Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

294 Excellent

About Alsone

  • Rank
    Extreme Hunter

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Middle of nowhere
  1. Well I like them.

    Yeah windage is always a problem at range.
  2. Three for one

    The only way we'll ever see the return of the reds, is with the extermination of the greys. If more people took action like this instead of tree hugging evry species whether it's alien and destructive, then the UK's wildlife and diversity would much healthier. Personally if I'm out with a shotgun in a wood, I shoot every drey in sight (I'm not in a red populated area).
  3. Well I like them.

    TBH they should drop a tree rat at even 500yds if you can hit them as it only takes a couple of foot pounds to despatch them and at that range, .22LR HV still has the power of an FAC air rifle. Biggest problem with .22 and range is bullet drop. Get that sorted, and .22 will take small pests out to long ranges. Problems with LR start when you start to push the range with bigger prey. Against small ground game and birds, there aren't likely to be many issues as even 40gr is large when you're body mass is only a couple of pounds. Even subs will take rabbits and birds at quite long ranges quite humanely with a well placed shot. Personally, I like HV's. The issues becomes they're noisy, and if they're noisy, then other longer range options open up that may be more suited to increased range eg. HMR, Hornet etc.
  4. Sting in the tail

    Only real issue with .22 and range is fox. Nobody's going to say you shouldn't have taken the shot against a rabbit. Rabbits take very little energy to kill. Biggest issue with rabbits and birds and .22rf at range is bullet drop. I'm going to hazard a guess and say 225yds.
  5. Can you forsee any problems

    Jackknife, the SX3 will have less kick because it's semi auto so some of the gases are being recycled into the mechanism instead of exiting the barrel front and pushing it back into the shoulder. A semi-auto is a very good solution for someone with a shoulder problem or who feels the kick more than most. Another answer would be to drop to a .20 bore semi and or use slower "gentler" ammunition. A shoulder pad might also help, although then you might need the gun shortened (or buy a shorter one).
  6. Swapping 243 for 270

    I'm going to put the cat amongst the pigeons here and suggest 2 modern alternatives to .270, similar in size: 1. 6.5 Creedmoor - gaining a lot of traction as the next possible NATO round and becoming a very popular hunting / target round. Bit less powerful than .270 but renowned for long range accuracy and low recoil. Ammo off the shelf. 2. 6.5-300 Weatherby Magnum - a real Wildcat but with ammo off the shelf. World's fastest 6.5 load - up to 3,500fps from a 6.5mm bullet with up to 3,000ftlbs. Flat shooting with a drop at 500yds of only 19 inches. Picture at the bottom is a still from the video below showing all 3 cartridges side by side.

    I believe by signing you mean supplying a report? I believe I've read that if it's a renewal, as an applicant, it's up for the police to pay the fee to the doctor. If they refuse, as they will, then they cannot refuse to grant your certificate for lack of a report. Your responsibility is simply to sign to give them permission and make all the necessary declarations. Best to check the current position with the BASC though, as there's a lot of contrary and conflicting information out there.
  8. Thrush hunting

    Yeah or you could just avoid getting intimate with those men with Thrush in the 1st place.
  9. gun law

    Not doubting that at all. But a gun locked in a car out of sight is one thing. Trying to explain the gun got nicked to a magistrate when you left it alone in an inglenook in a pub is another. I'm not saying don't have a drink, it's a great idea after a shoot. However, in my opinion, leaving a gun out in the open totally unsecured is a sure fire way to put your licence at risk.
  10. gun law

    I'd actually call that playing with fire (pun not intended). For one I'm pretty sure it's illegal to be in possession of a firearm if intoxicated. Although that can be easily mitigated by limiting your intake, it is more blatant and more likely to lead to a challenge if you have a beer in one hand and a (sleeved) gun in the other. In the car, no-one knows you possess one. Secondly, the whole leaving them in the inglenook part gives me shivers. What part of someone thinks that leaving guns in a fireplace unsecured is more secure than leaving them out of sight locked in a secure vehicle boot? Anyone could walk past and simply pick one up and walk out whilst the owner is distracted. Be far more likely to lose your licence for that - propping a gun up out in the open in a public space such as a pub, than a theft from a locked vehicle where the gun was out of sight. As for precautions, it's open to interpretation as Dekers says, but a good start might be to fit a trigger lock. Other common measures include hiding the breach and barrels in different places and using a cable lock (bicycle style lock) to lock either the action or barrels to part of the vehicle bodywork ie an exposed steel internal strut. Other precautions might include a vehicle safe if you take them out a lot or want to ensure ultimate security. However, I'm sure in most cases some of the former will suffice. Trigger locks are dirt cheap anyway so should always be a consideration for any gun.
  11. Foxes with HMR

    True but it's more marginal with a small calibre bullet with low energy. Search Youtube and you'll find at least several people shooting wild boar with a .22LR. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. HMR is ok on fox at sensible range in expert hands. Luckily, Deker can shoot accurately and place it well.
  12. Rabbits with HMR

    I agree pest control is not restricted to the countryside, but we were talking about rabbits, deer and mink, not your typical urban pests and not ones you'll find much support for controlling them from city folk. Rabbits are seen as cute and cuddly rabbit hutch pets, deer as Bambi and Mink as victims of fur farming. City folk neither see nor care about the destruction they do. Equally grouse and shark show the change in views, no-one was suggesting they amounted to pest control, although in Aus, the latter might fall into that category! If you get a call to a shark in a house in a UK city, I'd certainly be interested to go along! For sure, people en masse are not going to object to the destruction of wasps nests or rats in people's roofs. On the rest though, you have a perspective, I have another one based on the way my own friends, neighbours, and the views in many papers I read have changed in the last 2 years. Certainly in the North and in the papers I read and on social media, the views have changed within the last couple of years and not for the better from a shooting perspective. People I knew not long ago that only wanted to save the whale or the dolphin, now want to save anything that could be considered cute and cuddly, and some creatures that definitely aren't, and believe nothing should ever be killed for any reason. More and more people support conservation and hold the view that conservation = killing / controlling nothing, but simply leaving the countryside to find it's own balance. They simply don't realise the countryside is already unbalanced through mans farming activities. In my experience the swing is large. I currently have a lot of contact and conversations with people walking in a National Park. Not one person I've spoken to in the last couple of years has believed in shooting (read pest control) in the countryside. In fact my local National Park is managed by the RSPB, who have a visitor education centre in the park......, and all of whom were really friendly then stopped speaking to me as soon as they found out I used to shoot....... For the sake of the thread, I'm not going to continue to argue. .back to the HMR.....
  13. Rabbits with HMR

    Deker, the rise of the animal hugging brigade in this country is enormous. If you think the urban population is on your side, then just look at the comments below this article on Grouse Hunting in the Guardian, which arguably has quite an upper / middle class / more shooting orientated audience: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/12/grouse-shooting-glorious-twelfth-times-up-for-inglorious-victorian-sport Almost overwhelming support for a ban on shooting and grouse shooting, and eco conservation mentioned several times as justification for leaving the countryside alone along with lots of praise for Chris Packam. Elsewhere in the world (because I mentioned it above!) Following 7 fatal shark attacks in Northern Australia in just 3 years (plus many more non fatal), a cull was planned, but has been met by massive opposition even from some people who've been victims of attacks with mass protests and placards such as Whites have rights: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26937924 . These are not animals messing up crops, these are animals eating people but the anti-control message is now so strong amongst many urban conservationists, that even deaths are no longer enough to justify lethal control. You shoot for a living, you're a pest controller, you're countrified, you have a certain perspective. I live in a large urban city and largely mix with urban dwellers. I don't know of anyone who doesn't already shoot who supports any form of lethal pest control for anything other than some insect species, or even gun ownership anymore. I even had a neighbour express her displeasure at me putting ant poison down last summer!!! Never mind the ants were breeding on my drive with colonies underground and in such numbers they were in danger of invading my home. It was poor ants, you be ashamed of killing them, and leave them alone! Amongst my own relatives and friends I know, not one child is even allowed to own a toy gun never mind play with one, as even toy guns lead to violence and children becoming violent / killers according to the new socialist beliefs. The antis are winning the propaganda battle big time amongst the urban population because the urban population believe conservation = saving everything - they don't understand how man has put the countryside out of balance and that control needs to be applied to actually keep a balance, and the urban population far outweighs the country folk in both numbers and weight of views, and yes I do know plenty of people who would object to the killing of grey squirrels, deer, and Mink. I'd find it hard not to find anyone that didn't. Rats and crayfish, maybe not, and geese, well maybe not around Christmas!
  14. Rabbits with HMR

    I fully expect you to take a different view being a professional pest controller, although a loss of shooting means a loss of income for you. Rats yes. The other species you list are more nuisances to people and their activities in growing crops / maintaining golf courses, than dangers to public health. If you were to take a nationwide poll of the whole population then I'd reckon a very high percentage of the population, and certainly a majority would say that ALL pest control should be banned, and that farmers should just have to live with nature and the losses that result. I wouldn't be surprised to see it at or approaching 90%. That's not a view I take, but we live in a country that everyday is turning more and more against any means of controlling the countryside, even where it is to correct an imbalance (most people don't appreciate the relationship between crops, food supply and pests and are swayed by urban conservationists arguments). Yes I'm fully aware of the position 60 years ago between the Government, public and rabbits. But that was 60 years ago and attitudes have changed. No government could ever consider such an introduction today. Look at the controversy just a small limited badger cull has caused. Attitudes have changed and most urban people see all animals as small and cuddly and that nature should be allowed to take it's course no matter what the consequences. I know a golf club groundsman and even he tells me he finds rabbits cute and is reluctant to allow anyone to control them. As for deer, he prefers to use shields around young trees. Also, to see attitudes just look at the flurry of Shark Attacks in the Northern Territories in Australia or on Re-union island. Despite multiple deaths, a large proportion of the population think the sharks shouldn't be culled. That's the way attitudes have changed. They'd rather people were eaten or banned from swimming than have wildlife displaced or removed. Ultimately there will be more and more calls for shooting to be banned (including pest control), and ultimately if shooting is not shown to be contributing to conservation but instead wiping out species in some areas, then it only feeds the antis and the calls for a ban. If shooting survives another 50 years in this country without being totally banned, I'll be very surprised in any event.
  15. Rabbits with HMR

    I don't believe it's in anyone's interest to wipe out a particular species on a piece of land. At the end of the day, the aim of shooting is to restore the balance to the countryside to counter the imbalance created by the growth of large food sources in the form of crops. To wipe out everything that's regarded as a pest species causes an imbalance in itself and a knock on for other species eg remove all the rabbits, and foxes and birds of prey can suffer from a lack of food. It also doesn't do you the shooter any favours to wipe a piece of land clean leaving nothing to shoot for several years whilst species move back in from other areas. Nor does it do the sport any favour when conservationists and antis look at us and see instances of land being wiped clean. Shooting needs to maintain it's conservation side and image to survive. I believe shooting will only be around in the long term if we as shooters can prove we are contributing to conservation and the eco system, not destroying it by reckless and excess pest control. Any farmer worth his salt will also know the importance of maintaining a natural balance and of keeping species in check rather than going for total extermination. Those that don't need educating rather than catering to.