Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

312 Excellent

About Alsone

  • Rank
    Extreme Hunter

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Middle of nowhere

Recent Profile Visitors

390 profile views
  1. Alsone

    ATN X Sight 2

    2 completely different products tbh. 4k sensors generally give sharper vision in daylight whilst not being too sensitive at night. I have an interest in CCTV, and atm there isn't a 4K sensor I've come across at a sensible price that can come even close to matching to a 2K sensor at night. Potentially a lower resolution SD sensor with even larger pixels would out perform at 2K at night. It looks as if ATN may have used an old trick here and that is to group pixels together to provide higher sensitivity which could explain why video output is HD not 4K. It's a good trick btw but doesn't usually beat the performance of a large physical sensor designed for night use in low light. Pulsar on the other hand are using a low resolution SD sensor (752x582 for the 355 model) with large pixels. Large pixels will gather more light at night and this aids night vision. The downside, day and night is the lower resolution, and I as a result I expect the daytime image / any recordings will be far lower quality in terms of sharpness and resolution than any from the ATN. I haven't seen or used either so can't comment on actual performance, but my expectations would be the Pulsar could offer superior night performance but at the expense of quality (in terms of resolution and sharpness) of picture in the day . The ATN could be far superior in picture quality in daylight, but could be outperformed in low light conditions. It could be darker and more noisy. A powerful IR lamp might aide the ATN see further / brighter. At the end of the day, it's probably going to be horses for courses and whether you're using the scope as a scope or video recorder, and where your priorities lie ie maximum night vision or maximum all round resolution of image.
  2. There's a long history of paper wrapped cartridges. It was brought up in the film "Shooter" as a way of ensuring the bullet doesn't become grooved when leaving the barrel (thus defeating forensics). Personally, I'm a bit sceptical of that. However, there is a long history of it being used before jacketing was feasible. It was also used in muzzle loaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_cartridge
  3. Yeah they have a pretty good selection of cartridges. Anything not available on there is often very specialist or doesn't exist. It looks very much as if the only option for felt is bismuth. Much better than steel but v. expensive. As Deker said above, ask the shoot. I would have concerns about barrel wear though with felt and steel for previously stated reasons.
  4. My inclination as stated above would be to explore loading some Bismuth in sub sonic. All the indications are, steel don't perform well at low speeds, probably due to lack of mass. Wonder if it would be safe to buy some sub sonic lead rounds, open the crimp, pour the shot out, weigh them, then substitute a slightly lesser weight in Bismuth.....Don't reload, so can't answer that myself, but I'd have thought with slightly less shot weight, the pressure would be a little lower than standard. Could be a cheaper way to get custom loaded subs. However, wouldn't like to say for definite without knowing the safety implications. Got to be careful with homeloads. Over to the reloading experts for the safety aspects / implications... .
  5. Personally, I've not seen any. Trouble is factory steel tend to be aimed at wildfowl, and as wildfowl fly high / are tough, they tend not to be sub sonic.
  6. Alsone

    Confined to barracks!

    Or Venereal Face Disease. Not sure that's non contact though. I used to take 1,500mg Vit C tablets from Holland and Barret (need special ones at that dosage as there's an additive to prevent kidney stones). Never had a cold in 3 yrs whilst taking them. Unsure why I stopped. Probably laziness through having to fetch them from the centre of town some distance away.
  7. Alsone

    FAC conker throwing.

    Careful, the left will be having them licenced next. It's no wonder they took them out of schools, playgrounds were littered with squirrels and magpies, was a right job for the cleaning staff.
  8. There are some suggested loads here - I am unable to verify if these are safe etc, so at your own risk: https://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/364306-12g-subsonic-steel-loads/ Seems to be some question over effectiveness of steel at sub sonic. I'm guessing you could substitute bismuth, but then you'd probably have to start developing loads from scratch.
  9. Alsone

    Number 40

    Yep they banned pheasant shooting. However, any ban is just the tip of the iceberg. As for being a tree hugger, I'm no tree hugger, I shoot. However, perhaps you need to change your attitude Mr. Deker. The world is changing and days of simply sticking 2 fingers up at those who don't agree with your sport are gone. The BASC and others are going all out to put forward the positives of shooting. It doesn't help to undo that with attitudes that simply enrage antis rather than explain the good reasons was to why shooting is necessary.
  10. Alsone

    Number 40

    Deker the vast majority of sporting shooters don't kill everything on a site. They shoot a few each night they're out and that's it or where there's a plague of eg rabbits, substantially reduce it. Most don't shoot to total removal and neither is it a good idea to either if no other reason than public perception. Only last week NRW (Natural Resources Wales read the Welsh Government) banned shooting on ALL Publicly Owned land in Wales. Every council in England has banned Grouse Shooting on it's moors. Image is more important now than ever.
  11. Alsone

    Number 40

    It is in the commercial sphere. I'm making a difference between commercial shooters and those for whom it's a hobby. I accept if you're running a business and the farmer says, I want all the bunnies dead on my fields, then you have a need to deliver that, or at least something very close to that, or at least so long as there are competitors who will (maybe time for a governing body / principles?) . The hobbyist / sporting shooter has more leeway. Equally, the effects of a kill all attitude to larger countryside pests such as bunnies and foxes, is the increased likelihood of a total ban on shooting. You have to remember that probably 90%+ of the voting public in this country haven't a clue, believe it's cruel to kill any animal, that shooters are nothing more than thugs who terrorise innocent animals for sport and that the countryside would be far better conservation wise if left alone - grouse moors in point. With that backdrop, it doesn't pay anyone commercial or otherwise to feed that view with total control.
  12. Alsone

    Number 40

    Deker I understand your position, you're livelihood is pest control. Those who shoot for sport have different priorities and more personal choice. There's also the question of the image of the sport and it's future. Antis would like nothing more than to be able to show that shooters are simply people who go around the countryside killing species to extinction in areas (irrespective of whether those areas re-populate or not). The fact is the majority don't. Most like to think they're re-balancing the countryside whilst enjoying some sport, and for most it's a preferable path to follow both personally, and for the good of the sport.
  13. Alsone

    Number 40

    I think you have to balance Pest Control with conservation. For sure you're not going to extinct foxes as they'll just move in from other areas over time. However, personally I don't see the virtue in leaving an area barren from a species no matter what the landowner might want. Shooting is as much about re-balancing imbalances in the countryside cause by an excess of food for certain species, as it is about shooting a species and all species including foxes and rabbits have their part to play. As I see it, shooting is about achieving a balance of species similar to what would be there had man not interfered and grown crops etc, not about the total removal of a species from an area. Total extermination is just a landowner with his eyes on money and not the countryside in my opinion, and it's not something I will bow to. I will control species down to reasonable numbers, but I'll never shoot them out, no matter what the landowner wants.
  14. Alsone

    .223 vs .22-250

    Isn't this the point? The choice between .223 and .22-250 is preference. They both kill foxes and both have advantages and disadvantages. So far as I can see this is just a discussion of the advantages / disadvantages of each. I pretty sure if you were to ask owners of each calibre they preferred, from the majority you'd get different answers aligned with their preference. Again agreed. But the reason for the question is because both .223 are suitable for fox. Ask .223 shooters, they probably tell you .223. Ask .22-250 shooters and they'll tell you .22-250. Both kill fox. It's all about weighing the advantages / disadvantages. There was a whole debate on this in the .204 thread some time ago. Personally, I've never heard of it complained of in relation to .22-250. Everything I've ever seen from .22-250 was devastating. Not denying though that the experience of shallower wounds with certain bullets above doesn't exist. Question is did it kill? If yes, then there's not much to complain about. Splash is really only a surface phenomen. If the bullet penetrates and stops, then there's only one place the energy is going. A bullet that passes though, is wasting a whole load of energy in it's penetration and post exit flight. If penetration depth was the be all and end all, we'd all be shooting fox with armour piercing. Deker I agree, horses for courses. You don't take a beach donkey to Cheltenham or a thoroughbred to Blackpool Beach. Sorry for the quote layout. This boards quote system is not the greatest.
  15. Alsone

    .223 vs .22-250

    Not quite. I've never heard of it complained of. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I don't doubt your experience. However, there are 3 factors to shallow wounds, velocity, bullet design and bullet weight. Take PO Ackley's work - someone with more experience than anyone on here and probably the greatest bullet designer that ever lived. A characteristic of a small fast light bullet is lower penetration but higher energy transference. That doesn't necessarily make it less effective as it transfers greater hydrostatic shock. Ackley reckoned if there was a single calibre he could choose to hunt with, for any North American game it was a .220 Swift!!!! It was his calibre of choice for deer. A shallow wound doesn't necessarily mean the bullet is ineffective unless taken to extremes as a shallow wound is simply an indication of more energy transference as the bullet expends it's energy expanding or fragmenting instead of retaining energy and penetrating. If it's dead I wouldn't worry about no deep chest penetration. It's obvious shock did it's job. It's only when you get no penetration and surface splash that it then becomes an issue eg .204 ruger with early 32gr bullets. Was it the calibre or bullets? I let you decide. But there are no recent reports I can find of issues with .204 anymore and .204 remains one of the most devastating rounds around eclipsing most .224's for terminal effect (and yes it pains me to say that having previously derided .204 for splashing).. If wounds are too shallow, then it's time to look at weight and design. In a famous test performed a few times, Ackley took 3 rifles .30-06, .270 and .220 Swift and a 1/2 inch thick armour plate from an APC. From 30 feet the 2 larger calibres splashed on the plate despite 1 being armour piercing and the other FMJ, whilst .220 Swift factory rounds consistently drilled 3/8 inch holes straight through. Proof if ever any was needed that penetration comes down to bullet design / weight and not necessarily the calibre, and that speed is king when matched to the circumstances with the right bullet.