Crow Man
Well-Known Member
So it’s not an interim document then it’s just a reissue of the old document. Hmmm sounds about right. So since 2016 I have had 2 rifles that shouldn’t be used for shooting foxes.
New Home Office Guidance of Firearms Use 2021 - rimfires and Fox, Law on shooting Birds and Animals.
- Thread starter Heym SR20
- Start date
@theroedeerguy
Well-Known Member
Technically for legislative purposes Scottish Natural Heritage does still exist but was ‘rebranded’ to Naturescot.
It's not quite a re-issue of the previous document because parts of the old 2016 guidance are now incorporated into this document Statutory guidance for chief officers of police on firearms licensing (accessible version)So it’s not an interim document then it’s just a reissue of the old document. Hmmm sounds about right. So since 2016 I have had 2 rifles that shouldn’t be used for shooting foxes.
The interim document now has links to the relevant sections of the Statutory guidance.
In fact, it appears that removing bits and creating links is where all the effort was spent on creating the interim document, while none was spent on updating the document to reflect the legislative changes which have occurred since 2016 (e.g expanding ammunition going back into S1)
Cheers
Bruce
But then you would have to jump through hoops and provide additional information to get it agreed. The guidelines need to be right, not some half baked, rehashed, re-issued, inaccurate information.
I'm grateful that the only condition for all of my rifles is "any lawful quarry suitable for that calibre".
Yes they need to revise it for .204 and several other points, and yes they need to be succinct and correct, fingers crossed but I won’t hold my breath!!
Crow Man
Well-Known Member
Oh well, looks like I will have to apply for a 243 for foxes then
You'll be fine, the .243 58gn V max do make a bit of a mess of a fox though, hope you aren't hoping for an income from using the skins to make fox fur hats, unless you are really nifty with a sewing machine to mend the holesOh well, looks like I will have to apply for a 243 for foxes then
Crow Man
Well-Known Member
Well according to the guidance my .204 shouldn’t be rolling foxes over at 300yrdsYou'll be fine, the .243 58gn V max do make a bit of a mess of a fox though, hope you aren't hoping for an income from using the skins to make fox fur hats, unless you are really nifty with a sewing machine to mend the holes
Nor mineWell according to the guidance my .204 shouldn’t be rolling foxes over at 300yrds
Funny, there are probably a lot of people who shoot a lot of foxes dropping them with no drama with the "unsuitable" .204.
Though, having said that, there may also be a small number of people thinking that their "elephant gun" .17hmr will drop a fox in it's tracks at 300yds, in a left to right gale, running from right to left at full whack...
As I posted earlier, guidelines need to be accurate and up to date, not half baked nonsense.
some of the comments confuse the reason you gave to acquire the calibre/cartridge/firearm type and the quarry you shoot with it.
If you have been given a 300wm to shoot deer, that is the good reason
It does not mean if a fox/crow/mouse pops up nearby that you are breaking the law if you shoot it.
Big difference.
This is the key element:
"Once initial “good reason” has been established for the possession of a firearm, there is no requirement for “good reason” to be demonstrated for additional quarry species or amendments providing the firearms are not underpowered for the species (see also paragraph 13.17). A cartridge should be capable of achieving a humane kill, and it is the responsibility of the shooter to ensure that any excess energy will be absorbed by the backstop.
The “any other lawful quarry” condition (which also covers protected species that the certificate holder is licensed to shoot) should be applied.
If an applicant is suitable to hold a firearm certificate and is deemed safe to do so, there is no requirement to restrict the quarry they shoot by the use of conditions imposed on the individual’s firearm certificate."
If you have been given a 300wm to shoot deer, that is the good reason
It does not mean if a fox/crow/mouse pops up nearby that you are breaking the law if you shoot it.
Big difference.
This is the key element:
"Once initial “good reason” has been established for the possession of a firearm, there is no requirement for “good reason” to be demonstrated for additional quarry species or amendments providing the firearms are not underpowered for the species (see also paragraph 13.17). A cartridge should be capable of achieving a humane kill, and it is the responsibility of the shooter to ensure that any excess energy will be absorbed by the backstop.
The “any other lawful quarry” condition (which also covers protected species that the certificate holder is licensed to shoot) should be applied.
If an applicant is suitable to hold a firearm certificate and is deemed safe to do so, there is no requirement to restrict the quarry they shoot by the use of conditions imposed on the individual’s firearm certificate."
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm. It seems that confusion reigns yet again. I really do not see the point of issuing interim guidance particularly if meaningful guidance is already on the slips. As someone who used to draft legislation many moons ago I would say that what is required is a “consolidation” of existing firearms legislation including any subsequent amendments - a “one stop shop”; “guidance“ would then be based on the latest comprehensive enactment rather than a hotchpotch of subordinate amendments to primary legislation.
Furthermore, as ever, there are issues when non-firearms experienced people set out minimum requirements, an example is for Scotland:-
“For the shooting of roe deer only, a bullet of an expanding type designed to deform in a predictable manner of not less than 50 grains (3.24 grams) with a muzzle velocity of not less than 2,450 feet per second (746.76 metres per second) and a muzzle energy of not less than 1,000 foot pounds (1,356 joules) may be used.”.
If you apply the first two requirements i.e. 50 gns and 2,450 fps you are well short of the the third requirement i.e. 1,000 ft lbs as you will achieve only 666 ft lbs and to exceed the 1000 ft lbs your 50gns bullet must be travelling at in excess of 3000 fps - even a 55gns bullet travelling at said 2450 fps will be only 75% of the required energy. Why did they they include these confusing, contradictory and meaningless requirements when a minimum bullet weight of 50gns and velocity of 3000 fps or 50gns and energy of 1000 ft lbs would have been perfectly clear?
Sadly, just like the nonsense of calibres/chamberings and quarry, just another bit of legislative technical information clearly beyond the ken of those who draft it and frankly it smacks of what we used to call “sloppy drafting”. Shame - yet another missed opportunity.
Furthermore, as ever, there are issues when non-firearms experienced people set out minimum requirements, an example is for Scotland:-
“For the shooting of roe deer only, a bullet of an expanding type designed to deform in a predictable manner of not less than 50 grains (3.24 grams) with a muzzle velocity of not less than 2,450 feet per second (746.76 metres per second) and a muzzle energy of not less than 1,000 foot pounds (1,356 joules) may be used.”.
If you apply the first two requirements i.e. 50 gns and 2,450 fps you are well short of the the third requirement i.e. 1,000 ft lbs as you will achieve only 666 ft lbs and to exceed the 1000 ft lbs your 50gns bullet must be travelling at in excess of 3000 fps - even a 55gns bullet travelling at said 2450 fps will be only 75% of the required energy. Why did they they include these confusing, contradictory and meaningless requirements when a minimum bullet weight of 50gns and velocity of 3000 fps or 50gns and energy of 1000 ft lbs would have been perfectly clear?
Sadly, just like the nonsense of calibres/chamberings and quarry, just another bit of legislative technical information clearly beyond the ken of those who draft it and frankly it smacks of what we used to call “sloppy drafting”. Shame - yet another missed opportunity.
The Scottish requirements for bullets used to shoot roe deer are entirely logical.
Each of the 3 factors is a SEPARATE MINIMUM requirement, with any combination of bullet weight and muzzle velocity required to make the minimum muzzle energy
A 50 grain bullet does need an MV of more than 2450fps to make 1000ft lb but, for example an 80 grain bullet with an MV of 2450fps will have a muzzle energy of more than 1000ftlbs grain bullet and be perfectly legal.
Essentially, placing the limits on the projectile rather than the calibre gives shooters many more potential options as to the calibre of the rifle they can use to shoot roe deer
The debate in the House of Lords back in 1985 that lead directly to the Scottish legislation is worth reading
(Scotland)Order1985/)
hansard.parliament.uk
The bullet weight/ MV/muzzle energy numbers were not picked out of thin air by politicians - they came directly from the Red Deer Commission - a body that knew quite a bit about shooting deer.
That bit of legislation has put Scotland in a far better situation regarding the shooting of roe deer by removing calibre from the legislation and concentrating on the projectile and it's ability to kill the animal humanely.
I think it's fair to say that in Scotland more roe deer are shot with .222, 223 and 22-250 than anything else.
They all do the job very well, but would be illegal to use on roe deer outwith Scotland
Cheers
Bruce
Each of the 3 factors is a SEPARATE MINIMUM requirement, with any combination of bullet weight and muzzle velocity required to make the minimum muzzle energy
A 50 grain bullet does need an MV of more than 2450fps to make 1000ft lb but, for example an 80 grain bullet with an MV of 2450fps will have a muzzle energy of more than 1000ftlbs grain bullet and be perfectly legal.
Essentially, placing the limits on the projectile rather than the calibre gives shooters many more potential options as to the calibre of the rifle they can use to shoot roe deer
The debate in the House of Lords back in 1985 that lead directly to the Scottish legislation is worth reading
Deer (Firearms Etc) (Scotland) Order 1985 - Hansard - UK Parliament
Hansard record of the item : 'Deer (Firearms Etc) (Scotland) Order 1985' on Wednesday 10 July 1985.
That bit of legislation has put Scotland in a far better situation regarding the shooting of roe deer by removing calibre from the legislation and concentrating on the projectile and it's ability to kill the animal humanely.
I think it's fair to say that in Scotland more roe deer are shot with .222, 223 and 22-250 than anything else.
They all do the job very well, but would be illegal to use on roe deer outwith Scotland
Cheers
Bruce
It gives them the option of using a .20 calibre bullet which is not readily available, that’s about it!The Scottish requirements for bullets used to shoot roe deer are entirely logical.
Each of the 3 factors is a SEPARATE MINIMUM requirement, with any combination of bullet weight and muzzle velocity required to make the minimum muzzle energy
A 50 grain bullet does need an MV of more than 2450fps to make 1000ft lb but, for example an 80 grain bullet with an MV of 2450fps will have a muzzle energy of more than 1000ftlbs grain bullet and be perfectly legal.
Essentially, placing the limits on the projectile rather than the calibre gives shooters many more potential options as to the calibre of the rifle they can use to shoot roe deer
The debate in the House of Lords back in 1985 that lead directly to the Scottish legislation is worth reading
The bullet weight/ MV/muzzle energy numbers were not picked out of thin air by politicians - they came directly from the Red Deer Commission - a body that knew quite a bit about shooting deer.Deer (Firearms Etc) (Scotland) Order 1985 - Hansard - UK Parliament
Hansard record of the item : 'Deer (Firearms Etc) (Scotland) Order 1985' on Wednesday 10 July 1985.
That bit of legislation has put Scotland in a far better situation regarding the shooting of roe deer by removing calibre from the legislation and concentrating on the projectile and it's ability to kill the animal humanely.
I think it's fair to say that in Scotland more roe deer are shot with .222, 223 and 22-250 than anything else.
They all do the job very well, but would be illegal to use on roe deer outwith Scotland
Cheers
Bruce
Having spoken to someone who was on the Commission at the time, they lifted the data from factory ammunition catalogs and came up with an average for 'deer legal' loadings.
What they didn't fully take into account was whether the manufacturers were being truthful about performance, not sure how common 24" barrels (most US manufacturers used this as the yardstick) were in the UK at the time either.
@Mossypaw lent me a booklet from the RDC which contained a short section detailing some more exotic 'calibres' and their legality on Scottish Deer, the data looked like it was from a reloading manual.
Overall, it was done with the right intentions but fell a little short of being sensible policy.
I'm sure @bogtrotter will be able to recount the subsequent demise of the 6.5X54 as a result of this.
If we had to chrono everyone's rifle and ammunition before stalking, I'm sure more than a handful would fail to meet requirements!
If you can find a 50 grain 20 cal bullet that will stabilise in a 20 cal barrel then it's quite possible that it would be roe legal.
There was a heated discussion on here a couple of years ago started by a guy who lives in Scotland and wanted to use a rifle chambered in 204 Ruger to shoot roe.
Some were up in arms at this prospect, but it was potentially entirely legal
The problem was that there wasn't much in the way of 50 grain expanding bullets and none of the off the shelf rifles had a barrel twist slow enough to stabilise such bullets
The objectors seemed to forget that a 204 case holds a lot more powder than a 222 case, so energy was never going to be a problem.
Cheers
Bruce
There was a heated discussion on here a couple of years ago started by a guy who lives in Scotland and wanted to use a rifle chambered in 204 Ruger to shoot roe.
Some were up in arms at this prospect, but it was potentially entirely legal
The problem was that there wasn't much in the way of 50 grain expanding bullets and none of the off the shelf rifles had a barrel twist slow enough to stabilise such bullets
The objectors seemed to forget that a 204 case holds a lot more powder than a 222 case, so energy was never going to be a problem.
Cheers
Bruce
I'd definitely agree about not meeting the requirements when it comes to shooting reds with a 243.
Most are very marginal with 100 grain bullets (and that's being diplomatic about it!)
Cheers
Bruce
Requirements are one thing, in the right hands the .222 is perfectly capable on all UK game.
A stalker I know was pulled up by a new factor for using his .222 on hinds;
'That's illegal!'
'Better tell that to the thousand odd that have come through the larder...'
No argument from me regarding the capability of "small" calibre rifles on "large" animals.
It all depends on the nut behind the gun.
On the other hand if you had a client or a member of one of your syndicates that you knew was using a rifle/bullet combination that did not meet the legal requirements - would you take any action?
Cheers
Bruce
It all depends on the nut behind the gun.
On the other hand if you had a client or a member of one of your syndicates that you knew was using a rifle/bullet combination that did not meet the legal requirements - would you take any action?
Cheers
Bruce
How would you come to know this?
If they are out with a .224 calibre for Roe and come across a Sika/Red, surely they must drive home and collect their .270 before shooting it?
Surely?
