Mr_Logic

I could go on all night so I will try not to... Long range stuff = long barrel. Deer stalking = short barrel. Velocity for long range stuff and pointability for deer. Better off not trying to do both with one gun. Do not get a Ruger VT - they are dreadful. I had one for a while and the barrel is too light, and too rubbish for proper target work. Remington 700 Police for me - when you decide to take it seriously they can be tweaked and turned into a pretty decent gun, and they're OK out of the box. Certainly, it might well shoot the 1/2 MOA you'll need. Howa isn't bad but the Remington will be better. Tikka action is OK but needs work for other things. I now shoot two Savages, one in 223 and one in 308, and they both shoot 1K no problems. Both have the 30" barrel ideally needed. My 308 is a Broughton barrel, but the 223 is factory action and barrel.

Registration is not unconstitutional; nowhere does it say the Arms must be anonymous. Licensing is. Banning them is debatable, hence the debate going on at the moment. personally I believe it is unconstitutional, because it is the slippery slope to what we have in the UK and that is not acceptable in the US (good!) and because such firearms are required for that Militia - back in the day, the Militia had the same type of weapons as the regulars, up to a point. Therefore this ethos is the spirit of the amendment and thus should be adhered to, making any assault weapon ban unconstitutional. Americans seem good at passing laws which are illegal - see under the recent change to permit the detention of US citizens on US soil, indefinitely and without charge, by their military. Does rather contradict the constitution and some people are now fighting it.

Actually, technically, a repeal and an amendment are pretty damn close - you have to remove the old and add a new, but you do that at the same point and it becomes... an amendment. I am not playing your stupid 'evidence' game. I believe in evidence completely, but the simple FACT is that there is NO impartial evidence here. Statistics can be shown to prove anything. Therefore, if you you can post anti-gun stats, we can post pro-gun stats. The point is very simple indeed - more than one set of figures exists. There are no impartial publications so each set of figures and studies shows very clearly, whatever the person doing the study wants to show. Therefore, it is impossible for me to give you anti-gun figures saying that guns are the best thing ever, and it is impossible for you to give me pro-gun figures saying guns are the anti-Christ. I accept that, it's par for the course., You are left with opinion. Which is fine - that's debate for you. What is not fine is to come along and say "You got your figures from someone I don't like! So they are meaningless and you are wrong and you have no useful information whatsoever" Quite frankly, it's very juvenile to do so, very annoying and a waste of everyone's time. Every society has scale - I live in Daventry, but I also live in England, and the UK, and Europe, and the World. Each region has a different set of figures for gun crime. Each region can be used as a pro or anti gun crime statistic. What does it prove? NOTHING! it comes down to common sense - if I want to kill someone, I will kill them. If I don't, I won't. The item matters not a jot. So, do I support measures to help mental health? Yes absolutely - forget guns, how is this anything but a good thing? Do I support licensing measures for people? Personally yes, but not in the USA because it is unconstitutional. However, background checks are always a good thing - they do not infringe on a person's rights, unless there has been due process to do so. There is no harm in it. But would I ever support banning firearms? No, never. Because gun misuse, like alcohol misuse or whatever, is only a symptom of a problem in society. Fix that, get respect for people working well, and you know what, you solve the problem! That isn't statistics. You can't prove that because nobody's done it; to prove the theory requires the real change that nobody will do. So you know what, I can't prove it. But that doesn't mean it isn't true.

You do not need a dog licence. http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/az/d/doglicences/default.aspx#.UR0NqqXJR2I The difference is that the right to bear arms is specifically enshrined in the constitution. It cannot be lawfully taken away without repeal of that constitution. I realise I have come to this thread late, but LockStock, please stop telling everyone else to post impartial articles when you post articles from anti-gun propaganda and try to pass it off as fact.

Oh Aris - various people have quoted various statistics regarding incidents of crime in largely gun-owning areas in the USA - guns everywhere and you have low crime. I would argue, though, that this is simply reflecting a society which is relatively law-abiding anyway. i do not believe there is a causal link between guns and crime. Gun crime merely reflects the level of lawlessness of the society as a whole.

Aris - you are talking rubbish I'm afraid, regarding the living in a society without handguns. What you have actually experienced is a relatively lawful society vs a relatively lawless society. People without guns can still be lawless (and frequently are) and people with guns can be lawful (and most of them are). Gun control - banning this or that firearm - makes no difference to anything. In our society in UK, banning handguns has not reduced crime one iota - look at the statistics which I think have been published on this board already (Google Gun crime statistics UK otherwise). They show a reduction in gun crime since 2005, but handguns were banned 8 years before. Banning handguns made no difference because it was not those handguns which made their way into the criminal underworld. What has likely made a difference is the violent crime reduction Act, which specified restrictions on items easily used to create a firearm. Namely blank firers - greater restrictions and the daft colour, sale of primers without FAC and replica weapons. These are measures which make far more sense. In our already-restricted world, they make sense. People have said on this forum - banning handguns and banning SLRs has 'worked'. This is utter tosh. Point and say 'how many massacres with pistols and SLRs since'. Great. Pointless - they're banned. How many massacres, full stop.... that's different. Since the massacres haven't been prevented, what was the point? Examine the crimes themselves - Hungerford - the only ARV was on traning in another area that day and this prolonged the massacre. IIRC they also knew Ryan was a tad strange. Dunblane - police repeatedly failed to heed very clear warnings that the pscyho was just that. Now - how was either crime the fault of legitimate gun owners? I support efforts to vet people - it makes sense. But please do not tell me banning guns can ever work. It has been proven not to by continued massacres and gun crime since every ban! (and remember, before Hungerford the type of weapons used were rare ANYWAY!)

If you're reloading, the 222 offers a quieter round with less powder to kill an animal of the same size just as dead, about 50 yards closer. If you're not reloading, get a 223 because a 222 will be a pain in the ****.

Prvi has its uses no doubt. Do wonder why everyone says it's decent brass though - it's ****! I have used it extensively because apart from the target guns I'll do things as cheaply as possible. It does work but to get there the prep is more arduous than other brands - I choose to take the hit on my time but I'm under no illusion as to the quality of the stuff...

Is your load 39.5 or 34.5 gr? I am struggling to read it. The 34.5 figure would worry me, mainly because it's illegal for use on deer (too slow, not enough energy by about 250 ft/lbs), but the 39.5 figure is better.

Dekers, ultimately it might be the best thing since sliced bread but you'll still need to reload it in order to shoot it without breaking the bank! And then I'd still be tempted to go to 17 Fireball...

Does depend on the bullet. 155 Berger hybrid is 23.5 feet, driven to a muzzle velocity of 3075 fps.

GMK are pretty horrendous - I sent a scope in (Leupold) needed repair. Had to wait months because "we wait until we've got a load to send back because it saves on postage" Great service there, I don't think. Bloody awful company - only importing the pre-screwcut Tikkas, which have a tiny little barrel and are no good to anyone, really. Most 243s will struggle to be deer legal with such a short barrel. I accept many will want it anyway, but there is no choice there. I have not had good service from them, the pricing takes the mick, and stock availability is really not that wonderful. Needs more competition!

I used to shoot those American Eagle - dropped foxes out to about 250 yards without any problems at all. Mine likes a 50 gr vmax or blitzking, with N130 or Benchmark powder.

Also, only expanding bullets will go on ticket, as only expanding bullets are prohibited - any old Joe can buy match bullets.

Varget is OK but there are plenty of better choices - mainly ones with a quicker burn rate. Benchmark is OK, N130/N133 also good. H4895 is worth a look too - similar to Varget but a mite quicker, so better velocity and same consistency without any pressure issues.