At last....

[foxdropper 17,092]

6 minutes ago, BenBhoy said:

Haha I actually didn't mean you Tim. Political/social differences aside, purely from a countryside point of view I tend to agree with lot of what you say. You live & work the countryside & shoot for right reasons aka not a townie that just wants to kill as much as possible.

But I'm saying no names, my new year resolution of being nice is already on thin ice!! 

Now I’m even more cut .That description from Stav fits perfectly .

[foxdropper 17,092]

Thinking about it .If old SD has any respect for quarry he wouldn’t be going out shooting fox with a 17 knowing ,expecting to give everything a follow up shot .No respect at all in that from my perspective and that goes for anyone else too.

Its damn right disrespectful to knowingly set out with a gun that’s described as marginal then actually shoot a fox twice to cover your arse .

The other thing is this ….who in their right mind posts stuff these days purely for  two likes when there’s a few pages out of being confrontational .

 

[Sausagedog 7,381]

7 hours ago, BenBhoy said:

@Sausagedog was that the supplied ir torch? 

What's the daytime image like, comparing to mid range day scope? 

It was Ben yes. I'm sure a better ir would really boost the image.

The video is out of focus because I was pushing my luck I didn't bother focusing.

Day time is very good but I don't really have much to compare with except a little sytong 66. It is way better than that in day and night.

On 32x the image gets a little grainy in day but still ok.

It's an ok unit. I got it from optics warehouse reduced in price, factory refurbished....what ever that means but does need a firmware update, it will freeze occasionally but a simple reboot takes moments. I'll do it one day though 

Good app for the phone too.

I like it.

[Alsone 789]

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.

[Alsone 789]

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.

[Deker 3,453]

13 minutes ago, Alsone said:

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.

So, which part of, if you don't pass the test you don't get a FAC, isn't tighter regulations????

[Alsone 789]

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.

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Alsone

[Sausagedog 7,381]

Humans suffer from tunnel vision often, they/we lose sight of the bigger picture very quickly.

 

[Deker 3,453]

27 minutes ago, Alsone said:

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.

 

So, which part of, if you don't pass the test you don't get a FAC, isn't tighter regulations????

[Stavross 13,746]

17 hours ago, Sausagedog said:

Some people never cease to amaze me how they think and do things Stav. I just keep away from them, eejits 

I’ve sort of come to the conclusion that I’m not going out with other anymore or inviting anyone out with me, I have enough land to not need to rely on others, so I think it’s the way to go ( am I now a grumpy old man)

[Stavross 13,746]

3 hours ago, Sausagedog said:

It was Ben yes. I'm sure a better ir would really boost the image.

If you want a lend of a laser ir to try give me a shout, I’ve got a pbirL that’s not getting used at the moment 

[FOXHUNTER 5,020]

33 minutes ago, Stavross said:

I’ve sort of come to the conclusion that I’m not going out with other anymore or inviting anyone out with me, I have enough land to not need to rely on others, so I think it’s the way to go ( am I now a grumpy old man)

Too true , I am the same ,done it for years as nobody meets my high standard

Nothing wrong with being a grumpy old man

[FOXHUNTER 5,020]

12 hours ago, foxdropper said:

I respect your posts mate but surely you could see that fox was dead ffs .Whether it’s shot with a .22 or a 308 a floppy fox is a dead un .

I knew it was dead but he made it even deader

Have you put your dummy back in , I thought you weren't posting anymore

[Alsone 789]

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.
 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Alsone

[Deker 3,453]

12 minutes ago, Alsone said:

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.
 

Third try, is this clear now????  How can you say you don't believe in tighter regulations and then directly proceed to suggest tighter regulations????

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.

 

So, which part of, if you don't pass the test you don't get a FAC, isn't tighter regulations????

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Deker