Mr_Logic

I had one for a day, it wasn't up to much tbh. I think I may have had a faulty one, everyone raves about them normally. The one I had ran out of adjustment to zero my CZ, went distinctly milky at the top end and I would say was not worth the money. I have the 4200 as you know, in 4-16x50 variety, and that has been excellent. Tbh I think you could likely save some money with the 6-24x40 4200, which can also be had with mildots and is one-inch tube so will work with the mounts you already have. Failing that, we may be able to do business on my Leupold 6-18x40 Mark 2, which is also mildot...

They do a 20gr v-max as well.

I had the 700 Tactical. Now at Adenbourne for sale afaik. It was too heavy for long field use with a mod, but it shot well. I put a Rifle basix trigger in it. Shot from 40 to some 75 grain bullets. Recommended if you are OK with the weight. If you want something light which is 1:9, have you thought about Savage?

I get good velocity with N130 and H4895 out of mine.

150-175 yards

Not as good as simply loading decent ammo from scratch...

Under 100 yards HMR does kill Charlie with a boiler room shot, because there's enough energy to get good expansion. Over that, take it for what it is - a bunny gun. Assuming you follow that, 17 or 20 grain bullet will work nicely.

Dare I ask why you're doing this...?

I did a test a while back, Deker's HMR and my Hornet, we couldn't tell the difference in muzzle report, so whatever difference there may be is not significant enough to worry about. And Hornet's the same cost if you reload as HMR is to buy factory, so it's a bit of a no-brainer, given that it is as accurate and considerably more lethal.

European scopes are not cheap unless you get a simple fixed power - good glass, but again it's personal preference. I find the reticle too big for foxing really with my Schmidt, but the glass is excellent. Kahles are Austrian and command that level of price - i.e. a boat load!

To keep the noise down, Hornet's your calibre. It's not as good as the others in terms of energy or velocity or effective range, but it's considerably quieter than 223, which is a little quieter than 22-250.

Agreed. I had the heavier one on mine and it was a little heavy still. Good triggers though!

I'm another who's switching. I didn't shoot any better but I did apprEciate the lack of recoil.

Reloading is indeed considered good reason for holding a load of ammo. Try the feo with 1000/1200, point out that availability can be lacking, and that you want it for rabbits too so you expect a high volume of usage. To macca - yes the fireball gives more speed than a Hornet, and I Wouldn't mind trying one, but I wish people would stop saying things are 'far more accurate than a Hornet' as they aren't, not with the right ammo. Mine shoots sub half inch all day long - two 3-shot groups (normally 5-shot) of .2 ish yesterday when zeroing. hornet's perfectly accurate!

Jon... you're always telling me to stop changing things, and you had your PB today with the 21/9s, so I'd stick with them!

I don't agree. Yes for the most part 8x is enough, but a bit more power has often come in handy. As has an aim point to allow for some drop more easily. I do agree that Kahles make some damn fine scopes though.

If you're going to shoot roe, then get a 223 and be done. Yes your rabbits will be blown to bits, but in all seriousness - of the amount you shoot, how many do you eat? With a 223 for deer, I would definitely reload. While the Wolf ammo does work in some rifles (I've seen it work in Deker's, but I've put it through 3 and it's been awful) it can be a nightmare if not. I have about 400 of the things spare, and will happily chuck them in if you buy Deker's! As an aside, a very accurate round can be made by removing the bullet and adding a 55gr Nosler ballistic tip. They're slow (3000fps) but my old Remington put them into a one-hole group at 100 yards.

First up, what's your reason behind mildot? They are a good reticle, but others can be had which perform a similar role for most people (since most people in the civilian world use the dots for drop, not judging range). Meopta do the 4-16x44 which has excellent glass (had one for a while but sadly it proved faulty, I had another Meopta which I should never have sold and still regret to this day). That's listed on Opticswarehouse at £761, which is very annoying as when I got mine they were about £550, but hey ho! Back in the day (OK, the start of last year) we'd be talking the bottom end of Swarovski with a TDS-4 ret, but sadly their prices have close to doubled in a year (allegedly due to the exchange rate going up by approx 30%, and now it's closer to where it was again - I smell a large stinky verminous creature with a wiry tail, but hey ho...) Since we're now further into rip-off Britain than you can poke a stick at, your options beside Meopta are: Leupold VX-3 4.5-14x50 (Varmint Hunter, not mildot, ret, but I have two - they're damned useful!) at £681 (all prices Opticswarehouse) Nikon Monarch 4-16x42 or 50 (OW don't list the 4-16x50 mildot but IIRC it does exist) at £377 for the 4-16x42 Bushnell Elite 4200 6-24x50 Tactical at £525 (People will recommend the 6500 series I'm sure, personal preference - I had a 6500 for a day and it was cack, I have a 4200 which is used all the time and I get on with it - perhaps my 6500 was duff but I wasn't a fan, optically it was bloody awful) If you're feeling cheap, Falcon make some decent scopes for not-much, although all of the above are better. I have had or still use any of the above. the only other one I can think of is the Leupold Mark 2 6-18x40, which I also have and is very good indeed, although the eye relief is a bit weird. Any of the three work well - Leupold has the best adjustments and the best glass (this is a bone of contention, but i've spent a lot of time comparing, and my Leupolds are better than my Bushnell (and were 3x the price - I got good deal on my 4200). They were also better than the Nikon I had, but only by the tiniest anorexic whisker of whiskers. I sent the Nikon back, but only because the eyebell was too big for the bolt throw on my CZ - I'd still have it otherwise. I've assumed that we're talking plainly shooting foxes with this rifle - it'll do targets as well, but a serious target scope will have target turrets, so only the Bushnell will tick that box as well. HTH!

A quiet word thereafter solves that issue, in a nice, I-want-to-educate-you-and-not-berate-you kind of way. Simply because, you are completely legal, and they need to know and understand this. While we don't want to offend the public, it is our duty to spread the word as best we can that legally-held firearms are almost always owned by normal people, who are courteous and polite. Joe Public needs to learn the law, and stop being so sensitive!

For a scope? What's your budget? BTW, Adenbourne now has my old Remington, P/ex today against a Browning 525, so I suspect a good deal can be done! Shoots well

The Hornet is definitely worth it, if you're shooting foxes as well. If you're not, I still rate it for longer ranges than HMR. In terms of reloading time, the irritating bit is the brass prep - resizing, depriming, cleaning and trimming brass takes a while. My solution was 500 new cases, so you don't have to do it all that often. Once the cases are primed, I leave them in a cat food box ready for use. To turn a ready-primed case into a live round takes all of 5 seconds. Hornet is great from this point of view as it uses fine powders which meter really well in a powder thrower, so you don't need to weigh each charge - just set the thrower and then keep going. 100 rounds is a very easy thing - including putting them away and setting thrower, can be done in an hour. I don't consider Hornet arduous.

.22 WMR ammo is cheaper than HMR as a rule. I'd have the WMR. If I'm shooting past about 120 regularly I'd use a CF anyway as I can't be ***** with HMR's windage and tiny amounts of energy - that's how wounding occurs and I like to avoid! WMR is good on rabbit and fox to 120 yards, cheap to feed and accurate enough. Plus since the rest of the world seems to think it's **** then you can get a decent gun at a sensible price. However, I have Hornet as it's better than both, as quiet as both, and only a fraction more expensive to run.

At the end of the day everyone should shoot the gun they like. What annoys the hell out of me is people who look down their noses at you simply because you like a different gun. My-way-or-the-highway types annoy the **** out of me whatever walk of life we're talking about...

well I went and had a look, and would have got it, but they had a not-marked 30" 525 for the same price, which didn't have varnish-finished wood either. So I got that. Credit to Adenbourne, as usual excellent service. Thumbs up once more!

Yes there is quite a big difference. Cases are very cheap, IIRC I got about 500 Prvi for about 80 quid, not the best but perfectly OK for the job. I use 12.3 gr Hodgdon H110, which I pay about £35 a tub and get 550-odd rounds. I work it out to about 28p a shot. 223 uses more powder and more expensive bullets (although it might be parity, just that I stocked up with Hornet stuff last time round...) so it does cost a bit more. That gives me about 3075fps and a 1/2" group @ 100 yards, and lots of dead bunny rabbits.