Alsone

They're just trying to get a ban by the back door. Make it too expensive and too difficult for the majority to bother. You can never prevent anyone going mad in any scenario. If it wasn't a gun it would be a car, a plane, a bomb, a knife etc. All you can do is take REASONABLE precautions to ensure those holding certs are stable. Nothing is ever 100% watertight and if somebody is determine to kill, they'll find some means of doing so by alternative methods.

I though you were going to tell us you didn't own a .45 acp.... PS. Have to wonder if maybe the pirate flag was a clue... Sorry you paid over the odds. Lets hope it proves worth the money nevertheless. BTW ever tried 10mm? It's gaining a lot of traction now amongst those looking for more stopping power.

They'll round it up. You know what Government officials are like. Also, I can see them not changing the ban. They'll probably tell us to use Bismuth or something that costs £150 for a box of 50. Goodbye farmers crops when all the shooters refuse to carry out pest control because of they can't afford the cost.

I've used heavy loads of number 1 - I think they were almost 40g, just sub magnum and I found them highly effective at reasonable range - up to 40 yds. Never failed to get an instant kill with a headshot, sometimes a quick headshake and then a collapse but never a squeek out of any of them. The problem you can have with larger shot especially at range is pattern density as it takes a good number to deliver the shock required to kill. That's often where people go wrong with fox, they reach for SSG thinking bigger is better and then find they have insufficient hits to kill instantly. Not sa

I'm wondering if you bought the brands batteries as generally 18650 Lion batteries aren't that expensive around £7 for a quality branded battery.

I've always used lip squeaks to mimic a rabbit in distress. That said, technology is technology. Life moves on. I bet the 1st shooters who used ironsights said something similar about scopes. Everybody has the choice of what to use according to what they regard as sporting.

As I said we're nit picking here. I don't consider knowledge of basic safety that anyone should know before getting a gun tighter regulations. I call it a check on common sense, just like the conversation you have during you intial FEO visit. The alternative here is there's no basic safety knowledge, eventually there's an accident and the whole anti-community is baying for blood and a total ban on firearms as they are now following Plymouth. What I'm suggesting here is not some difficult test that's impossible to pass. It's the simplest of checks of basic safety completed online at h

C'mon Decker we're nit picking here. Anyone who can't pass a basic safety test, no doubt without a 100% requirement, I'm guessing it would probably be around 80-85%, in 1 initlal try and then 2 tries after 2 or more further training sessions / revision sessions on video, really doesn't deserve a certificate / or at least deserves a time out pending further applications.

Well it's not affecting everybody. It's a simple safety test at application followed by an free online video / interactive safety course if you fail and a retest. The alternative if accidents happen, is the antis call for a ban on guns, as they're doing now after Plymouth and an ever tightening restriction on who can own them if a total outright ban doesn't happen. It seems to me a simple free online comon sense / basic training test on application isn't excessive to identify those who maybe know insufficient information or nothing about gun safety. Lets face it, someone with prior shoot

TBH that sounds more like a bullet issue. Wonder if a solid pointed bullet actually got mixed in with the hollow points by accident? Maybe the machine somehow mounted a ballistic tip into a solid head that had missed have the cavity formed. It would be very unusual for such a small light bullet not to fragment on hitting something as solid as a skull, not to mention remaining intact enough to pass through the brain, ricochet down off the far side of the skull into the jaw and then ricochet again out. The fact the brain wasn't turned to mush suggests something that stayed solid and just skirted

That's the kind of person who needs reporting to the FEO for words of advice, mentouring or revocation. No one likes to grass but the issue with these people is one accident and it affects the whole shooting and licensing world. I've had a shot on a fox before and not taken it because it was partially hidden by wheat in a field. I had a safe shot, but chose to put the welfare of the animal before taking the shot as the only marker I had was some glare from the eyes so any shot would have been blind and a guess as to the orientation of the head at that moment, or where the heart / lungs w

The difference is your an expert shot. HMR's not so good for fox for those who aren't so great and they are out there unfortunately.

Yeah they're calling for blood over here atm following the Plymouth shooting.

I think the issue is it's has very little margin for error. In expert hands, there's no issue. For amateurs, espeically those with less experience, the margin for poorly placed shots is greater and thus wounded animals because the little round often doesn't deliver enough energy to kill cleanly when mis aimed. I think that's why the Police recommended it as not suitable for fox in some counties and why it also got a bad reputation against fox. The real answer is know your limitations and if you can't hit the bullseye or close almost all of the time, choose a more suitable round for your a

Yeah 77 shots. I just looked at 44. You guys had me thinking they changed the size of the boxes. So it's no heating and no food for the week then! Going to be a lonely week. That sausage is staying cold.