.22Lr Or .17Hmr

[SportingShooter 0]

 

 

I already have SGC and now looking to apply for FAC.

 

I shoot a large farm that is cleared for .243, most of the other shooters with rifles use .223 and one uses .22LR but I doubt I will be granted for a centre fire at my first application so need to decide what rimfire would be best for me.

 

I understand that the .17HMR has better range, but is also a lot louder due to the super sonic rounds, where as the .22LR is quieter but requires a closer range.

 

will mostly be shooting foxes, but also rabbits when they get a bit bigger and are worth eating.

 

currently shooting an escort semi auto using AAA on foxes and 28g no5 on rabbits

 

I already have a scope, not too worried about a moderator as no one else there uses one so really just need to decide what calibre I want.

 

any suggestions? my mind says go for the HMR because of the foxes until I can variate to a centre fire, but I have been told that any rabbit inside 100yds wont be worth eating after being hit with a HMR round

You have a "good reason" for a centrefire so apply for one, it's as simple as that.

 

I don't hold with the myth that you wont be granted a centrefire on first application, it is a rumour and nothing more.

 

A centrefire and a .22LR would be ideal by the sounds of things.

Mate of mine put in for his fac

He put on it

Fac air rifle

22lr

17hmr

223

Got granted no problem

 

 

As it should be

 

I couldnt get a CF on first application as i didnt have a mentor i was granted .22lr and .17hmr and now 8 months later have .22lr and .22-250 on a open ticket and that's all i really need

 

Greatest of respect Dan but the mentor condition is not a legal requirement and is used as much as a bullying tactic as it is for public safety concerns.

 

If you had challenged it, they would have very few legal legs to stand on. I appreciate that on first grant most don't want to rock the boat in order to get a rifle, but it's not how it should be.

[slipper 116]

When I applied the fao said that mentoring conditions had been scrapped and that was a couple of years ago now

[celticrusader 78]

When I applied the fao said that mentoring conditions had been scrapped and that was a couple of years ago now

 

Yep this was amended a while ago but a few forces are either slow to get to grips with this or like SS said...use this as a bullying tactic to turn you away or dishearten you from this hobby you seek to do.

Edited August 10, 2014 by celticrusader

[shropshire dan 467]

Your probably right lads. I was just happy to get my fac lol

[celticrusader 78]

Yeah I felt the same at first Dan but we don't have to put up with that no more now anyways.

[Deker 3,453]

 

I already have SGC and now looking to apply for FAC.

 

I shoot a large farm that is cleared for .243, most of the other shooters with rifles use .223 and one uses .22LR but I doubt I will be granted for a centre fire at my first application so need to decide what rimfire would be best for me.

 

I understand that the .17HMR has better range, but is also a lot louder due to the super sonic rounds, where as the .22LR is quieter but requires a closer range.

 

will mostly be shooting foxes, but also rabbits when they get a bit bigger and are worth eating.

 

currently shooting an escort semi auto using AAA on foxes and 28g no5 on rabbits

 

I already have a scope, not too worried about a moderator as no one else there uses one so really just need to decide what calibre I want.

 

any suggestions? my mind says go for the HMR because of the foxes until I can variate to a centre fire, but I have been told that any rabbit inside 100yds wont be worth eating after being hit with a HMR round

You have a "good reason" for a centrefire so apply for one, it's as simple as that.

 

I don't hold with the myth that you wont be granted a centrefire on first application, it is a rumour and nothing more.

 

A centrefire and a .22LR would be ideal by the sounds of things.

 

 

:yes:

 

SS is spot on.

 

This myth persists because people let the Firearms department get away with it, and the more you do the more they will flex muscles they don't have, if you have the appropriate reason you should be granted whatever you want, so ask for it.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Deker

[Adrian Prisk 6]

That's what I thought about the mentoring. I have fac air, .22lr and also a slot for hmr but with the amount of foxes I need to sort a.223 would be better for me instead of the hmr. So I applied and got it, but with mentoring condition. With advice from basc I sent a letter requesting then remove the condition. I was basically told no chance. They said use an hmr. They had my ticket since the 15 july and I got no .22 ammo left so I agreed. She then said she would remove the .223 slot, I said no leave it for a while. She said ok but if you want it we would like it filled within 12 months.when I get my ticket back I will stock up with ammo and see what else I can do about the mentoring condition.

[celticrusader 78]

Well I think that's the problem....sounds like your talking to a clerk and not an feo, what did basc have to say as you've been denied this option and mentoring being an obsolete condition?

Unless you have no previous experience to they're knowledge of firearms at all should this apply.

Edited August 11, 2014 by celticrusader

[Alsone 789]

 

:yes:

 

SS is spot on.

 

This myth persists because people let the Firearms department get away with it, and the more you do the more they will flex muscles they don't have, if you have the appropriate reason you should be granted whatever you want, so ask for it.

 

 

 

This is always the problem though Deker isn't it.

 

Some forces appear to have a policy of not granting CF at 1st grant, and although it might be legally incorrect, unless the shooter wants to risk upsetting them or in the extreme case, battle them in Court, then he has to accept the condition. He probably shouldn't do, but many do rather than upset people they'll be dealing with for a long time.

 

There's also the issue that unless you can show you need it because of range considerations, then arguably rimfire is sufficient as its capable of downing foxes at close range. So it makes it a hard battle in Court if they stand on ceremony and claim rimfire is sufficient at 1st grant because you can't show good reason for needing the longer range capability of a CF due to the land you shoot over.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Alsone

[SportingShooter 0]

 

 

 

This is always the problem though Deker isn't it.

 

 

Some forces appear to have a policy of not granting CF at 1st grant, and although it might be legally incorrect, unless the shooter wants to risk upsetting them or in the extreme case, battle them in Court, then he has to accept the condition. He probably shouldn't do, but many do rather than upset people they'll be dealing with for a long time.

 

There's also the issue that unless you can show you need it because of range considerations, then arguably rimfire is sufficient as its capable of downing foxes at close range. So it makes it a hard battle in Court if they stand on ceremony and claim rimfire is sufficient at 1st grant because you can't show good reason for needing the longer range capability of a CF due to the land you shoot over.

 

 

Well that's exactly the reasoning behind the whole problem, people don't want to upset a person on the other end of a phone for a service you're paying for,

 

There is no getting away from the fact that Dead means Dead, not even the most anti-shooting judge could argue that a centrefire would kill a fox less effectively with a greater margin for error than a rimfire,

 

As you say, a rimfire is perfectly capable but in the interests of being humane a centrefire would be a better option in less experienced hands, safety grounds aside.

 

This is what we all pay shooting organisations for, to fight our corner. If a condition is unnecessary, then it shouldn't be there, it says that in the 2013 H.O. guidance.

 

I know I may sound stubborn but why should anyone settle for the second best option because of a risk averse policy gathering dust in a filing cabinet.

[shropshire dan 467]

Very true SS

[Alsone 789]

 

 

 

 

This is always the problem though Deker isn't it.

 

 

Some forces appear to have a policy of not granting CF at 1st grant, and although it might be legally incorrect, unless the shooter wants to risk upsetting them or in the extreme case, battle them in Court, then he has to accept the condition. He probably shouldn't do, but many do rather than upset people they'll be dealing with for a long time.

 

There's also the issue that unless you can show you need it because of range considerations, then arguably rimfire is sufficient as its capable of downing foxes at close range. So it makes it a hard battle in Court if they stand on ceremony and claim rimfire is sufficient at 1st grant because you can't show good reason for needing the longer range capability of a CF due to the land you shoot over.

 

 

Well that's exactly the reasoning behind the whole problem, people don't want to upset a person on the other end of a phone for a service you're paying for,

 

There is no getting away from the fact that Dead means Dead, not even the most anti-shooting judge could argue that a centrefire would kill a fox less effectively with a greater margin for error than a rimfire,

 

As you say, a rimfire is perfectly capable but in the interests of being humane a centrefire would be a better option in less experienced hands, safety grounds aside.

 

This is what we all pay shooting organisations for, to fight our corner. If a condition is unnecessary, then it shouldn't be there, it says that in the 2013 H.O. guidance.

 

I know I may sound stubborn but why should anyone settle for the second best option because of a risk averse policy gathering dust in a filing cabinet.

 

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

I think sometimes the fear is not so much upsetting the guy behind the phone so much as if the FEO might come after you later for something else.

[SportingShooter 0]

 

 

 

 

 

This is always the problem though Deker isn't it.

 

 

Some forces appear to have a policy of not granting CF at 1st grant, and although it might be legally incorrect, unless the shooter wants to risk upsetting them or in the extreme case, battle them in Court, then he has to accept the condition. He probably shouldn't do, but many do rather than upset people they'll be dealing with for a long time.

 

There's also the issue that unless you can show you need it because of range considerations, then arguably rimfire is sufficient as its capable of downing foxes at close range. So it makes it a hard battle in Court if they stand on ceremony and claim rimfire is sufficient at 1st grant because you can't show good reason for needing the longer range capability of a CF due to the land you shoot over.

 

 

Well that's exactly the reasoning behind the whole problem, people don't want to upset a person on the other end of a phone for a service you're paying for,

 

There is no getting away from the fact that Dead means Dead, not even the most anti-shooting judge could argue that a centrefire would kill a fox less effectively with a greater margin for error than a rimfire,

 

As you say, a rimfire is perfectly capable but in the interests of being humane a centrefire would be a better option in less experienced hands, safety grounds aside.

 

This is what we all pay shooting organisations for, to fight our corner. If a condition is unnecessary, then it shouldn't be there, it says that in the 2013 H.O. guidance.

 

I know I may sound stubborn but why should anyone settle for the second best option because of a risk averse policy gathering dust in a filing cabinet.

 

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

I think sometimes the fear is not so much upsetting the guy behind the phone so much as if the FEO might come after you later for something else.

 

 

I find the FEOs are usually a lot better than the office staff who rightly or wrongly know very little about the practicalities of shooting,

 

If the FEO is as stubborn, then you have nothing to lose in upsetting his little ego.

[Chr15j 59]

Ok well on renewal (already had .22lr I asked for HMR .243 or. 22-250 and Cambs said outright no to CF unless had dsc or experience and this was from chief FEO! So it's no myth! Suffice to say I have an HMR now but still no cf

[Elliott 436]

Ok well on renewal (already had .22lr I asked for HMR .243 or. 22-250 and Cambs said outright no to CF unless had dsc or experience and this was from chief FEO! So it's no myth! Suffice to say I have an HMR now but still no cf

 

I've just applied for .223 and .243 and also asked for my ticket to be opened. I was flatly refused an open ticket due to having my FAC for under five years and slapped with a mentoring condition

 

No need for DSC for me though, providing there's deer on my land I'm good to go

Edited August 31, 2014 by Elliott