JohnGalway Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) . Edited September 3, 2009 by JohnGalway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatGun Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 The words 200 yard fox, and HMR should not appear in the same sentance..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 can anyone scan/quote the article so we can judge for ourselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 The 17hmr rifle is good enough for 200yds on a fox ! But not if you want to kill it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Who say's it cant be done ? Who say's it can ? Comes down to a matter of opinion, I have fox on my ticket and am allowed to use my 17 HMR on them. Does that mean I would take a 200 yards shot at them ? I think not! But does it mean I can if I want to ? Who decides what's ok and what's not ? It's all a bit confusing tbh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnGalway Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) . Edited September 3, 2009 by JohnGalway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 I haven't received my April issue yet John, but I await it with interest. Is this the Richard Faulds of clay pigeon shooting fame? If so.....nuff said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnGalway Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) . Edited September 3, 2009 by JohnGalway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffolk shooter Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 John, Read mine and was thinking exactly the same thing, why would you want to attempt a shot at a fox at 200 yards with .17HMR The one good thing about the whole article is his missus :yp: (Now her, Charlotte Kerwood and some baby oil) SS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Charlie Jacoby linked a video to the article on the BBS, but the mods deleted it. There is potential for that magazine to one of the best, but it just keeps printing stupid (unchecked?) articles that don't do anyone any favours. You can add foxes with airguns and shooting rimfires up trees to their greatest moments as well.. Glad I cancelled my subscription. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rioulike Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 dont know about anyone else but i think some of the write ups in that mag sound more like fireside storys. M,H,O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul223 Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Quite sure you see RF using the hmr in the vid stuart put up yesterday, will post a link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul223 Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 http://www.fieldsportschannel.tv/yoursport/foxshooting/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodmedod.one Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Apparently the HMR is fine to use on foxes out to 200 yards in an article starring Richard Faulds in Sporting rifle. Not sure if there's a topic on it here already or not, was reading the one on the BBS and I got that issue myself over the weekend. Anyone else think that's some steaming load of horse manure to put out in the public domain? I read that and thought it was a load of old tosh. His B and Q lamp can probably light up a Voles eyes at a range of 4 miles as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Glad I cancelled my subscription. You, the Sporting Rifle evangelist?! I cancelled my subscription about six months ago. The review were/are just as dire and lacking in actual critique as most of the other magazines. I would have thought it required little effort to turn out better reviews than those crimped off by Bruce Potts and Pete Moore in the other rags. Edited March 18, 2009 by Baldrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 You, the Sporting Rifle evangelist?! Yep, about the same time you started getting it - there goes the neighbourhood and all that It was just like a catalogue of gear that I never needed and I didn't learn anything from it. Trouble is I don't subscribe to any fishing or shooting mags at all now, so nothing nice ever comes through the letterbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren_mc Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 how do you get fox on your fac for 17 hmr. i just had my vist for my fac put dow for 22lr for vermin and 17 hmr for vermin and fox would not let me have fox only vermin.so he told me i would have to get a 222 so put in for one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I personally think that John G has a point, Its not a matter of whether or not a HMR can kill a mammal the size of a fox, thats without a doubt possible. But a mag like Sporting Rifle which has a lot of shooting youngsters reading it (as well as the passive readers i.e. people that pick it up when its in the public domain) should be more thorough about their articles. Stating that its OK to try and shoot foxes at 200yards with that round is near on bloody insaine (not to mention opens the whole subject to scrutiny). Forget the balistic facts of such a shot its poor advice to give. Having said that l've seen the article on shooting squirrels with .22 subs up trees, what annoys me though is the fact that they have these 'named' writers who start to write articles on matters which they obviously have no idea about, and to an extent degrades the work they do in their supposed 'proffessions'. Another one is the Warrener bloke - talks about foxing and rabbiting, fine. talks about anything else (l've read something by him about various other animals) - load of ****. When you read things like this you just think, you've wrote this to fill a hole in a rag, and now l think you talk ****. I read a while back about one bloke featured was boasting about shooting a fox with a 22 250 at over 400Yards. I thought straight away, your a complete ******. What on earth possess someone to shoot something of that distance? Perhaps its just me, T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytie Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) I have just checked the Home Office guidelines on the BASC site and it is recommended that the .17hmr is not used for fox. I would think any FEO would give you a hard time if you applied for one stating that you wanted it for foxing. I don't know how Mr foulds does it, if he is breking his "conditions of use" or not. I am old fashioned enough to think that if you are going to shoot at something, you really want to kill it, not wound it. Paper punching is one thing, live quarry another altogether. Do you think they made a typo and really meant .17 rem? Or .17 ackley? Even then there are other clibres I would rather use. ft On the Sporting Gun Mag, I am a big fan of George Wallace, but the rest is indifferent at best. If you read any magazine long enough they become stale. Sporting Gun has to me. Edited March 20, 2009 by flytie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardo Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Herts Constabulary put down fox on all calibres - i have it on .22lr, .17hmr and .223! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 they also class fox as vermin which to me makes sense, its up to the shooter then to make the shot humane. After all both calibers are fine in the right circumstances start doing silly shots and injuring stuff then you're open to an RSPCA prosecution. If they judge you fit to own a specific firearm then you should be competent to decide what to shoot and at what range 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.