6.5 for Fox

[PhilM]

So my .223 is conditioned for Fox (&AOLQ).

 

I have recently upgraded my NV setup on it to a Drone Pro (10x) and will soon stay in this night config, my dayscope sitting in its box, much as the Drone has a QD mount I don't trust them enough to not check zero every time I change - which is not always practical.

 

So I could go and ask for another 223 or similar for day time use, I have good reason to justify it.

 

However I am wondering whether it would be appropriate to ask for my target 6.5CM rifle to be conditioned for fox instead, this sits with a high end day optic on it and would fit the bill for those occasions to am required to deal with a fox problem before dark.

 

What's the UKV concensus on this request? The rifle is used exclusively at the moment for target shooting and would make an excellent addition to my fox kit. The Drone can do daylight ops, but it's no real comparison to a quality day optic, especially at ranges over 200m (ability to dial/calibrated reticle etc).

 

My ticket is open - it it true or myth that I'd require a piece of police approved land for the 6.5 if they granted the above? Currently I have some land that is police approved for 223 and the rest I shoot on my judgement given the open ticket. None as far as I am aware has been conditioned to 6.5 or above specifically. Is this another hoop or does the open ticket now negate the need for minimum of 1 piece of land in that calibre to be passed by the local police?

 

Cheers!

[justin credible]

So long as you have permission to shoot on a piece of land, you can shoot whichever calibre you have, as it is you that deem the shot to be safe because you have an open ticket.

6.5 should certainly be allowed for fox control without any problem.

[PhilM]

Which is the case - thanks Justin, good to know 6.5 for fox is a reasonable request (in the absence of it being dual use for deer or something).

 

Maybe it was some BS I was told early on in my shooting career, that even though you had open you still needed one piece of land passed for every caliber you shoot over land. I didn't give it much thought since some of my land I knew definitely was cleared for the 223 I shot there and across several other permissions since it was opened.

 

Never had to rethink it until now when I am looking at asking for a change of use for my 6.5CM.

[justin credible]

You may as well put in for deer use as well while your at it.

I'm not sure though if plod insist on you having a ds1 first though, they didn't years ago.

[minkstone]

Phil, I regularly take my drone on and off my .223 and have no problems at all with it returning to zero

 

Secondly... Here in Staffordshire regardless of whether you have open ticket or not you still have to have a "named" piece of land...

[David Hancock]

I have 6.5 CM for AOLQ, deer - covering mouse, fox and boar and fly tipping arseholes who trash up the countryside with their tyres and fridges. Open ticket.

[duey]

An open ticket usually indicates the condition to each rifle individually for its use

If you have an 'open ticket' with a rifle on it that is only conditioned for target use you cannot use it in an open ticket situation, only on approved range etc etc so just check all your rifles are covered on your 'open ticket' before you use it as if nothing else any insurance you have may be invalid if 'incorrect' use of the rifle results in an incident, god forbid !!

 

I assume your aware of all this but may just be worth a quick re read of conditions before use

[Boydy47]

The consensus on the open ticket is it comes down to the force you're under. With wilts you don't have to have a piece of land cleared for each cal (or the biggest) if you're open, I have this in writing from an FEO when I queried it after a similar thread, also my first piece of deer ground was 12 acres cleared up to WMR, with an open ticket getting a 6.5 x55 was no issue.

 

As for getting the 6.5 conditioned, from memory there is a note in the guidance that fox control should be considered good reason for 6 and 6.5 mm calibres in windy areas where people want to shoot heavier bullets.

 

Either way you have the very strong argument that by simply changing the condition for your existing rifle you will not be increasing your overall holding, something you'd have to do if they insisted on a more commonly accepted foxing calibre

[VarmLR]

Just had the conversation with my FEO. As I already have 223 and 308, it was questioned why I "needed" a 6.5, and my fear (growing as the conversation went on) was that they were unlikely to grant 6.5 unless for target purposes. I simply replied that for longer range pest control, it is inherently more accurate and hence allows for longer ramge vermin control. The accuracy also makes it arguably more humane, and that it isn't always possible on my land to get within 300 yards of some corvids or on the more open ground, for fox in daylight shooting. The answer was a bit surprising. I was told to list in layman's terms the ballistic reasons as "no-one here really understands the ballistics". How can good reason be sensibly assessed if the assessing officers have no ballistics knowledge? They could say "no, you have a .308 and that's that as far as hunting goes". I'll wait and see what the result is as mine only went in today, but clearly, a 6.5 fills a sensible niche that other common hunting CFs do not. I could have said for fox alone on windier days where the .223 isn't suitable at 300 yards and that would have been good reason enough in my book.

[PhilM]

Thanks chaps, some good discussion points there!

 

No surprise to see difference police forces doing things differently! (And that some of those making decisions don't know anything about balistics!).

 

Duey - I am very familiar with my conditions, always good to have a reminder for everyone, but this request would lead to a change of condition anyway.

 

It definitely seems 6.5CM is a reasonable request, more palatable also as mentioned, it wouldn't be increasing my count, just sensibly asking to use one that I already have for a purpose for which it is better suited than a rifle I use currently for that condition (long range, wind bucking daytime foxing) - leaving the 223 and Drone to do what it does best.

[chaz]

I've just renewed my fac and sgc a few days ago. I've also just had my ticket made "Open" and added a 6.5mm rifle.

After a conversation with someone in West Mercia Firearms Department, who clearly knew his stuff. My understanding is your ticket can be made open to 1 or more, or even all your rifles. But an "open ticket" in our force at least does not mean all you calibers automatically. All my calibers are listed as 1 after the other as being open. Along with my 6.5mm which he automatically put down, as being for Fox and Deer AOLQ. Along with all the rifles being listed for use in zeroing/practice on rifle ranges.

Yet a friend of mine has many calibers, including a 30-06, all listed for target use only at his particular club. The only one that is listed as "open" is his .243 for Deer shooting. And he has no permissions to go Deer shooting, bar going on organised stalks.

I think it's as Boydy47 has already said, different forces seem to have different interpretations on how the licensing rules should be worded.

I try to ask for as much as i can, but being reasonable with it at the same time. They can only say no.

And as has been said, put down Fox and Deer.

No mention of any need for a DS1 was mentioned to me. But i haven't shot Deer in a long while, so if the need arose, it would be probably worth doing off my own back....

Chaz.

[Boydy47]

Reading threads like this makes me sure of one thing, I'm never moving out of Wiltshire!

[FGYT]

Ok you already have good reason to own the rifle so they should not restrict you on any legal requests as directed probably now in the HO guidance . They are not restricting unneccicerry firearms in public hands as you already have the rifle

 

Yes if you use land as good reason for a rifle it must be cleared for calibre at renewal even if the rifle is open

[Gandy]

I am aware of a chap who has a .300 win mag, this rifle was conditioned for fox prior to AOLQ becoming a common condition. His liscence is with North Yorkshire.

 

If I were to approach this matter and be concerned with the outcome I would ask for a deer condition with AOLQ as I suspect it is seen as less contentious.

[David Hancock]

Varm and Chaz, good posts. Varm. I swapped out my .308 for a 6.5 and added notes why eg flatter shooting etc, etc. Essex were superb in 1) listening when I saw them at the Gamefair and 2) sorting my 1-4-1 variation in 6 days.

[VarmLR]

Varm and Chaz, good posts. Varm. I swapped out my .308 for a 6.5 and added notes why eg flatter shooting etc, etc. Essex were superb in 1) listening when I saw them at the Gamefair and 2) sorting my 1-4-1 variation in 6 days.

 

I was told (I do hope tongue in cheek) "tell him 6 months" as the response overheard from the chap informing the FEO who sat next to him in the office as I was having a phone conversation with the FEO. I replied "I heard that!" and was assured that if I sent in my original cert, they'd sort it as quickly as they could, but that they won't even look at it until the cheque clears! It's not a 1-4-1 because I need another mod (different thread to my 30 cal which I could have used) and the mod is treated as a seperate "firearm" under the current conditions for variations. You couldn't make it up.

[David Hancock]

Varm, I kept my mod and they re-assigned it to 6.5 Creedmoor from .308

[VarmLR]

Varm, I kept my mod and they re-assigned it to 6.5 Creedmoor from .308

 

In my case, the rifle I'm after uses a 15/1 thread and my Tikka has an 18/1 thread so unfortunately I can't do that plus of course, I'm keeping the 308, as my variation was 1-4-1 on a WMR (which they accepted) but with an "additional firearm" in the form of a new moderator.

[Nick 53]

Hi slightly of the topic, if you put in for a variation and you was wanting to use say 243 for fox,range work and deer !

If you had access to range use, could the variation be used for deer subject to letter confirming you have deer stalking rights?

Cheers

[VarmLR]

Hi slightly of the topic, if you put in for a variation and you was wanting to use say 243 for fox,range work and deer !

If you had access to range use, could the variation be used for deer subject to letter confirming you have deer stalking rights?

Cheers

 

You would need to first have the land cleared for calibre and permission from the landowner to take deer (in writing preferably). If you have range access, a need to control deer or fox, and permission from a landowner. including for calibres to be used, along with land clearance, subject to their assessment of your suitability, you should get it. It would usually be worded for Deer, fox and AOLQ. Some years back, I put in for a variation from 17HMR to .308 for deer (I already had DSC1 and 5 years deer ecology studies) and got that without too much hassle. Success is usually down to demonstrating good reason, experience (although the Act doesn't specify it, many areas still look for evidence of experience as well as good reason....part of their responsibility to public safety and all that).

[maximus otter]

 

Success is usually down to demonstrating good reason, experience (although the Act doesn't specify it, many areas still look for evidence of experience as well as good reason....part of their responsibility to public safety and all that).

 

I found that passing DSC.1 was the "Open Sesame!" moment. That got me my "Willy Wonka Gold Ticket", i.e. an open territorial variation for deer and OLQ.

 

£300 well spent, IMHO.

 

maximus otter

[VarmLR]

That's reportedly often the case maximus. In Glos, the (now retired) senior licensing officer in the licensing team didn't put too much store in DSC1, even though he liked to see it done by all CF users wanting deer. When asked why he didn't rate it, he replied that it was not much of a test of safety or shooting. It transpired that no-one from the team, including himself, had ever gone on a DSC1 course, and when I supplied the details of what it covered, there were some raised eyebrows, especially to the strictness of the simulated stalk and safety training part of the course. A few minds were possibly changed. It was one example of evidencing "good reason" which many people seem unwilling to go the extra mile on (but it is in their interests). Personally, I think it would be a good idea for at least one member of every licencing team to do the course themselves, and also for one of the team to at least take a basic course in ballistics, since these things seem to be lacking and are important for making some judgements on applications. I can't see it happening though.

[Boydy47]

You would need to first have the land cleared for calibre and permission from the landowner to take deer (in writing preferably). If you have range access, a need to control deer or fox, and permission from a landowner. including for calibres to be used, along with land clearance, subject to their assessment of your suitability, you should get it. It would usually be worded for Deer, fox and AOLQ. Some years back, I put in for a variation from 17HMR to .308 for deer (I already had DSC1 and 5 years deer ecology studies) and got that without too much hassle. Success is usually down to demonstrating good reason, experience (although the Act doesn't specify it, many areas still look for evidence of experience as well as good reason....part of their responsibility to public safety and all that).

Why would it be written 'Deer, fox and AOLQ'? The deer is the primary quarry, the fox comes under the AOLQ blanket part of the condition.

[VarmLR]

It's just the way my last one was conditioned. I appreciate that different areas have different ways of writing these things. Consistency between forces is something that still requires some work! In Wiltshire, you have the benefit of a licensing team that has always used a good deal of pragmatism!

[David Hancock]

Varm. Liking these this afternoon