.243 for vemin

[gbal]

i had the same problem with lancs cant have vermin control with 223 so i had it rebarreled in 17 rem i just dont get it is dead not dead regardless of how you get it done

atb mike

I take your point about 223 and 17 not ring too far apart,yet one ok and other not for lancs.But the wider issue is more "appropriate"-and your"dead is dead" is a bit naive- the FLO is not concerned with the bunny's fate,but the general public safety,or some such concern.

I'd have serious concerns if permission for a 50 Browning were given for vermin control,and the question is how far along the ballistic spectrum do we go. One variable so far not considered is differences in terrain etc-An experienced Highland keeper on a sparsely inhabited estate with demonstrable serious vermin is not quite the same as a newbie who has a few acres near a housing estate,and just wants some rifle he thinks has cred etc.Extremes,yes,but perhaps indicates another issue.Nonetheless,it is likely that there are some differences in interpretation between FLOs,or local considerations,

just as there is between applicants on a whole range of relevant parameters.

It happens in health care too,etc etc-which does not mean it is always defensible.

Wanting to shoot a crow 200 yards away isn't per se good reason,but I understand what you mean,and it might be presentable. as a reasonable request.Good luck!

 

Gbal

[David Hancock]

Note to Matchking - Sean, perhaps a different attitude and your language towards BASC might result in a different response. Just my opinion.

[sonic]

The main problem we as certificate holders have is we tend not to stand up for ourselves. I'm not saying we should go off on one when we're refused "x" for whatever. But we should expect fair consistent treatment regardless of police force.

I cannot understand how any FLD can put "foxing while deer stalking" on a .308 then take it off when you get a .243 saying it's too big for fox. this statement contradicts the earlier condition.

The fact is too many FLD choose when to and not to apply BASC calibre guidelines and home office guidance. Sometimes we have to complain but it has to be done in a civil manner preferably with the relevant guidance to back up our position.

Mentoring is not in home office guidance and as far as I can see impossible to police. Maybe if they put as much effort into processing renewals etc as dreaming up unreasonable conditions. People wouldn't be waiting months for their certificates.

What is wrong with trusting our judgement as to if its safe (within reason .50bmg is a bit big for say rabbits).

If you had .243 for Fox deer and other legal quarry. would you really be any less "safe" than Fox and Deer.

These issues have been raised by BASC in the shooting times and I believe ACPO but as yet I haven't read about any force using the above condition.

On the whole Lancashire have dealt with my renewals and variations quickly and reasonably. I am going to write and ask if they will change the conditions to include all legal quarry and see what reply they give (I'm not holding my breath).

[DRYHUMOR]

WOW. After skimming through your guidelines and regulations........... I had no idea it was that difficult for you lads.

[mtb]

I take your point about 223 and 17 not ring too far apart,yet one ok and other not for lancs.But the wider issue is more "appropriate"-and your"dead is dead" is a bit naive- the FLO is not concerned with the bunny's fate,but the general public safety,or some such concern.

I'd have serious concerns if permission for a 50 Browning were given for vermin control,and the question is how far along the ballistic spectrum do we go. One variable so far not considered is differences in terrain etc-An experienced Highland keeper on a sparsely inhabited estate with demonstrable serious vermin is not quite the same as a newbie who has a few acres near a housing estate,and just wants some rifle he thinks has cred etc.Extremes,yes,but perhaps indicates another issue.Nonetheless,it is likely that there are some differences in interpretation between FLOs,or local considerations,

just as there is between applicants on a whole range of relevant parameters.

It happens in health care too,etc etc-which does not mean it is always defensible.

Wanting to shoot a crow 200 yards away isn't per se good reason,but I understand what you mean,and it might be presentable. as a reasonable request.Good luck!

 

Gbal

ive had my open ticket for over 20 years so i dont think im a newbie as such when i asked for any legal quarry i was a keeper on a thousand acre estate which was passed for rifles upto 270 and had quite a lot of vermin were you couldnt get much closer than 150yrds so i didnt think i was being unreasonable asking for vermin with a 223 but i was still refused and told 223 was over kill for rabs and crows but not for the 17 rem bare in mind on this same land you could shoot fox and deer with 243/270 cal in the same field thats what i dont get

mike

[minkstone]

Well, you're lucky...I asked for my 6mmBR to also include vermin, and was told 'we don't do that' ('we' being Staffordshire police). So there seems to be wide variation in the interpretation of the Home Office guidelines...I shouldn't complain really, I could live in Cheshire!

Any time soon Finman, staffordshire will be putting "all legal quarry" as a condition on our tickets.

 

Just to add,...sent my ticket in this morning to increase the amount of ammo to hold and purchase, and Staffordshire Firearms said they would add "AOLQ" to my cert'....so on renewal and variation it will be added.

 

 

 

 

Regards.

[gbal]

ive had my open ticket for over 20 years so i dont think im a newbie as such when i asked for any legal quarry i was a keeper on a thousand acre estate which was passed for rifles upto 270 and had quite a lot of vermin were you couldnt get much closer than 150yrds so i didnt think i was being unreasonable asking for vermin with a 223 but i was still refused and told 223 was over kill for rabs and crows but not for the 17 rem bare in mind on this same land you could shoot fox and deer with 243/270 cal in the same field thats what i dont get

mike

 

Mike,thanks for this clarification.It does seem very odd that 223 and 17 were classed so differently.17 of course does shoot crows etc rather well,though "why not a 223?" remains a valid question..

The authorisation for 243 for deer is driven by the Deer Act,as a minimum calibre-only other option would be not to allow deer stalking,which might be a difficult decision to maintain on that estate.I,m assuming you we're not in Scotland,of course,where some 22cfs are roe legal and to permit for roe but not vermin would be even more inconsistent.

So the 243 for deer is based on the law,the refusal of 223 for vermin is based on interpretation,or what is considered overkill,though

It would not be so considered in your circumstances by any FLOs.

Did you get advice from any body like BASC ,and did you try informed negotiation-or just accept that the 17 is actually a decent tool for that job-I am surprised though that you had to rebarrel-expense is not a criterion,but it Ivan be taken into consideration,if you already had the 223.If not,then it becomes irrelevant,I fear.

Was all this recent-there seems to have been some more informed decisions made since the bad old days (no moderators/aka silencers aka poacher,driven by Euro legislation and H&S concerns.)

 

Gbal

 

[mtb]

to be quite honest i couldnt be bothered arguing after the second refusal so for me it was just easier to rebarrel my 223 even though the barrel wasnt shot out id put over 3000 rounds down it and i now actually prefer the 17 rem its my everyday rifle for fox and vermin its just the double standards you here about that winds people up its about time they got this sorted out

atb mike

[kent]

to be quite honest i couldnt be bothered arguing after the second refusal so for me it was just easier to rebarrel my 223 even though the barrel wasnt shot out id put over 3000 rounds down it and i now actually prefer the 17 rem its my everyday rifle for fox and vermin its just the double standards you here about that winds people up its about time they got this sorted out

atb mike

In Lancs it depends on the direction of the wind what conditions you get. The HO guidelines have been a rod to beat us with from the day our very own organisations drafted them. Of course the safety thing is total pants as a .243 win with a fully stacked 55 grn Nosler b/tip is perhaps the safest round I can fire at a crow, that makes no difference to the standards I require regards backstop and backdrop but it blows the .17 rem / .22 Hornet argument. Once you have a calibre and are judged as fit to have an open condition it makes no difference to public safety if you shoot a crow, fox or other legal quarry with it. better not enter into that dialog though or they might say ok shoot everything with a .243" and get rid of the rest LOL

[Gunsgobang88]

Hi,

 

All the above only goes to show the inconsistent application of Firearms Law and Home Office guidance across the UK. As I've pointed out before, a department's attitude and performance is usually influenced or dictated by that of the Licensing manager. The current situation here in Surrey is that Firearms Licensing have an open minded and practical approach and listen to the concerns of the shooting community. This contrasts with the previous management who were openly obstructive and treated shooters with a degree of suspicion.

 

As an interesting aside, has anyone moved from an area with an 'open' ticket to an area that places restrictions on calibres and rifle usage? For example, deer calibres allowed for foxes while stalking or as above, being denied the use of a .223 for foxes. If so, what was the outcome?

 

An extreme example of this would be someone with an 'open' ticket who moved from the shires with a number of rifles to an apartment in south London, what would be Licensing's reaction?

 

Alan

[sheldon cooper]

to be quite honest i couldnt be bothered arguing after the second refusal so for me it was just easier to rebarrel my 223 even though the barrel wasnt shot out id put over 3000 rounds down it and i now actually prefer the 17 rem its my everyday rifle for fox and vermin its just the double standards you here about that winds people up its about time they got this sorted out

atb mike

Yeah it winds me up big time. I wouldn't mine a 17 rem i thought until I looked for one. Hardly any for sale so looked into having one made which was well over a grand. LoadS of .222 around for 300/400. I know price has nothing to do with which rifle is suitable but In my mind they are the same thing danger wise and would shoot/ not shoot in the same situation. Where about in lancs are you?

[kent]

Hi,

 

All the above only goes to show the inconsistent application of Firearms Law and Home Office guidance across the UK. As I've pointed out before, a department's attitude and performance is usually influenced or dictated by that of the Licensing manager. The current situation here in Surrey is that Firearms Licensing have an open minded and practical approach and listen to the concerns of the shooting community. This contrasts with the previous management who were openly obstructive and treated shooters with a degree of suspicion.

 

As an interesting aside, has anyone moved from an area with an 'open' ticket to an area that places restrictions on calibres and rifle usage? For example, deer calibres allowed for foxes while stalking or as above, being denied the use of a .223 for foxes. If so, what was the outcome?

 

An extreme example of this would be someone with an 'open' ticket who moved from the shires with a number of rifles to an apartment in south London, what would be Licensing's reaction?

 

Alan

 

 

Here is an interesting one for you. From when Adam was a lad Lancs have said no to RF on foxes- however one guy moves into area with it on his ticket already, gets it granted! let us be fair any court in the land is highly likely to back this up if anyone in HQ opposed it. Previously only heard of one guy with a wmr on. How many foxes do we guess have been shot in Lancs when some guy is out lamping rabbits? BTW I don't think it suitable but that's not the point, just like its not for me to decide if someone wishes to melt their .243 shooting bunnies. If its safe then its safe. Now I have a mate in GMP area and he can come and shoot foxes with his RF on my land yet I myself cannot. Now there is a guy on here who had his ticket written up for .22 Hornet on deer (not kidding seen it) yes totally illegal under the deer act but it illustrates the point it's like taking driving advice from my 14 year old daughter

[mtb]

Yeah it winds me up big time. I wouldn't mine a 17 rem i thought until I looked for one. Hardly any for sale so looked into having one made which was well over a grand. LoadS of .222 around for 300/400. I know price has nothing to do with which rifle is suitable but In my mind they are the same thing danger wise and would shoot/ not shoot in the same situation. Where about in lancs are you?

im up near blackpool

mike

[sonic]

The problem is we're trying to apply logic and common sense to a system that does not apply it. There are many cases of request for a calibre to be told no quoting BASC guidelines to then be given a smaller but more powerful one instead.

go figure.

[sheldon cooper]

The problem is we're trying to apply logic and common sense to a system that does not apply it. There are many cases of request for a calibre to be told no quoting BASC guidelines to then be given a smaller but more powerful one instead.

go figure.

 

Agree with you about the logic. Was talking to a guy on another forum that lives in my area and has .222 for all legal quarry( what I would like). Says it rite there in the wording LEAGAL so what's the problem.....

[Bangbangman]

I just got my cert back from variation today- Derbyshire Police have put AOLQ for all my non-target-only calibres without being asked.

 

I'm not complaining- I could technically get a 7mm Boo Boo or STW for rat/crow but that would be silly.

[kent]

Agree with you about the logic. Was talking to a guy on another forum that lives in my area and has .222 for all legal quarry( what I would like). Says it rite there in the wording LEAGAL so what's the problem.....

I was told by lancs they wont ALQ but then listed pretty much same thing, not got moles etc on it though

[gunner]

i remember talking to steve bowers (well known gunsmith) he said heed had a call from the police saying that some one had applied for .50 BMG for vermin up to 1000 yds !! when he confirmed its the 12.7 x 99mm nato anti material round , that guy was obviosley refused , but they had to deal with it in the normal manner ! Also i have 223 for vermin here in glos , im thinking of getting a 6mmBR for vermin also similar to 243 , not sure how that will go .. i cant see why not ! my main fox - varmin shoot is basicly a big valley with line of sights to about 900 yds its lovley !!

[matchking]

Note to Matchking - Sean, perhaps a different attitude and your language towards BASC might result in a different response. Just my opinion.

When ever i have spoke BASC regarding problems with my FAC in the past i have had no help what so ever. I am not the only one i can ensure you. I joined BASC for help with firearms issues such as you can't have a .243 for vermin. There response was disapointing to say the least. Just my opinion.

RGDS SEAN

[gbal]

When ever i have spoke BASC regarding problems with my FAC in the past i have had no help what so ever. I am not the only one i can ensure you. I joined BASC for help with firearms issues such as you can't have a .243 for vermin. There response was disapointing to say the least. Just my opinion.

RGDS SEAN

 

The point raised was about attitude,I think

- perhaps your experience with BASC was a factor in you changing yours,but BASC can't always get what every shooter wants,and indeed would be irresponsible to try to do so,given some of the wilder ideas some shooters have.

In some circumstances the case for eg 243 for vermin is not a strong one (controlling moles at Wimbledon Centre Court),in other circumstances,and bearing in mind the several factors that contribute to decision making,it may be granted.

Evidence that decisions were not consistent,and especially that they were not " on merit" needs a much more detailed analysis.

I am not saying your opinion is incorrect,but when we hear of applications for 50 browning for vermin,one does wonder a little....

 

Gbal