Who`s Right......bisley Or Flo??

[David Aiken 253]

So as I now see it ammunition aside. My .22lr rifle is conditioned for vermin and only varmin. The club did not ask if the rifle was conditioned for target, but also during my conversation with my FEO while explaining what I intended to do gave no mention of this variation being needed. I will get this checked out with the club and FEO

[Alsone 789]

 

Deker, I know full well that anyone with a certificate can buy solid ammo.

 

My only point of contention is it's use on live prey. Times have changed as you have pointed out and using solid ammo on pretty much anything other than maybe mice and rats, is going to be very hard to justify in law. If you are seen to cause wounding to eg rabbits and it's discovered that you were using solid ammo when expanding was available, then good luck proving you weren't causing necessary suffering. It's worth remembering here that it's not only firearms law that binds you here....

 

Open your eyes, who would have any chance of winning any case of causing unnecessary suffering to a rabbit etc using 100ft lb (or more) .22lr Solid when nobody bats an eyelid at 12ft lb air rifle, and you are going backwards on your statement in #11 already, saying rats and mice are fine!

 

So is 2900Ft Lb of energy with a solid on a Boar not Humane?

 

Like I said, take a step back and think about it a bit more, and how many species did you come up with that the LAW states Expanding only?

 

 

Deker, it's not about ft lbs, it's about results. If you are seen getting non clean kills against animals and upon investigation it was found you are using non expanding ammo, then good luck defending yourself against a prosecution for causing unnecessary suffering, because you're going to have to justify your decision for using solid when expanding was available. That may be difficult. Just because something is lawful under one law, doesn't mean it's lawful under another.

 

eg.A pensioner was prosecuted for using an air rifle against a squirrel where he failed to achieve a clean kill. No one is going to argue an air rifle is illegal or even unsuitable against a squirrel, or even that the guys intentions were not to achieve a clean kill, but the fact that he didn't, resulted in a prosecution: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263806/The-Verminator-Pensioner-hauled-court-taking-air-rifle-squirrel.html . Yes you might say 5 times is excessive, but when you look at the xrays showing the location of the shots, there's 1 head shot and 4 body shots around the engine room made from point blank range. Hardly poor shot placement and hardly expected not to kill from point blank. But it didn't as he seemingly missed the vital organs and failed to transfer enough energy. So the guy did seemingly everything right, but the result was poor. I'm not sure what else he could have done, apart from not have left a space between the 1st 2 shots and the rest, and even then I doubt that would have prevented a prosecution. So good luck where it can be shown that you failed to use the most effective and humane ammunition, especially when expanding ammunition is recommended for live quarry on the grounds of humanness.

 

The law is wider than just firearms guidance or law because it also encompasses animal welfare laws. There's no firearms law that says you can't air rifles against fox - there's no minimum calibre, velocity or energy. However, I don't fancy your chances with 12ft lbs in claiming it's humane. It's clearly not illegal under firearms laws, but it is most likely illegal under animal welfare laws. Yes 12ft lbs is very different to 100ft lbs, but so is expanding 100ft lbs compared to solid. In the case above, the calibre, energy, velocity and ammunition were all right as was the shot placement but the guy still got prosecuted because the result was poor. With less suitable ammunition, he'd have been on even shakier ground. I'm not absolutely saying you can't use solid, just that you're on shaky ground against larger animals as you may be called upon to justify your decision and that may be hard in a scenario where you were seen causing wounding and better alternatives were available.

 

You mention air rifles versus rabbits, but this is a different scenario to expanding vs non expanding, as there's no true explosively expanding alternative. Provided a humane kill is achieved therefore, you are unlikely to have issues although beware the squirrel scenario.

 

Shotgun slugs are also a different proposition as again there's no expanding alternative that can be fired from a shotgun plus a slug has huge weight and energy, which when combined help to deliver the humane kill that is required.

 

At the end of the day, there is room for opinion. But just be aware your arguments are limited where an animal is wounded and it's found you were using an ammunition of a type not generally considered suitable for live quarry. The onus in my opinion is going to be very much on you to prove it was humane which if there was any kind of wounding incident, is going to be very difficult.

[charlie caller 3,654]

So as I now see it ammunition aside. My .22lr rifle is conditioned for vermin and only varmin. The club did not ask if the rifle was conditioned for target, but also during my conversation with my FEO while explaining what I intended to do gave no mention of this variation being needed. I will get this checked out with the club and FEO

So Dave clear this up, does your certificate not say something along the lines of.......vermin and ground game,and for zeroing on ranges? i know mine does.

[Deker 3,478]

Good grief Alsone, you really are off in another land somewhere, there is Nothing inhumane about using solid ammo to shoot wildlife, in some cases it is preferable to expanding, and your squirrel man had nothing to do with air rifles, solid, expanding or any other type of ammo, the guy was hauled off to court because he left the squirrel alive and suffering, not because he put 5 shots into it from an air rifle!

 

Your comments....

 

.......... general use for solids as you'd fall foul of humane requirements against live prey.

I think you're on pretty shaky ground shooting live prey with solid ammo though Walshie, airguns aside. (and just why are airguns apparently exempt from cruelty laws?)

 

 

Later You state

....and using solid ammo on pretty much anything other than maybe mice and rats, is going to be very hard to justify in law.

 

So You yourself suggest rats and mice are fine with solid, what makes them a special case then, are they exempt from cruelty laws, and I'm telling you when I go out after the Boar I use solid, because I find it the MOST humane. You do not have to justify the use of solid ammo on wildlife, there is no Law to justify it to.

 

Just because some sort of expanding ammo may be available that does not make solid inhumane all of a sudden.

 

By your logic every time another more frangible, more expanding ammo comes out that would render the one below it inhumane.

 

Just who is going to bring any case against anyone for using a solid .22lr on a rabbit against an expanding .22lr round? There are many people who are perfectly capable of dispatching a rabbit humanely and efficiently with solid .22lr and many who are incompetent and incapable of dispatching them with expanding .22lr, so just what makes a solid round inhumane?

 

Shooting a fox with a 12 ft lb is NOT ILLEGAL under ANY law, neither is it inhumane if it is dead, if someone simply causes pain and suffering against a fox plinking at it with 12ft lb a case may be bought and may be won on cruelty grounds, that does not make using a 12 ft lb air rifle illegal on foxes.

 

You make statements with no thought or substance and keep spouting laws that don't exist, you regularly contradict yourself and bring in totally erroneous subjects, like the squirrel, which has nothing to do with solid ammo.

 

If I shoot the arse off a rabbit with my 7.62 Radway Green FMJ and it crawls away injured your comments suggest I was inhumane because I used solid ammo. So take me to court and show I was inhumane by using the wrong (solid) ammo!

Edited January 17, 2016 by Deker

[Deker 3,478]

I have 600 round of expanding .22lr ammunition on my FAC for vermin control and to zero in.

 

When I was going to Bisley last year for a BASC range day I noticed my booking email made it clear solid ammunition only, no expanding. I rang Bisley to see if I could buy solid ammunition while on my range day, their response was "I`d no need as my FAC was for expanding so I could purchase expanding OR solid at any gunshop. It was having a FAC stating just solid which stopped the purchase of expanding.

 

I had a conversation with my FLO today and as I now shoot target I wished to increase my ammunition allocation to accommodate purchasing solid as well as my usual expanding ammunition. His response was a definite NO! Unless I was a full member of a target shooting club!

 

Who`s right? My FLO or Bisley?

 

Both, you can buy solid with your current FAC and you can shoot target as a guest with an authorised/approved club, but if you want a specific target condition, or if you join a club you will need to request a target condition be added to your FAC, and you will only get that as a member of an authorised club. Otherwise you will be limited to Zeroing. It may seem a bit daft (possibly it is a bit daft) but that's the way it is!

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by Deker

[Alsone 789]

We'll just have to agree to disagree Deker as to the advisability of such a step.

 

All I can say is get vide'od by a member of the public, bearing in mind almost every phone now has a HD video recording capability, getting unlucky and putting 3 or so shots into an animal along with a call to the police followed up by the RSPCA, and if you're found using solid ammo outside of an air rifle or slug in situations suitable for those, then good luck defending your position in Court against a charge under animal welfare laws of causing unnecessary suffering, when solid ammo is generally considered unsuitable for live prey and expanding was available. Especially when even the Shooting Organisations recommend the use of expanding ammunition against live prey - see the BASC's Information for Journalists Leaflet, which incidentally on another point brought up on here, specifically says .22LR shouldn't be used against fox at more than 50 yards (their Head of Firearms Advice George Wallace was the author).

 

At the end of the day, the choice is yours. Using solid ammunition against live prey isn't illegal under Firearms Laws, but neither do I believe it is advisable in respect of Animal Welfare Legislation, and outside of air rifles and slugs and the particular situations that apply to their use, I think you'd struggle to find any expert or organisation to back you in it's use if the worst were to occur and you were to be accused of a welfare offence through an unintended wounding that took several shots to resolve.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Alsone

[Deker 3,478]

We'll just have to agree to disagree Deker as to the advisability of such a step.

 

All I can say is get vide'od by a member of the public, bearing in mind almost every phone now has a HD video recording capability, getting unlucky and putting 3 or so shots into an animal along with a call to the police followed up by the RSPCA, and if you're found using solid ammo outside of an air rifle or slug in situations suitable for those, then good luck defending your position in Court against a charge under animal welfare laws of causing unnecessary suffering, when solid ammo is generally considered unsuitable for live prey and expanding was available. Especially when even the Shooting Organisations recommend the use of expanding ammunition against live prey - see the BASC's Information for Journalists Leaflet, which incidentally on another point brought up on here, specifically says .22LR shouldn't be used against fox at more than 50 yards (their Head of Firearms Advice George Wallace was the author).

 

At the end of the day, the choice is yours. Using solid ammunition against live prey isn't illegal under Firearms Laws, but neither do I believe it is advisable in respect of Animal Welfare Legislation, and outside of air rifles and slugs and the particular situations that apply to their use, I think you'd struggle to find any expert or organisation to back you in it's use if the worst were to occur and you were to be accused of a welfare offence through an unintended wounding that took several shots to resolve.

 

Good grief Alsone, don't you get it, there is nothing unsuitable about solid ammo on prey, in some cases it is first choice.

 

What are you waffling on about, the only person who keeps saying its unsuitable/cruel/inhumane is you!

 

There may be some types of ammo that may be more appropriate in some situations, that does not mean that solid ammo is unsuitable, cruel, inhumane and you are going to be hauled before the courts for using it.

 

What has shooting a fox at 50 yards with a .22lr got to do with this, just who has ever suggested a .22lr is a long range fox tool, just another irrelevant red herring!?

 

So air rifles and slugs are exempt are they, how's that work then, and you have obviously never shot a large Boar with a V-Max and watched it run off like nothing has happened, just how humane is that?!

 

And a wounding that requires several shots to finish the prey is not necessarily indicative that you are using the wrong ammunition.

 

You simply don't have an argument or case and your speculation is beyond belief.

 

And yes, fortunately the choice is mine, and not yours, because I have a FAC and SGC with many guns, of many types and calibres, and have shot a lot of things over many years, so I have a pretty good idea what works, is suitable, and humane, unlike you who doesn't even have a FAC yet as far as I'm aware.

 

And as regards expert backing, well, I am part of the selected and approved TV Police Humane Animal Dispatch Team, so if you want some advice just ask.

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by Deker

[Alsone 789]

Like I say Deker, I don't agree. I'm not going to argue with you as it's quite clear from your posts above and others I made to you in the past that you just don't get it and read past pertinent points. You have in my opinion a very tunnel visioned view of Firearms Law where licensing alone dictates what you can and can't do. It's very much like saying your car licence doesn't say it's illegal to exceed the speed limit so you can't get prosecuted for an accident if you do. The fact is, there are laws that lie beyond mere licensing that affect what you can and can't do.

 

It's also totally irrelevant if you do dispatch animals on behalf of the police when required to do so. The fact that you make a humane dispatch in front of them doesn't alleviate any allegation that you have failed to do so on another occasion should that allegation arise, as any such allegation will still be investigated.

 

All that matters is what happens on any day when you don't achieve a clean kill and if someone has evidence of that and it is alleged that occurs as a result of using solid ammo, whether or not you can defend yourself in Court against a charge brought by the RSPCA of causing Unnecessary Suffering. It's my opinion that you're on unsound ground using solid ammunition on live prey outside of an air gun or slug. To that end, the Police, The Shooting Organisations and other respected parties all say that it is not recommended to use solid ammo against live prey. It doesn't have to be illegal. If you cause unnecessary suffering you need to be able to prove your method was humane when compared to other methods available, and if there were more humane methods available, you need to be able to justify why you didn't use those and why the animal would still had suffered just as much if you had. A simple because it was legal for me to use solid ammo isn't going to cut it. In the example above, it was legal to use an air rifle against the squirrel. It was the result that mattered and the fact that the shooter was unable to justify at law the fact that the animal was alive after 5 shots. He did nothing illegal shooting the animal. The use of both the air rifle and pellets were both legal. However, despite the legality of what he did, he was still found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering, and he didn't have the luxury of an alternative and that is my point. There's nothing illegal per se in using solid ammo against live prey. However, fail to kill it cleanly, and be forced to use multiple shots, and you have a battle on your hands to prove that you did everything in your power to prevent it from suffering. That is exacerbated when it can be alleged a more suitable and humane alternative was available, and you failed to use it.

 

In my opinion, it's far better to exercise a cautious approach in accordance with recognised best practice.

[David Aiken 253]

 

I have 600 round of expanding .22lr ammunition on my FAC for vermin control and to zero in.

 

When I was going to Bisley last year for a BASC range day I noticed my booking email made it clear solid ammunition only, no expanding. I rang Bisley to see if I could buy solid ammunition while on my range day, their response was "I`d no need as my FAC was for expanding so I could purchase expanding OR solid at any gunshop. It was having a FAC stating just solid which stopped the purchase of expanding.

 

I had a conversation with my FLO today and as I now shoot target I wished to increase my ammunition allocation to accommodate purchasing solid as well as my usual expanding ammunition. His response was a definite NO! Unless I was a full member of a target shooting club!

 

Who`s right? My FLO or Bisley?

 

Both, you can buy solid with your current FAC and you can shoot target as a guest with an authorised/approved club, but if you want a specific target condition, or if you join a club you will need to request a target condition be added to your FAC, and you will only get that as a member of an authorised club. Otherwise you will be limited to Zeroing. It may seem a bit daft (possibly it is a bit daft) but that's the way it is!

 

 

Thanks, just the answer I needed :-) My FEO was suggesting NO to buying solid and NO to club shooting. All I want is to every now and then zero in at club! When I am a full member, I will add target at the same time as section 1 shotgun. Thanks for clearing this up ;-)

[Deker 3,478]

Like I say Deker, I don't agree. I'm not going to argue with you as it's quite clear from your posts above and others I made to you in the past that you just don't get it and read past pertinent points. You have in my opinion a very tunnel visioned view of Firearms Law where licensing alone dictates what you can and can't do. It's very much like saying your car licence doesn't say it's illegal to exceed the speed limit so you can't get prosecuted for an accident if you do. The fact is, there are laws that lie beyond mere licensing that affect what you can and can't do.

 

It's also totally irrelevant if you do dispatch animals on behalf of the police when required to do so. The fact that you make a humane dispatch in front of them doesn't alleviate any allegation that you have failed to do so on another occasion should that allegation arise, as any such allegation will still be investigated.

 

All that matters is what happens on any day when you don't achieve a clean kill and if someone has evidence of that and it is alleged that occurs as a result of using solid ammo, whether or not you can defend yourself in Court against a charge brought by the RSPCA of causing Unnecessary Suffering. It's my opinion that you're on unsound ground using solid ammunition on live prey outside of an air gun or slug. To that end, the Police, The Shooting Organisations and other respected parties all say that it is not recommended to use solid ammo against live prey. It doesn't have to be illegal. If you cause unnecessary suffering you need to be able to prove your method was humane when compared to other methods available, and if there were more humane methods available, you need to be able to justify why you didn't use those and why the animal would still had suffered just as much if you had. A simple because it was legal for me to use solid ammo isn't going to cut it. In the example above, it was legal to use an air rifle against the squirrel. It was the result that mattered and the fact that the shooter was unable to justify at law the fact that the animal was alive after 5 shots. He did nothing illegal shooting the animal. The use of both the air rifle and pellets were both legal. However, despite the legality of what he did, he was still found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering, and he didn't have the luxury of an alternative and that is my point. There's nothing illegal per se in using solid ammo against live prey. However, fail to kill it cleanly, and be forced to use multiple shots, and you have a battle on your hands to prove that you did everything in your power to prevent it from suffering. That is exacerbated when it can be alleged a more suitable and humane alternative was available, and you failed to use it.

 

In my opinion, it's far better to exercise a cautious approach in accordance with recognised best practice.

 

 

Your imagination is up in the clouds, and how many times do you need telling, your squirrel man was not taken to court for shooting a squirrel 5 times, or for using an air rifle or for using solid ammunition, he was taken to court because he left it alive and suffering, that had nothing to do with any suggestion using solid ammo was cruel/inhumane.

 

How on earth can anyone be taken to court for using solid ammo when put in the right place it is very effective. Solid ammo was/still is used for Humane dispatch, are you telling me every vet, RSPCA worker, Pest Controller etc etc that uses the stuff is going to be taken to court because its inhumane/cruel. No, of course not, because it works, so if someone doesn't kill first try with solid there is no chance of a conviction, and no chance of even a case against someone for using it, as it can be demonstrated over generations to be effective.

 

Put Expanding ammo in the wrong hands and it isn't effective, you simply don't get it, as I've already said under your argument when another/new expanding comes out and is shown to be more effective than those currently available you will get carted off to court for using the old stuff, as apparently overnight it is no longer humane.

 

Solid ammo is not and never has been inhumane/cruel.

 

Inappropriate actions of some using firearms may be considered inappropriate/cruel, whether that be solid or expanding.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Deker

[David Aiken 253]

Not that I wish to `get in on the solid/expanding ammunition argument` but I read this in SportingUK.

 

"If you have a semi-automatic .22 rimfire then dependability is important and the new RWS Semi Auto cartridge is superb. Yes it is a solid bullet, not hollowpoint, but as head shots are the norm, it is of no consequence".

 

 

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/shooting/pest-control-shooting/best-pest-control-cartridge-38560

[charlie caller 3,654]

Try shooting an Elephant with expanding ammo, or a Cape Buffalo, then just before it tramples you to death, you will wish you had used that solid .416 ammo you were advised to use

[CharlieT 32]

And of course, one has to ask, does.22rf ammo expand. I've never really noticed any difference when shooting rabbits with solid or so called hollwpoints.

[Alsone 789]

Well I personally wouldn't take the remote risk with vermin, not with the way animal organisations can be these days, but each to their own.

[walshie 2,804]

Blimey. Is this still going on?