Wapinshaw's view I believe to be correct. Check every shot against your own criteria. The police once (long ago) suggested a 250 acre farm I used was unsuitable for a .22. no footpaths etc etc. The idea that police can approve land as suitable for all calibres is very wide of the mark. Its the shooter not the shot which is potentially dangerous and even suitable land can have an unsuitable /inexperienced shooter. If we have to go that route I would favour a 'basic training' for firearms (rifle) users or a simple test scenario with different calibres. People trained with air rfiles and shotguns or rifles under supervision when young. A responsible stalkers as a dad will train his son/daughter so its second nature. A check test as part of the first FAC grant would be a cake walk and better still at nil cost.
Cleared land
- Thread starter white van man
- Start date
Hornet 6
Well-Known Member
I have an open ticket for .243, and based on my permission being cleared for .243, which it is.
In the past I ahem also had 7.62x39, we all know that 7.62x39 is nominally the power level, but it's a bigger
round so land not cleared, I had to find invitations to shoot deer elsewhere to actually get the slot for the 'bigger' cartridge.
Once issued based on land elsewhere I was free to use it wherever I felt it was safe to shoot it.
But you have to have land available to you that is cleared for the cartridge you want, open ticket or not.
Neil.
In the past I ahem also had 7.62x39, we all know that 7.62x39 is nominally the power level, but it's a bigger
round so land not cleared, I had to find invitations to shoot deer elsewhere to actually get the slot for the 'bigger' cartridge.
Once issued based on land elsewhere I was free to use it wherever I felt it was safe to shoot it.
But you have to have land available to you that is cleared for the cartridge you want, open ticket or not.
Neil.
Ok substitute .338 lm for .300 WM, point still stands.
My point is, again, you're comparing .243 to .308 which is basically the same cartridge and slightly larger bullet
Maybe that's a force thing but that's not true always, it's been covered in the past, I had plenty of people on here coming up to my last renewal tell me all my deer calibres would be taken away as even though I shoot over about 4000 acres and have an open ticket none of the land is cleared for bigger than .22WMR.
Guess what, renewal with and additional deer calibre slot, went straight through!
So basically you can only get into shooting if you know some one that shoots! Way to promote the sport. As for a test that shocks me after all your posts on here about current obstacles to gaining or retaining an FAC (far more than about stalking or shooting in general) and now you're suggesting an additional layer of red tape that would up the cost and mean effectively nothing. Shooting under training / test conditions when you know you are being watched does not mean you'll behave correctly in the field.
Can't quite tell if you're intentionally agreeing with me in my response to shootgun's post or not, but yes that is my point, open or closed ticket, you are responsible for the shot.
Well, in field shooting maybe, in range construction the guidelines are already written!
At a guess when it comes to clearing land the decision is partly to do with backdrop/back box, so if something does go wrong and there is a bad selection of backstop or bad ricochet if you are miles from any population etc. there is less chance of a bullet landing whilst still carrying enough energy to hurt someone. So easier to get clearance for .22 LR say 1.5 miles out of town than a .308.
I have a buddy who's an ex FEO so I'll ask him, unless he decides to chip in on here.
Last edited:
Druid
Well-Known Member
Probably because it is imposed upon us and there is very little one can do about it if one wishes to get their FAC and shoot.
like most of British firearms law, open to allow different police forces to put their own interpretation on it.
murph3010
Well-Known Member
I dont have my FAC yet but maybe somebody can explaiin to me how you can be trusted on land cleared to shoot by the poilce but not trusted to be safe on any other land ? Seems odd to me that you are being trusted to shoot a rifle and that you have enough common sense for the police to grant the FAC to you. But not that you're able to judge what makes a safe shot anywhere else. Am i missing something ? Im sure there must be a reason but im not sure i can see it. Hopefully one of you will be able to enlighten me.
Last edited:
reloader54
Well-Known Member
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Ok even 300wm firing a similar weight bullet to a 243 will have less energy down range as it's the BC and construction that matter. It's not as if the shooter will be absolved of blame if they're shooting a calibre that's cleared on a particular piece of land so what's the point in saying they can only use up to x diameter?
On a range where you're firing into a known back stop and how effective that backstop is then it's only right that you are limited to velocity and energy. When you're firing through an animal into an unknown substrate that could easily contain stone Or metal or other hard substances then all bets are off as to exactly what will happen. You can only take reasonable steps based on assumption. The thread about shooting foxes within a football stadium not long ago on here was pretty much all in favour of fast more powerful 22cf rounds rather than a less powerful 22lr due to the riccochet risk. In the south east there is a lot of flint in the soil in places so if your bullet happened to hit one piece then a less powerful round would likely ricochet off in any direction whereas the 300wm or even 338LM round would be more likely to smash it to pieces dissipating the energy and any debris or bullet fragments would travel a shorter distance.
We had a regular at our clay club who it turned out was not a member of any shooting organisation and had no out PL insurance - He was a heath and safety professional too!
You can't really compare similar weights in those cartridges though can you, a 107 gr in .243 would be the closest equivalent to say a 110 v-max in 300 WM, no one is going to use a 110 v-max for deer if they have a win mag. It will be 155 and up likely 180 plus.
.22 LR is a bit of a funny one because it is prone to ricochet as it is so slow it doesn't break up, fast .22 and up CF varmint bullets break up, most deer rounds wil hold together to some extent so a bit between the 2. A distorted 100 gr bullet that left the muzzle at 3000 fps will likely carry less energy less far than a distorted 180 + gr bullet that left the muzzle at 3000 fps if it tetains the same weight percentage wise.
i think the whole point of land clearance is there is less likeliehhod for things to go wrong if a bad decision was taken on choice of shot and limiting the calibre further reduces that risk.
probably for the same reason people in Scotland allowed themselves be held to ransom for medical reports and allowed air rifles to be put on ticket? Both of which will likely have a knock on effect for us!!
Drivers and pilots have to undergo mandatory training and testing. There are many on here who would be opposed to the same for firearm use. Frankly, if there was an approved course that would guarantee you an open ticket, that might not be such a bad thing. That said, for the number of untrained shooters out there, one doesn’t hear of many firearms accidents. In fact, aside from chavs shooting swans with air rifles, I can’t think of an example
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Whilst I agree to some extent with your last paragraph in my opinion the calibre (bullet diameter) isn't the defining factor. As you said yourself the heavier bullet is potentially more dangerous not because it's wider but because it's heavier and carrying more energy. My last comment on it is that on one piece of land I could use a 240 Weatherby Magnum but not a 300 blackout with subsonic ammo because the Blackout is 0.06" wider and therefore inherently more dangerous and need more experience to shoot safely, in the eyes of those who clear land based on calibre (not cartridge).
Please explain how you got your FAC granted if you did not declare any nominated land cleared for all the calibres you wish to shoot, as this a pre-requisite for all licensing authorities for the granting of a FAC for quarry shooting and is the preferred scenario in the Home Office guidelines as opposed to showing proof of paid for stalks?
Ian
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Any rifle he has over .22wmr is initially granted for target shooting at a club and is also conditioned for hunting etc???
This is rebewal not grant, I have an open ticket, you told me before I'd not get my ticket back for my deer rifles, I queried with my FEO and he said it was not an issue as I had an open ticket so I just needed to show good reason for each firearm. I posted this on here and orion said something along the lines of 'he doesn't know what he's talking about, wait until it goes to head of licensing for the decision, you won't get it.' it actually worried me quite a bit but need not have done!! There were others on the thread who had similar situations yet you still refuse to believe it!
As far as I am aware it is a pre-requisite to have suitable land with the intended quarry present, where in the legislation and guidance does it say that land has to be cleared?
Last edited:
Similar threads
