2 foxes with 22 lr

[roostshooter1]

Hi guys just thought id share my evenings sport with you . At 5 30 pm i had a phone call from a farmer friend of mine to say he has just spooked a fox out of his lambing shed so he was not happy so when i finished my roast chicken diner i decided to grab the 30_06 out the cabinet but on second thoughts decided that it might be abit much around the farm so i settled on my little sako finnfire hunter ( original model ) in 22lr .

So off i go on a mission around the farm but i didnt have to wait long as the first ground i checked had a pair of eyes in at around 250 yards i called the fox into 85 yards when i unleashed a high velocity laser stright into the centre of its head so first one down . Next ground was empty so moved into the valley where i spot another set of eyes at 97 paces which was also dispached with a high velocity round to the head so 2 shots and 2 foxes down in under 20 minutes so checked rest of the farm but no more foxes seen so headed off home with a very happy hunter and farmer cheers ben

[fenboy]

Good work , i bet the farmer was well chuffed.

[WelshMike]

Good going mate, well done. Happy shooter and happy farmer, cant get much better then that.

[Salop Matt]

Nicely done there

Jellous on two acconts:

1. You have a .22lr that likes hypersonic .22lr. My CZ452 hated hyper and low powerd ammo, but loved winchester in the blue box.
2. Your area allows AOLQ to allow you to use .22lr on fox where suitable. My force and FLO wont

ATB

 

Matt

[roostshooter1]

Thanks guys it was a really satisfying trip out which could not of gone any better

 

Matt ( salop sniper ) why wont your local force let you ise 22 lr on fox that seems abit strange on there behalf but i expect they would let you use 17 hmr on them

 

What does aolq stand for im having a proper blonde moment and cant think what it stands for cheers ben

[WelshMike]

AOLQ- Any Other Lawful Quarry

[Bewsher500]

Nicely done there

Jellous on two acconts:

1. Your area allows AOLQ to allow you to use .22lr on fox where suitable. My force and FLO wont

 

They cant stop you

no lawful authority to do so

[spandit]

My licence specifically names "fox and any other lawful quarry, subject to the suitability of the calibre"

[Salop Matt]

1. West Mercia rarely now put AOLQ against FAC`s. I asked my FLO about it and he said they were stopping doing it and its down to the issueing force as to weather they add that or not.

2. Yes West Mercia allow .17HMR for fox.

3. When I asked my FLO about .22lr for close fox and HD of fox (in traps etc) he said no way and told me very sharpely and clearly that "No, its not suitable" and stated if he ever found out that I had used .22lr of fox he would have my license and rifles/shotguns taken. He said fox is a seperate condition in its own right. He then went to tell me he once saw a fox head shot at 40yard with a .22lr and the shot bounced/ricochetted off the foxes head, which then ran off hurt/wounded.

 

I just went with the, yes sir no sir three bags full because of his attitude and the fact he had what I wanted.

 

I would love to see BASC tackle West Mercia over there policies and the attitude of the FLO.

 

ATB

 

Matt

[WelshMike]

1. West Mercia rarely now put AOLQ against FAC`s. I asked my FLO about it and he said they were stopping doing it and its down to the issueing force as to weather they add that or not.

2. Yes West Mercia allow .17HMR for fox.

3. When I asked my FLO about .22lr for close fox and HD of fox (in traps etc) he said no way and told me very sharpely and clearly that "No, its not suitable" and stated if he ever found out that I had used .22lr of fox he would have my license and rifles/shotguns taken. He said fox is a seperate condition in its own right. He then went to tell me he once saw a fox head shot at 40yard with a .22lr and the shot bounced/ricochetted off the foxes head, which then ran off hurt/wounded.

 

I just went with the, yes sir no sir three bags full because of his attitude and the fact he had what I wanted.

 

I would love to see BASC tackle West Mercia over there policies and the attitude of the FLO.

 

ATB

 

Matt

I have heard talk of the FLO not being the "nicest of people". To be fair ultimately as they are the licencing force most of what they say has to go as you have rightly said. Durham work on the same basis of not allowing .22Lr for foxes whereas Dyfed Powys dont seem so concerned. Lack of uniformity as usual.

[Bewsher500]

I have heard talk of the FLO not being the "nicest of people". To be fair ultimately as they are the licencing force most of what they say has to go as you have rightly said. Durham work on the same basis of not allowing .22Lr for foxes whereas Dyfed Powys dont seem so concerned. Lack of uniformity as usual.

 

Er no

and moreover it is this attitude of the shooting community accepting what some little hitler wants to say over and above the ******* Home Office that has got us into the state of chaos we are in!!

 

ANY POLICE AUTHORITY WISHING TO ENFORCE TERMS OUTSIDE OF THE HO GUIDANCE MUST DO SO IN WRITING TO THE HOME OFFICE WITH VERY SPECIFIC DETAILS AS TO WHAT MAKES THEM SO ******* SPECIAL.

 

They can not just make up the rule

the rules are clear

 

Vermin is not legally defined

 

also the use of .22rf for fox is clearly indicated in the HO Guidance

read it, digest it, roll it up, apply Vaseline and insert up any FEO that suddenly decides he knows more than his employer

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/363016/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_v10_-_Oct_2014.pdf

1. FAC air rifles are not suitable for animals larger than vermin or ground game.

2 .17 Remington and .22 Hornet would be suitable for use against vermin in specific circumstances (also see paragraph 13.19).

Foxes may be shot using .22RF but only at short range,

 

 

Fox 13.25

Although not set out in legislation, common rifle cartridges considered suitable for the shooting of foxes range from .17 Remington, and .22 Hornet to .22 -250 and .220 Swift, though there is a wide range of suitable similar calibres commercially available.

In windy areas, where heavier bullets aid accurate shooting, or if applicants wish to use one rifle for shooting both deer and foxes, they may choose a rifle in 6mm (.243/.244) or 6.5mm (.264) calibre. .22 Rimfires are generally considered as having insufficient muzzle energy to be used against foxes in most circumstances. However, these could be suitable for use at short range by experienced persons, and may be permitted in certain situations such as around farm buildings or paddocks. It is for the operator to ensure that the quarry species are shot at the appropriate range with the appropriate ammunition to achieve a humane kill.

Combination shotgun/rifles should have the rifled barrel in a similar calibre. Expanding ammunition should be authorised for shooting foxes. Those involved in shooting foxes will normally be authorised to possess up to 250 rounds, but consideration should be given to each shooter’s individual circumstances, particularly where re-loaders are acquiring missiles.

See also paragraph 13.9 on allowing the applicant flexibility to reasonably shoot other species on named land.

 

13.26 It is desirable that new applicants should have some previous experience of the safe use of firearms before using such rifles. Experience is neither cartridge nor ammunition type exclusive. It may include the shooting of any quarry species. The aspect that police are looking to be satisfied about is the competency of the applicant to take a safe shot every time. The shooting of any quarry requires a safe backstop for the shot, and such experience is transferable between quarry species.

[fortune]

The link did not work for me. it lead to sort of an index page for gov.uk but not to an individual item page.

 

Your post is of a nature that I would like to see used to combat the edge nibbling of the county forces firearms departments. I would like to see individuals brought to account as to their operation of the law. I don’t see many forces as fit for purpose. still with swinging cost cuts that are proposed then we may see a lot of things change because they just haven't got the money or manpower to do many of the tasks that they are supposed to do with any sort of competency.

 

[Guest stevo]

 

Er no

and moreover it is this attitude of the shooting community accepting what some little hitler wants to say over and above the ******* Home Office that has got us into the state of chaos we are in!!

 

ANY POLICE AUTHORITY WISHING TO ENFORCE TERMS OUTSIDE OF THE HO GUIDANCE MUST DO SO IN WRITING TO THE HOME OFFICE WITH VERY SPECIFIC DETAILS AS TO WHAT MAKES THEM SO ******* SPECIAL.

 

They can not just make up the rule

the rules are clear

 

Vermin is not legally defined

 

also the use of .22rf for fox is clearly indicated in the HO Guidance

read it, digest it, roll it up, apply Vaseline and insert up any FEO that suddenly decides he knows more than his employer

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/363016/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_v10_-_Oct_2014.pdf

1. FAC air rifles are not suitable for animals larger than vermin or ground game.

2 .17 Remington and .22 Hornet would be suitable for use against vermin in specific circumstances (also see paragraph 13.19).

Foxes may be shot using .22RF but only at short range,

 

 

Fox 13.25

Although not set out in legislation, common rifle cartridges considered suitable for the shooting of foxes range from .17 Remington, and .22 Hornet to .22 -250 and .220 Swift, though there is a wide range of suitable similar calibres commercially available.

In windy areas, where heavier bullets aid accurate shooting, or if applicants wish to use one rifle for shooting both deer and foxes, they may choose a rifle in 6mm (.243/.244) or 6.5mm (.264) calibre. .22 Rimfires are generally considered as having insufficient muzzle energy to be used against foxes in most circumstances. However, these could be suitable for use at short range by experienced persons, and may be permitted in certain situations such as around farm buildings or paddocks. It is for the operator to ensure that the quarry species are shot at the appropriate range with the appropriate ammunition to achieve a humane kill.

Combination shotgun/rifles should have the rifled barrel in a similar calibre. Expanding ammunition should be authorised for shooting foxes. Those involved in shooting foxes will normally be authorised to possess up to 250 rounds, but consideration should be given to each shooter’s individual circumstances, particularly where re-loaders are acquiring missiles.

See also paragraph 13.9 on allowing the applicant flexibility to reasonably shoot other species on named land.

 

13.26 It is desirable that new applicants should have some previous experience of the safe use of firearms before using such rifles. Experience is neither cartridge nor ammunition type exclusive. It may include the shooting of any quarry species. The aspect that police are looking to be satisfied about is the competency of the applicant to take a safe shot every time. The shooting of any quarry requires a safe backstop for the shot, and such experience is transferable between quarry species.

Hell yeah !!

[JDog]

And there you have it in black and white.

[WelshMike]

I would hate to see the size of a firearm cert if they had to add all of that detail into a condition to shoot a fox with a .22 lr.

[welshwizard]

1. West Mercia rarely now put AOLQ against FAC`s. I asked my FLO about it and he said they were stopping doing it and its down to the issueing force as to weather they add that or not.

2. Yes West Mercia allow .17HMR for fox.

3. When I asked my FLO about .22lr for close fox and HD of fox (in traps etc) he said no way and told me very sharpely and clearly that "No, its not suitable" and stated if he ever found out that I had used .22lr of fox he would have my license and rifles/shotguns taken. He said fox is a seperate condition in its own right. He then went to tell me he once saw a fox head shot at 40yard with a .22lr and the shot bounced/ricochetted off the foxes head, which then ran off hurt/wounded.

 

I just went with the, yes sir no sir three bags full because of his attitude and the fact he had what I wanted.

 

I would love to see BASC tackle West Mercia over there policies and the attitude of the FLO.

 

ATB

 

Matt

Ours say same - NO .22lr for fox , I know that its been done for years in traps but it has to be the correct combo at any distance and good shot placement.

[CharlieT]

The simple fact is that the HO guidance details their preferred firearms quarry shooting condition as..........

 

1. Quarry Shooting (for vermin, fox or deer)

• The *calibre RIFLE/COMBINATION/SMOOTH-BORE GUN/SOUND MODERATOR and ammunition shall be used for shooting vermin including fox, and ground game/ deer (delete as appropriate) and any other lawful quarry, and for zeroing on ranges, on land deemed suitable by the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated and over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot.

 

Please note the delete as appropriate notation. Please also remember that the issuing of fac conditions is totally within the remit of CC's and such conditions are not appealable. It is therefore possible for some licensing departments to have a policy of not conditioning .22rf for fox. However, to then issue a condition saying vermin and AOLQ seems to me to be totally stupid, as such a condition then, by its very wording, permits the shooting of a fox. Little wonder FAC holders, in such circumstances, are in a quandary.

 

CC Andy Marsh, ACPO wrote to all CC on the matter .....................

 

Dear Colleague

 

The use of Conditions on Firearm Certificates

 

I would ask that this circular is brought to the attention of the Chief Officer/ Senior Officer that holds the responsibility for firearms licensing in your force.

 

I am writing to you about the use of conditions on firearms certificates. As you may be aware, the use of conditions is a relatively small area of firearms licensing; however one which appears to cause great impact within the shooting community on the confidence in policing, with it dominating many discussions held with shooting organisations.

 

My aim in writing is to encourage a nationally consistent application in the use of conditions which will improve the confidence of the shooting community, impacting on areas such as reputation and the fee increase proposal.

 

My view as the ACPO lead for the Firearms & Explosives Licensing Working Group is that I would like to see the use of conditions streamlined and only used if they are both proportionate and necessary in reducing the risk to public safety or a statutory requirement.

 

There have been two conditions of particular debate which I wish to address:

 

Any Other Lawful Quarry (AOLQ):

 

The use of this condition aims to reduce bureaucracy on the licensing department by reducing the number of requests to vary conditions. This will then allow them to concentrate on areas which carry greater risk.

 

In effect, this condition allows a certificate holder to shoot any quarry that is lawful, (where they are authorised to shoot), and places the onus on the shooting community to know what calibre is suitable for which quarry and when certain quarry is lawful.

 

Instead at present, some forces issue conditions which dictate what quarry can be shot with a specific calibre, leading to requests to vary conditions

 

 

 

thus making inefficient use of staff time, i.e. a shooter could hold a deer stalking rifle and not be allowed to shoot a fox with that same rifle as it breaches their condition.

 

I would like to encourage the use of the AOLQ condition on all firearms certificates with immediate effect. A force should be satisfied that if an applicant is suitable to hold a firearm certificate and is deemed safe to do so, there is no requirement to restrict the quarry they shoot by the use of conditions.

 

Mentoring/ Accompanied Conditions:

 

The mentoring condition is designed to dictate that a certificate holder must be mentored by a named person until they have gained enough experience to remove the condition.

 

This appears at first glance to be a suitable condition to use however I would encourage forces to consider its use carefully. My aim would be to remove the use of this condition which again would further reduce unnecessary bureaucracy on your firearms departments.

 

At present common practice is to request a new shooter to be mentored. The mentor is nominated and checked by police and then authorised. However this mentor does not require any specific training or qualification to undertake this role. Furthermore, we do not enforce that the mentor actually teaches the new applicant and indeed if this were being enforced, I would question if this was the most efficient use of our resources.

 

So through an unchecked and unqualified process, we the firearms departments, have to once again vary a certificate if the mentoring condition is applied, thus causing further delays and added bureaucracy.

 

The shooting community would like to see the removal of this condition and I do agree. The use of the condition is not proportionate to the associated costs or, in my view, to promoting or protecting public safety. As a comparative analogy to other business areas, we would not seek to place unenforceable bail conditions.

 

As such I would like forces to review the use of the mentoring condition and consider its removal. It is accepted that there may be a small increase in the number of refusals, however any applicant can be advised how to gain experience and even consider applying for smaller calibre firearms to gain experience in handling and safe shooting. When mentoring was initially introduced it was for ‘borderline’ refusals, not blanket practice.

 

If there are concerns around gaining experience prior to an applicant obtaining a certificate, then there are courses available and being developed by

 

 

 

shootingorganisations and companies. There is however an exemption in law under Section 16 (firearms amendment Act 1988) which allows a non certificate holder to visit and borrow a rifle to be used in compliance with the owner’s firearm certificate and conditions.

 

I would therefore ask that forces consider their use of conditions in line with my strategic objective as the ACPO FELWG lead, in an effort to maximise their resources in areas such as risk assessing and quality assurance checks on the certificate holders.

 

Finally the Home Office guidance is currently being revised and the ACPO FELWG submission will project my vision on the use of conditions. In considering this, I would I like forces to inform me if they are choosing to work outside my guidance without good reason.

 

Yours sincerely

[tlennox]

I have heard talk of the FLO not being the "nicest of people". To be fair ultimately as they are the licencing force most of what they say has to go as you have rightly said. Durham work on the same basis of not allowing .22Lr for foxes whereas Dyfed Powys dont seem so concerned. Lack of uniformity as usual.

 

I've never had a problem with .22lr in Durham for fox. I asked the question on my application and I was told that couldn't stop me using air rifle as long as there was no suffering. On my renewal last year the question was even asked and the same conditions came back. I've shot foxes with my rimmy and wouldn't worry too much of Durham firearms department.

[WelshMike]

I've never had a problem with .22lr in Durham for fox. I asked the question on my application and I was told that couldn't stop me using air rifle as long as there was no suffering. On my renewal last year the question was even asked and the same conditions came back. I've shot foxes with my rimmy and wouldn't worry too much of Durham firearms department.

Sorry mate...there have been a few posts about Durham not allowing .22lr for foxes. Wrong end of the stick on my part

[welshwizard]

I've never had a problem with .22lr in Durham for fox. I asked the question on my application and I was told that couldn't stop me using air rifle as long as there was no suffering. On my renewal last year the question was even asked and the same conditions came back. I've shot foxes with my rimmy and wouldn't worry too much of Durham firearms department.

using a air rifle would without doubt cause suffering on a fox ,unless I am reading this wrong , and for a flo to support it is beyond belief , just goes to show what they know .

[jimmydean]

Sorry, this is a little contentious;

 

Does anyone else find this wording somewhat worrying - the chap should know how to use English and the implications of what he says,

 

" the ACPO FELWG submission will project my vision on the use of conditions. In considering this, I would I like forces to inform me if they are choosing to work outside my guidance without good reason".

 

ACPO is a limited company - it has no democratic legitimacy at all - even allowing for the fact that he has achieved some useful progress (AOLQ), does not the wording suggest arrogance ?

Peter Fahy GM Chief Con. said recently that "parents should be responsible for their children and that e.g., Muslims whose children go to Syria should not blame the police. If they do there would be a 'backlash'. (paraphrased).

This is not the Home Secretary, but a serving Police officer passing an opinion - rather worrying I think, the fact that he may have a point does not detract from the fact that he thinks his opinion as valid, possibly more so, than the elected government's designated spokesperson.

 

If the average policeman takes his lead from his bosses (people like this), its no wonder they make up the rules. The Police Service used to be a 'service', and administer the law passed by elected government, not invent it, nor feel able to comment on matters in wider society. Self legitimising?

 

 

Apologies for thread diversion.

Edited March 24, 2015 by jimmydean

[Scully]

I've been following this thread with interest, especially since the post of Charlie T at 17, which I found very interesting, but unless I've read it wrong, isn't he (Marsh) simply reiterating policy which is more in line with HO guidance? I don't particularly like the bloke but reading between the lines (admittedly possibly wrongly) I get the impression that he's had enough of the different regional authorities interpreting HO guidance with little or no consistency.

If you read the HO guidelines it is clear much of what is written is with the intention of aiding the applicant rather than hindering them, and this clearly doesn't always happen.

[Bewsher500]

its very simple really

 

if you apply for something that is clearly listed as acceptable in the HO Guidance and are rejected then the Authority (there is no such thing as a Police "Force") need to explain to the Home Office why they feel they deserve dispensation from the National Guidelines.

 

this is the Police equivalent of going to the Headmaster to explain why your homework is not in on time.....except with much much more paperwork!

[jimmydean]

its very simple really

 

if you apply for something that is clearly listed as acceptable in the HO Guidance and are rejected then the Authority (there is no such thing as a Police "Force") need to explain to the Home Office why they feel they deserve dispensation from the National Guidelines.

 

this is the Police equivalent of going to the Headmaster to explain why your homework is not in on time.....except with much much more paperwork!

It isnt the content or its intent which concern me its 'the ACPO lead on firearms personalising instructions as 'his' - ACPO is a chief officers 'club'. As for any senior police officer dabbling in politics - to say I am surprised would be an understatement.

[CharlieT]

I've been following this thread with interest, especially since the post of Charlie T at 17, which I found very interesting, but unless I've read it wrong, isn't he (Marsh) simply reiterating policy which is more in line with HO guidance? I don't particularly like the bloke but reading between the lines (admittedly possibly wrongly) I get the impression that he's had enough of the different regional authorities interpreting HO guidance with little or no consistency.

If you read the HO guidelines it is clear much of what is written is with the intention of aiding the applicant rather than hindering them, and this clearly doesn't always happen.

 

Like you, I too find this thread interesting.

 

Especially those posters who chose to ignore the fact the ACPO FLEWG is made up of representatives not only from the police, but the Home Office, Scottish Government Justice Department, NAIBS, PSNI, and other relevant stakeholders.

Considering that as it is the Police whom the Government have charged with the administration and implementation of firearms licensing, it is not surprising that the police, via the FELWG, implement the this task.

 

For posters to dismiss ACPO as having no legitimacy is just naive.