Jump to content

Alsone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,133

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Alsone

  1. Alsone
    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.
  2. Alsone
    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.
  3. Alsone
    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
  4. Alsone
    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
  5. Alsone
    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
  6. Alsone
    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.
  7. Alsone
    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
  8. Alsone
    I've never heard of any complaints of splash with .22-250. By shallow wounds I'm presuming you mean it didn't penetrate all the way through as often seen with fox and slower bullets such as .223. Isn't this what Ackley was always promoting though? Velocity = max energy transference = max expansion / fragmentation and max hydro static shock rather than less transference and more penetration.
  9. Alsone
    Or simply because different people have different preferences. If .223 was superior, then no-one would be using .22-250 or vice versa. It's a very personal choice between the two.
  10. Alsone
    Yes it's Italian. The word Finito appears in several places where the barrel proof marks are. PSF means finished proof with smokeless powders. That said, it doesn't look high end. Wonder if it could be something such as a Turkish import proofed for the Italian home market.
  11. Alsone
    The debate will continue for ever.... For me it's the .22-250. More stopping power in my opinion and as someone much better placed than me to judge once said, I believe a Mr. Ackley no less, it's velocity that kills. Anyone doubting that should look at the performance of the .204 Ruger. It's terminal explosive power exceeds that of almost all the larger .224 rifles. The difference is the velocity. Then again as some will point out dead is dead. Personally, I see not deadness but margins for error, and greater terminal damage increases the error margin for a clean kill. Equally though it c
  12. Alsone
    My mate had a finnfire in .22. Nice rifle but no real advantage over the CZ. You can by a .17 CZ with a bling laminated Boyds stock fitted for £200 less than a Finnfire and it looks a $1M more, plus it's available in 16" barrels off the peg: Scroll down and there are various stock options that blow the Finnfire away in my opinion: https://www.mcavoyguns.co.uk/contents/en-uk/d693_CZ_.17_HMR_Rifles.html
  13. Alsone
    What are they going to sue for? The problem is the legislation. The rules surrounding licensing are not laws, just guidelines. Whilst some judges will take the line in a licensing appeal that the police should follow the guidelines and award a cert where they aren't followed, the simple fact is the Police Forces involved aren't breaking the law by not following them. They're not legally bound to follow them, there are no penalties for not doing so (besides the risk that a judge might award a cert where they refused one by departing from the guidelines). The result is any Police force can
  14. Alsone
    Came across this on a Youtube channel I watch. Testing an $18 scope from Amazon on a shotgun to see how it handles recoil. The amazing thing is, the optics look super sharp and bright, better than many far more expensive scopes I've seen, and it stood up to testing. They also report it appears accurate and appears to adjust well!
  15. Alsone
    I spoke to the BASC and they say they're fighting this currently. What it really needs is for someone to challenge it in Court but then again, that's what the Police rely on in my opinion, the lack of funds of those applying and the fact they're only guidelines. What's really needed is for the Guidelines not to be Guidelines but legally binding rules on every force. This would stop all this cr*p once and for all. I can't think of any other area of law, when the bodies affected by it can just make up their own rules as and when they like and get away with it.
  16. Alsone
    It's hard to tell if it was early bullet design as I've not seen anything recent, or maybe people just don't report it anymore. However, all of the reports seem to involve 32gr ammo. Once you transition to 35gr or above, there are no reports of splash I've ever seen. TBH I wouldn't be surprised it was early ammo. It was a new calibre and with such high velocity and a light bullet it's conceivable that maybe the bullet required a tougher jacket than manufacturers anticipated. However, I wouldn't know the actual answer.
  17. Alsone
    There used to be quite a lot of reports about this. This is just 1 thread on another forum. I'll let you search for the rest. Not had one so can't comment on personal experience. However, the blame seemed to be pointed at the 32gr bullets.
  18. Alsone
    Might have been best to put them in a hole and burn them. Trouble with leaving them, is it's more likely to spread.
  19. Alsone
    English Deer. Scottish deer are different and fall over much easier. ? .22-250 is more than capable of killing small / med species of deer. Unfortunately it's use in England is restricted because of the Deer Act to Chinese and Muntjac only. As for .223 vs .22-250, everyone has their favourite. .22-250 is flatter and faster with more energy. .223 is quieter but not as flat or fast. Ammo is a bit more expensive for .22-250. .22-250 is more destructive. .243 is an all round fox / deer cartridge. If you want separate calibres then there are plenty of suitable calibres for fox. As fo
  20. Alsone
    I didn't say any of those things. Merely that with a FFP it holds it aim at all zooms so you don't need additional BDC for the zoom. I also agree with small quarry, the reticule can potentially obscure the quarry, depending on the type of reticule in use and the magnification applied. It's horses for courses, both FFP and SFP have their advantages and disadvantages. For me personally, I see more of an edge to a FFP, as any reticule issue can be alleviated by a careful choice of reticule type in the 1st place and the advantage of not having to worry about 2 sets of BDC is greater than reticule
  21. Alsone
    I'm not doubting you can dial it in, but it's much easier to have to just deal with BDC range adjustments rather than range + zoom BDC. Each to their own I suppose.
  22. Alsone
    The crosshairs hold but the point of aim shifts requiring a different BDC according to the zoom magnification. With 1st focal plane, everything remains a constant just as with fixed power so single a BDC or holdover point for any range is all that's required.
  23. Alsone
    Must admit I've changed my opinion of the .204 over the past couple of years. Lovely piece of kit with the right bullet. However, there have been splash issues with 32 grain. The heavier rounds especially the 39/ 40 grain are in my opinion a better bet and carry more far energy downrange. Not sure why you think the 32 gr is superior. Ballistics for the 40gr are almost identical, despite the higher co-efficient (literally to within 0.1 of an inch at 400yds with the widest difference being 0.2 inches at any range below that). Meanwhile, energy is approx 10% higher out to 300yds, and nearly doubl
  24. Alsone
    A zoom will hold it's aim if it's 1st focal plane. The penalty is the cross hair becomes magnified as you zoom, and first focal planes scopes tend to be at the expensive end of the market. Most cheaper scopes are 2nd focal plane which stops the cross hair magnification, but the penalty is the point of aim shifts. This is where it pays to know what you're buying ie rather than simply buying X brand, buying on the basis of X Brand + 1st or 2nd focal plane, budget allowing and application in mind (on small targets the cross hair magnification might be an issue). With a fixed scope, the focal plan
  25. Alsone
    That's why it pays to buy a 1st focal plane scope. No shifting point of aim.
×
×
  • Create New...