.22 Allowed But .17Hmr Not Allowed

[paulus 26]

Hi

Yet another firearms department making their own rules up! As said many of them don't understand.when I phone my local department I like to take a few paracetamol before hand because if i don't speak to Lindsay i end up with a blinder of a migraine.its laughable sometimes.but on this topic they seen to say if land is clear for .17 hmr then it's clear for the .22 and visa versa.but try to explain that you are using one moderator on two rifles,it took some doing,I tell you somet the best thing that ever happened to me all them years ago was getting open condition on my rimmys and cf,I no longer need the pills.

Good luck

223

knowing you flo helps, mine rang me the other week asking if i wanted to apply to become an RFD :laugh:

[TWOTWOTHREE 152]

For god sake take the job lol. shooters in your area might get put on the straight n narrow without the migraines !!!

[dazzz 421]

QUESTION it mate it's a condition NOT LAW, just becarefull how you word it, i did similar years ago and he didnt like me telling him his job much but i still got my way,

i had both .22 and .17 even though they both had there uses i sold the .22 as IMHO the .17 is by far the safer round

[The one 8,398]

That doesn't make sense i would question it as well

[Deker 3,453]

Seems more than a little odd to me, and with .22lr available over 200ft lb I'm confused!

[Beefbeefbeef 10]

I have written back questioning it and also making the point that due to its flat shooting characteristics and less chance of ricochets, the .17HMR is a safer round than the .22rf which they say the land is cleared for.

 

Will report back when I get a reply but it is very frustrating to have to point out such simple facts.......

[Deker 3,453]

I have written back questioning it and also making the point that due to its flat shooting characteristics and less chance of ricochets, the .17HMR is a safer round than the .22rf which they say the land is cleared for.

 

Will report back when I get a reply but it is very frustrating to have to point out such simple facts.......

 

:hmm: ...........

 

............so on that logic is a 17 Hornet Etc., Etc., SAFER than a HMR and therefore safer than .22lr?

 

This whole situation does seem strange but you still need to be careful in any comments.

 

Just why is a 17g V-Max projectile at 245ft lb SAFER than a .22lr 40g Segmenting HP projectile at 98ft lb? (CCI 0074) or a 40g Segmenting HP at 45ft lb (CCI 0970). And what about the FMJ and Hollow point HMR that can bounce for England given a chance?

 

Ricochets are a possibility with any calibre and any round, actually hitting your quarry/target will reduce any possible ricochet chances dramatically!

 

Edited May 14, 2013 by Deker

[Alsone 789]

 

I'm pretty sure they did inspect it because the landowner said she had made an appointment to inspect it a few days before. The letter from the police also said the landowner did not want foxes shot (i know that already - not sure why they said that) so they had obviously spoken.

 

 

I don't know what foxing has to do with .17HMR as to the best of my knowledge, the Home Office withdrew .17HMR as an approved calibre for fox use last year.

 

Therefore, .17 HMR is left for the purposes of Good Reason as a small vermin round.

 

Whereas I don't believe it stops you using it against foxes provided you make humane kills as there is no specified legal minimum calibre for fox control, it does mean that wanting to carry out fox control doesn't qualify as Good Reason any more for owning .17 HMR, which seems to be by implication their argument here, albeit in the opposite sense - that because you aren't allowed to shoot foxes, you can't justify .17 HMR. In fact, the fact that you are only allowed to shoot small vermin and .17HMR is now classified as a small vermin only round and not a fox round is Good Reason for owning it where you're not shooting foxes as it is its only use.

 

That being the case, I fail to see how the force can deny you access to the round as you have Good Reason if you have permission to shoot vermin on the land concerned especially if those vermin are going to be at ranges beyond normal .22lr ranges.

 

It seems you are being denied on the grounds of safety based on the safety of the ground concerned, but either the ground is safe for use with rimfire or its not.

 

I've read a lot on here about I was granted permission for rimfire and my shoot is only 70 acres - my friend was granted permission for rimfire on a farm of around 2 acres with nearby housing and roads! The anwser is there are means of backstopping the shots and this was recongised by the local force.

 

I personally cannot see any justification for saying .22lr is safe and .17hmr is not given that .22 is known to richochet and .17hmr breaks up, and ricochets aside, you either have a safe backstop or you don't and implying that you should be relying on bullet drop to achieve safety is like saying you should be relying on Russian Roulette for checking if the gun chamber and magazine are empty or not. Safety comes from good practice not from relying on unknown quanities such as bullet drop to save your backside wheen you get it wrong.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Alsone

[Deker 3,453]

 

 

I'm pretty sure they did inspect it because the landowner said she had made an appointment to inspect it a few days before. The letter from the police also said the landowner did not want foxes shot (i know that already - not sure why they said that) so they had obviously spoken.

 

 

I don't know what foxing has to do with .17HMR as to the best of my knowledge, the Home Office withdrew .17HMR as an approved calibre for fox use last year.

 

Therefore, .17 HMR is left for the purposes of Good Reason as a small vermin round.

 

Whereas I don't believe it stops you using it against foxes provided you make humane kills as there is no specified legal minimum calibre for fox control, it does mean that wanting to carry out fox control doesn't qualify as Good Reason any more for owning .17 HMR, which seems to be by implication their argument here, albeit in the opposite sense - that because you aren't allowed to shoot foxes, you can't justify .17 HMR. In fact, the fact that you are only allowed to shoot small vermin and .17HMR is now classified as a small vermin only round and not a fox round is Good Reason for owning it where you're not shooting foxes as it is its only use.

 

That being the case, I fail to see how the force can deny you access to the round as you have Good Reason if you have permission to shoot vermin on the land concerned especially if those vermin are going to be at ranges beyond normal .22lr ranges.

 

It seems you are being denied on the grounds of safety based on the safety of the ground concerned, but either the ground is safe for use with rimfire or its not.

 

I've read a lot on here about I was granted permission for rimfire and my shoot is only 70 acres - my friend was granted permission for rimfire on a farm of around 2 acres with nearby housing and roads! The anwser is there are means of backstopping the shots and this was recongised by the local force.

 

I personally cannot see any justification for saying .22lr is safe and .17hmr is not given that .22 is known to richochet and .17hmr breaks up, and ricochets aside, you either have a safe backstop or you don't and implying that you should be relying on bullet drop to achieve safety is like saying you should be relying on Russian Roulette for checking if the gun chamber and magazine are empty or not. Safety comes from good practice not from relying on unknown quanities such as bullet drop to save your backside wheen you get it wrong.

 

 

Have a read of my Post above yours!

 

Help me out here, the 2002 Home Office guide never included HMR at all, let alone for fox, so it was NEVER an approved Fox calibre in that sense, so how can they withdraw it as a Fox calibre? Are you saying it now joins the ranks of the .22lr and .22WMR which simply do not list Fox next to it, which people have had conditioned for fox regularly?

 

And how does that equate to all of us that have ALL our calibres listed on our FAC's as AOLQ, especially as you point out there is NO legal minimum calibre/energy/ammo/whatever for fox?

 

Edited May 17, 2013 by Deker

[Alsone 789]

I believe the .17HMR was launched after the guidelines were drawn up as they were both in 2002, hence why it never appeared in the list - see page 82 here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117797/HO-Firearms-Guidance.pdf .Only .17 remington is listed.

 

Maybe I wasn't precise enough with my wording saying the Home Office withdrew it - It's my understanding that many firearms departments have accepted fox shooting as good reason to hold .17HMR since those guidelines were published and the calibre was launched. Equally I understand from reports from shooters around the web that many of those departments changed policy and as of last year are no longer willing to accept fox shooting as Good Reason for holding .17HMR as they no longer believe its a suitable calibre. I don't actually know if this was individual decisions or a guideline from the Home Office, sorry for the misleading wording. Given that the local constabulary made a point of saying that he wasn't authorised for shooting fox, it would appear they were trying to argue that its overpowered for small vermin and thus only suitable as a fox round from a good reason point of view. This though appears to fly in the face of what seems to have been happening at other firearms departments who now apparently only accept it for vermin.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Alsone

[Deker 3,453]

I believe the .17HMR was launched after the guidelines were drawn up as they were both in 2002, hence why it never appeared in the list - see page 82 here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117797/HO-Firearms-Guidance.pdf .Only .17 remington is listed.

 

Maybe I wasn't precise enough with my wording saying the Home Office withdrew it - It's my understanding that many firearms departments have accepted fox shooting as good reason to hold .17HMR since those guidelines were published and the calibre was launched. Equally I understand from reports from shooters around the web that many of those departments changed policy and as of last year are no longer willing to accept fox shooting as Good Reason for holding .17HMR as they no longer believe its a suitable calibre. I don't actually know if this was individual decisions or a guideline from the Home Office, sorry for the misleading wording. Given that the local constabulary made a point of saying that he wasn't authorised for shooting fox, it would appear they were trying to argue that its overpowered for small vermin and thus only suitable as a fox round from a good reason point of view. This though appears to fly in the face of what seems to have been happening at other firearms departments who now apparently only accept it for vermin.

 

Exactly, the Home Office GUIDE to the Police of 2002 (I have a Hard Copy) did not feature the HMR, as, during the period of its compilation the HMR did not in effect exist!

 

Regardless...The Home Office book is "GUIDELINES", back in 2002 when .22lr and .22WMR (.22RF) were NOT listed as suitable for fox mine were specifically conditioned with the word Fox, as was my HMR (so were/are MANY other peoples, then and now), some years back all my Firearms acquired the condition AOLQ, so whatever the Guidelines say it is my call, and 100% legal to shoot fox with ALL my rimfires!

 

This debate crops up quite regularly, I have a pal in another region and I can stand next to him and shoot fox with my rimfires, yet his region will not consider them for fox, DAFT!

 

Some regions refuse Fox on some or all rimfires, some regions refuse Fox for "some people" with rimfires, NOTHING has changed!

Edited May 17, 2013 by Deker

[Beefbeefbeef 10]

As a follow-up to this i have had a reply back from the issuing force saying that because .22rf is already approved for the land, "of course .17hmr is acceptable". Totally contradicts their first letter. No explanation, no apology. They did take the opportunity to say that the landowner does not want foxes shot, once again, but i knew that anyway.

 

A positive ending but a bizarre story.

 

PS They are ok with me using it for fox on my other land (although that won't be my primary target).

[dazzz 421]

RESULT, IN A LONG WINDED ROUDABOUT WAY FFS BUT YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED IN THE END

[Alsone 789]

Sounds like a good result.

[zx10mike 137]

well done for sorting it