Jump to content

matt_hooks

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,114

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by matt_hooks

  1. matt_hooks
    Blackstairs, had you had a little too much of the black stuff when you wrote that fella? If you have written permissions (reasonable cause to hold) and decent security for the guns then you should have no problems. Good luck!
  2. matt_hooks
    Sorry, that was slightly misleading. It's not actually double glazing that they look at, but good strong window locks. As long as the windows have decent locks you should be fine. Of course that's for an FAC rather than a sgc, I think the sgc conditions might be less rigorous!
  3. matt_hooks
    Again, if you think that the .243 is the best tool for the job, don't let the FEO try and tell you otherwise! If you are shooting a lot of foxes then the .243 is as good a weapon as any, and better than most (with the added benefit of being deer legal if you ever decide to go for that as a variation) If you tell him that you hope to do some deer shooting in the future then that should be enough reason, if foxes aren't. Seems some FEO's think it's their job to tell you what rifle you are allowed. News flash, it's not! If you ask for a rifle, and can provide good reason to hold, and all your
  4. matt_hooks
    Not entirely sure whether the same land restrictions apply to an FAC air rifle.
  5. matt_hooks
    As long as it offers a similar level of security you should be fine. More important is what it's secured to, they want a good solid wall, and the general security of the place. If you have double glazing all round you should be fine. It's up to you to convince the FEO that the security is suitable, and he should take into account number of weapons, the area, the overall security, where abouts the cabinet is in the house (not in general sight to visitors, properly secured with expanding bolts to a solid interior wall etc.) and anyone else in the house that might have access to the safe (rem
  6. matt_hooks
    In theory the HV rounds should give better performance than the nurmal velocity ones. The main issue with .22 lr accuracy is the transition from super to sub sonic. That transonic zone causes all sorts of unpredictable flows around the bullet, and can knock it significantly off the intended course. The HV (high and hyper) should still be supersonic at ranges up to about 100 yards, so should get over the problem. Of course some bullets will never be accurate, no matter how fast you chuck them, but if you get the right round you should be fine. The subs seem to perform remarkably well, I
  7. matt_hooks
    Cold, please don't get me wrong! I totally agree that the shotgun is the very last solution. I've seen all sorts shot with a shotty and run around for days, weeks even, wounded and in pain! However, without knowing the background I'm not going to have a go at the bloke. Yes, I well know how difficult it can be to get within shotgun range of a deer, and it's not something I could do, but there ARE circumstances where it is necessary. There are times when it's simply not safe to use anything else! What the op is talking about isn't stalking, it's pest control. Well, I hope so, otherw
  8. matt_hooks
    An airgun counts as a firearm, so yes.
  9. matt_hooks
    JK, sounds like another FEO getting above his station! It's not up to him to tell you what's too much rifle! I might be tempted to talk to the BASC firearms department and see what they say. If you have a good reason for each rifle, and can show that you can store them securely then I think he's not being reasonable! Having said that, I agree that the loss of the .17 isn't too big a blow, and if you're willing to accept that for the sake of not upsetting the FEO then go for it. The person who grants the FAC is the chief police officer, so the FEO is correct in that he can only recommen
  10. matt_hooks
    As far as I know the 1980 Highways act applies only to England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland. That's not to say that there isn't a similar restriction elsewhere in Scottish law but I'm not aware of it. Found this in guidance notes to the Highways act 1980. The last couple of sentences are relevant! Highways Act 1980 22.17 Under section 161 of the Highways Act 1980, it is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or excuse, to discharge any firearm within fifty feet of the centre of any highway which comprises a carriageway, if in consequence, any user of the hig
  11. matt_hooks
    It is legal, as long as a few conditions are met. The deer, or deer of the same species, have to be causing damage to crops (including food for animals, food for humans etc.) The deer have to be shot in the area the damage is occurring, by the land owner (or in certain cases their legal representative). All other reasonable means must have been exhausted. The meat should not go into the food chain (it's not a legal HUNTING method in the UK, it is a legal PEST CONTROL method!) If that's the case then it is legal. Whether it's ethical depends a lot on the conditions, how much
  12. matt_hooks
    LOL ! I did tilt my head from behind the tree! Sheesh, they're giving badgers FAC's now? They're dangerous enough with those claws, let alone a .243!
  13. matt_hooks
    Wanderin. I think that's a bit prescriptive! I might have been inclined to argue the toss over that one! The .243 is as good, if not better, for foxes than the .22cf, and it's not really up to the FEO to decide what guns you should have! A .222 or .223 is as dangerous as a .243, if you're safe for one then you're safe for the other surely? Of course if you don't mind having the .222 or .223 then I guess it's not worth making a fuss over.
  14. matt_hooks
    It is an offence under the Highways Act 1980 s 161(2) to light any fire on or over a carriageway, or discharge any firearm or firework within 50 feet of the centre of a highway which is a carriageway, with the consequence that a user of the carriageway is injured, interrupted or endangered. Note the last clause! If it's the middle of the night, and there's nobody about, then fire away! Of course, you may fall foul of other acts, such as the firearms act, if the projectile crosses the boundary of the land over which you have permission to shoot.
  15. matt_hooks
    The .44 mag is a development of the .44 special, when slow and heavy was the best way to knock stuff over. It's not the most accurate long range round, but what it hits stays hit! It's a good short range hunter, lots of people use it in the US, though I'm not sure you'd get it as a hunting round over here. I guess there's no reason why not, but whether they'll give you any ground to shoot it on is a different matter! A 240 grain lump of lead, moving at somewhere around 1650 fps is going to do a lot of damage downrange! The big rounds are great un to fire, and they'll certainly teach y
  16. matt_hooks
    You'll hear all sorts of opinions on here, but IMHO the .17 isn't enough round to reliably kill foxes at extended ranges. If you're going for a foxing round then the 22/250 is better, or you could go up to a .243 and get them to put deer on it too! Others will tell stories of huge distance fox shots with the .17, but the fact is there is no margin for error. The downrange energy of the .17 in my opinion does not give you the same safety margin as a bigger, faster round like the 22/250, .243, or one of the other .22 cf rounds. I know some FEO's will not give you a .17 for foxes, though
  17. matt_hooks
    Gotta be in it to win it! I'm guessing it might struggle with the small feathers, but if it gets rid of most of the downy stuff it'll save hours and many a sore hand! Just need to get it to work with English game birds now! I'm guessing it'll work ok with geese, being similar to duck?
  18. matt_hooks
    It is a hell of a round. 185 yards is not even close to pushing it in good conditions! I've had bunnies out over 100 yards with the .22, the .17 I've seen head shots at 200 plus, in calm conditions! I love sticks, get a tripod and it's such a stable platform, you really need to try hard to mess it up!
  19. matt_hooks
    The law says "capable of firing any projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 12 ftlb's" so I think legally the answer is no.
  20. matt_hooks
    The 5.56 is plenty of round. Consider it from the point of view of your average soldier, who has to carry everything he needs onto the field of battle. Now, do you think he'd prefer a big, heavy round that he can carry relatively few of, or a smaller, lighter round that will still make holes in the enemy, and he can carry oodles of them? The FMJ rounds will tend to carry on through, leaving a narrow wound track and not transferring a lot of their energy, so in theory they should be "less lethal" Of course if the round goes in the right place then you're just as f####d!
  21. matt_hooks
    I don't understand all these statements that .22LR HV rounds aren't accurate. Go talk to a 3P shooter, or a biathlon competitor! I can quite happily clover leaf a 3 round group of .22 LR HV's at 100 yards given favourable conditions (like a nice indoor range).
  22. matt_hooks
    My bad. Of course I meant "Decleration III of the Hague Convention 1899" Was a bit asleep when I typed Geneva Convention, d'oh!
  23. matt_hooks
    Not that I know of. All the ones I've played with have just had the 5 speed wide ratio box on them.
  24. matt_hooks
    Hope he's not been chowing on the rape! I'm led to believe that it's poisonous to them and would mean that he couldn't go into the food chain! I thought the Atlas was higher up personally, but then if it entered in the face and travelled down the neck then he wasn't going anywhere. What calibre was he taken with?
  25. matt_hooks
    Completely don't agree! I quite happily pop bunnies out to 30 yards with my second hand lightning, which I paid £75 for. Ok so it has a better scope on than standard, but if you're willing to shop around and buy s/h then you can get a decent rig for £100 that will take bunnies all day long!
×
×
  • Create New...