Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 1 votes

Fox Control With A .22


  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#76 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 05 November 2014 - 09:15 am

All useful discussion though. :)



#77 charlie caller

charlie caller

    Triple Two Fan

  • Donator
  • 5,237 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 November 2014 - 10:11 am

A long lane that never has a turn boys ;)



#78 ludders76

ludders76

    Rookie Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Location:buckinghamshire

Posted 29 May 2015 - 12:49 pm

Hi, funnily enough I asked my FEO the same question whilst he was checking my shoot. He said the same thing as many others have on here. .22lr is not the best round for the job. However, if you are sensible and skilled a headshot will do the job.

#79 Nidge

Nidge

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Location:Waterford

Posted 06 July 2015 - 05:28 pm

I shot a fox at 60yards in back of the head died on the spot wud not hav chanced any further
  • Alsone and delboy_187 like this

#80 Agent Orange

Agent Orange

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Location:Midlands

Posted 03 October 2015 - 10:20 pm

Some forces (like mine for instance) will not allow .22 or any other rimfire on fox, some will, if you can head shoot them at 50-70 yards then a .22 will kill them cleanly, but as a gun to take out foxing specifically then it is not the right choice, if you want to shoot foxes regular then get a .22 hornet upwards, all the .22 cf are perfect for foxes.

 

Doesn't really matter what they choose to believe they "allow".   The Police uphold the law, they do not make it!  The fact they may not "condition" it  on your ticket is neither here nor there.  If you shoot a fox with a rimfire rifle it is legal.  If they take you to court for shooting a fox with a rimfire  (which they won't) they would look pretty stupid ignoring H.O guidelines which all Police forces claim to follow. Proving effective range limits for R/F would be a nightmare for them, otherwise they would stipulate them.

I've shot plenty of fox  with LR and HMR and if common sense is used regarding range, perfectly capable calibres.



#81 David Aiken

David Aiken

    Mega Hunter

  • Donator
  • 586 posts
  • Location:North Kent Coast

Posted 04 October 2015 - 10:54 am

I would say ask yourself, "can I humanely dispatch at the distance at which I am shooting, with the tool I am using" As far a I know, no one with a FAC has had to prove they can hit the quarry on their certificate at a given distance rendering the whole .22lr argument irrelevant if you can't hit the damn thing!  Do I taken my .25 Patriot (31 ft lbs) out fox shooting: No. While out rabbiting would I use my .25 Patriot at 15 yards with a clean shot in good condition in daylight on a passing Fox: ??? 



#82 wonggemblung

wonggemblung

    Rookie Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Location:Newcastle

Posted 04 October 2015 - 01:39 pm

Think this has been done to death lol its just common sense really, I wouldn't go out foxing with a 22, but if I was rabbiting and saw one which ran in to the squeak to about 50 60 yards or closer than no problem

agreed with you



#83 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 05 October 2015 - 02:47 pm

 

Some forces (like mine for instance) will not allow .22 or any other rimfire on fox, some will, if you can head shoot them at 50-70 yards then a .22 will kill them cleanly, but as a gun to take out foxing specifically then it is not the right choice, if you want to shoot foxes regular then get a .22 hornet upwards, all the .22 cf are perfect for foxes.

 

Doesn't really matter what they choose to believe they "allow".   The Police uphold the law, they do not make it!  The fact they may not "condition" it  on your ticket is neither here nor there.  If you shoot a fox with a rimfire rifle it is legal.  If they take you to court for shooting a fox with a rimfire  (which they won't) they would look pretty stupid ignoring H.O guidelines which all Police forces claim to follow. Proving effective range limits for R/F would be a nightmare for them, otherwise they would stipulate them.

I've shot plenty of fox  with LR and HMR and if common sense is used regarding range, perfectly capable calibres.

 

 

 

Actually the HO Office Guidelines state .22 LR in "Certain Circumstances".

 

Specifically the notes (13.25) say "..22 RF's are generally considered to have insufficient muzzle energy to be used against fox in most circumstances. However, these could be suitable for use at short range by experienced persons...It is for the operator to ensure the quarry species are shot at the appropriate range with the appropriate ammo to achieve a humane kill".

 

So it's perfectly open for the police to take you to Court for using it beyond a "short" or "appropriate" range.

 

Also, you can be prosecuted for causing necessary suffering if an animal runs and it can be shown that your actions were unreasonable eg You shot it at an unreasonable range.

 

So anyone using .22RF, against fox needs to be very careful about both range and bullet placement, but especially range.


Edited by Alsone, 05 October 2015 - 02:49 pm.

  • charlie caller likes this

#84 ianm

ianm

    Mega Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Lancashire

Posted 06 October 2015 - 11:53 am

 

 

Some forces (like mine for instance) will not allow .22 or any other rimfire on fox, some will, if you can head shoot them at 50-70 yards then a .22 will kill them cleanly, but as a gun to take out foxing specifically then it is not the right choice, if you want to shoot foxes regular then get a .22 hornet upwards, all the .22 cf are perfect for foxes.

 

Doesn't really matter what they choose to believe they "allow".   The Police uphold the law, they do not make it!  The fact they may not "condition" it  on your ticket is neither here nor there.  If you shoot a fox with a rimfire rifle it is legal.  If they take you to court for shooting a fox with a rimfire  (which they won't) they would look pretty stupid ignoring H.O guidelines which all Police forces claim to follow. Proving effective range limits for R/F would be a nightmare for them, otherwise they would stipulate them.

I've shot plenty of fox  with LR and HMR and if common sense is used regarding range, perfectly capable calibres.

 

 

 

Actually the HO Office Guidelines state .22 LR in "Certain Circumstances".

 

Specifically the notes (13.25) say "..22 RF's are generally considered to have insufficient muzzle energy to be used against fox in most circumstances. However, these could be suitable for use at short range by experienced persons...It is for the operator to ensure the quarry species are shot at the appropriate range with the appropriate ammo to achieve a humane kill".

 

So it's perfectly open for the police to take you to Court for using it beyond a "short" or "appropriate" range.

 

Also, you can be prosecuted for causing necessary suffering if an animal runs and it can be shown that your actions were unreasonable eg You shot it at an unreasonable range.

 

So anyone using .22RF, against fox needs to be very careful about both range and bullet placement, but especially range.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They won't go to court as there is no definition of short range or appropriate range in law.



#85 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 06 October 2015 - 04:18 pm

 

They won't go to court as there is no definition of short range or appropriate range in law.

 

 

 

They'd just obtain an expert opinion and if that fell outside of the range you'd been shooting at, then you'd be in difficulties.


  • charlie caller likes this

#86 Jaggsy

Jaggsy

    Born Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Location:Surrey/Middlesex

Posted 06 October 2015 - 11:45 pm

but you could do the same (mess up bullet placement) at what could be regarded as an 'acceptable' range.. what would be the charge then incompetance? I've seen a fox run 70yds after being holed with a 22-250.



#87 SportingShooter

SportingShooter

    The Miscellaneous Mod

  • Moderator
  • 5,895 posts
  • Location:South West Wales

Posted 07 October 2015 - 01:18 am

 

 

They won't go to court as there is no definition of short range or appropriate range in law.

 

 

 

They'd just obtain an expert opinion and if that fell outside of the range you'd been shooting at, then you'd be in difficulties.

 

 

"Public Interest" and the "realistic prospect of conviction" would come in to play a country mile before it got anywhere near a court room.

 

For such a minor offence, it wouldn't be worth either.



#88 delboy_187

delboy_187

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 951 posts
  • Location:over here

Posted 07 October 2015 - 01:45 am

If your so unsure use a bigger gun . If shot with .22 fox dies on the spot or is maimed and dies from injurys.shot with a slug it's just dead simples.

#89 Deker

Deker

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,501 posts
  • Location:Berkshire

Posted 07 October 2015 - 06:06 am

If your so unsure use a bigger gun . If shot with .22 fox dies on the spot or is maimed and dies from injurys.shot with a slug it's just dead simples.

 

If you are so unsure LEARN TO SHOOT, and stay within the capabilities of yourself and the calibre!.

 

This rubbish about using bigger calibres to make up for the shooters shortcomings is a joke. Why would you want to give an incompetent, and even bigger, and therefore potentially more dangerous calibre, to compensate for their failings? :hmm:

 

"Dear Mr FEO, I can't shoot very well so can I please have a .308 for rabbits!" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  

 

This topic will go round and round, as this shows, risen from the ashes again to join the many threads on the same subject.

 

:thumbs:


Edited by Deker, 11 October 2015 - 08:46 am.

  • BLACK-GUN, Alsone and as88 like this

#90 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 07 October 2015 - 09:30 am

but you could do the same (mess up bullet placement) at what could be regarded as an 'acceptable' range.. what would be the charge then incompetance? I've seen a fox run 70yds after being holed with a 22-250.

 

You could but provided you're within the humane range for your calibre, and reasonably competent, allowance will probably be made for human frailty as everyone knows that there's no such thing as a 100% guaranteed instantaneous death every time. No-one is 100% accurate 100% of the time and then there's extraneous factors such as the sudden wind gust or the ammo that doesn't perform as expected etc.

 

In my opinion as a non expert, that's different entirely to shooting at an unsuitable range, especially when the LR Guidance specifically states LR should be granted for short range use only against fox. Even if you don't specifically breach your conditions, there's still the possibility of prosecution from a body such as the RSPCA if there's evidence to show the range was unsuitable (with any calibre) and an animal suffered as a result as there are animal welfare offences such as "causing unnecessary suffering" that aren't related to firearms. eg I wouldn't bet my wallet on a 1,000yd+ shot against live prey in the UK even with a CF, as I think you'd find it very hard to justify that it was humane given the flight time and drop off in both velocity and energy plus the increased chances of extraneous factors affecting accurate and humane bullet placement. The same could probably be said of .22LR at medium range albeit for energy delivery and drop off reasons. What constitutes "short range" is for the experts to argue over but it would be unwise to push the boundaries with shots that might be regarded as medium range. That's quite apart from the fact that there's the humanity factor - as a shooter there is a responsibility morally, if not in law, to be humane towards your prey. A pest maybe a pest that needs controlling, but it's still a life and it can still suffer pain so everyone who shoots owes a moral duty to do everything within their powers to despatch it as instantly and pain free as possible.

 

 

 

 

They won't go to court as there is no definition of short range or appropriate range in law.

 

 

 

They'd just obtain an expert opinion and if that fell outside of the range you'd been shooting at, then you'd be in difficulties.

 

 

"Public Interest" and the "realistic prospect of conviction" would come in to play a country mile before it got anywhere near a court room.

 

For such a minor offence, it wouldn't be worth either.

 

 

You may or may not be correct from a licensing stand point, but I wouldn't bet a prosecution on it as it's not just the police. Just ask yourself, do the RSPCA ignore cruelty because it's just a single animal involved? If you shoot something at an unreasonable range or outside of the conditions specified by your licence, then you're at risk of prosecution from the RSPCA if it results in any suffering and there's any proof. The whole separate issue of have you breached your conditions is going to come down to what your licence says, but at the very least, you're FEO is going to take a dim view of you are using it at excess range, and in my non expert opinion, that may raise questions as to are you a suitable person to hold a firearm should proven shooting at excess range continue.

 

If your so unsure use a bigger gun . If shot with .22 fox dies on the spot or is maimed and dies from injurys.shot with a slug it's just dead simples.

 

Whilst I agree with Deker that the gun to use is the one that's appropriate to the circumstances, the use of a larger calibre is probably a sensible precaution where's there's any doubt and assuming it's safe to do so, albeit the doubt should be over the suitability of the tool not the competence of the shooter. If the shooter isn't competent, then he should be on the firing range or restricting his own range, until he is. A larger calibre is a tool to use when you're shooting range is possibly at or beyond the humane or accurate limits of your 1st choice weapon. That said, there's nothing wrong in choosing a more powerful weapon within the range of weapons considered suitable for a type of prey just to give yourself a a bit more of a margin for error when the unexpected happens (not to make up for poor shooting in the first place). eg. choosing a .22-250 over a .223, or a .243 over a .22-250, or using a CF when at the upper end of rimfire range to ensure enough energy.

 

As an aside, I think the new licensing regulations take account of this as I believe there's a monetary and permission free like for like swap coming within the HO calibre bands.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users