Variation problem

Thegogg

Well-Known Member
I put a 1-4-1 variation in to North Wales police in November for my first CF as they won't allow fox with 17HMR, so I decided on a .204 as I'd also like to use it for some long range rabbits and crows plus my mate has a lovely semi-custom T3 he'd sell me. :thumb: I finally had a visit from the FEO last week who said, provided my permissions had clearance there'd be no problem and I'd get my FAC back in a couple of weeks.

Yesterday I had a call from him to say they wouldn't allow me a 204 as it wasn't a recognised foxing calibre but I'd be ok for a 223 or 22-250...........do I just accept this or should I query it (I'm a member of BASC)?

It does state on the home office "Guide on Firearms Licensing Law" page 119 that 204 isn't suitable for fox although it states "Yes for .17 Remington & HMR, .22Hornet and WMR – also .22 RF in certain circumstance (see 13.25))".........how can this be?
 
I think there must be a mistake in the guidance as they state .204 is good reason for vermin but not fox as you say, can you not just ask for vermin and AOLQ? It seems they are just going by the guidance rather than any sound knowledge of calibres.

Get them to give paddy a ring and ask if .204 is suitable for fox!

Either way get on to the BASC and challenge it as you can't lose I'm sure.
 
I think there must be a mistake in the guidance as they state .204 is good reason for vermin but not fox as you say, can you not just ask for vermin and AOLQ? It seems they are just going by the guidance rather than any sound knowledge of calibres.

Get them to give paddy a ring and ask if .204 is suitable for fox!

Either way get on to the BASC and challenge it as you can't lose I'm sure.

'Vermin' is no longer a separate classification on the Home Office definition as it's listed as 'Vermin including Fox' on the latest Condition.

Using AOLQ as a legal justification for shooting 'Fox' won't work as NWP have already specifically refused it on his application for authorised use for the .204.:D
 
'Vermin' is no longer a separate classification on the Home Office definition as it's listed as 'Vermin including Fox' on the latest Condition.

I think your wrong here as on the December 2015 edition it still shows fox as being part of the medium vermin group, not small vermin.
 
Last edited:
I think your wrong here as on the December 2015 edition it still shows fox as being part of the medium vermin group, not small vermin.

This is the standard Condition wording.

1. Quarry Shooting (for vermin, fox or deer)

The *calibre RIFLE/COMBINATION/SMOOTH-BORE GUN/SOUND MODERATOR and ammunition shall be used for shooting vermin including fox, and ground game/ deer (delete as appropriate) and any other lawful quarry, and for zeroing on ranges, on land deemed suitable by the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated and over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot.

(The words underlined may be omitted once the certificate holder has demonstrated competence. There is no set time for this and each case should be considered on its individual merits).


The Quarry/Calibre list (Page 121) has a NO for Fox for the .204, so NWP are following the Guidance.
 
They should allow 17HMR for fox as its HO guidance and they have been told to follow it or explain in writing why they arnt following HO guidance to teh Fire arms working group committee as the Code pf practice states by the College of policing

or just ask for the 17HMR or 204 for rabbit/ vermin and get AOLQ (which they are also supposed to issue now on all applications )

get BASC to ring the FEO and explain in using short words and a crayon and ask for teh copy of the Explanation sent as Required above :)
 
Last edited:
yes quite right but they where not following the guidance when they refused 17HMR for fox as it has a yes

Read it again.

Page 121 only has a YES for .17HMR for Fox under certain circumstances (13.25) – otherwise (generally) it’s a NO. The more powerful calibres in the row below get an automatic YES so the inference is plain.

We don’t know whether NWP have refused .17HMR for Fox as the OP has applied for a .204, but if they did then they are still following the Guidance which (in this case) is discretionary.


13.25 Although not set out in legislation, common rifle cartridges considered suitable for the shooting of foxes range from .17 Remington, and .22 Hornet to .22 -250 and .220 Swift, though there is a wide range of suitable similar calibres commercially available. In windy areas, where heavier bullets aid accurate shooting, or if applicants wish to use one rifle for shooting both deer and foxes, they may choose a rifle in 6mm (.243/.244) or 6.5mm (.264) calibre.

.22 Rimfires are generally considered as having insufficient muzzle energy to be used against foxes in most circumstances. However, these could be suitable for use at short range by experienced persons, and may be permitted in certain situations such as around farm buildings or paddocks. It is for the operator to ensure that the quarry species are shot at the appropriate range with the appropriate ammunition to achieve a humane kill. Combination shotgun/rifles should have the rifled barrel in a similar calibre. Expanding ammunition should be authorised for shooting foxes.
 
Read it again.

Page 121 only has a YES for .17HMR for Fox under certain circumstances (13.25) – otherwise (generally) it’s a NO. The more powerful calibres in the row below get an automatic YES so the inference is plain.

We don’t know whether NWP have refused .17HMR for Fox as the OP has applied for a .204, but if they did then they are still following the Guidance which (in this case) is discretionary.


13.25 Although not set out in legislation, common rifle cartridges considered suitable for the shooting of foxes range from .17 Remington, and .22 Hornet to .22 -250 and .220 Swift, though there is a wide range of suitable similar calibres commercially available. In windy areas, where heavier bullets aid accurate shooting, or if applicants wish to use one rifle for shooting both deer and foxes, they may choose a rifle in 6mm (.243/.244) or 6.5mm (.264) calibre.

.22 Rimfires are generally considered as having insufficient muzzle energy to be used against foxes in most circumstances. However, these could be suitable for use at short range by experienced persons, and may be permitted in certain situations such as around farm buildings or paddocks. It is for the operator to ensure that the quarry species are shot at the appropriate range with the appropriate ammunition to achieve a humane kill. Combination shotgun/rifles should have the rifled barrel in a similar calibre. Expanding ammunition should be authorised for shooting foxes.

I already have a 17HMR which they won't allow for fox hence the variation for the 204 so it's either appeal against their decision or go with a 223 or 22-250.
 
Read it again.

Page 121 only has a YES for .17HMR for Fox under certain circumstances (13.25) – otherwise (generally) it’s a NO. The more powerful calibres in the row below get an automatic YES so the inference is plain.

We don’t know whether NWP have refused .17HMR for Fox as the OP has applied for a .204, but if they did then they are still following the Guidance which (in this case) is discretionary.


13.25 Although not set out in legislation, common rifle cartridges considered suitable for the shooting of foxes range from .17 Remington, and .22 Hornet to .22 -250 and .220 Swift, though there is a wide range of suitable similar calibres commercially available. In windy areas, where heavier bullets aid accurate shooting, or if applicants wish to use one rifle for shooting both deer and foxes, they may choose a rifle in 6mm (.243/.244) or 6.5mm (.264) calibre.

.22 Rimfires are generally considered as having insufficient muzzle energy to be used against foxes in most circumstances. However, these could be suitable for use at short range by experienced persons, and may be permitted in certain situations such as around farm buildings or paddocks. It is for the operator to ensure that the quarry species are shot at the appropriate range with the appropriate ammunition to achieve a humane kill. Combination shotgun/rifles should have the rifled barrel in a similar calibre. Expanding ammunition should be authorised for shooting foxes.

Erm, you're wrong, for a start the table does not give guidance on what calibres are suitable for what quarry, it gives guidance on which quarry gives good reason to possess which calibre. Secondly the note in the fox column for HMR, .22H and WMR is there because these fall within the lower powered calibres that make up the first group of the table but fox is still deemed to be good reason to possess for the 3 mentioned. ONLY .22 RF is given further qualification for fox (hence the hyphen) in the footnote to the table stating it should be used at close range, which is what you've highlighted above, no mention at all of HMR?

as far as the condition goes as you say it is just guidance, my .22LRs are conditioned for vermin and AOLQ.

The omission of .204 being good reason for fox is just daft and probably a mistake considering they hold up the .17 rem as a common fox cal, .223 rem is a common fox cal and .204 is the same cartridge with a bullet size between the 2!
 
Last edited:
Gogg,

I know someone who had a similar problem regarding calibres. Home office guidance, is just that "guidance",it is not law and is easily challenged. As said before you can either appeal their decision (get it in writing first) or put up and go for one of the other calibres.


Going back to my mate, how we eventually got the firearm and calibre we wanted was by proving that other constabularies had already authorised the calibre for what we wanted. I personally have seen many foxes dropped on the spot out to 300m with a 204 and 39gr pill, more than enough to do the job, just as efficient as my 223, but then again I can also use the 223 for munties and cwd.


I'm sure there are members on here from different constabularies who have the authorisation for fox with 204, who might PM you with their location ( you wont need full details, just location). Otherwise get the NGO or Basc involved. We used the NGO with good results.


Ade

+1 for Boydy's comment
 
Erm, you're wrong, for a start the table does not give guidance on what calibres are suitable for what quarry, it gives guidance on which quarry gives good reason to possess which calibre. Secondly the note in the fox column for HMR, .22H and WMR is there because these fall within the lower powered calibres that make up the first group of the table but fox is still deemed to be good reason to possess for the 3 mentioned. ONLY .22 RF is given further qualification for fox (hence the hyphen) in the footnote to the table stating it should be used at close range, which is what you've highlighted above, no mention at all of HMR?

as far as the condition goes as you say it is just guidance, my .22LRs are conditioned for vermin and AOLQ.

The omission of .204 being good reason for fox is just daft and probably a mistake considering they hold up the .17 rem as a common fox cal, .223 rem is a common fox cal and .204 is the same cartridge with a bullet size between the 2!

NWP’s interpretation of the H.O.G as it stands on the .204 is right. They’re entitled to their own opinion on a particular licensing decision. This is a first CF Grant, so they have to weigh up the applicant and follow the guidance to the letter probably. This says that .204 doesn’t satisfy the Good Reason table on Page 121.

It hasn’t been omitted as a calibre - it’s listed there (note the hyphen).

3.25 gives NWP discretion on the more marginal calibres. Whether or not a hyphen appears in the text doesn’t change the conditionality of that sentence. 17HMR is in the rimfire class without much more killing power than a .22RF. This is really ‘the refusal’ the OP says he’s had & is complaining about in his latest post.

You might feel this is an unreasonable constraint, but it doesn’t affect me as mine start at .222. My assumption in answering the OP was that he was looking for an honest opinion, so joining the band-wagon & wading in with sympathy and sentiment wouldn’t help.

We’re into an official mindset which says that pinging away at a live animal with a pipsqueak calibre isn’t right so forms part of the ‘good reason’ test. The view is that.17HMR is a ‘ground game’ calibre, and isn’t generally acceptable for Fox on humane grounds - so it fails that test. That’s it, but the OP can always appeal. Citing other force’s licensing policies isn’t something I’d try in his position.
 
NWP’s interpretation of the H.O.G as it stands on the .204 is right. They’re entitled to their own opinion on a particular licensing decision. This is a first CF Grant, so they have to weigh up the applicant and follow the guidance to the letter probably. This says that .204 doesn’t satisfy the Good Reason table on Page 121.

It hasn’t been omitted as a calibre - it’s listed there (note the hyphen).

3.25 gives NWP discretion on the more marginal calibres. Whether or not a hyphen appears in the text doesn’t change the conditionality of that sentence. 17HMR is in the rimfire class without much more killing power than a .22RF. This is really ‘the refusal’ the OP says he’s had & is complaining about in his latest post.

You might feel this is an unreasonable constraint, but it doesn’t affect me as mine start at .222. My assumption in answering the OP was that he was looking for an honest opinion, so joining the band-wagon & wading in with sympathy and sentiment wouldn’t help.

We’re into an official mindset which says that pinging away at a live animal with a pipsqueak calibre isn’t right so forms part of the ‘good reason’ test. The view is that.17HMR is a ‘ground game’ calibre, and isn’t generally acceptable for Fox on humane grounds - so it fails that test. That’s it, but the OP can always appeal. Citing other force’s licensing policies isn’t something I’d try in his position.

So following the letter of the guidance he could quite reasonably ask for a .204 for ground game and be granted it as he has prior experience with firearms. I stick fully to the reasoning that stating the .204 is only a ground game calibre when .17 rem is suitable for fox when they are effectivelt the same cartridge is based on bad logic or ignorance, or the fact the hornet is deemed suitable, I'd wager it will change in the next 5 years.

You are quite wrong when it comes to HMR,other than the fact that NWP can interpret it as they see fit, most forces follow the guidance and condition this calibre for fox. Wilts conditioned mine for fox even though I only asked for it for vermin, they're obviously wrong too! Not that I would use it on fox because I feel it's too marginal and I'd rather use something heavier but that's my choice.

As for the OP I'd get the BASC on side and appeal the decision, nothing to do with the bandwagon, I gave the same advice to him on another forum about the conditioning on the HMR. It's up to him at the end of the day, to choose whether to dig his heels In and potentially upset his firearms dept. or look at another calibre that they will take on board, 40 gr out of a 1:12 .223 won't be significantly different to the .204 ruger unless the ranges start to get longer for similar powder and report, 22-250 is a bit of a different beast again and pretty much matches the .204.

Or he could throw them a real curve ball and ask for a 5/35 SMC and see what they do then!
 
Last edited:
My 2 pennies worth

Plenty have quoted HOG which as is says on the tin is " guidence " for the police forces to use , follow and interprete with each force doing things slightly differently.

There are loads of ways to push this forward , you said in the OP how its your friends gun and by this im assuming you have used this rifle and are familiar with the calibre and its chartaristics.

I'd forward a nicely worded letter or email stating how
1/ Its your 1st CF but you've used this calibre before and familiar with it so it would be safer all round
2/ Put down muzzel energy figures for .223 & .204 for comparison ( they will be very similar) thus showing its humane enough for fox
3/ Mention how the .20 bullet of the 32gr & 39gr weights is more fragile than that of the .22 calibres and you would get less bullet pass throughs / exits of fox . This is better
A/ it transfers all its energy into the animal resulting in a cleaner more humane dispatch ( animal welfare)
B/ safer as bullet stays within the animal does not exit . ( less chance of causing potential ricochet hazzard ...saftey )
4/ mention the MV of tge .204 and how this compared to the .223 would give a better round for bucking the wind and bullet drop thus again making it a better more humane round as reducing the chance of a shot being pushed off .

What you would be demonstrating is you have a good understanding of this calibre its ballistics show animal welfare and hopefully elevate any fears the FEO would have .

And if worst comes to the worst the .22 CF are pretty good as well .
 
Last edited:
I already have a 17HMR which they won't allow for fox hence the variation for the 204 so it's either appeal against their decision or go with a 223 or 22-250.


you should have AOLQ on that so can shoot fox under that if you haven't then you should ask for it on all guns as Put out by the fire arms working group Chair CC Andy Marsh


I had my HMR granted as Reason Fox and AOLQ last year where when I inquired 18mths before Dorset Would not grant HMR for fox and Would not give AOLQ and would Give Mentor condition on all larger Center fire

Why the change ...because of the directives from CC Andy marsh to Follow Guidance to Issue AOLQ and Not to use mentor (where Not very happy about not suing Mentor any more but Did comply with the directives)

I Got
22LR Vermin & ALOQ
.17HMR Fox & AOLQ
6.5/.260" Deer & AOLQ

so I can shoot Fox with any of them regardless of the Grant Reason Quarry

.22LR is the only one in the small cal listed for Fox that has further Reasons to grant for fox
204 is obviously stupid to Leave of the Fox as reason But yes they can choose not to grant as it stands
 
Last edited:
I put a 1-4-1 variation in to North Wales police in November for my first CF as they won't allow fox with 17HMR, so I decided on a .204 as I'd also like to use it for some long range rabbits and crows plus my mate has a lovely semi-custom T3 he'd sell me. :thumb: I finally had a visit from the FEO last week who said, provided my permissions had clearance there'd be no problem and I'd get my FAC back in a couple of weeks.

Yesterday I had a call from him to say they wouldn't allow me a 204 as it wasn't a recognised foxing calibre but I'd be ok for a 223 or 22-250...........do I just accept this or should I query it (I'm a member of BASC)?

It does state on the home office "Guide on Firearms Licensing Law" page 119 that 204 isn't suitable for fox although it states "Yes for .17 Remington & HMR, .22Hornet and WMR – also .22 RF in certain circumstance (see 13.25))".........how can this be?

What I don't understand is that the .17 Remington and .204 ruger come from the same case, muzzle velocity ain't much in it and the .204 has about 500 more energy, where the logic in that, I would challenge it if you already seen a rifle you like.
 
Thanks for all the posts and advise gents, all very helpful.

What I didn't mention in my original post was that I was originally told last year that I had to have mentoring off someone with a CF before I put the variation in. I did this with my friend for 4 months using both his .204 (lovely :drool:) and 223 so I've gone along with everything they've requested only to fall at this last hurdle. I'm going to give BASC a call and see what they say about it all before deciding what I do.

Thanks again all and I'll let you all know of the final outcome.
 
All these replies are all good and well , but your probably dealing with two people in a firearms office who use a chart for reference for calibres

you could go on all day about ballistic coefficient and muzzle velocities vs joules etc

but they probably wont have a clue
 
Back
Top