17 HMR VS 22 WMR

[Deker 3,478]

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!

 

:yes:

Yep, challenge them, and it does help if you have an idea what you are talking about, so do some background work.

 

I think it was Shooting Times (one of the shooting mags anyway) that very recently ran an article saying exactly the same, challenge them, don't simply put up with some of there daft stipulations/conditions!

 

[Ratsmasher 36]

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!

 

true but (I might be wrong here) is it actually the FAO that makes the rules?

[tegater 789]

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!

 

true but (I might be wrong here) is it actually the FAO that makes the rules?

The feo's and the office staff are one and the same and all work to the same guidelines. The problems occur because they also take in direct advice from web sites such as BASC and best practice guides.

 

It isn't that the advice from these other agencies is wrong, but they are just guidelines and opinions of an organisation. The feo's though, all interpret them differently and therefore shooters get misleading advice based on opinion and not law.

 

[matt_hooks 188]

Teg, that's not true, or at least in Thames Valley it's not. The FEO job has been reduced to a purely evidence gathering roll, they have NO decision making powers at all. They can recommend, or otherwise, but the people in the office are the ones who make the decisions.

[tegater 789]

Teg, that's not true, or at least in Thames Valley it's not. The FEO job has been reduced to a purely evidence gathering roll, they have NO decision making powers at all. They can recommend, or otherwise, but the people in the office are the ones who make the decisions.

Yet another difference, because up here the only people in the office are the feo's.

[Deker 3,478]

Teg, that's not true, or at least in Thames Valley it's not. The FEO job has been reduced to a purely evidence gathering roll, they have NO decision making powers at all. They can recommend, or otherwise, but the people in the office are the ones who make the decisions.

 

That is of course correct, but that doesn't quite present the picture.

 

The FEO will submit his report, and it will be rare those higher up reverse his recommendations, so does he have any power or not, I'd have to suggest he does, that is his job after all, he is the one that sees you and is given the responsibility of interview, etc, so what he says normally goes.

 

Put it like this, if you apply for something, and the pre visit checks would leave the office in a 50/50 situation about granting, then I rather think the FEO turns into a very important man from your point of view. Don't take too much notice of your FEO when he says its not down to me, by the time of the interview actually quite a lot is down to him! :thumbs:

 

Does he make the decision, strictly speaking no, does he very much have the ear of those making the decision.... :yes:

[Deker 3,478]

Teg, that's not true, or at least in Thames Valley it's not. The FEO job has been reduced to a purely evidence gathering roll, they have NO decision making powers at all. They can recommend, or otherwise, but the people in the office are the ones who make the decisions.

Yet another difference, because up here the only people in the office are the feo's.

 

Ha Ha, that could well be true, it is not uncommon to make a call to Thames Valley Firearms and be answered by a temp from some agency who doesn't have a clue.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Deker

[Simonrees 45]

Teg, that's not true, or at least in Thames Valley it's not. The FEO job has been reduced to a purely evidence gathering roll, they have NO decision making powers at all. They can recommend, or otherwise, but the people in the office are the ones who make the decisions.

 

That is of course correct, but that doesn't quite present the picture.

 

The FEO will submit his report, and it will be rare those higher up reverse his recommendations, so does he have any power or not, I'd have to suggest he does, that is his job after all, he is the one that sees you and is given the responsibility of interview, etc, so what he says normally goes.

 

Put it like this, if you apply for something, and the pre visit checks would leave the office in a 50/50 situation about granting, then I rather think the FEO turns into a very important man from your point of view. Don't take too much notice of your FEO when he says its not down to me, by the time of the interview actually quite a lot is down to him! :thumbs:

 

Does he make the decision, strictly speaking no, does he very much have the ear of those making the decision.... :yes:

 

I agree with this but I think we are now discussing 2 separate issues. I agree that the FEO is probably the man who gives the nod as to whether you get your ticket or not, after all he's met you assessed you and providing your background checks are ok its his report that either means you get it or you don't. However this is a separate issue to which calibers are suitable for which species etc these are the decisions that are made above him based on the guidelines you mention.

[Lost Generation 93]

Back to the original question, the .22 WMR is perfectly capable of killing both foxes and rabbits, and is a better fox round than the .17 HMR although as with the .17 HMR only head shot rabbits will be useable. You can also legally own a semi-auto .22WMR if this is your thing.

[hunter1 63]

17 hmr for rabbits and 223 for fox