FAC authorised amounts

[rjimmer]

For 223, with H4895 and the 53gr V-max, I started at 24.0 grains, then going up in 0.5 increments.

Steyr Mannlicher SL with 1:9 twist rate

 

24.0 3" group with 5 rounds.

24.5 3" group

25.0 absolutely fantastic. 5 rounds within 1.2"

25.5 back to 3" group

26.0 3" group

 

Went back home, loaded another 20 rounds at 25.0 grains. Two weeks later back on the range, and it was still as good as I'm likely to see.

If I'm on MOD ranges, it's exactly the same load, but a Hornady Match 52 grain bullet. Which seems to have exactly the same zero.

Do I know the actual velocity ? No.

Do I care ? No.

I know my holdovers/unders out to 200 metres from practice, and that it knocks down foxes every single time as long as I do my bit.

 

Why chase it any further ?

 

For .308 on deer, I use a Hornady Interlock 165 grain bullet, being pushed by 44.0 grains of H4895. That took about 30 rounds to find the sweet spot, and then another 20 rounds of confirmation.

For MOD ranges, that changes to a 168 grain Match bullet, with no appreciable change in zero.

I use Federal Champion primers.

 

So I need to buy 2 types of primers, 1 type of powder, and 4 types of bullets, to do all of my shooting out to 300 metres, which is as far as I can shoot on MOD Sealand, and further than any shot I'm going to take on a deer or foxes.

 

As I say, people seem to go about it the wrong way. The best way of getting better is rounds down the range. Not chasing some mythical perfect load.

Maybe that load measured to 0.02 grains matters to the really world class shooters out to insane distances. But even to them reading wind and conditions means a lot. To 99% or more of us, time on the trigger matters more than anything else.

 

Shooting is like any other sport - golf, for example. You get better the more you do, the more you practice. So golfers spend time on the driving range. I spend time putting holes in paper, because it means I'm more comfortable with the rifle when it's a fox, or a deer, or (for the 22LR or my air rifle) rabbits, corvids, rats, etc.

Sounds like you were lucky enough to choose exactly the right powder and bullet first time.

[rjimmer]

I have not long upped my 22cf count from 500 to 700 as I have 2 x 22.250 both different twists. No problem with my feo.

My 30 I have 300 as that is sufficient for my needs.

17 cf I have 300 also.

For both my rf 17hmr and 22 LR I have 1100 for each.

That's the sort of answer I was asking for. I have no qualms about the number of loaded rounds being low, but when you go to shows only a couple of times a year, it's nice to be able to try the different bullets that might be available.

Nice to have found out that 'Tipped' Match Kings are not classed as expanding, as opposed to Nosler Ballistic 'Tips'.

Edited May 18, 2016 by rjimmer

[kent]

My question was about reloading, and your first reply was about amounts for .22 lr.

Thanks for suddenly becoming a moderator the rf amounts and cf amounts are both relivent being equal in terms of Licencing in risk yet not in quantity

[robbiep]

You'll also find that A-max are seemingly identical to V-max. But because they haven't been tested by Hornady as to the amount of expansion, are classed as non-expanding, so can be bought by post, don't need to be listed on your ticket, don't count against your allowance until assembled, can be used on MOD ranges, etc.

 

There is a (proposed) amendment to Firearms law currently to remove S.5 ammunition restrictions. I'm pretty convinced it's due to Hornady, Nosler, etc. getting round the current silly legislation that is in place with the 'tipped' Matchkings and A-max. They've shown that the law as it stands regards bullets is a joke.

 

I know a few people who, like me, do range and vermin shooting. Some load everything with A-max. Because they can use it on MOD ranges (not classed as expanding, so falls within Geneva Convention as a FMJ bullet) but it expands like a V-max, so they use it on foxes.

[Vince Green]

The actual deciding factor should be the capacity of your storage but that's a bit silly in real terms. There is a very real problem if you have to drive miles to only buy 100 rds or bullets. Even more so if the choice is severely limited when you get there and prices are inflated because they know they have you over a barrel.

 

Mod ranges do not restrict you on expanding ammo AFAIK its not even mentioned in their regulations.

[robbiep]

The actual deciding factor should be the capacity of your storage but that's a bit silly in real terms. There is a very real problem if you have to drive miles to only buy 100 rds or bullets. Even more so if the choice is severely limited when you get there and prices are inflated because they know they have you over a barrel.

 

Mod ranges do not restrict you on expanding ammo AFAIK its not even mentioned in their regulations.

 

In which case, I stand corrected. I was always under the impression it was prohibited.

[rjimmer]

Some people have said that their loaded rounds limit is separated from their expanding bullets limit on their FAC, but no PW members, it seems.

[Vince Green]

Some people have said that their loaded rounds limit is separated from their expanding bullets limit on their FAC, but no PW members, it seems.

In the early days expanding bullets were not treated any differently to FMJ bullets except that you needed your fac amended to be able to buy them. All the present restrictions came later and mostly by FEOs saying you have to do this and that rather than from any wording in the original legislation. So there were, for a long time, large regional variations in the way things were done.

 

However, expanding bullets are sec 5, so they can more or less make up the rules as they go along.

[robbiep]

Some people have said that their loaded rounds limit is separated from their expanding bullets limit on their FAC, but no PW members, it seems.

 

I did ask about having a separate allowance for S.5 bullets. The FEO informed me that he'd never even heard of it.

[Savhmr]

Some people have said that their loaded rounds limit is separated from their expanding bullets limit on their FAC, but no PW members, it seems.

 

 

The law is pretty clear on this if you read the guidance. S5 covers both the expanding rounds (ie complete/factory expanding rounds) AND expanding bullets, so if your allocated say 300 rounds of expanding and buy 300 bullets to make up into rounds, you have reached your allocation. There is no requirement to have separate lists on an FAC for bullets or rounds because both come under S5. Some choose to have these separated (you can talk this over with your FEO as there's no law against wording the certificate that way) but I dont really see the point.

 

Loaded rounds and expanding are not treated separately. It's the TOTAL number of loaded plus expanding which count towards the limits issued on your FAC.

[bluesj]

I wonder what will happen if the bill goes through to remove expanding bullets from being S5

[Vince Green]

The law is pretty clear on this if you read the guidance. S5 covers both the expanding rounds (ie complete/factory expanding rounds) AND expanding bullets, so if your allocated say 300 rounds of expanding and buy 300 bullets to make up into rounds, you have reached your allocation. There is no requirement to have separate lists on an FAC for bullets or rounds because both come under S5. Some choose to have these separated (you can talk this over with your FEO as there's no law against wording the certificate that way) but I dont really see the point.

 

Loaded rounds and expanding are not treated separately. It's the TOTAL number of loaded plus expanding which count towards the limits issued on your FAC.

The guidelines are not quite the same as the law. The guidelines are what they say they are merely guidelines written and interpreted by the police themselves for their own information. Continual rewriting has moved the goalposts on many aspects of shooting 'law' over the years. If you go back and read the original act of parliament (which is the law) you will almost certainly find that no mention is made of any of this.

[kent]

I wonder what will happen if the bill goes through to remove expanding bullets from being S5

 

Totally nothing imo! Both will kill and target shooters want the most accurate or least expensive depending on what they are doing

It was a knee jerk reaction that needed to be undone quickly hence section 5 came in after the new updated legislation was passed

In all fairness post Hungerford legislation changed little or nothing

That is why Date said " no knee jerk reaction"

Shot with a 55 grn v max or a 155 grn lapua senar - the likely result is a coffin either way! Protected nobody from anything. Crooks often put hacksaw cuts in thier solid lead bullets etc not that it greatly matters either way humans just cannot take lead like wild deer and such

 

The focus as ever should be illegal firearm possession by criminal gangs and effective vetting of legal gun owners

Anything else is a distraction

[Savhmr]

The guidelines are not quite the same as the law. The guidelines are what they say they are merely guidelines written and interpreted by the police themselves for their own information. Continual rewriting has moved the goalposts on many aspects of shooting 'law' over the years. If you go back and read the original act of parliament (which is the law) you will almost certainly find that no mention is made of any of this.

 

That as it may be, the ACPO/firearms licencing teams meet periodically to discuss these issues so good luck with persuading them of anything different than what is contained within guidelines for ammunition. S5 ammunition is one area where you will not get any movement between forces, as you well know, making the guidelines almost universally applied in relation to how allocations are granted. I doubt you'll find any argument between forces on this aspect.

[Vince Green]

Totally nothing imo! Both will kill and target shooters want the most accurate or least expensive depending on what they are doing

It was a knee jerk reaction that needed to be undone quickly hence section 5 came in after the new updated legislation was passed

In all fairness post Hungerford legislation changed little or nothing

That is why Date said " no knee jerk reaction"

Shot with a 55 grn v max or a 155 grn lapua senar - the likely result is a coffin either way! Protected nobody from anything. Crooks often put hacksaw cuts in thier solid lead bullets etc not that it greatly matters either way humans just cannot take lead like wild deer and such

 

The focus as ever should be illegal firearm possession by criminal gangs and effective vetting of legal gun owners

Anything else is a distraction

Agreed, the real danger to police and security forces is not expanding ammo anyway. Their vests would work slightly more efficiently against expanding ammo than other types. The higher level of danger is from armour piercing rounds.

 

Having seen foxes shot with soft point and FMJ ammo you can't really see much difference.

 

When they banned expanding ammo they said they were going to ban Dum Dum ammunition and that rather ignorant emotive language tells you a lot about their thought processes. Only afterwards did somebody come back to them and say "well actually" and a fudge had to be put in place which totally negated the ban in real terms anyway.

[rjimmer]

 

 

Some choose to have these separated (you can talk this over with your FEO as there's no law against wording the certificate that way) but I dont really see the point.

 

 

The point is that the FEO, whose decisions are safeguarding the public, would/should be happier to allow 300 assembled rounds + 1000 loose expanding heads to be kept, than allowing 1300 assembled rounds, as could be the result of just having one combined amount/limit. I have, in the past, been allowed to hold 1200 .223 and 1200 .308 rounds, so that I could buy batches of 1000 to get cases of the same batch for reloading.

[Savhmr]

Well I still don't see the issue. You are either safe to have and to hold that calibre with that ammunition without being a danger to the public or your are not and the police in that case wouldn't have issued a certificate. It just seems a complete non-issue with some spinning their own agendas around it and trying to justify it (and failing) in terms of public safety. If you have an allowance of 500 or 600, it's rare that you would have such a large amount loaded at any one time (cue the list of folks who will now tell me that they do!). Whilst we all want to work with our licencing teams, and not against them, it is for the individual to justify need for their allocated amounts, therefore providing that they can make that justification, it ceases to become a matter as to what makes others "happy". I don't know of anyone refused a sensible limit, especially for S5.

[Vince Green]

Well I still don't see the issue. You are either safe to have and to hold that calibre with that ammunition without being a danger to the public or your are not and the police in that case wouldn't have issued a certificate. It just seems a complete non-issue with some spinning their own agendas around it and trying to justify it (and failing) in terms of public safety. If you have an allowance of 500 or 600, it's rare that you would have such a large amount loaded at any one time (cue the list of folks who will now tell me that they do!). Whilst we all want to work with our licencing teams, and not against them, it is for the individual to justify need for their allocated amounts, therefore providing that they can make that justification, it ceases to become a matter as to what makes others "happy". I don't know of anyone refused a sensible limit, especially for S5.

You are absolutely right, the key point is if you are a "wrong un" you can stockpile ammo or components with no difficulty at all. So there is no element of preventing anything by creating arbitary limits. However, shortages and having to drive long distances to buy ammo make buying in quantity a necessity for a lot of people

.

Besides which most of us are limited by the cost rather than police imposed limits.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Vince Green

[Savhmr]

[Alycidon]

While my current tickets say 400 per caliber when reviewing my purchases recently for my next renewal I am going to drop that level. My loads are worked up, my bullets sorted, my rifles all shoot better than I can, no point in burning barrel life looking for something that shaves .1 off a group when you are only using it to shoot foxes/deer at 200 yards when MOA is adequate for a chest or heart shot. 95% of my bullets are now directed at things to be killed.

 

Interestingly I was recently looking at the top half of a fox skull that I shot last year, all the skin is now gone. Given the fair size of a foxes head the brain is in an area about the size of a 50p piece. The chest area on a fox is maybe 5 inches in diameter so a far more certain killing shot.

 

A

[rjimmer]

Just visited a well respected riflesmith who says assembled rounds and expanding bullets are separated on his F.A.C. There was another customer there at the the time and he said the same.

[rjimmer]

I got my F.A.C. back in 3 weeks with variation. Expanding round amounts and expanding missile amounts are now listed separately for each calibre.