tegater 789 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Simon does that mean that south wales dont allow .17 for fox control or is it just not on your ticket. your right about the "Ask 100 people" but with the .17 on foxes i know that people say about head shots at 150yrds but if you have to rely on a head shot then the cal is too small in my opinion. but with that said i do think that for rabbit and fox the .17 is the best round available because it is accurate enough to shoot rabbits in the head at good distances and it extends your reach on a fox compaired to a .22lr a few more yards, but as mentioned the draw back is the ammo the last i brought cost me 12 quid per 50 far to expensive i know they are cheaper now but still not ever so. The hmr is more expensive than .22lr, but only marginally different to 12 bore carts. I bet you get a better kill ratio with the hmr, so what's the problem. Quote Link to post
Deker 3,478 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) so could you name a sensible rifle and ammunition for both foxes and rabbits? are rimefire frowned upon for using on foxes by the law or? and wat ranges for both animals? sorry for bein a bit thick, all these callibers ect are a bit confusing ha The issue here is that some police forces will not grant you a .17 for fox and insist on a minimum of .223. However if you want only one caliber and they allow it for fox the .17 would be your best choice. However you would be better off also applying for a .22 for rabbits because the bullets are a lot cheaper. As far as ranges go ask 100 people get 100 different answers but .22 on rabbits 75yds-100yds .17 75yds -150yds. I'm not going to give you a figure for fox because I can't legally shoot them with my .17 WHAT??????? who insists on a minimum of .223 for fox??? Just why have they discounted the likes of 17CF, Hornet, .204. 222, etc etc? Applying for any calibre due to ammo price in relation to quarry is not valid reason! :no: Edited February 13, 2012 by Deker Quote Link to post
richmcgin 32 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Simon does that mean that south wales dont allow .17 for fox control or is it just not on your ticket. your right about the "Ask 100 people" but with the .17 on foxes i know that people say about head shots at 150yrds but if you have to rely on a head shot then the cal is too small in my opinion. but with that said i do think that for rabbit and fox the .17 is the best round available because it is accurate enough to shoot rabbits in the head at good distances and it extends your reach on a fox compaired to a .22lr a few more yards, but as mentioned the draw back is the ammo the last i brought cost me 12 quid per 50 far to expensive i know they are cheaper now but still not ever so. The hmr is more expensive than .22lr, but only marginally different to 12 bore carts. I bet you get a better kill ratio with the hmr, so what's the problem. didnt think shotguns were in question Quote Link to post
tegater 789 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Simon does that mean that south wales dont allow .17 for fox control or is it just not on your ticket. your right about the "Ask 100 people" but with the .17 on foxes i know that people say about head shots at 150yrds but if you have to rely on a head shot then the cal is too small in my opinion. but with that said i do think that for rabbit and fox the .17 is the best round available because it is accurate enough to shoot rabbits in the head at good distances and it extends your reach on a fox compaired to a .22lr a few more yards, but as mentioned the draw back is the ammo the last i brought cost me 12 quid per 50 far to expensive i know they are cheaper now but still not ever so. The hmr is more expensive than .22lr, but only marginally different to 12 bore carts. I bet you get a better kill ratio with the hmr, so what's the problem. didnt think shotguns were in question I was simply making the point that hmr ammo isn't expensive at all when you consider the benefits.50 bullets for me might mean 45 crows, 50 cartridges will def mean less. Quote Link to post
richmcgin 32 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 oh yes sorry see what you mean. Quote Link to post
Simonrees 45 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 South Wales police will not grant .17hmr for fox and insist on a minimum caliber of .223 However I am aware of someone who has .17hmr for fox on their ticket but I think this may have been due to the previous FLO. Quote Link to post
Deker 3,478 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 South Wales police will not grant .17hmr for fox and insist on a minimum caliber of .223 However I am aware of someone who has .17hmr for fox on their ticket but I think this may have been due to the previous FLO. Sorry chap, who told you that bull, just what is it about, for example, a .222 at potentially 1000ft lb+++ that they consider unsuitable for fox?! Ask them if they consider a .223 suitable for shooting a fox at 20 yards in the Hay Barn, right next to the Farm House and Stable block! :hmm: Point them in the direction of Page 77 of the Home Office Firearms Law Guidance to the Police and ask them why they know better than the Home Office? This is rubbish, plenty of people in Wales have less than a .223 conditioned for fox! Quote Link to post
Simonrees 45 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) South Wales police will not grant .17hmr for fox and insist on a minimum caliber of .223 However I am aware of someone who has .17hmr for fox on their ticket but I think this may have been due to the previous FLO. Sorry chap, who told you that bull, just what is it about, for example, a .222 at potentially 1000ft lb+++ that they consider unsuitable for fox?! Ask them if they consider a .223 suitable for shooting a fox at 20 yards in the Hay Barn, right next to the Farm House and Stable block! :hmm: Point them in the direction of Page 77 of the Home Office Firearms Law Guidance to the Police and ask them why they know better than the Home Office? This is rubbish, plenty of people in Wales have less than a .223 conditioned for fox! Bull it might be, but I'm not the one making it up! I asked the question when applying for my FAC and am just repeating what I was told by the FLO. They issue the tickets so we play by their rules. likewise they also told me they would not even consider issuing a .243 for deer unless they see proof of having completed a DSC1 and a receipt for having booked some stalking! So yes it might be rubbish but most Police forces are making up rules to suit themselves. And for the record as I've already stated, I know someone in the same area who has .17 for fox so you don't need to tell me that plenty of people in SW have it, I already know! Edited February 13, 2012 by Simonrees Quote Link to post
richmcgin 32 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Simon i know what you mean about them making up their own rules i lived in surrey and they are very diff to avon and somerset. i have had the argument with avon and somerset about the dsc as i dont have one, in the end they had to give in as they cant insist on it. Quote Link to post
Simonrees 45 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Simon i know what you mean about them making up their own rules i lived in surrey and they are very diff to avon and somerset. i have had the argument with avon and somerset about the dsc as i dont have one, in the end they had to give in as they cant insist on it. I know mate but arguing with the FLO during your FAC interview isn't going to achieve a lot is it! Sometimes its best to just accept things and then argue the toss later when things are in your favour! Quote Link to post
matt_hooks 188 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 On the contrary Simon. Once they have applied the conditions, getting rid of them is the devils own job. Have the argument at initial issue time, when applying restrictive conditions could be classed as a constructive refusal to issue. Quote Link to post
Simonrees 45 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 On the contrary Simon. Once they have applied the conditions, getting rid of them is the devils own job. Have the argument at initial issue time, when applying restrictive conditions could be classed as a constructive refusal to issue. Fair point Matt. Quote Link to post
Ratsmasher 36 Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) but then again your fao isnt the type of person you want to upset in the long run Edited February 15, 2012 by Ratsmasher Quote Link to post
matt_hooks 188 Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Why not ratty? They're professionals, and they should be doing the job fairly and treating people equally. If you have cause to challenge something, they shouldn't be taking exception, or getting upset about it. If they are behaving like that then they need to be reported to their superiors for unprofessional behaviour. In my experience the FEO's on the ground are good men and women, it's the office staff that make the decisions (and cause most of the problems). If any decision, condition or whatever is unreasonable then it should be challenged. No point jumping through hoops and hoping that it'll get easier, it won't and by accepting the ridiculous conditions we reinforce the behavior. It should be challenged rigorously whenever it occurs! Quote Link to post
patterdaleboy 32 Posted February 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 also dose .22cf cover me for all the .22 range meaning 222 up to 222-50 Quote Link to post
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.