Dead-Eyed Duck Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 Go on then I will bite? who is the guy with the RIGHT HANDS or is that some elitist stance, to infer shooting prowess or are you advocating a test (overseen by dubious chief constables of course) By asking for consistency, I accept it could go either way,I have never demanded that it be put as "suitable" on the list, just thats it is acknowledged as an individous round? and at long last put on the bloody list, again all I am asking is WHY we accept different viewpoints, and wish that BASC keep/ start? whatever, lobbying for this and again what is the stance re backdoor qualification for the bigger caliber's.I am fortunate that I have all the firepower I realisticly need up to .243 and on a fully open ticket, but others dont and some forces want hoop jumping to be performed first KW Well, you have bitten haven't you? One of the main reasons that licensing came into force in the 1st place was to try and get some degree of regulation - even though some don't seem to like it. Otherwise, I am quite sure that there are folk out there who would have ago at a red deer with a 0.22 rimmy at 100 yards range and then boast about it. Regulation is never an exact science - and speaking as one who had his silencer taken away on my 22-250 when some pillock in the police decided that silencers on centrefires were 'dangerous to the public', I have some knowledge of misguided regulation. It was mainly through the efforts of BASC that 'we' managed to get them back! The whole point is that whilst you and others (and even myself) may decide that we are good enough to shoot foxes with a hmr, there are some misguided persons who will take potshots at foxes at 200 metres with a hmr. There are experienced shots who, after years of practise can shoot rabbits at 120 yards with a rimfire, and youngsters who then decide that they can do it with no thought to the consequences of if things go wrong. Similarly I have little doubt that plenty of geese have been potted at by 410's when it is not up to it. The problem with the hmr and long range foxing is that it can be debated all day long, and just because some want it accepted is no reason to do it. Get the proper gun for the job and that is the answer. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 One of the main reasons that licensing came into force in the 1st place was to try and get some degree of regulation - even though some don't seem to like it. Otherwise, I am quite sure that there are folk out there who would have ago at a red deer with a 0.22 rimmy at 100 yards range and then boast about it. don't matter what regs we have got, things like this still happen. I don't think the thread is about "can the 17 hmr do this or that" its more about the difference in firearms departments interpretation of the guide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted June 24, 2008 Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 I think the best reply was Starlight's. I got a .223 for fox because Essex won't give .17hmr for fox. The .223 springboarded me to .243 and probably made the Section 1 shotty more palatable. I have made a recent variation for .17hmr and I don't see how they can now say no. Anyways, back to knocking the granny out of BASC and David from BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted June 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 One of the main reasons that licensing came into force in the 1st place was to try and get some degree of regulation - even though some don't seem to like it. Otherwise, I am quite sure that there are folk out there who would have ago at a red deer with a 0.22 rimmy at 100 yards range and then boast about it. don't matter what regs we have got, things like this still happen. I don't think the thread is about "can the 17 hmr do this or that" its more about the difference in firearms departments interpretation of the guide. mark mate you are the only one who has actually grasped the concept of this thread ? seems a waste of time asking? no wonder the guidelines are as they are, it beggers belief as to who actually drew them up in the first palce and indeed why and when "newer" rounds become available they are not checked out / approved or dissproved, Oh and mungler I have .243 for fox!!! its not about is the .17 good enough its about WHY, some forces do, some forces dont, why some forces, want mentors etc for .223 up and again some forces dont? why is it when a question is asked its considered bashing? or is that a standard approach when the question may be "difficult" and as for starlights answer being the best yet, I could not understand it? cheers KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Inconsistency is an issue as we can all agree. And I honestly think that this is not limited to how FLO’s interoperates firearms law is it? As I wrote, but may not have made clear- BASC is lobbying with individual constabularies when issues arise and members make us aware of specific cases,. So if you do have a problem and you are a BASC member then please contact the BASC firearms team, they are here ot help you and remember you have paid for the service so please use it! We are also workings with ACPO for consistency. An example of this work was the 2007 guide that I referred to on an earlier post. As for compulsory testing of any kind I ma not too sure that will make a lot of difference to be honest, the issue is to have the relevant calibres accepted by the police for the relevant quarry. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob300w Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Inconsistency is an issue as we can all agree. And I honestly think that this is not limited to how FLO’s interoperates firearms law is it? As I wrote, but may not have made clear- BASC is lobbying with individual constabularies when issues arise and members make us aware of specific cases,. So if you do have a problem and you are a BASC member then please contact the BASC firearms team, they are here ot help you and remember you have paid for the service so please use it! We are also workings with ACPO for consistency. An example of this work was the 2007 guide that I referred to on an earlier post. As for compulsory testing of any kind I ma not too sure that will make a lot of difference to be honest, the issue is to have the relevant calibres accepted by the police for the relevant quarry. David It will make no difference whatsoever, other than add to the extreme legislative controls that we are already subjected to. A driving test is compulsory, does that make everyone who drives a safe or responsible driver? Part of the problem is the actual FEO's interpretation of the law, if yours gives you a response that you are not happy with, ring your FSEL office at HQ and ask how they interpret the law. There are FEO's after all, who are not exactly pro-gun. Talking of standardisation, they cannot even agree on whether it's FEO, FLO, FAO or any other permutation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulkyuk Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 David, would it possible for you to find out why North wales and Cheshire Police have stopped granting section 1 Shotguns for Vermin and pest control? My earlier comment was not a dig at you personally, but was just trying to get an official BASC response on this debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markm Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 I have a .17HMR, .22LR & .243WIN. All it states on my cert is the destruction of vermin, like I have asked before does that mean I can shoot rats with the .243 and foxes with the .22?? No mention of Fox on it. Only other line on the conditions is .243 for deer etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 I think this is a very valuable debate as long as we can keep it sensible and non personal it allows us to see how different stances are taken over the same guidelines for different geographical police forces, A similar topic is the Police force stance on pressing with charges against Anti on which David BASC are assisting my area as we have a real problem and both Norfolk and Suffolk Police (I am on the boarder) will not prosecute no matter what evidence they have (and believe me we have plenty) I was refused .17 for fox but granted for vermin and .223 with mentor for Fox only, I have completed a Rifle safety course so am due the restriction being lifted. However I can see how the problem arises if you had a sensitive area, and by that I mean very active RSPB, Wildlife Trusts, Nature reserves, Antis, etc these guys are on the local council/police/MP’s case all the time lobbying for restrictions or shooting bans in such a case Police may well take a firm stance and ensure only the absolutely right calibre is granted and of course the inverse is also true. This may well not be the answer but it is food for thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 TT Sent the question to the BASC firearms team, will post the reply soon as possible D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 One of the main reasons that licensing came into force in the 1st place was to try and get some degree of regulation - even though some don't seem to like it. Otherwise, I am quite sure that there are folk out there who would have ago at a red deer with a 0.22 rimmy at 100 yards range and then boast about it. don't matter what regs we have got, things like this still happen. I don't think the thread is about "can the 17 hmr do this or that" its more about the difference in firearms departments interpretation of the guide. mark mate you are the only one who has actually grasped the concept of this thread ? seems a waste of time asking? no wonder the guidelines are as they are, it beggers belief as to who actually drew them up in the first palce and indeed why and when "newer" rounds become available they are not checked out / approved or dissproved, Oh and mungler I have .243 for fox!!! its not about is the .17 good enough its about WHY, some forces do, some forces dont, why some forces, want mentors etc for .223 up and again some forces dont? why is it when a question is asked its considered bashing? or is that a standard approach when the question may be "difficult" and as for starlights answer being the best yet, I could not understand it? cheers KW My interpretation of Starlight's post was that at the moment (in Essex for example) if you say I want to shoot fox they will say "you must have a .223 centrefire" which is a fairly significant start and leg up the centre fire calibre table for first FAC application. If the forces say ".17hmr is okay for fox" it would be easy to envisage .22 and .17 hmr being readily available but anything like .223 and above being very hard to acquire and probably requiring some sort of certification (DSC etc). However, I can see that this post is about the confusion between forces and a request for clarification as to whether .17 hmr is acceptable for fox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 now not to put the cat among the pigeons so to speak but my licensing authority class fox as vermin and much along the lines that they have to rely on you to shoot safely they rely on the shooter to decide whether the gun is up to the job in hand. Correct me if I'm wrong but to grant you a firearms license they judge you have some common sense. I'd hate to have to get a centrefire for foxes and carry it as well as my HMR when rabbiting it makes no sense and just encourages firearms to be left in cars while you are walking about, I'd not shoot to injure foxes but it has plenty of capability in the right situation. On the other hand should we ask for conditions to be written all over shotgun tickets of what we can shoot with what shot size and how far out etc etc. KD seems to have done a fine job of dropping his mate in it and having one of his conditions revoked which I assume was said in the hope he'd get his condition added and it backfired. One of the things with the current firearms law is there are such vaguaries in place as to allow most things while still being able to stop others, I've yet to hear of a court case for anyone shooting a fox as part of their vermin condition and gettingpulled on it (please say if you know anyone) FEO's are reacting to shooters and BASC etc lobbying and bringing in more restrictions not fewer. After all look at whats happened with the DSC it wasn't needed a few years ago now its becoming a condition on most peoples tickets taking another bit of freedom away and adding more cost to an application whether you've been shooting deer in company for years or not. I can see the need for making things more clear cut but personally I think we will loose a lot more than we will gain and it will basically mean any rim fire shooter will need a centre fire as well. Gone will be the days of using a .22lr to despatch foxes in snares etc as it will be against ticket conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulkyuk Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 TT Sent the question to the BASC firearms team, will post the reply soon as possible D Thnx David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Dear All, Here is the reply: North Wales response - Every case is dealt with on it's individual merits, they've not heard of such a policy. Cheshire - Reply - No, we don't have such a policy. If and of you are refused than get the formal reason from the FLO, then if you are a BASC member send a copy with your detials to the BASC firearms team. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulkyuk Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) Strange one that - I have recently asked for a Section one Shogun (Informaly with my FAO - Who i get on quite well with) and was told that north wales police and cheshire police are not going to grant anymore new applications for Section 1 shotguns (apparantly you will be ok if you all ready have one), becuase they ( and i quote his words not mine)" see these as being used by the criminal element" and " if you can shoot 5 or more things in the air with a shotgun, you should be in the olyimpic squad" Edited June 25, 2008 by tulkyuk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Theres a couple of things that I am confused about David. Firstly the document listed here: http://www.basc.org.uk/media/basc_-_energy_comparisons.pdf There are four columns listing muzzle energy in ft/lb but the values overlap by quite a margin. Talking specifically with regard to this topic, surely there should more columns with smaller specific ranges, to better clarify a rounds suitability. I would however think it entirely more suitable to replace the muzzle energy columns with yardage columns. Each then listing the energy of the round for the relevant distances for example at 50, 100, 150, 200, 300. Secondly I refer to sections 2a and 2b from the document listed here: http://www.basc.org.uk/media/rifles_calibr...d_may_07__2.pdf In section 2a Rabbits and other small quarry. The .22WMR is mentioned as being a suitable calibre for Fox at ranges under 100 yards. However, there is no mention of the .17HMR being equally suitable and simply says that both the .17HMR and .17MACH2 are a suitable compliment to the .22R/F. This is very confusing and certainly doesn't make it any clearer. I might also add that having just compared the energy of the .17HMR V-Max and .22WMR V-Max on the Hornady website, I find that at 100 yards the .17HMR has a greater energy than that of the .22WMR. You might also consider that since the .22WMR is suggested as a suitable calibre for Fox, that it should also be listed again in section 2b Fox, hare, feral cat and similar along with the .17HMR given that it is marginally more powerful. In conclusion, the two documents specifically, do not really address the suitability of the .17HMR. I would also like to add a comment to the statements that people granted .17HMR would go off taking shots at 150+ yards etc on a fox and in this respect a centrefire would be more suitable. I agree that a centrefire is a much more suitable rifle to be used as Fox calibre. However, any person suitable to be a safe and sensible shot in a field would not push an HMR or WMR or even LR on a fox outside of its suitable usage range. You could consider that a person who would try and push the boundaries of a rimfire could equally do so on a centrefire, where in addition, the extra range may equally push their ability to shoot well. The result being a wounded animal, even though it has been shot with a larger energy calibre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 I will pass to the firearms team for comment. Ta D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Here you go: The reply form one of our firearms team: The energy comparisons document is a specific document to provide extra advice with regard to page 77 of the Home Office Guidance 2002 i.e. for enquiry officers and police staff. It is not designed to show the exact ballistics of commercial or home loaded ammunition. If a Person needs to go into the detail of ballistics to see whether the calibre is legal for example under the ballistic minima in the Deer Act then they should refer to ammunition manufacturers websites, cartridge boxes or cartridges of the world by Barnes. RE: rifles calibre and land paras 2a & 2b – this document does mention the 17 HMR, 17 Mach 2 etc but doesn’t specifically condone their use on foxes. Its simply the way the document has come out rather than to be anti about them. However there are some concerns that the lighter skinned .17 hornady bullets burst on impact with larger foxes and don’t have continued penetrative effect that kills the animal. This has not been researched as yet. I usually recommend that if a person wishes to shoot a fox with their .17 that they upgrade ammunition to the Speer bullets, preferably the Winchester Gamepoint 20 grain bullet which is heavier and has a thicker jacket for added performance, though like any shooting activity the bullets effectiveness and accuracy it depends on the range the fox is shot, what it is doing etc. It is always the shooters responsibility to ensure they know their kit, and have the best combination of rifle, sighting device and ammunition ballistics for their shooting to cover all humane issues and to ensure that they are shooting at the correct distance for the ammunition ballistics to be effective. We will look at the document again to see whether we can improve it, but it is not a definitive policy from BASC nor designed to cover all circumstances. It is a general guided to enquiry officers as they do not get a great deal of practical information from the Home Office Guidance. It is agreed that centre fire rifles are more adept to cover all circumstances when shooting foxes and to ensure a humane kill every time. However the use of .22 rim fire and similar rim fire calibres may be used legally providing conditions are right to deal with the odd fox problem at close range. Hope this helps David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 not really and believe me I'm not having a go David its just simply that its not a yes or no to the question. Unless we have conditions that say No then we can't say well you can shoot them if they are close or with a certain bullet. Its a very muddy area and at the moment FEO's are using their personal opinion rather than a set guideline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Keeping in mind this topic is solely about he .17HMR: I appreciate that this document is in support of page 77 and that it is not the place to provide ballistic information. However, I feel the table just adds to the confusion and doesn't really help anyone. Surely it is better to give typical ballistic information at range than just give the muzzle energy. Better still, simply list the calibre with the columns for Rabbits and small vermin, Fox &Feral Cats etc then simply say yes or no under each. Then if need be, any condition such as range limit etc. This is what really needs to be in place after all. A simple hymn sheet for everyone, Police HQ, FEO's and Us, to use as guidance. I don't suggest that BASC is anti the .17HMR calibre, please do not see my comments as oppressive. We all want a better system put in place. The way I see it, BASC is the only body that would be able to get anything put across. But we are specifically discussing the .17HMR and the document falls short of explaining this rifle and its use. We will look at the document again to see whether we can improve it, but it is not a definitive policy from BASC nor designed to cover all circumstances. It is a general guided to enquiry officers as they do not get a great deal of practical information from the Home Office Guidance. It is agreed that centre fire rifles are more adept to cover all circumstances when shooting foxes and to ensure a humane kill every time. However the use of .22 rim fire and similar rim fire calibres may be used legally providing conditions are right to deal with the odd fox problem at close range. This is good news, as it is my belief that the confusion with the Constabularies is due to a misinterpretation of .17REM and the .17HMR which was not launched prior to the publication of the 2002 guidance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 All I can add is that if members are having problems with their FLO and 17's than please let the BASC firearms team know so we can deal on a case by case basis and build up a better picture from all of the UK where the problems are - and why. Unfortuantley, at the moment due to the way FLO's react there is not always going to be a yes / no answer,and even made more muddy - see the post about N Wales and Cheshire for example. Thanks David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 If its of any use, I get the distinct impression from my FEO that all decisions of this nature are not his but HQ's to make. This largely comes down to the girls in the office typing up the license! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 In that case it will be very easy for HQ to given a written reason for why any application or variation is refused or to confirm the force policy! D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 Fortunately, Sussex happen to rule infavour of the HMR/Fox debate. But like Kdubya I was in the exact same position when trying to argue my case for .22LR for Fox with the result of my good friend loosing Fox on his .22LR, even though it had been there for many years! Needless to say I felt extremely bad as this good friend had been my sole mentor through the entire application and previous introduction to firearms. I have learnt now at least, to say as little as possible to Sussex Police Firearms Department about myself or anyone else for that matter. What a sad way to be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight32 Posted June 25, 2008 Report Share Posted June 25, 2008 but think about it chaps- If the .17 was universally acceptable for foxing, unless you have a deer condition a lot of people woudld trouble having a centre fire caliber would'nt they? I would drop the debate before someone decides it is ok for the this use because everyone would be moaning about having to use it all the time then would'nt they? The police would be happier giving a lesser caliber everytime at the end of the day..... The long and short of it is, as far as I'm concerned if all you guys keep banging on about .17 for foxes then if it is accepted nationally you can kiss goodbye to all your centrefires unless you have deer condition. Just leave sleeping dogs lie, a man libido is all about size so why have a little gun when you can legitimately have a big one???? Most of us shoot as two or three man teams while lamping? correct? Not too hard to have someone on rabbits and a another guy with a bigger rifle for foxy is there??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.