Mr_Logic

You've missed my point ENTIRELY. Or perhaps you haven't, and that is what concerns me. Are you saying that the mere fact that someone has had ONE spliff would concern you to the point you wouldn't shoot with them? My point was that to make a judgement, you need to know if the guy merely has the odd spliff or if he smokes it every day/week whatever. If the latter, then yes I might think twice. If the former, then that's ridiculously harsh, hence my puritan comment. You see, without detail, you can't make a reasoned argument and take a logical stance. Therefore, to try is pointless. Since that is what the whole thread's been about, then it's getting rather pointless. So do you actually have the detail? Are we talking about he smoked weed once at school and now he's evil? Has he been shooting while actually under the influence (if so, then I would wholeheartedly avoid)? Edit - for the record I wasn't calling any one person a puritan or having a go at any single person, rather the sentiment.

I think this thread is getting rather pointless because we don't have enough details!

Does the guy have a weed habit, or does he like the occasional spliff? There is a VERY big difference. As has been said, so long as he's OK mentally, not shooting stoned, then leave the poor guy alone and stop being a ******* puritan!

Oh so you think more restriction is necessary?!

He doesn't need to see your ticket. But he can't post easily due to hazardous materials.

Primers have to have an FAC, expanding bullets also need one. Powder doesn't.

Smokeless propellant is unrestricted to purchase, shops shouldn't be asking for a ticket to buy it.

All fine and dandy. Doesn't change the fact that if I have a bullet which is bigger than the law, then irrespective of any measurement of the barrel, all is well. To try to say otherwise is needlessly smart-**** and utterly pointless. There is no issue with this bit of law (except a 223 is fine on roe and should be legal) so why are people trying to create one? Daft.

This whole mumbo-jumbo about 243 bore size is a pile of ****. My 243 shoots 6mm bullets. They're bigger than .240. So if the bore is smaller, they won't bloody fit!

Back when it was 6.5mm...?

The main reason won't be barrel life. It is a lot more likely to do with the 7mm magnums pushing a much higher BC a fair bit faster.

I tried them a couple of rifles back, maybe 2 years? Worked a treat on roe, relatively low level of damage but certainly sufficient.

The 95SST is a very good bullet, works very well

Only thing I know is it's 1/2 UNF Jonathan L - you don't get 3500fps out of a standard hornet, your chrono is telling porkies.

Excellent!

Yes, with Bushnell scope. Used an ASE mod. I got rid because I needed a Nightforce and hadn't fired it for a year. I will likely miss it but for the few rabbits and foxes I shoot now, 222 will be fine

In that case it probably is mine. 12.3 gr h110, 35 vmax, col 1.725, shot 1/2 inch at 225 yards

Or you could just keep with 223. While I always support things to make licensing fairer, the 223 can use the 75 Amax to kill foxes. The BC is .435 which is better than an 87grain 6mm. The MV is lower at around 3000 fps but it will work. 1:8 twist barrel needed.

Which shop did you get it from please? I sold mine recently and it went with about 70-odd rounds. Just wondering if it might have gone to you?

Oh dear lord. Hornet is a wonderful little calibre and directly replaces HMR with something capable on fox. It IS a rabbit calibre. It is quiet and cheap; 243 cannot do that. Round livestock, I want a bloody good reason to use one, where Hornet doesn't cause much upset.

Good lord Gixer what a load of tosh. The hornet is a reloader's calibre, plain and simple. Factory offerings are poor, inaccurate and expensive. But, when reloaded, it costs the same or less than the magnum rimfires to shoot, makes the same amount of noise (tested and verified) and ****** all over any rimfire in capability. I don't expect you to know this as you don't reload, but please respect those of us who do know.

That's my point entirely - you have good reason due to circumstance and ground. It's not unreasonable for the Police to want that demonstrated; but it is unreasonable to get grumpy once this good reason has been shown.

But here's the thing... Get a Sako 75 or 85 and you're close snyway in accuracy terms. If you want a fox rifle your money is better spent on glass. So what do you want to do wth the gun?

What do you want to do with it?

It's about proving the need to go to a bigger calibre. A 223 will do a fox out to a pretty good distance. hell, with the target rifle, if I could hit it, I could kill one at 1000 yards (god bless amax bullets!). So why the 243? Generally the reason is deer as well, and then it's deer/fox and they're happy. If just fox, and no prospect of deer, then more justification will be needed. Thames Valley said I couldn't have 243 for rabbits originally. A quick phone call pointed out that I wanted a rifle I could take regardless - out for deer in the morning, maybe some rabbiting later and then some lamping fox at night. As I pointed out, a 22-250 would work but isn't legal, so the smallest thing I could have was the 243 - one ticket, complete with 243 specifically for bunny rabbits.