 4000 feet per second muzzle velocity.

 

Don’t be fooled by the names; all but the .17 Remington fire bullets of .224 inch diameter. Bullet weight in the .22 calibres may range from 40 to about 70 grains. (There are 437.5 grains to the ounce and 7000 grains to the pound).

 

Velocities range from about 2600 feet per second (FPS) to almost 4000 FPS and it is a matter of individual choice as to which cartridge may be most suitable for the intended purpose.

 

 

John

Edited August 24, 2009 by HUnter_zero

[Mr_Logic 5]

Hunter zero, I think you need to examine laws more closely/differently. (although the mere fact that I think that does prove your point about the law being an ass!) I really didn't want to get into this again, but hey ho...

 

Firstly, recommendation of 22LR for fox - I didn't, and I wouldn't recommend it as a mainstay fox rifle. I have said that you need to keep the range short and put the bullet in the head (which amusingly the BASC also echoes, from your quote). I don't see the harm in points like that, even for new shooters, because it is true!

 

Now, fox shooting without fox on your ticket... This is a massive debate and no agreement will be reached until someone arrives in court charged with failing to obey the terms of their FAC, and the situation being the shooting of fox without the weapon being so conditioned. Cyclonebri - this answers your point. No prosecution has been made, or at least not one that reached court. If there had, there would be definitive case law on the subject, Police forces would be unified and the matter finally bloody settled!

 

Now the argument...

 

It is legal to shoot a fox with whatever you like, no laws specify what may and may not be used for the job. Cruelty laws might come into it with very low powered items, like air pistols etc since you are then not trying to do serious vermin control, it starts to look more like a yob inflicting suffering for no good reason!

 

Suitability for the job does not come into it with an FAC tool; even the high power air rifles could take a fox cleanly (although then you would have to be VERY close range, and i would never advocate their use). From law's standpoint, BASC or Home Office guidelines are completely irrelevant to the only possible charge here.

 

Let's be clear, and stick to the point. If you have a rimfire, and you kill a fox with it, the ONLY charge you can face is that you have breached the Terms of your FAC (assuming there's no armed trespass or other such offence).

 

The Condition you would be alleged to have breached would be : "the 22RF rifle shall be used for the shooting of Vermin/ground game..." Now, how can you be charged with breaching this; a fox is generally referred to as vermin? The FAC does not reference any other document, nor does it define the word vermin. No information is generally sent with an FAC, so there can be no reasonable expectation for the FAC holder to have read anything else.

 

Therefore, assuming the FAC holder has NOT asked the Police about this and been told specifically that : "Your FAC condition does NOT authorise fox, we don't consider fox vermin" then there is no way to prosecute the FAC holder for shooting a fox on his vermin slot - a fox is vermin!

 

However, (more!) confusion reigns when considering another common scenario - the FAC holder who has a rimfire conditioned for vermin, and a centrefire conditioned for Fox. In this instance, it becomes very difficult to argue that fox blatantly is vermin, because the fact that the word Fox appears for the CF and not the RF suggests that the RF shall not be used against fox.

 

What is required is that court case, to make the Police define the word Vermin on your FAC (or use a different word!). Don't be the court case! Check with the FEO, make damn sure you're OK, and get it in writing.

 

Now, before anyone says the immortal words "But the Home Office Guidelines differentiate between fox and vermin" ...

 

Yes they do. But the shooter is not given a copy to read, nor are they expected to read them.

 

AND not every licensing department follows them because they are GUIDELINES and they don't have to.

[cyclonebri1 8]

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for taking a fox with a rimfire?

 

 

I have another question, has anyone ever been prosecuted for killing a fox with a bow and arrow?

 

 

 

Haha, a very poinient point. I am an archer as well as a shooter. I fully understand, (well i don't actually), that it is illegal to kill any game in the uk with bow and arrow.

 

However if you have ever watched any yankee bow hunting videos you will surely have seen some of the most daring and accurate sporting excapades ever. Brown bear, grizzlies not to mention elk and other big game all fall to the bow. Recently a well heeled sportswoman shot a bull elephant with a single shot from a bow. The kinetic energy and blood letting capability is equal to a well placed rifle shot.

 

Also I have a book by Peter hathaway Capstick that details an elephant shot and killed with a single shot from a .22 rimfire. Due to disbelivers this was repeated under witness.

 

All not recomended but in my view acceptable in the correct instance.

[theinvisiblescarecrow 0]

From what I've read .22lr & HMR will kill a fox.

From what I've seen HMR is not really upto it.

I have Fox with HMR but not .22lr on my ticket.

The one fox I've seen shot with an HMR gave me the decsion not to try it.

C/F on renewal might change my Fox shooting experiances.

It matters not if it will do the job for experianced shooters.

If the question is asked by someone wanting to go out shooting fox I'd say go C/F.

If the question is for close range dispatch then ask someone who does it often, not once in a while.