kyska Posted March 13, 2016 Report Share Posted March 13, 2016 Yes, I was astounded when I read it when the latest guidelines were published. Has to be one of the biggest errors made in the whole doccument. Quite, Sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pork chop Posted March 13, 2016 Report Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) Jokers make it up as they go along Edited March 13, 2016 by pork chop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted March 13, 2016 Report Share Posted March 13, 2016 No it's not, 17rem is, it states 'no' for Fox with .204. Page 121 guide on the firearms act. It's crazy, wmr is ok, 22rf is in some circumstances, 204 is a no! Accepted but these are just guidance not law, and as is rightly sujested a glaring error on the part of those drafting this guidance, i doubt there is a firearms licenceing department in the country would not let a 17 remington or 204 ruger down for fox if presented with the facts. The guidance is just that guidance nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted March 13, 2016 Report Share Posted March 13, 2016 Accepted but these are just guidance not law, and as is rightly sujested a glaring error on the part of those drafting this guidance, i doubt there is a firearms licenceing department in the country would not let a 17 remington or 204 ruger down for fox if presented with the facts. The guidance is just that guidance nothing more. I know, I was pointing out the error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted March 13, 2016 Report Share Posted March 13, 2016 (edited) No it's not, 17rem is, it states 'no' for Fox with .204. Page 121 guide on the firearms act. It's crazy, wmr is ok, 22rf is in some circumstances, 204 is a no! You are wrong on this kyska. Completely and utterly wrong. Refer to page 121. .204 is listed. There is a heading "fox and other medium quarry" - then "circumstances see 13.35" This is what 13.25 says: 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. The key bit is.......... though there is a wide range of suitable similar calibres commercially available. and .......... 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. Edited March 13, 2016 by Whitebridges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 You are wrong on this kyska. Completely and utterly wrong. Refer to page 121. .204 is listed. There is a heading "fox and other medium quarry" - then "circumstances see 13.35" This is what 13.25 says: 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. The key bit is.......... though there is a wide range of suitable similar calibres commercially available. and .......... 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. You are missing Kyska's point. We all know what the guidance says. However, what we are pointing out is that the table on page 121 does not make any mention of .204 being suitable, as a stand alone caliber in it's own right, for fox. Nor does it even mention .204 in colum 4. That Sir, is the glaring error we mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 You are missing Kyska's point. We all know what the guidance says. However, what we are pointing out is that the table on page 121 does not make any mention of .204 being suitable, as a stand alone caliber in it's own right, for fox. Nor does it even mention .204 in colum 4. That Sir, is the glaring error we mention. With respect I am not missing the point. No it's not, 17rem is, it states 'no' for Fox with .204. The guidance most definitely does not say "no". .204 is excluded (there is no comment). It's suitability is explained in 13.25 The .17 Hornet doesn't even get a mention in the table does it? The Poiice are regularly granting this round for fox are they not? As far as I am concerned the guidance is absolutely clear and this is supported by grants being made all over the country for .204 ruger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougy Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 Maybe its just a case of it needs updating as there are a number of calibers that are quite recent to the UK. By recent i mean 10 or so years ago. The 204 was first introduced in 2004, that does not mean that it was here in the UK then, there's loads of obscure calibers that are not mentioned in the guidelines, it does not say they are not suitable for the job. I would assume that just too many to be covered and too many soon start out with good intentions to fall by the wayside due to lack of demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 Maybe its just a case of it needs updating as there are a number of calibers that are quite recent to the UK. By recent i mean 10 or so years ago. The 204 was first introduced in 2004, that does not mean that it was here in the UK then, there's loads of obscure calibers that are not mentioned in the guidelines, it does not say they are not suitable for the job. I would assume that just too many to be covered and too many soon start out with good intentions to fall by the wayside due to lack of demand. The Guidelines were updated last year. My gripe is that the table lists .204 but does not list it as being suitable for fox. This is obviously an error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 The Guidelines were updated last year. My gripe is that the table lists .204 but does not list it as being suitable for fox. This is obviously an error. That was my point, obviously been taken as an offence for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jam1e Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 Anyway........... All this talk of the .204 makes me wish I'd not sold mine. Even more so, as I've just sold the dies for it. Doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 Anyway........... All this talk of the .204 makes me wish I'd not sold mine. Even more so, as I've just sold the dies for it. Doh! Same here, it was the calibre I really wish I hadn't sold mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) That was my point, obviously been taken as an offence for some reason. Not by me. Who? Man up. Edited March 14, 2016 by Whitebridges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 Maybe its just a case of it needs updating as there are a number of calibers that are quite recent to the UK. By recent i mean 10 or so years ago. The 204 was first introduced in 2004, that does not mean that it was here in the UK then, there's loads of obscure calibers that are not mentioned in the guidelines, it does not say they are not suitable for the job. I would assume that just too many to be covered and too many soon start out with good intentions to fall by the wayside due to lack of demand. Absolutely. Thank you for your post. A wise summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 (edited) Not by me. Who? Man up. Give over, arrogant, you've thrown your dummy out the pram for **** all. I was pointing out the mistake in the paperwork, that's all, you've yapped on like a child who's been told his power ranger is rubbish by another child. I love the calibre, I've owned one, I just don't feel the need to retort so acidly as if I've had my penis size questioned. For saying I was taking the pee about the legislation, you've not really got the context have you? Bless Edited March 14, 2016 by kyska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 Arrogant! Don't make me laugh. Take a chill pill and some lessons in the kiddies basic English class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennym Posted March 14, 2016 Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 wow that went down hill fast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_b_wales Posted March 14, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2016 Time to close yet another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts