CJB and .223 Rifles

johngalway

Hi guys,

Simple question that I suspect may not have a simple answer. I didn't want to hijack any existing thread so I'll ask here. It's my understanding from the informantion posted (most of which I'll readily admit to not understanding at all) in other threads that the new bill will allow any future minister to ban any firearm for any reason they like. Nobody has a crystal ball I also realise that.

What I would like to know is will .223 rifles (used for fox and vermin control, I guess this would be classed in my case as personal rather than professional use as I'm a farmer) be in real danger of getting banned, I guess I'm asking is it more likely than not.

I'm not asking about pistols, olympic shooting, air rifles or any other type of firearm for the very simple reason I do not know anything about them so I dont with so make ignorant comments on them.

My main reason for asking is that I'm not too hot about the idea of spending 2k+ on a very nice rifle, scope and the rest to see it banned or rendered useless to me by restrictions on where it can be used.

John

Sparks

The last word from the Minister on this was last wednesday John;

The new subsection (2A) provides that in a case involving a restricted firearm - this does not relate to shotguns, air rifles, etc., but rather to high velocity weapons and short firearms

I'd say he's thinking of .223's, .308's, pretty much any scary-looking (or even all) fullbore rifles, and all pistols.

Keelan

Sparks wrote:

The last word from the Minister on this was last wednesday John;

I'd say he's thinking of .223's, .308's, pretty much any scary-looking (or even all) fullbore rifles, and all pistols.

So, from what you have just ouoted Sparks, we will more then likely, have our .223s and high powerd rifles ect, taken off us, when the act comes in?:eek:
I am really confused on this matter, everyone is saying different things and their seems to be NO, straight answer!!
Does not look good at all.:(
So criminals, get to do what they want and keep their firearms and we get BULLIED into surrendering our licenced firearms??
Somthing is seriously rong somewhere!!

civdef

Lads no reason to panic yet, noone knows exactly, or even in general terms what's proposed to be restricted as yet. Even where stuff is restricted, it seems likely that it can be licenced once a genuine reason is shown for wanting to own that type of firearm. It is noticable how often the phrase "rifle and pistol club" is being used in debates on the legislation, strongly suggesting a place is forseen for pistol shooting, for example.

Sparks

Keelan wrote:

So, from what you have just ouoted Sparks, we will more then likely, have our .223s and high powerd rifles ect, taken off us, when the act comes in?:eek:

I don't think they'll try taking them off you Keelan (for a start, there is no legal means for a Garda to confiscate a licenced firearm without it having been used in a crime - something that came up in the transcripts from last Wednesday).
Much more likely is that they'd be classed as restricted firearms and you'd have to jump through more hoops to get them (a stronger safe, alarms, that kind of thing).

Keelan

Sparks wrote:

I don't think they'll try taking them off you Keelan (for a start, there is no legal means for a Garda to confiscate a licenced firearm without it having been used in a crime - something that came up in the transcripts from last Wednesday).
Much more likely is that they'd be classed as restricted firearms and you'd have to jump through more hoops to get them (a stronger safe, alarms, that kind of thing).

Ok, thanks Sparks. I feel a bit more calmer now.;)

johngalway

I don't have a problem at all with having proper security and safe etc, for me that's just common sense and a good safety measure (I know others might think it's OTT).

Might I just ask about this quote : The new subsection (2A) provides that in a case involving a restricted firearm - this does not relate to shotguns, air rifles, etc., but rather to high velocity weapons and short firearms

Provides for what exactly? Is this legalese for high velocity / short firearms being classed as restricted? Sorry if it's a silly question I'm only trying to get it straight in my own mind.

I'm glad shotguns are exempt at lease, I won't have to resort to throwing stones at foxes after all.

I agree with Keelan in that in general it does seem that reasonable people are soft targets and we're going to get the crappy end of the stick. It's almost like they're using criminals as an excuse to smack people who're using their legally held firearms both in a legal manner and safely.

I'm in a bit of a dilemma now, should I hold off on the .223 incase it does happen that they'll make it impossible for people to have/use them in the not too distant future or do I go for it right away in the hope that people who hold .223's will have an easier run of it when the bill comes into force.

John

Sparks

johngalway wrote:

I don't have a problem at all with having proper security and safe etc, for me that's just common sense and a good safety measure (I know others might think it's OTT).
Might I just ask about this quote : The new subsection (2A) provides that in a case involving a restricted firearm - this does not relate to shotguns, air rifles, etc., but rather to high velocity weapons and short firearms
Provides for what exactly? Is this legalese for high velocity / short firearms being classed as restricted? Sorry if it's a silly question I'm only trying to get it straight in my own mind.

It's an incomplete quote - he's saying that it provides for new penalties for offences under the Act. The link to the transcripts is in the CJB sticky thread...

I'm glad shotguns are exempt at lease, I won't have to resort to throwing stones at foxes after all.

Makes it harder for rifle/pistol target shooters somewhat unfairly though.

I agree with Keelan in that in general it does seem that reasonable people are soft targets and we're going to get the crappy end of the stick. It's almost like they're using criminals as an excuse to smack people who're using their legally held firearms both in a legal manner and safely.

Yup. I'm personally of the opinion that it's a slapdown to those who prosecuted court cases against them and that rather angers me.

I'm in a bit of a dilemma now, should I hold off on the .223 incase it does happen that they'll make it impossible for people to have/use them in the not too distant future or do I go for it right away in the hope that people who hold .223's will have an easier run of it when the bill comes into force.

I'd lean towards the latter; if nothing else, you could sell it at that point outside the state. But it's a personal decision really.

Keelan

Go for it John, while you can.
Once you do apply, keep at them, unless you know them, in which case, their should be no problem.;)
Let us know how you get on.:)

17HMR

Anyone care to hazzard a guess as to what constitutes "high velocity" ?

2000fps ?
2500fps ?
3000fps ?

Some nominal values for popular calibres I've seen go something like:

.17hmr (17gr) 2550fps
.22LR (40gr) 1165fps
.22 hornet (45gr) 2800fps
.223 (45gr) 3500fps
.22-250 (55gr) 3600fps
.220 swift (55gr) 3800fps
6mm rem(100gr) 3100fps
6.5x55 (140gr) 2650fps
6.5 rem mag (120gr) 3100fps
.270 (130gr) 3140fps
.308 (150gr) 2800fps

(Got these from http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm)

Surely muzzle energy would be a better factor for consideration in restricting firearms ? After all, a .450 Marlin 350gr bullet travelling at 2000fps is carrying over 10 times the energy of the faster 17gr .17HMR round at 2550fps.

Sparks

Well, the CJB says that the Minister can declare a firearm to be restricted on the basis of a number of different criteria, including muzzle energy, and he's shown a distinct lack of briefing on what these various criteria are, so it's entirely possible that he's getting confused himself, 17, and said velocity while meaning muzzle energy (as measured with common meterological units ).

johngalway

Ok, I'm going to go for it and price my Tikka tomorrow. Whatever happens with the CJB happens and I guess we all have to cross that bridge whenever it gets built. The local guard that I'll be dealing with initially knows me for the last 10 years or more, I don't know any of the others in the main station but I did get a reccomendation for the shotgun when I applied and that arrived fairly fast I must say.:D

Like Civ mentioned about having a genuine reason for owning a .223, mine is fox control mainly, with winged vermin coming in 2nd place. Both of these have caused my family to loose thousands of euro in lost lambs in the past couple of years. I don't think too many TD's would stand for the same proportional amount taken from their wages in any year.

Sparks, it is unfair rifle/pistol target shooters, you're quite right and I agree completely with you. My only reason for being .223 specific was that that's what I'm interested in getting (I never meant it to sound like I was being selfish or something like it) and legalese is an alien language to me. It shouldn't be read from that I don't support other responsible shooters, I certainly do

John

johngalway

Ordered mt Tikka Varmint Stainless (how shallow is the stainless barrel lol) today, should be in the shop in roughly 2 weeks then it's off to the garda with my serial number and start that ball rolling

John

spideog7

What are the advantages of a .223 over a .22 WMR (unless your reloading ) wouldn't a magnum be a more economical choice along with being just as effective against vermin (foxs, greys etc) at +/-100yds.
And now it seems the advantage of having a smallbore rifle is even greater due to the imminent threat (well, uncertainty at the very least) hanging over the legalities of fullbore, for use in civilian circles here.

..............................unless your stealin' ammo off the RDF

civdef

Maximum range for a .223 is far higher than for a wmr.

Vegeta

as civdef points out the effective range or the .223 is much greater, not 100% here but what kind of bullet weights does the .22wmr come in. This could be another advantage of the .223.

Also RDF ammo may not fit in .223 rifles, or it would fit and rupture the barell

johngalway

I can only go on what I've read and heard about .223's, I don't have expierence with .22WMR so i won't talk about them. I'm buying the .223 as a tool for my business really, for me it's a personal choice in that I like things I buy to give me options. I've had too many foxes sit pretty for me at 100 & + yards (safe shots, I know my ground) when I've only had the shotgun. With the damage they do & expense that causes that gets quite frustrating. So like I said after doing a lot of reading and speaking with some expierence rifle fox lampers I decided that .223 was the way for me to go, the right tool for the right job . Thats nothing against the .22WMR, people should go for what they feel suits them the best, fair play and good luck to them . I feel it's a versitile calibre for me to keep my fox/vermin problem under proper control, accuracy with power to ensure clean humane kills.

As Vegeta already pointed out, please don't use any ammo in your rifle that isn't specifically meant for it no matter how close they seem to be. It's never worth injuring or killing yourself.

Speaking of range, I did read somewhere .223 can kill a fox out to 600 yards. That it still holds enough power in the shot to do this. I won't even be entertaining doing that but there you go. Mind you the bullet drop was something like 10 feet!

John

Rovi

johngalway wrote:

Speaking of range, I did read somewhere .223 can kill a fox out to 600 yards. That it still holds enough power in the shot to do this. I won't even be entertaining doing that but there you go. Mind you the bullet drop was something like 10 feet!

More like 15 feet or so.
According to my ballistics tables, a 55 grain .223 soft point is doing a shade over 1000fps and carrying 125ft-lbs or so of energy at 600 yards. With 180-190 inches of drop
A 5mph crosswind will give around 4 feet of drift too, so the chances of making a good shot on a fox at that range are close to zero.

By comparison, a 40 grain WMR would be doing around 1300fps and 150ft-lbs at 100 yards.

So, if the WMR is adequate to take a fox at 100 yards, the .223 is probably fit to do the job at 600. I'd consider it to be an extraordinarily unethical shot to attempt, though.

Vegeta

yeah you'd want to be nuts to even attempt a shot at those distances

Rovi where did you get those tables

Rovi

Vegeta wrote:

Rovi where did you get those tables

A mixture of paper hard copy (mostly Cartridges of the World) and some ballistics programs (Shoot! is a particular favourite).

johngalway

Let me quote myself so I'm not being misunderstood lol.

johngalway wrote:

Speaking of range, I did read somewhere .223 can kill a fox out to 600 yards. That it still holds enough power in the shot to do this. I won't even be entertaining doing that but there you go. John

I think the point being made in the piece of writing I mentioned was that under the right conditions the .223 was capable of a 600 yard shot, like your car may reach one hundred and whatever odd miles an hour downhill with a tailwind (doesnt mean either is a good idea). I dont want to be seen as defending the article as I'm not, also I don't think the writer tried it, most likely used tables like yourself to work out the rifles capabilities. I just mentioned it out of interest. I agree with you about it being an unethical shot, I do as much as I can to ensure a clean kill or I don't pull the trigger

I must look up those tables myself. I need to bone up on all that info and do plenty of paper punching before I even entertain using it on a live target. (You'd swear I already had my licence lol...)

John

Rovi

johngalway wrote:

Let me quote myself so I'm not being misunderstood lol.

My apologies if my reply implied that I thought you would take such a shot, I didn't intend it so.

As you say, that sort of thing is a paper exercise, but it does us no harm to remind ourselves occasionally that these things are still carrying significant energy well beyond our 'confident aiming' range.
The .223 in this case is still hitting harder at 600 yards than a high velocity .22LR at 50 yards! I wouldn't want to be in the target area of either :eek:

spideog7

Methinks .22WMR comes in anything from 30 to 50 grain bullets.

Also RDF ammo may not fit in .223 rifles, or it would fit and rupture the barell

I thought it was the other way around ????
Anyhow I'm not at all suggesting it, merely making a "comical" aside (anyhow i'm sure the RDF have some sort of ammunition "stock control" :rolleyes: you can't just walk out with bags of it )

MMMMMMMMMMM........ Anyone considering a 600yd shot, or even half that, should consider me before they do....or for that matter anyone who has to try and call in that fox to shotgun range in the near future methinks he may be a tad lamp/gun shy !!!!!

spideog7

The .223 in this case is still hitting harder at 600 yards that a high velocity .22LR at 50 yards! I wouldn't want to be in the target area of either

Something I think that may open the eyes of a few people.....a good backstop is always a good idea

"Ok fox a lttle to the left....a bit more...right in front of the ditch.......PERFECT........................................................"

Rew

spideog7 wrote:

I thought it was the other way around ????

Nah, 5.56 in a .223 is the potentially dangerous one.

NATO chambers have a long leade1. SAAMI chambers are tighter and have a short leade. SAAMI chambers are designed for increased accuracy, but will yield dangerously high pressures in guns using military ammunition and/or which are subject to high volume shooting. Under such high pressures, a primer may back out completely, drop into the action and cause the firearm to stop working.

http://www.thegunzone.com/556v223.html

johngalway

Rovi wrote:

My apologies if my reply implied that I thought you would take such a shot, I didn't intend it so.

As you say, that sort of thing is a paper exercise, but it does us no harm to remind ourselves occasionally that these things are still carrying significant energy well beyond our 'confident aiming' range.
The .223 in this case is still hitting harder at 600 yards that a high velocity .22LR at 50 yards! I wouldn't want to be in the target area of either :eek:

Rovi,

Nah I know you werent having a go, I wanted to clear it up for anyone who had an interest in this thread is all, no need to apologise at all . Quite right about the power & potential dangers of the rifle too.

Spideog7 makes another great point, a backstop being essential. Great work when you hit the target, but if the round goes through your fox and keeps travelling and you dont know whats behind it.... Scary stuff!

John

Trojan911

Keelan wrote:

Ok, thanks Sparks. I feel a bit more calmer now.;)

Me too, but still concerned......


TJ911...