Alsone
-
Content Count
2,133 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Posts posted by Alsone
-
-
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.-
1
-
-
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 saying that's the case with BB's here, as there are more in the count and BB's well established for fox, but if chasing fox with shotty's, use heavy loads for shot numbers, tight chokes and keep the range reasonable.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Deker said:
I know the feeling well, just bought some new batteries for torches (TR18650) and had to take a sharp intake of breath!
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.
-
On 28/02/2023 at 23:16, Blackmag said:
I wonder how many of you lads could call a fox by hand that could be taken by a runner if it was legal rather than your fancy gadgets or long range rifles at 150 yards plus ect as from what I see field craft is being replaced by technology which is clear by a lot of posts
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.
-
4
-
-
On 26/02/2023 at 11:37, Deker said:
So, which part of, if you don't pass the test you don't get a FAC, isn't tighter regulations????
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 home in 5 mins by an interactive questionnaire. Even if someone cheats they learn by looking up the answers!
Anyone who doesn't know not to point it at others, how to make sure it's safe / unload and check it, how to traverse a style, gate or wall, shouldn't be out.I bet on your range Deker anyone not able to / failing to comply with any of that is straight off the range and rightly so.
The Swedish model mentioned above by KimE is far more onerous than a simple safety questionnaire and that's the other way something like this could go if a total ban wasn't imposed - expensive compulsory courses with tough exams and detailed knowledge which I'd suggest in the most part isn't necessary when a simple free safety check of the most basic of practices (and free video tutorial for those who need to learn) would suffice.
Sometimes it pays the sport to get ahead of the curve and atincipate the next attack point. No point feeding the trolls when food can be put beyond reach with no real detriment to the community. -
1 hour ago, Deker said:
So, which part of, if you don't pass the test you don't get a FAC, isn't tighter regulations????
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.
-
29 minutes ago, Deker said:
So, which part of, if you don't pass the test you don't get a FAC, isn't tighter regulations????
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 shooting experience will probably breeze through it and pass straight away with no safety course and those who don't have a couple of chances to learn and pass before before being rejected. You could allow 2 retakes to give everyone a fair go before rejecting an application.
Non of it is rocket science. Backstopping and thinking about the environment / animal is often common sense and a little ballistic knowledge. Basic safety such as not pointing a gun at people, knowing how to safely clear it eg in a rifle removing the magazine and racking the bolt 3 times followed by a visual glance at the chamber, or in a shot gun braking it open and removing the cartridges then carrying it visibly open is again not rocket science. The only bit that's not common sense is the racking 3 times but that's a taught / learned behaviour. Traversing a wall / gate etc safely is learned but common sense. There's nothing here that's difficult or would stop a sensible or reasonably intelligent person from obtaining a licence.
-
15 hours ago, paulus said:
I have to admit i am not a fan of using an HMR on Fox, The one time i tried it in the past did not end well at all. I was out on a small horsey place looking for a chicken killer just before Dusk, Next door to this place is a Very large Garden centre, Eventually i spotted the fox exiting between 2 huge glass houses and entering the property i was on, He walked half way across a small pasture and stopped next to a clump of nettles, No more than 70 yards away, I was leaning on the top of an old Oak gatepost. When i put the scope on him he was sitting face on, licking his gonads. Cross hair on the top of his head and pulled the trigger, I watched the impact expecting him to collapse but no, He ran, not only did he run, he ran the rest of the pasture before i had the opportunity to put another round in him, When i examined the body my first round had entered the middle of his skull, Passed through the brain, exited the roof of his mouth then ricocheted off his bottom jaw, breaking it. In theory he should have at most ran a few feet, But in reality he ran roughly 100 yards, That put me off using the calibre for fox`s but i have a mate who swears by them and has never had any issues. May have been just one of those things but i choose not to find out.
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 the brain rather than passing it through it. That's not an effect I would expect from a HMR which is usually small but highly explosive.
I'm not saying HMR is the most suitable round out there, but that certainly isn't the most characteristic description of HMR terminal effects which are nothing if not explosive. -
16 hours ago, Stavross said:
s I spotted a fox at the top of the field through the thermal, looking at it through the NV I could see it was skylined with no backstop as we were in a dip, the fox moved to the back of the lambing sheds so no shot, so I thought, my man was up on his sticks and shot the bloody thing at the back of the sheds no more than 60 meters, now he was using SP’s and I heard the round strike the tin sheeting on the shed, now he did kill the fox but for someone who is a professional shooter and better than everyone ( his words ) that was some of the worst shooting I have ever seen, how these people get an FAC is beyond me
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 were on a body I couldn't see. I've also refused a shot where the animal has been stood against a wall so as to avoid ricochet. Sometimes it just takes common sense. Unfortunately, some people out there seem to lack this.
Whereas I don't believe in tighter regulations, I do believe the FEO should perhaps ask applicants about whether they'd take a shot in certain cases (maybe an online test) - please tell us why you would take this shot (multiple scenarios with some a non shot scenario, you've come to a wall / style / gate and need to get to the other side, what do you do?, You see someone in the field you are shooting in what do you do?, You have finished shooting or are coming to a road or approaching another person, what do you do?) and if someone fails, then a compulsory safety course and a retake of a different test. Repeated fail = no cert. That way it only affects those with no or poor safety knowledge. Those who don't know when it's safe to take a shot, how to make a gun safe in those sceanarios above and how to deal with tresspassers (or the sudden appearance of workers) in the field they are in. -
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.
-
30 minutes ago, Deker said:
Totally agree, it has limitations, but the HMR is an excellent fox round used sensibly.
A few years back the HMR was slagged off by many as useless/underpowered for fox, mainly buy those with little or no experience or who couldn't shoot straight! But not so much anymore.
Of course it can't do everything a CF can do, but it is very effective in its field of operation. I use the HMR a LOT for domestics, and many other situations where a CF is ridiculous overkill!
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 ability (and hone your skills).
This is one real instance where some forces being reluctant to grant more powerful calibres to newbies really backfires. No-one needs .50 bmg. But granting a marginal round to someone for fox control who's very new to shooting, isn't a good idea from a welfare pov. -
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.-
1
-
-
Nice shooting. 2 boxes of cartridges = no heating for a week then. What a country we live in!
-
On 15/02/2023 at 21:53, foxdropper said:
The hornet drops off at 200m mate .At least the one I used did .You don’t really want to be allowing hold over on a fox at range ,much better to trust the kit and shot at it with the .222 or the .223
Depends where it's zer'o'ed. 17 hornet has a very similar curve to .223:
From Shooting UK Magazinbe's review of the .17 Hornet:
On 15/02/2023 at 22:48, Stavross said:I never said it wasn’t
50ft/lbs of energy at 200 yards is not a lot for an animal the size of a fox, I wouldn’t think many would drop on the spot, I would of thought even a light .223 would still be doing over 700ft/lbs at that distance, I’d be more than confident in that, to me that makes the .223 a better option than a hornet
I agree 50ft lbs of energy is low. That's not what I'm recommending, but what is supposedly the minimum amount of energy required for a clean kill for fox at any distance (obviously 50ft lbs is at the target not the muzzle). There are some tables somewhere, I forget where on the internet, that state the minimum amount of recommended energy for a clean kill for a variety of animals. The .17 hornet still has 300ft ft lbs at 200yds. More than enough.
I do agree though for fox at 200yds+ hornet would not be my 1st choice. I'm a great believer in overkill to allow better margins for mis-aimed / deviated shots and anyone who's followed my views on here for a long time knows, I'm a great fan of .204 Ruger and .22-250 for fox for that very reason. Dead is dead, but extra dead gives more margin. There is of course a line where overpentration rears it's ugly head but with .22's, we're not really in that territory.-
2
-
-
On 14/02/2023 at 21:27, Stavross said:
At that distance I’d use the centrefire
I’ve never had a hornet, shot a couple only on rabbits and they don’t half wack’em
Hornet is CF. It's good to hundreds on birds. People have taken fox at 250-300 with Hornet. It's still got over 300 ft lbs at 200yds with the 25 grain and over 200ft lbs at 300yds with tons of velocity. Whereas personally I'd recommend a larger CF for fox at 300, hornet still has enough energy and velocity to be more than be humane. From memory, fox require about 50 ft lbs so at 200yds, Hornet has 6 times that.
-
2
-
-
If it's paid to the farmer, the shooter will never see it, especially those who are casual rough shooters and not employed by an estate.
-
A honeymoon in Bournemouth instead of Barbados, might be another sticking point.
-
On 09/02/2023 at 21:31, foxdropper said:
Mean while back on planet earth the cost is irrelevant if your life revolves around it .Those that give up because of cost were always culls anyway .
To an extent. It just depends on how much spare cash you have. Not everyone can simply afford them irresective because it's what matters to them. Try telling the wife you're weekend clay shoot is more important than her heating or eating all week, and see how long the marriage lasts!
Even a cheeky bunch of flowers isn't going to save that one.
-
2
-
-
On 08/02/2023 at 17:47, philpot said:
It is pretty severe to the point that many clay shooters will stop shooting competition because you are looking at £100 total cost of a 100 bird sporting when you consider travel, food. entry and cartridges. I am seriously thinking of looking at reloading again after many years of factory loads but with my wife and myself shooting and plenty of time to make the cartridges, it may now be viable again.
One thing is for certain, I will be having a deep conversation with 'Clay & Game', the reloading specialists , at the Northern Shooting show.
Phil
I used to do 2 rounds (80 clays) for £35, including 40 clays and 100 cartidges 20yrs back.
-
Inevitable although the prices have gone up ridiculously anyway in the laset few years. I used to buy Gamebore White Gold for £4 a box or £129 a 1,000 case, and now they're £9.10 or £304 a 1,000.
-
200yds is more .17 hornet territory if you want to stick with a small calibre. Not really anything in RF with the energy or manageable bullet drop at that range unless you want to start dialling in huge compensation as if on the range.
The one possible exception is I'm unsure of .17WSM at those ranges, but does that even exist now? Never really seemed to take off and google has no ballistics data suggesting maybe it's obsolete now. -
Barrel length is always a contentious issue. Longer barrel = slower smoother swing and better sight picture. Shorter barrel = faster swing but can be harder to control / keep smooth and reduced sight picture. It's always personal preference. I like the compormise of the 30" personally, but we're all different.
-
2
-
BBC
in Rimfire, Centrefire & Shotguns
Posted · Edited by 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.