243 as first license?

trackerman

Folks,
A mate of mine is very keen to get licensed.
His main interest is fox control, no interest in Deer.
Could he apply for 243 straight off the batt ?
He would have no problem with permissions or letters from sheep farmers.

Tia.

Cass

trackerman wrote: »

Could he apply for 243 straight off the batt ?
.

Legally, yes.

He would have to show good reason as to why he needs a 243 over other, smaller, calibers such as 223, etc. but there is no law to prevent you applying for any caliber regardless of previous history with firearms.

The pigeon man

It should be fine but a 243 is a pit pricey for shooting foxes exclusively with. I think the 223 is best suited as you can buy 50 rounds of fiocchi epn for less than €50 whereas 243 ammo is much more expensive.

cookimonster

My first centre fire was a .243 for foxing, but deer was my ultimate goal and I let the local FO know this.

The .243 is an excellent rifle for foxing, as varminting was its orginal purpose but as many can attest to it is also an excellent deer rifle. So if your 'mate' wishes to progress onto stalking he will have a very good duel purpose calibre.
But if stalking is his ultimate goal I would suggest something else such as a 6.5 which will give him a heavier calibre and deal with different circumstances / conditions etc, etc. My rational is that given the current climate and trade in values, I would suggest that a bit of thought go into selection to save on money down the line.

To counter the above and if your 'mate' has no interest in stalking then I would suggest a .22 centre fire - .223 for convenience and ammo selection (cost factor), if they want something with a bigger oomph then the 22-250 / 22 swift will reach out there., Nostalgia could push him to the 22 Hornet, the orginal of the species for foxing. But then again the rimfires offer a reasonable cross over for both large and small vermin at sensible ranges starting with the diminutive. 17 HMR and going to the heavier 22WMR, each with thier own pros and cons.

trackerman

Thanks guys,
We (small group of mates) already shoot .223 caliber, but sometimes we find the effects of wind and drop at distance to be a slight disadvantage, especially on dirty oul nights during winter. So we had suggested a .243 for him because its flatter and less prone to wind, especially handy when lamping where distances are harder to gauge.
Cost of ammo was discussed but given the number of foxes we shoot in any year, the actual cost of ammo is not that great in the overall scheme of things.

Whats the deal with Deer license application? Seems like catch 22... The NPWS application form look's for firearm details, Make Caliber and number... so how can a fella apply for a Deer license before he has a gun?
Will NPWS accept the make and model of the intended gun?

kunekunesika

I helped a number of people over the years to get deer license from npws, using my rifle details. They went off and bought what they wanted after,and licenced away with no hassle. If asked, the plan was to say they hoped get a training license on my rifle before they invested large sums of money on their own rifle. Never had any hassles.

Hunter456

no harm then if i mention fox control to my FO with my 243 '' o that's an illegal caliber for fox shooting '', i still do it as i know i'm not breaking any laws and its on my application as for good reason and the super said nothing but i did hand in a deer license i believe its an requirement for all districts these days , you could always try your super might be different.

trackerman

kunekunesika wrote: »

I helped a number of people over the years to get deer license from npws, using my rifle details. They went off and bought what they wanted after,and licenced away with no hassle. If asked, the plan was to say they hoped get a training license on my rifle before they invested large sums of money on their own rifle. Never had any hassles.

Not an option for him I'm afraid, we don't have a 243 license amongst us.

I may just email them and ask if the serial number is essential, or can it be provided later... after the gun license is granted.

Just a thought... wonder if he could just select a gun at the dealer, reserve it and apply for both deer and gun license at the same time..?

Cass

trackerman wrote: »

Not an option for him I'm afraid, we don't have a 243 license amongst us.

For the purpose of Deer licensing, it doesn't have to be a 243. He can apply on any deer legal caliber. If any of ye have one among ye.

I may just email them and ask if the serial number is essential, or can it be provided later... after the gun license is granted.

It will be required when applying.

Just a thought... wonder if he could just select a gun at the dealer, reserve it and apply for both deer and gun license at the same time..?

Yes.

You don't have to own or have possession of the firearm when applying for a deer license. Many lads have been in the same boat and used a serial number to apply for the license while waiting on the firearm license to come through.

Your mate can do as you said and apply for the deer license once he has a serial number and then apply for the firearms license concurrently.

trackerman

Cass wrote: »

For the purpose of Deer licensing, it doesn't have to be a 243. He can apply on any deer legal caliber. If any of ye have one among ye.

It will be required when applying.

Yes.

You don't have to own or have possession of the firearm when applying for a deer license. Many lads have been in the same boat and used a serial number to apply for the license while waiting on the firearm license to come through.

Your mate can do as you said and apply for the deer license once he has a serial number and then apply for the firearms license concurrently.

Thanks Cass, that's the way.

Paddyviking

Hi
I started off like most with a .22 shooting rabbits, foxes etc then moved onto the .22 Hornet when I concentrated on foxes.
With deer hunting in mind I moved up to the .243 with foxes primarily the target but hoping one day to get a deer licence so I got my HCAP.
To date still no deer licence as I am enjoying fox hunting too much especially with the lighter 55gr loads and recently acquiring a Digex and thermal spotter which is a complete game changer.
Pulling the trigger on a deer in the scope is the easy bit, grolocking , dragging, hanging, skinning and butchering.....been there done that and now couldn't be bothered so I'll stick with my .243 (a Tikka which I love ) for foxing and rabbit (elimation).
So my advise is go for the. 243 and use it for whatever you enjoy most.
Just my tuppence worth ��

trackerman

Paddyviking wrote: »

Hi
I started off like most with a .22 shooting rabbits, foxes etc then moved onto the .22 Hornet when I concentrated on foxes.
With deer hunting in mind I moved up to the .243 with foxes primarily the target but hoping one day to get a deer licence so I got my HCAP.
To date still no deer licence as I am enjoying fox hunting too much especially with the lighter 55gr loads and recently acquiring a Digex and thermal spotter which is a complete game changer.
Pulling the trigger on a deer in the scope is the easy bit, grolocking , dragging, hanging, skinning and butchering.....been there done that and now couldn't be bothered so I'll stick with my .243 (a Tikka which I love ) for foxing and rabbit (elimation).
So my advise is go for the. 243 and use it for whatever you enjoy most.
Just my tuppence worth ��

Paddyviking , thanks...so you managed to get a 243 approved without a deer licence. Im guessing you had the HCAP before applying, and made sure the super knew you intended to apply for deer licence at some point down the road... right ?

Paddyviking

Nope
Got the .243 (Tikka M595) by trading in the hornet and no questions were asked, mind you that was also 20 years ago.
I've brought it to Norway ( for 6 years) and back and never been asked anything.
Only did the HCAP last year just before lockdown.
You want a .243 ? Then go for it.
My only advice...get a good one like a Sako, Tikka or similar.
��

Zxthinger

Go for it mate.. I'll no longer remain reticent on this subject , the 22 centrefire is dead in its current configuration

Fox shooters will now have to look at the 243 as the minimum..

The 220 swift is dead, the 204 rugar is also in trouble..

lefthooker

Zxthinger wrote: »

Go for it mate.. I'll no longer remain reticent on this subject , the 22 centrefire is dead in its current configuration

Fox shooters will now have to look at the 243 as the minimum..

The 220 swift is dead, the 204 rugar is also in trouble..

Why do you think the .223 is dead? And the .204 is in trouble?

Feisar

lefthooker wrote: »

Why do you think the .223 is dead? And the .204 is in trouble?

I'd say it's the impending lead ban that'll scupper some calibers.

cookimonster

Feisar wrote: »

I'd say it's the impending lead ban that'll scupper some calibers.

Just a few I could find on a rainy afternoon......


Fox .222

https://www.foxbullets.eu/fox-ammunition/caliber-222rem-45gr/

Fox .223

https://www.foxbullets.eu/fox-ammunition/caliber-223rem-50gr/

Sako 222 and 223

https://www.sako.fi/cartridges/sako-cartridges/powerhead-ii

Hornady .222

https://www.cdsgltd.co.uk/hornady-ammunition-222-rem-35grn-ntx-spf.html

Hornady 204

https://www.cdsgltd.co.uk/hornady-ammunition-204-
ruger-24grn-ntx-spf.html

Hornady 223

https://www.cdsgltd.co.uk/hornady-ammunition-223-rem-35grn-ntx-spf.html

RWS .222

https://rws-ammunition.com/en/products/centerfire-rifle-cartridges#filterForm

RWS .223

https://rws-ammunition.com/en/products/centerfire-rifle-cartridges#

Cass

Feisar wrote: »

I'd say it's the impending lead ban that'll scupper some calibers.

Most, actually all i believe, centrefire calibers use a lead core. Given 223, 308, 9mm, and probably 357 are the most common calibers in the world i doubt the 223 will be the first to go. You might find wildcat and older more, dare i say, redundant, calibers are first to go.

Zxthinger

Ye forget that these bullets are not as accurate or a devastating.. How many years have i had to listen to deer hunters harping on about hot 22s not being up to the job....

Pure and simple these lighter bullets aren't as effective.. There is people out there selling sand to the Arabian Nations.. ffs ye can buy enhancement lotions for yer man downstairs.. doesn't me they work..

Feisar

Zxthinger wrote: »

Ye forget that these bullets are not as accurate or a devastating.. How many years have i had to listen to deer hunters harping on about hot 22s not being up to the job....

Pure and simple these lighter bullets aren't as effective.. There is people out there selling sand to the Arabian Nations.. ffs ye can buy enhancement lotions for yer man downstairs.. doesn't me they work..

I'm not sure what my weapon of ass destruction has to do with the stopping power of 53 grain VMax's :pac::pac::pac:

Feisar

Cass wrote: »

Most, actually all i believe, centrefire calibers use a lead core. Given 223, 308, 9mm, and probably 357 are the most common calibers in the world i doubt the 223 will be the first to go. You might find wildcat and older more, dare i say, redundant, calibers are first to go.

Replying to you and Cookimonster (don't ya hate it when mods gang up:P).

I wasn't saying the .223 is going anywhere, just that to get the same wallop as a lead based 22 in copper one would need to step up to 6mm.

cookimonster

Zxthinger wrote: »

Pure and simple these lighter bullets aren't as effective.. .

Maybe I'm missing something here but I draw your attention to your text -these lighter bullets.

The common, traditional lead core, bullets for the .222 Rem range from 40gr balistic tip up to 55gr soft point, with the 40 and 50 grain options seeming to be the most favorable.
From my desk top research, non toxic ammo for the .222 Rem comes in a range of bullet grains - 35gr, 40gr, 45gr,and 50gr. So they seem to have the bases covered. Remember this is a bullet that is teetering on the brink of obsolescence, albeit that rumour started from the mid 1960's🙄. So you have to ask why are four manufacturers offering non toxic ammo for a bullet with such a small market share.

We talk about the history of lead ammo and how long we have being using it to harvest food, but on another point, one that has been discussed before, modern ammunition, percussion cartridges, are not as old and again more recently less than 60 odd years there has been huge advancements in performance and quality of factory ammunition. It's not just the development of mass produced rifles capable of shooting MOA out of the box that has improved accuracy and consistency a major part of that is the hand in hand development of ammo. Like everthing else the manufacturers aren't going to let a viable market slip through their hands and altough I'm a dye in the wool pessimist my logical side says they will develop affordable and effective non toxic ammo.


.....to throw the cat amoung the pigeons I'm being to side with the non toxic ammo, not the argument for or against, but its effectiveness, theres plenty of joe soaps with no foot in any camp in the UK that have been using non lead ammo on big game with no issues for many, many years.

Cass

Feisar wrote: »

.......(don't ya hate it when mods gang up:P).

Eh, no.

I get what you're saying.

Zxthinger

cookimonster wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something here but I draw your attention to your text -these lighter bullets.

The common, traditional lead core, bullets for the .222 Rem range from 40gr balistic tip up to 55gr soft point, with the 40 and 50 grain options seeming to be the most favorable.
From my desk top research, non toxic ammo for the .222 Rem comes in a range of bullet grains - 35gr, 40gr, 45gr,and 50gr. So they seem to have the bases covered. Remember this is a bullet that is teetering on the brink of obsolescence, albeit that rumour started from the mid 1960's🙄. So you have to ask why are four manufacturers offering non toxic ammo for a bullet with such a small market share.

We talk about the history of lead ammo and how long we have being using it to harvest food, but on another point, one that has been discussed before, modern ammunition, percussion cartridges, are not as old and again more recently less than 60 odd years there has been huge advancements in performance and quality of factory ammunition. It's not just the development of mass produced rifles capable of shooting MOA out of the box that has improved accuracy and consistency a major part of that is the hand in hand development of ammo. Like everthing else the manufacturers aren't going to let a viable market slip through their hands and altough I'm a dye in the wool pessimist my logical side says they will develop affordable and effective non toxic ammo.


.....to throw the cat amoung the pigeons I'm being to side with the non toxic ammo, not the argument for or against, but its effectiveness, theres plenty of joe soaps with no foot in any camp in the UK that have been using non lead ammo on big game with no issues for many, many years.

The 222 is simply a 224cal bullet so they only have to check the load development and pop the new bullet heads in the machine.. boxes are all the same with just the end print slightly different.. easy to offer such ammo..

The problem is that guns that could previously manage 55 grain rounds with good spin stability will be regulated to 40 or 45 grain rounds because of the stability issues. Then you still have to suffer a round that wont travel as well, is more expensive, is untried on mass and has unknown penetration with increased risk of ricochet..

I have no problem with using lead free where is possible but its a non runner with small calibres at any range beyond the muzzle and at extended ranges with larger calibres..

Whats going to happen with the 22lr?
What about the 177 and 22 air rifle pellets.. they are all fubared with this potential change..

tudderone

Zxthinger wrote: »

I have no problem with using lead free where is possible but its a non runner with small calibres at any range beyond the muzzle and at extended ranges with larger calibres..

Whats going to happen with the 22lr?
What about the 177 and 22 air rifle pellets.. they are all fubared with this potential change..

Wait until you see prices before saying that.