PDA

View Full Version : Legal UK Calibres for Deer



BunnyDoom
21-12-2011, 15:49
OK so I was on a BASC course recently and was told that UK law says I can use a sub .240 calibre for roe etc provided it achieves 1700 ft/lbs as the law states "a projectile of no less than .240 diameter OR achieving 1700 ft/lbs" (according to the lecturer anyway).

Has anyone heard of this or had any experience?

Si
21-12-2011, 15:57
North of the border you can, but down here it's .240 minimum

timbrayford
21-12-2011, 16:00
OK so I was on a BASC course recently and was told that UK law says I can use a sub .240 calibre for roe etc provided it achieves 1700 ft/lbs as the law states "a projectile of no less than .240 diameter OR achieving 1700 ft/lbs" (according to the lecturer anyway).

Has anyone heard of this or had any experience?Surely that should read .240 diameter and 1700 ft/lbs in England & Wales - Scottish & N.Irish rules are different

munty6.5
21-12-2011, 16:02
ENGLAND & WALES

Red deer, Fallow, Sika AND Roe deer need a MINIMUM legal requirement of .240 calibre and MINIMUM muzzle energy of 1700 foot pounds.
There is NO RESTRICTION on bullet weights.

Muntjac and Chinese Water Deer need a MINIMUM legal requirement of .220 CENTREFIRE and a MINIMUM muzzle energy of not less than 1000 foot pounds and a MINIMUM bullet weight of not less than 50 grains.

BULLETS MUST BE either soft nosed or hollow nosed.

Regards, M

munty6.5
21-12-2011, 16:04
SCOTLAND

All species -the bullet weight must be of a MINIMUM of 100 grains and have a MINIMUM muzzle velocity of 2450 feet per second AND a MINIMUM muzzle energy of 1750 foot pounds.

Roe deer only – the bullet weight must be a MINUMUM of 50 grains and have a MIMIMUM muzzle velocity of 2450 feet per second and have a MINIMUM muzzle energy of 1000 foot pounds.

M

BunnyDoom
21-12-2011, 16:30
Thanks guys :)

Tamus
21-12-2011, 16:34
OK so I was on a BASC course recently and was told that UK law says I can use a sub .240 calibre for roe etc provided it achieves 1700 ft/lbs as the law states "a projectile of no less than .240 diameter OR achieving 1700 ft/lbs" (according to the lecturer anyway).

Has anyone heard of this or had any experience?

Answer: Yes, everyone who knows what they are doing knows what the laws are in this respect.

Sorry to be the one to tell you but... you clearly have a lot you need to learn if you are to pursue an interest in stalking.

Try getting hold of one or other of the regional deer stalking "best practice" guides, as appropriate to where you wish to stalk. Or possibly better still get in contact with a reputable stalking agent/stalker and be guided by them.

Orion
21-12-2011, 16:39
As Tamus suggests, a good place to start: http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/best_practice/

As try the forum search facility as many basic questions will have been covered more than once.

munty6.5
21-12-2011, 16:43
and for Scotland

http://www.bestpracticeguides.org.uk/

M

BunnyDoom
21-12-2011, 17:42
Thanks all, though I know the law around this; my query was why I was being told something different on a BASC course by a professional - the lecturer maintained that the ACTUAL law stated "or" rather than "and"?

Apparently it's mis-quoted on a lot of "best practice guides" and websites - I shoot .243 so it doesn't really affect me, I just thought this was an interesting point as theoretically a few normal foxing calibres would be legal for UK deer if this was in fact the case (there being no calibre restrictions providing you achieve a minumum of 1700ft/lbs)?

Districts for different laws are UK&Wales, Scotland, and N.ireland - I'm well aware of all 3 having their differences - but the UK is where normally shoot so thought this was an interesting topic... :)

Incidentally I'm not a fan of using .243 on reds, especially at 150+ as I think something less wind-driven like a .308 is much more suitable... however a 100gn 243 is legal. Thoughts anyone? (and before anyone starts abusing my accuracy I do shoot my .243 out to 600 at targets so I've no problem hitting things, just feel long-shots with lighter calibres are a little irresponsible)

BunnyDoom
21-12-2011, 18:11
Answer: Yes, everyone who knows what they are doing knows what the laws are in this respect.

Sorry to be the one to tell you but... you clearly have a lot you need to learn if you are to pursue an interest in stalking.

Try getting hold of one or other of the regional deer stalking "best practice" guides, as appropriate to where you wish to stalk. Or possibly better still get in contact with a reputable stalking agent/stalker and be guided by them.

OK Tamus, this may rub you up the wrong way but that's not my intention - just wanted to demonstrate that this is not as clear cut as you may think and I do not "have a lot to learn": check out page 16 of the National Trusts Guideline on Deer Legal calibres: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-deer01.pdf - there is definately an "or" and this is the same table that Natural England quotes (who issue most licences surrounding deer).

Orion
21-12-2011, 18:19
Thanks all, though I know the law around this; my query was why I was being told something different on a BASC course by a professional - the lecturer maintained that the ACTUAL law stated "or" rather than "and"?

Apparently it's mis-quoted on a lot of "best practice guides" and websites - I shoot .243 so it doesn't really affect me, I just thought this was an interesting point as theoretically a few normal foxing calibres would be legal for UK deer if this was in fact the case (there being no calibre restrictions providing you achieve a minumum of 1700ft/lbs)?

My first thought was that your course lecturer was spouting crap, however..................................

Going to the actual legislation and having a look at the wording of the Deer Act 1997 and in Schedule 2 - Prohibited Firearms and Weapons we find the following:

"Any rifle having a calibre of less than .240 inches or a muzzle energy of less than 2,305 joules (1,700 foot pounds)."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/schedule/2

Now this is a different way of stating what you can use. But it still says sub .240 is out - so the lecturer was wrong and had maybe read the above and misunderstood it. Ditto for the national Trust guidance - it must be minimums of .240in and 1,700ft/lb otherwise it falls into the classification of prohibited weapon in the legislation quoted above.


Districts for different laws are UK&Wales, Scotland, and N.ireland - I'm well aware of all 3 having their differences - but the UK is where normally shoot so thought this was an interesting topic... :)

Bunnydoom, you need to sort out your terminology. It's not UK&Wales, it's England & Wales. And if the UK is where you shoot then that includes Scotland, N.Ireland, England & Wales. It's important to be specific because of the different laws applying in the different regions, and the fact that people from all over the UK are on this forum and will possibly assume you are asking about how they apply to their location and not somewhere else.

Tamus
21-12-2011, 18:33
My first thought was that your course lecturer was spouting crap, however..................................

Going to the actual legislation and having a look at the actual wording of the Deer Act 1997 and in Schedule 2 - Prohibited Firearms and Weapons we find the following:

"Any rifle having a calibre of less than .240 inches or a muzzle energy of less than 2,305 joules (1,700 foot pounds)."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/schedule/2

Now this is a different way of stating what you can use. But it still says sub .240 is out - so the lecturer was wrong.



Umm, was he actually wrong?

I think the point is, he was messing with you a bit. Name a proprietry cartridge that uses projectiles of less than .240", suitable for deer stalking anywhere in the UK, that is loaded and available over the counter, which generates a muzzle energy of greater than 1,700 ft pounds at the muzzle of an ordinarily available sporting rifle.

The .22 accelerators can, but what calibre are they really?

ps. I rarely get rubbed the wrong way, and it'll only be a fair skinned lovely of the opposite that gets the chance... Mrs. Tamus I mean

BunnyDoom
21-12-2011, 18:33
Right you are Orion - sorry I meant England & Wales.

Thanks for your reply and further research - The lecturer was Peter Pursglove who consults for BASC so I was pretty confident in what he was saying... his first thoughts were that most licensing forces and shooting organisations quote eachother literature rather than looking at the actual legislation. The misconception has therefore been mutiplied and continued to be the general thought on legal calibres for Deer in England and Wales.

BunnyDoom
21-12-2011, 18:42
Umm, was he actually wrong?

I think the point is, he was messing with you a bit. Name a proprietry cartridge that uses projectiles of less than .240", suitable for deer stalking anywhere in the UK, that is loaded and available over the counter, which generates a muzzle energy of greater than 1,700 ft pounds at the muzzle of an ordinarily available sporting rifle.

The .22 accelerators can, but what calibre are they really?

No he wasn't wrong was he?

Valid point Tamus - it is a little self-regulating, but still possible - he did go on to list a few calibres that were available on order but I haven't got the list to hand. You're right though I can't think of any that my RFD normally stocks.

This is all just something I thought was an interesting topic as I'm not about to start messing around with what I use (i'm happy with my chosen calibre) - I just wanted to see if anyone else had heard of this, and it would seem Orion's research has pointed out that there does seem to be a pretty controversial set of wording regarding the law around legal calibres in England and Wales. Scottish law leaves no room for confusion so why isn't this the case with English law?

Tamus
21-12-2011, 18:45
No he wasn't wrong was he?

Valid point Tamus - it is a little self-regulating, but still possible - he did go on to list a few calibres that were available on order but I haven't got the list to hand. You're right though I can't think of any that my RFD normally stocks.

This is all just something I thought was an interesting topic as I'm not about to start messing around with what I use (i'm happy with my chosen calibre) - I just wanted to see if anyone else had heard of this, and it would seem Orion's research has pointed out that there does seem to be a pretty controversial set of wording regarding the law around legal calibres in England and Wales. Scottish law leaves no room for confusion so why isn't this the case with English law?

I'll take that last as being just a "rhetorical" question... what with it being the season of good will and all...:rofl:

Orion
21-12-2011, 18:52
Errm, I'm not sure if you're both agreeing with the lecturer's proposal that in England & Wales you can use a calibre of less than .240 on roe - accelerator rounds excluded ;), or mine (and the legislation's) that you can't! :???:

For clarity - the or that seems to have been hit on has a completely different meaning when it is used negatively and applied to what is prohibited - as it is in the Schedule to the 1997 Act. The NT etc. have got it wrong by using it in a positive manner and they should edit it - BASC have it right on their own info http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/deer-stalking.cfm

Try testing it by applying any given round and see if it meets either of the 'or' minimums.

BunnyDoom
21-12-2011, 18:53
I'll take that last as being just a "rhetorical" question... what with it being the season of good will and all...:rofl:

HAHAHA! It certainly was mate, though I'm sure you're full of compliments about us English we'd probably best stay off that subject! :D

I'll try and dig up the calibre info - not really that important but does seem that most people are unaware of the "or" element, I definitely was until recently!

BunnyDoom
21-12-2011, 18:57
Errm, I'm not sure if you're both agreeing with the lecturer's proposal that in England & Wales you can use a calibre of less than .240 on roe - accelerator rounds excluded ;), or mine (and the legislation's) that you can't! :???:

For clarity - the or that seems to have been hit on has a completely different meaning when it is used negatively and applied to what is prohibited. The NT etc. have got it wrong by using it in a positive manner and they should edit it - BASC have it right on their own info http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/deer-stalking.cfm

Well I wasn't agreeing with you at first but now I think I do (in light of your research) - though why are BASC telling me I could use smaller than .240 if I can't? Also, BASC aren't a recognised legal authority are they so if the Deer ACT 1997 says "or" then surely that's what we should all go by?

Orion
21-12-2011, 19:08
Well I wasn't agreeing with you at first but now I think I do (in light of your research) - though why are BASC telling me I could use smaller than .240 if I can't? Also, BASC aren't a recognised legal authority are they so if the Deer ACT 1997 says "or" then surely that's what we should all go by?

Perhaps one of BASCs finest who wander through this forum from time to time could answer your query?

Maybe you missed the edit in my post above but try testing it by applying any given round and see if it meets either of the 'or' minimums - you'll soon see what I'm getting at and why the 'marginal' ones fall into the 'prohibited' category.

Tamus
21-12-2011, 19:12
You mustn't doubt yourself so.

Your lecturer was right and Orion quoted why.

The projectile must be no les than .240" OR generate no less than 1,700 of your English and Welsh foot pounds and there are instances of such projectiles (that are less than .240" but do acheive the qualifying ME) but only from .308 and .30-06 .22 accelerator rounds.

Other sub .240 calibres, that generate the ME also exist but they are generally barrel burning horrors of wildcat calibres.

The only other exception that comes to mind are the mono-metal banded (bore riders) from people such as South Africa's GS custom bullets and even then you've got to use one of the mini magnum .22's to get it up over the velocity required. So, these are only realistically specialist reloaders' options.

Tamus
21-12-2011, 19:37
Incidentally, if you really want something to dwell upon, can someone who has either .308win or .30-06 springfield but does not have a .22 calibre on their ticket, actually be in lawful possession of one of the accelerator rounds... if it is equiped with an expanding bullet?

The thing is you could probably get the RFD to fill in your ticket when he sells you the .30 cal ammo, no hassle, but what then?... I'm sure some zealous enforcer might think, if he caught you, he has you bang to rights. ;)

JeffreyL
21-12-2011, 19:38
The deer act 1963 ( repealed and re enacted 1991 ) states .240 OR 1700ft.lbs. I don't know a lawyer who would call this a definitive description. Sloppy drafting like this keeps lawyers in business!!

Orion
21-12-2011, 19:42
You mustn't doubt yourself so.

Your lecturer was right and Orion quoted why.

Errr...... no. The lecturer is wrong if he is proposing that the legislation as written allows you to shoot roe in England with a sub .240 provided it meets a ME of 1700ft/lb - see post 1.


The projectile must be no les than .240" OR generate no less than 1,700 of your English and Welsh foot pounds

...................... otherwise it is in the prohibited category. It must meet either one of the minimum requirements or it fails to qualify as a legal round.


and there are instances of such projectiles (that are less than .240" but do acheive the qualifying ME) but only from .308 and .30-06 .22 accelerator rounds.

Can we ignore the accelerator hybrids for the purpose of this discussion?


Other sub .240 calibres, that generate the ME also exist but they are generally barrel burning horrors of wildcat calibres.

Doesn't matter how much gazillions of ME they generate they will still fail the minimum of .240 and fall into the prohibited category.

Orion
21-12-2011, 19:46
The deer act 1963 ( repealed and re enacted 1991 ) states .240 OR 1700ft.lbs. I don't know a lawyer who would call this a definitive description. Sloppy drafting like this keeps lawyers in business!!

Can you link to where in the Deer Act 1991 it actually says that?

Tamus
21-12-2011, 19:48
Have you been on the sherry, oh celestial one?

You say it right there in bold and underlined blackish and whitish.

The projectile must meet either of the requirements. Either does not mean both.

And... ps. no we can't leave the accelerators out as they are the only realistic proof of the apparent anomaly, which isn't really an anomaly at all... and when it comes to messing with people's heads they're just too much fun.

Orion
21-12-2011, 19:57
Have you been on the sherry, oh celestial one?

You say it right there in bold and underlined greyish blue and white.

The projectile must meet either of the requirements. Either does not mean both.

No not yet - might be a different story later this evening though!

Methinks you misunderstand my drift.

The Schedule to the 1991 Act defines those firearms/cartridges which are prohibited - not a definition of those which are legal. So if it is either sub .240 or less than 1700ft/lb it is prohibited.

Examples: doesn't matter if the calibre is sub .240 and the ft/lb 1900 or the calibre .243 and the ft/lb 1600, both will fail the test and fall into the category of prohibited because one of the parameters is below the minimum.

EDIT: Okay I just spotted my either error above - apologies for that one, got carried away and fell into your trap! :oops: But I'll stick to the Act defining what is prohibited by using or rather than using it in terms of what is legal.

Tamus
21-12-2011, 20:02
[QUOTE=Orion;298214]

So if it is either sub .240 or less than 1700ft/lb it is prohibited.

QUOTE]

Agreed.

And that implies, most clearly, that: if the projectile is either greater than .240" in diameter OR generates a ME of greater than 1,700ft/lbs it is legit, subject to it being designed (by a person or persons, I believe, not determined in law)... or adapted ... to expand.

Orion
21-12-2011, 20:09
And that implies, most clearly, that: if the projectile is either greater than .240" in diameter OR generates a ME of greater than 1,700ft/lbs it is legit, subject to it being designed (by a person or persons, I believe, not determined in law)... or adapted ... to expand.

Nope. It says what it says. It defines what is prohibited. You can't turn it around in that way, (as you well know ;)). :tiphat:

devonoak
21-12-2011, 20:09
[QUOTE=Orion;298214]

So if it is either sub .240 or less than 1700ft/lb it is prohibited.

QUOTE]
Agreed.

And that implies, most clearly, that: if the projectile is either greater than .240" in diameter OR generates a ME of greater than 1,700ft/lbs it is legit, subject to it being designed (by a person or persons, I believe, not determined in law)... or adapted ... to expand.

No I think you're wrong. If it is uber .240 but less than 1700 it is prohibited.

If it is sub .240 but over 1700 it is prohibited.

Isn't that what either/or means in this case?
I think so.

Oh. Orion, snap!

Si
21-12-2011, 20:11
So, what's the answer? :D

Orion
21-12-2011, 20:14
So, what's the answer? :D

Come on Si - everyone knows it's 42!

Now, what was the question again? :stir:

Tamus
21-12-2011, 20:19
I am indefatigable on this mighty hunter.

A .30-06 .22 accelerator (just for instance) typically achieves a muzzle energy of 2003 lb/ft and the .308win version scrapes in at 1,735 lb/ft

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Accelerator

Neither of the above mentioned "fail to acheive" the magic minimum 1,700 ft/lbs required. Indeed both exceed our required energy figure and they both do it with a projectile which is less than .240" in diameter. Thus, whilst they do not exceed both of the minimum requirements they do exceed one and since it's only necessary to exceed one, or other, they definitley comply with the law for shooting deer. Provided, as ever, that the projectile they use is "designed" or "intended" to expand

JeffreyL
21-12-2011, 20:32
Orion, the 1991 act is the 1963 act ( re enacted ) plus amendments. It is in the 1963 act.
Tamus , the word EITHER does not appear in the Deer act, only the word OR
Si, unless and until someone tests this in law there isn't one.

JeffreyL
21-12-2011, 20:37
Unless anyone thinks this is new, this discussion has been going on since um? 1963.
A question for a techi, what MV does a 55gn .224 bullet need to achieve 1700ft.lbs.

Tamus
21-12-2011, 20:42
Sorry, gotta go now.

I really hoped someone would just quote the Deer Act 1991, where it says what is prohibited actually is:
"Any rifle having a calibre of less than .240 inches or a muzzle energy of less than 2,305 joules (1,700 foot pounds)."

So the accelerators are the projectile which appears to break the apples and pears argument. Voila! it's not about the projectile diameter at all.

Atb~Tom

Tamus
21-12-2011, 20:46
Double sorry, just had to pop back on and remind everyone that a .243" bullet may be the right size projectile but it is fired from an illegal, in Englandshire, .236" calibre rifle barrel.

Oooops! ... init?:shock:

Orion
21-12-2011, 20:47
I am indefatigable on this mighty hunter.

A .30-06 .22 accelerator (just for instance) typically achieves a muzzle energy of 2003 lb/ft and the .308win version scrapes in at 1,735 lb/ft

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Accelerator

Neither of the above mentioned "fail to acheive" the magic minimum 1,700 ft/lbs required. Indeed both exceed our required energy figure and they both do it with a projectile which is less than .240" in diameter. Thus, whilst they do not exceed both of the minimum requirements they do exceed one and since it's only necessary to exceed one, or other, they definitley comply with the law for shooting deer. Provided, as ever, that the projectile they use is "designed" or "intended" to expand

I am sure you are!

I don't disagree with any of the figures you quote above but we are now entering an entirely different area of discussion - namely whether a 'sub-calibre' sabotted projectile takes the parent cartridge calibre or is classified by it's own nominal calibre, in your examples either .30 or .223.

If it is classified as a .30 calibre round then it satisfies both of the requirements to be legal - calibre and velocity. If it is classified as a .223 calibre round then it fails on the calibre requirement and falls into the prohibited classification.

I don't have a problem with either of those - it just depends on how you classify the accelerator round, but it does, coincidently, quite nicely demonstrate how the Prohibited Firearms Schedule 2 of the 1993 Act works rather than the and/or of permitted firearms that people seem to think applies. :tiphat:

Orion
21-12-2011, 21:02
Orion, the 1991 act is the 1963 act ( re enacted ) plus amendments. It is in the 1963 act.

It isn't now: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1963/36/contents The 1963 Act was repealed on 25/10/91 and the 1991 Act is the primary legislation now in force.



Tamus , the word EITHER does not appear in the Deer act, only the word OR


I'll ask again as per my request at post #25 - where does it mention ".240 or 1700ft/lb"?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/contents

Tamus
21-12-2011, 21:09
Crikey I'm gonna get such a bollocking, if I don't hang up my gloves on this very soon. :D


Orion: I'll ask again as per my request at post #25 - where does it mention ".240 or 1700ft/lb"?

Scroll down this page and there's your or right there:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/schedule/2/paragraph/2

Tamus
21-12-2011, 21:15
And again... for the hard of tabbing and just to put the matter out of contention (fat hope) :D

Scroll down this link to Schedule 2 para 2

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/contents

Orion
21-12-2011, 21:22
Crikey I'm gonna get such a bollocking, if I don't hang up my gloves on this very soon. :D



Scroll down this page and there's your or right there:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/schedule/2/paragraph/2

Exactly! And it's the Schedule 2 of Prohibited Firearms and Ammunition

The complete Schedule rather than the paragraph as per: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/schedule/2

No mention anywhere in the Act that I can see of ".240 or 1700ft/lb" being applied as minimums for permitted firearms or ammunition.

No need for lawyers to get involved - just test it with any calibre/ME combination you care to name and you'll see it works.

Tamus
21-12-2011, 21:28
Exactly! And it's the Schedule 2 of Prohibited Firearms and Ammunition

The complete Schedule rather than the paragraph as per: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/schedule/2

No mention anywhere in the Act that I can see of ".240 or 1700ft/lb" being applied as minimums for permitted firearms or ammunition.

No need for lawyers to get involved - just test it with any calibre/ME combination you care to name and you'll see it works.

Exactly what?

I definitely posted mention of .240 and 1700/lb/ft in the act, are you saying schedules are not part of the act? ;)

And... you still haven't given us your reaction to the earth shattering discovery that a .236 calibred rifle barrel, as used by the .243win cartridge devotees, is below the minimum allowed.

And on that bombshell.... I must depart for some fine dining... tata.

JeffreyL
21-12-2011, 21:37
The 1991 deer act IS the 1963 deer act with amendments ( RE ENACTED )

1991 Deer Act Schedule 2
Prohibited Firearms and Ammunition.
1. Any Smoothbore gun
2.Any rifle having a calibre of less than .240 ins. OR a muzzle energy of less than 2,305 joules ( 1700 ft.lbs )
3. etc etc
4. etc etc
I know what they meant to write, but they didn't write it.

Hopefully when this comes around again I will either miss it or be too old to care.

devonoak
21-12-2011, 21:40
This is pointless. Can you people not understand English?
If it falls foul of Either of these two parameters you cannot use it. End of story.

jubnut
21-12-2011, 22:08
I am with Devonoak on this one - I don't understand the confusion. His earlier post describes it perfectly.

" If it is uber .240 but less than 1700 it is prohibited.

If it is sub .240 but over 1700 it is prohibited."

Tamus
21-12-2011, 22:16
I am with Devonoak on this one - I don't understand the confusion. His earlier post describes it perfectly.

" If it is uber .240 but less than 1700 it is prohibited.

If it is sub .240 but over 1700 it is prohibited."

If what is under .240"?

Really! This has now gone beyond any semblance of a joke, my tea's been half eaten by the grandchild.

I share Devonoak's despair. It's there in clear English. You may use any size bullet you like in England just so long as it not fired from a rifle of less than .240" calibre AND does achieve a muzzle energy of no less than 1,700lb/ft.

Now can we start on Scots roolz please?

We have to use a minimum 100 grain, expanding bullet to be legal for all deer and that bullet must not have a muzzle velocity of any less than 2,807.5 feet per second. We don't have any silly roolz about the diameter that bullet must be or the calibre of rifle it must be fired from, simples? Is that clear enough?

j0e_bl0ggs
21-12-2011, 22:22
Unless anyone thinks this is new, this discussion has been going on since um? 1963.
A question for a techi, what MV does a 55gn .224 bullet need to achieve 1700ft.lbs.

~3800 fps

Dalua
21-12-2011, 22:51
Keep it coming, chaps - this thread is an absolutly ripping snort!

munty6.5
21-12-2011, 23:00
I'm not surprised people get confused looking at the amount of different thoughts being thrown about on here. The law is quite clear in my post on page 1.

M

Orion
22-12-2011, 10:15
I'm not surprised people get confused looking at the amount of different thoughts being thrown about on here. The law is quite clear in my post on page 1.


I agree with what you say on page 1 but it isn't verbatim what the legislation actually says. ;) That's why the confusion can arise because some convert the definition of what is prohibited under the Act into what can presumably be allowed and include the word or, which can make for a totally different outcome.

munty6.5
22-12-2011, 11:16
I agree with what you say on page 1 but it isn't verbatim what the legislation actually says. ;) That's why the confusion can arise because some convert the definition of what is prohibited under the Act into what can presumably be allowed and include the word or, which can make for a totally different outcome.

Orion, I take your point, but there is no OR on my post....

M

Orion
22-12-2011, 11:35
Orion, I take your point, but there is no OR on my post....

Yes, and that is why you are not quoting the legislation verbatim. Your interpretation is however correct.

BunnyDoom
22-12-2011, 11:48
Wow look what I started! :D

Who do we actually ask on this then - is it worth my trying to get an answer from my firearms licensing branch? They probably won't appreciate it seeing as how I've no intention of changing calibre, but I can't imagine any of us agreeing any time soon (I'm sat on the fence with Tamus and Orion atm!!!)

csl
22-12-2011, 12:05
This is pointless. Can you people not understand English?
If it falls foul of Either of these two parameters you cannot use it. End of story.

Agreed, there is no confusion here at all.

If it's below .240" it's prohibited OR if it's less than 1700ftlbs it's prohibited. That's what the law says.

Move on, nothing to see here.....

BunnyDoom
22-12-2011, 12:42
I don't agree with you there csl & devonoak - that's not clear from the actual wording on the Act.

However, I've just had a chat with an FEO and apparently the Deer Act is to be read in conjunction with the Firearms Guidance on good reasons for calibre - i.e. when you apply it will usually state what you can shoot with each calibre, so if in their opinion you cannot prove just cause then you won't be allowed it, or allowed the variation to shoot that quarry...

csl
22-12-2011, 12:53
I can't understand what isn't clear about it. Is it the OR that you are getting hung up on?

As has already been quoted: "Any rifle having a calibre of less than .240 inches or a muzzle energy of less than 2,305 joules (1,700 foot pounds) [is prohibited]

It doesn't say AND, it says OR. If either of the above parameters are true then the rifle is prohibited - that is what OR means in every use of the English language I have ever come across.

There are regrettably several grey areas in firearms legislation but I'm afraid this just isn't one of them.

Eric the Red
22-12-2011, 14:01
I'm with Devonoak and CSL - the calibre must meet both criteria to be considered legal.

Si
22-12-2011, 14:09
Double sorry, just had to pop back on and remind everyone that a .243" bullet may be the right size projectile but it is fired from an illegal, in Englandshire, .236" calibre rifle barrel.

Oooops! ... init?:shock:

That's very interesting.... so all us .243 users are breaking the law on a technicality?
or am I being thick and mis-understanding what you've written?

Orion
22-12-2011, 14:30
However, I've just had a chat with an FEO and apparently the Deer Act is to be read in conjunction with the Firearms Guidance on good reasons for calibre - i.e. when you apply it will usually state what you can shoot with each calibre, so if in their opinion you cannot prove just cause then you won't be allowed it, or allowed the variation to shoot that quarry...

That has nothing to do with the Legislation. It might help that individual FEO if he can't understand the Deer Act but it's not 'their opinion' that defines which calibre/ME is prohibited - that's laid down in Schedule 2 of the 1993 Act, and as Devonoak, CSL and myself keep on repeating if it's below .240 or 1700ft/lb it's prohibited.

Tamus
22-12-2011, 14:36
That's very interesting.... so all us .243 users are breaking the law on a technicality?
or am I being thick and mis-understanding what you've written?

Well, Yes.... but No (ish) It's another of those badly defined things.

It really depends on how you define the bore of a rifle. For example with a conventional cut rifled barrrel you would bore a hole up the middle of a bar of steel and for a rifle to be chambered to a .243" or 6mm cartridge that hole will be reamed close to .236". Thus convention says it's a .236" bore diameter. Then the rifling grooves would be cut. The precise depth of those varies according to many considerations but would typically be of the order of 3.5 thou deep, or so I believe. This allows that the diameter measured across the gooves would indeed exceed .240" as required by the law. Many would say this is a fudge and others will point to the fact that with hammer-formed barrels, the commonest sort around, you actually start with a larger hole up the middle of your piece of steel and hammer the metal back down tight against a mandrel.

This problematic definition is why in Scotland we just go with a totally arbitrary set of requirements based on minimum bullet weight, muzzle energy and muzzle velocity (all of which must be satisfied) The corollary of of our rules is that you have to remember to keep the muzzle velocity up with light bullets in order to meet the muzzle energy rule. Lots of people even in the trade fail to think about this though. Hence my own penchant for messing with people who saw off their .243's down to silly short 16" type lengths .... so it looks right with a sound moderator attached .... they still need to push a 100 grain bullet out of the pipe at 2,807.5 feet per second in order to get our required 1,750 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. I've had "experienced" "experts" tell me that's rubbish ... They say you only need 2,450 fps muzzle velocity. But they're wrong because at 2,450 fps a 100grain bullet only develops 1332.7 ft/lbs of energy.:roll:

It's all a blast, what? :D

csl
22-12-2011, 14:38
I think the important thing is that 'nominally' the barrel is .243", as are the bullets. And, as the police like to put so much emphasis on numbers.... it is stamped .243 Winchester on the side of the barrel ;)

Eric the Red
22-12-2011, 15:08
~3800 fps

Joe can you run the math of this by me as I get a different answer

Cheers

Tamus
22-12-2011, 15:38
Joe can you run the math of this by me as I get a different answer

Cheers

He only rounded it up a little.

My programme says the exact number is actually 3731.1 feet per second.

So, 3800 is close enough isn't it?

Sinistral
22-12-2011, 16:05
He only rounded it up a little.

My programme says the exact number is actually 3731.1 feet per second.

So, 3800 is close enough isn't it?

The maths is simple. Square the velocity in FPS, divide by the constant 450400, and multiply the result by the bullet weight in grains. If it's the Scottish law - all deer 100-grain minimum - it's even easier.

.243 100gr has to reach 2760 fps. The standard SAAMI velocity of 2860 for .243 100gr is reduced by a nominal 100 FPS to account for variations in commercial ammo .... to ensure compliance.

Tamus
22-12-2011, 16:12
The maths is simple. Square the velocity in FPS, divide by the constant 450400, and multiply the result by the bullet weight in grains. If it's the Scottish law - all deer 100-grain minimum - it's even easier.

.243 100gr has to reach 2760 fps. The standard SAAMI velocity of 2860 for .243 100gr is reduced by a nominal 100 FPS to account for variations in commercial ammo .... to ensure compliance.

So we square the 2760? and that gives 7617600 yes?

And then we divide the 7617600 by 450400... and get .... 16.912966... etc.

and multiply that by 100 , which gives 1691.2966... etc

Does not equal England and Wales 1700ft/lbs and certainly doesn't equal Scottish 1750ft/lbs .... Not a good start

And the point of that number is what exactly?

ps. We were actually discussing the velocity needed to get a 55 grain .22 accelerator over the England and Wales 1700ft/lbs figure and dicovered that both the .308win and .30-06 spr versions are supposed to manage it.

JAYB
22-12-2011, 16:32
I don't agree with you there csl & devonoak - that's not clear from the actual wording on the Act.

However, I've just had a chat with an FEO and apparently the Deer Act is to be read in conjunction with the Firearms Guidance on good reasons for calibre - i.e. when you apply it will usually state what you can shoot with each calibre, so if in their opinion you cannot prove just cause then you won't be allowed it, or allowed the variation to shoot that quarry...

Stop looking for problems where none exist, everyone is quite clear on what constitutes a deer legal calibre for different species in different parts of the UK. I think you will find that the FEO is applying his own interpretation of what is considered to be correct, there is no national agreement, every Police force is different. The only thing they seem to agree on is what does or does not constitute a deer legal calibre, so why not accept that and get on with your life. In the absence of any case law all these opinions are just that opinions, can we please move on and bury this horse or do you really want to flog it some more.

John

Tamus
22-12-2011, 16:43
I don't agree with you there csl & devonoak - that's not clear from the actual wording on the Act.

However, I've just had a chat with an FEO and apparently the Deer Act is to be read in conjunction with the Firearms Guidance on good reasons for calibre - i.e. when you apply it will usually state what you can shoot with each calibre, so if in their opinion you cannot prove just cause then you won't be allowed it, or allowed the variation to shoot that quarry...

See, now I understand why JAYB and csl are having an attack of the itchy "closed thread" button fingers.

It's a shame though, it really was quite an interesting subject to mull over and it would maybe have served those who are not fully conversant with it all very well indeed to read through this thread and then go off and do their own homework properly, and that does not mean picking up the phone to some guy in one region who is almost certainly not fully aware of all the facts we were discussing and then putting him and his dept on the spot.
Big! mistake... So, I'm done now, thanks.

Sinistral
22-12-2011, 17:04
Oh dear,

Not wanting to get into umpteen places of decimals, I just put forward a quick way to help most reloaders do the necessary sum. Some might be able to do it without a calculator or a computer by long division. :-P The constant is fairly easy to remember, and works for all deer calibres.

My subsequent point was that the legal requirements are based on the expected performance of off-the-shelf ammunition. As there is so much variation in what some of this musters in different rifles (PPU comes to mind?) some of the .243 100gr offerings won't achieve the 'absolute minimum' either side of the border. Hence the nominal adjustment of a whole 100 fps below advertised specs allowed in the law. In that context being a mere few ft./lbs shy of the magical sum doesn't matter very much.

JeffreyL
22-12-2011, 19:28
Stop looking for problems where none exist, everyone is quite clear on what constitutes a deer legal calibre for different species in different parts of the UK. I think you will find that the FEO is applying his own interpretation of what is considered to be correct, there is no national agreement, every Police force is different. The only thing they seem to agree on is what does or does not constitute a deer legal calibre, so why not accept that and get on with your life. In the absence of any case law all these opinions are just that opinions, can we please move on and bury this horse or do you really want to flog it some more.



John

It's all right for you north of Inverness where everything is black and white, down here we have to worry about this on a daily basis.

caorach
22-12-2011, 20:39
I thought this was simple, but actually it's not, and on top of that it is most entertaining. It looks to me like the law says the rifle must meet the 240 minimum but makes no mention of the bullet. To me that says that a sabot projectile launching a bullet smaller than 240 but meeting the energy requirements would be legal assuming the hole in the rifle met the 240 minimum.

bogtrotter
22-12-2011, 20:55
That's very interesting.... so all us .243 users are breaking the law on a technicality?
or am I being thick and mis-understanding what you've written?

No only in England.

JAYB
23-12-2011, 10:54
It's all right for you north of Inverness where everything is black and white, down here we have to worry about this on a daily basis.

So you do not sleep at night worrying if your 243 s in fact a legal calibre, if or not your ammunition meets the ft/lbs requirements, come on get real. As for FEO's and their DIY legislation this where a united front from shooting organisations and robust lobbying by them should ensure a national and sensible application of the HO Guidelines, especially in view of the proposed increase in FAC's.

John

BunnyDoom
23-12-2011, 10:59
See, now I understand why JAYB and csl are having an attack of the itchy "closed thread" button fingers.

It's a shame though, it really was quite an interesting subject to mull over and it would maybe have served those who are not fully conversant with it all very well indeed to read through this thread and then go off and do their own homework properly, and that does not mean picking up the phone to some guy in one region who is almost certainly not fully aware of all the facts we were discussing and then putting him and his dept on the spot.
Big! mistake... So, I'm done now, thanks.

Like you say it's an interesting subject, and it concerns all of us who shoot in England & Wales - I don't think I'm putting someone on the spot when it's his job to know!

Having said this, as the law stands much of the firearms legislations is pretty open to interpretation... when I was first given .17HMR for fox it wasn't considered a fox legal calibre, but it was down to my issuing force as to whether they felt it was appropriate for purpose. A friend of mine is licenced with .22 for fox as he is a professional vermin controller, yet I can't get that on my ticket as it's considered inapropriate use.

So my point is the deer legal calibre is a good example of "interpretation" being an issue due to the poorly worded legislation. Furthermore if someone should use say a .22 accelerator for killing a Roe and were caught doing so would they have an adequate defense (rehtorical question!!!).

Anyway - like someone posted, it is all just our opinions, which surely is the whole point of forums :D I've learnt a lot from all of yours and everyone's posts but I clearly no-one is going to agree so I too am done. Cheers everyone, and Merry Xmas!

JeffreyL
23-12-2011, 11:25
So you do not sleep at night worrying if your 243 s in fact a legal calibre, if or not your ammunition meets the ft/lbs requirements, come on get real. As for FEO's and their DIY legislation this where a united front from shooting organisations and robust lobbying by them should ensure a national and sensible application of the HO Guidelines, especially in view of the proposed increase in FAC's.

John

JAYB My tongue is very firmly in my cheek!!!!!!!!! I promise not to worry about this again until 2020.

Tamus
23-12-2011, 12:12
[QUOTE=BunnyDoom;298864]Like you say it's an interesting subject, and it concerns all of us who shoot in England & Wales - I don't think I'm putting someone on the spot when it's his job to know!


I think you should go right back to my first post on this thread. I was right in all I said there.

First mistake.. is your idea of what an FEO is and why they exist. They are there to administer bureaucracy. One might hope they were there to serve you but really they are there to do a job whithin an organisation which would rather no members of the public owned firearms. They are not lawyers. They are not usually even that well informed on all aspects of gun and ammo manufacture and sporting use. They often do pick up a lot as they go along, but you cannot assume that they think you are as entitled as you know you are. Indeed, they have to come at matters from the entirely opposite stand point, so try and keep your relations with them on the formal level. Anything else is a recipe for trouble. I will not enter into further discussion on these remarks either. Take them as fact or suffer the consequences, your choice.


Having said this, as the law stands much of the firearms legislations is pretty open to interpretation...


Please don't play that game with the authorities, unless you are a fully informed lawyer yourself. State your case (and only ever deal in writing, if you know what's good for you) and if you don't know your case may I humbly suggest you either get one of the shooting organisations to help in that respect or don't bother with shooting. Further, do not negotiate and do not have "discussions", you will only be led in ever smaller circles. If your case is right you will win if it is wrong you will lose. There is no in between. Again, if you do not know... go to the shooting organisations, it is not their job to put up the barriers it is their job to help you.

However, for the purposes of entertaining discussion, you have a very valid point here. In any other situation, use the guides I directed you to they set the standard.

Merry Christmas and a Guid New-year to one an' all ~ Tom :D

Orion
23-12-2011, 14:18
Like you say it's an interesting subject, and it concerns all of us who shoot in England & Wales - I don't think I'm putting someone on the spot when it's his job to know!

As Tamus says - don't invest FEOs with knowing so much about the subject. Many have very limited knowledge about the legislation, including my own local one who freely admitted to knowing very little about firearms and their sporting use!


Having said this, as the law stands much of the firearms legislations is pretty open to interpretation... when I was first given .17HMR for fox it wasn't considered a fox legal calibre

You give an excellent example there. There is nothing in firearms legislation that makes one calibre/cartridge 'legal' for fox but another not. It's not their 'interpretation' of legislation but what they decide they do or do not want you to do. Don't confuse the two.


So my point is the deer legal calibre is a good example of "interpretation" being an issue due to the poorly worded legislation.

I disagree. The current legislation is very well worded. It's just that it defines what is prohibited, whereas some people prefer or feel more comfortable with being told what is actually permitted. It's when they or others try and convert it to read what is allowed that errors have crept in - and they risk keep getting repeated thereafter.


Furthermore if someone should use say a .22 accelerator for killing a Roe and were caught doing so would they have an adequate defense (rehtorical question!!!).

Dare I say it, this is a different arguement and comes down the definition/classification of a sub-calibre sabot round. It's been around the block a few times on here before and might come up if you use the search facility. To my mind it's a bit academic anyway as there was a reason Remington dropped them from their product range a while back - they group like a shotgun.


Anyway - like someone posted, it is all just our opinions, which surely is the whole point of forums :D I've learnt a lot from all of yours and everyone's posts but I clearly no-one is going to agree so I too am done. Cheers everyone, and Merry Xmas!

Actually I think there is quite a bit of agreement between those of us who are correct. ;):D Merry Xmas & happy New Year to everyone from me as well.

JeffreyL
23-12-2011, 15:19
I know I said 2020,but I can;t resist one more post!

The Deer act is stand lone legislation and does not need reading in conjunction with any other document, I think we are all agreed on that.(Phew)

The deer Act is an Act of Parliament, ie. is is the Law. The law is interpreted as it is written, not as we think it should have been. Hence the term 'The Letter Of The Law'.

In spite of Orions' insistence that section 2 defines what is prohibited, what it actually does is define the measurements between what is legal or not. 1701ft.lbs is 1699ft.lbs is not.

Now the dreaded word, OR. This implies choice as in 'either or'and as such introduces the anomaly which was mentioned in the first post. Such anomalies are usually decided in court ( Case Law). As far as I know this has never been tested.

Good thread, lots of sport! Happy Christmas to All, Especially BunnyDoom for starting it and Orion and Tamus for disagreeing so well.

Orion
23-12-2011, 15:42
In spite of Orions' insistence that section 2 defines what is prohibited, what it actually does is define the measurements between what is legal or not. 1701ft.lbs is 1699ft.lbs is not.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one then:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/pdfs/ukpga_19910054_en.pdf?timeline=true

P.13 at the bottom, or shall we continue the thread with the meaning of Prohibited instead of OR? :D

BTW the meaning of OR will be different if one is using it from a positive viewpoint as per - allowable if XXX or XXX is satisfied - compared to prohibited if XXX or XXX applies.

That is the reason why IMHO the legislation works and leaves no room for arguement.

Agree, good sport on this thread with no-one throwing a wobbler. Have a good one.

Dalua
23-12-2011, 15:46
Now the dreaded word, OR. This implies choice...

Choice indeed - a very consumerist reading.

A rifle is prohibited because its calibre is below .240", or its muzzle energy is below 1700ftlb.
Either one (or both, of course) and it is prohibited.

The choice is yours!

csl
23-12-2011, 16:33
I simply cannot see, after it's been explained so many times, how people can still read ambiguity in this part of the law. Its so obvious to anyone with an understanding of logical operators OR and AND. :D

In computer speak the law says: Prohibited IF (calibre<.240 OR energy<1700)

If you put the above into a computer then you'd get the following results... If you don't believe me I will put the above statement into Excel... (please don't make do that! :lol:)



Calibre

Energy

Result



<.240
<1700
Prohibited


>.240
<1700
Prohibited


<.240
>1700
Prohibited


>.240
>1700
NOT Prohibited






The operator OR cannot remain if you wish to invert the above statement. The inverse of the above logical statement is:

NOT prohibited, i.e. allowed IF (calibre>.240 AND energy>1700)

I appreciate the friendly manner in which the thread has been conducted but I really don't want our site to be responsible for misinterpretations of the law.

Alex

p.s. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone either, amazingly this confusion has even been perpetuated in the book Deer: Law and Liabilities. I have just checked it and even they have incorrectly reversed what the law states. :shock:

JeffreyL
23-12-2011, 17:00
Thank God for computers, next time I have a problem I am going to get one to represent me.!!!

csl
23-12-2011, 17:27
Flippancy doesn't change the fact that the language used is unambiguous and so simple that even a spreadsheet can understand it.

JeffreyL
23-12-2011, 17:38
Repeat thread 82!

Orion
23-12-2011, 18:29
p.s. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone either, amazingly this confusion has even been perpetuated in the book Deer: Law and Liabilities. I have just checked it and even they have incorrectly reversed what the law states. :shock:

Alex,

I strongly suspect that the OP BunnyDoom may have misunderstood the point being made by the BASC lecturer Peter Pursglove - apologies to him if not.

Perhaps Mr Pursglove was raising the issue that the incorrect reversal is now so commonly mis-stated and repeated without question, that it has almost passed into common usage - giving rise to the fallacious idea that firearms satisfying only one of the parameters of .240 or 1700ft/lb are permitted.

Another example in addition to yours above is the National Trust Mangement of Deer document, where they make the same mistake at page 16 http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-deer01.pdf. No doubt there are many more out there.

csl
23-12-2011, 18:43
Orion I think we have done all we can. There are simply no other ways left to explain it. :lol:

To people finding this thread looking for UK Deer Legal Calibres and thinking WTF?! the information under 'Firearms and Ammunition' on this page is correct:

BASC - Deer Stalking Code of Practice (http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/deer-stalking.cfm)

My advice would be to ignore it only at your peril.

Alex

j0e_bl0ggs
23-12-2011, 20:14
Joe can you run the math of this by me as I get a different answer

Cheers
I said ~ (approx) 3800 fps

No need to be exact as it was unimportant!

If you were being pedantic v=3731.

Tamus
23-12-2011, 23:49
OK so I was on a BASC course recently and was told that UK law says I can use a sub .240 calibre for roe etc provided it achieves 1700 ft/lbs as the law states "a projectile of no less than .240 diameter OR achieving 1700 ft/lbs" (according to the lecturer anyway).

Has anyone heard of this or had any experience?

For those still interested in this thread. It started with the above.

The problematic issue is not contained within the law it was the extension of logic from the law's references to the calibre of rifle, ie. the hole up't middle o'the barrel, to a discussion about PROJECTILES. These are two quite different, though obviously "normally" closely related propositions... but there are exceptions.

The projectile can actually be any size so long as it'll go up a barrel of no less than the minimum size and so long as it will achieve no less than the mandated muzzle energy level.

In other words we are drawn almost immediately to the apparent paradox created by the .22 accelerator round which fires a sub calibre PROJECTILE from a barrel of greater than the .240" minimum ... and... exceeds the muzzle energy 1700lb/ft minimum. This is an absolute bombshell in terms of law because if one .22 PROJECTILE achieving the necessary qualifier of ME is legal.... How can any of the others that might do it "possibly" considered unlawful, irrespective of how the law is worded? Fascinating stuff. In motoring terms it would be like saying you can exceed the speed limit in a Ferrari but not in a race tuned Mini... :shock:

BunnyDoom
24-12-2011, 18:10
For those still interested in this thread. It started with the above.

The problematic issue is not contained within the law it was the extension of logic from the law's references to the calibre of rifle, ie. the hole up't middle o'the barrel, to a discussion about PROJECTILES. These are two quite different, though obviously "normally" closely related propositions... but there are exceptions.

The projectile can actually be any size so long as it'll go up a barrel of no less than the minimum size and so long as it will achieve no less than the mandated muzzle energy level.

In other words we are drawn almost immediately to the apparent paradox created by the .22 accelerator round which fires a sub calibre PROJECTILE from a barrel of greater than the .240" minimum ... and... exceeds the muzzle energy 1700lb/ft minimum. This is an absolute bombshell in terms of law because if one .22 PROJECTILE achieving the necessary qualifier of ME is legal.... How can any of the others that might do it "possibly" considered unlawful, irrespective of how the law is worded? Fascinating stuff. In motoring terms it would be like saying you can exceed the speed limit in a Ferrari but not in a race tuned Mini... :shock:

Tamus nailed it!

p.s. Orion - Mr Pursglove's point is irrelevant of this topic; my point was as Tamus has more eloquently developed and refined above following the discover of the actual wording on the ACT.

Orion
26-12-2011, 01:38
This is an absolute bombshell in terms of law because if one .22 PROJECTILE achieving the necessary qualifier of ME is legal.... How can any of the others that might do it "possibly" considered unlawful, irrespective of how the law is worded?

Bombshell? Really? Have you ever tried firing any other .224 projectile through a barrel that is .240 or greater? The 'Accelerator' scenario is seperate from the the issue under discussion and hinges around how those sub-calibre sabot rounds are classified. And I don't have a problem with them either way.

It's a smokescreen/red herring/call-it-what-you-will, that deviates from the fact that rifles/rounds available on the market today will be prohibited if they fail the test as laid down by the 1993 Act.

Tamus
26-12-2011, 11:45
Bombshell? Really? Have you ever tried firing any other .224 projectile through a barrel that is .240 or greater? The 'Accelerator' scenario is seperate from the the issue under discussion and hinges around how those sub-calibre sabot rounds are classified. And I don't have a problem with them either way.

It's a smokescreen/red herring/call-it-what-you-will, that deviates from the fact that rifles/rounds available on the market today will be prohibited if they fail the test as laid down by the 1993 Act.

I would have thought so. Rules which can make one .22 projectile lawful and an another one (identical in all material respects, other than the gun it was fired from) = "unlawful" That is an absurd paradox, is it not?

I realise there would be other considerations, such as the conditions on the shooter's FAC... but... taking my own taking ticket as an example. I have permission to possess .224 expanding bullets and a .30-06 rifle (both for use on Deer)... So I could come down to England and shoot e.g. a Red deer with a .224 bullet (provided I could actually hit the damned thing with an accelerator loaded round). I also have a .223 remington chambered rifle with an unusually long barrel (27.5"). Now, I have not yet made the effort to exceed 1700lb/ft of muzzle energy with it but I have managed 1600lb/ft with a 75 grain A-max, of all things, and a 3100fps muzzle velocity.

I now see it as a personal challenge to have both my -06 and my .223 fire the same bullet to meet the 1700lb/ft rule. ;)

But... then again, I know so little about the fundaments of English law, doubtless you can show me the error of my way. :-D

Brigadoon
31-12-2011, 18:47
Deer Act 1991 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/schedule/2)

Your BASC lecturer needs to read the Act again - Schedule 2 lists prohibited weapons and clearly prohibits any weapon having a bore of less than 0.240 inches or a muzzle energy of less than 1700 foot pounds, the effect of this provision is that only a weapon compliant on both criteria can be used

Cheers
mac

Whitebeard
31-12-2011, 20:27
The projectile can actually be any size so long as it'll go up a barrel of no less than the minimum size and so long as it will achieve no less than the mandated muzzle energy level.


Er..no it cant, the deer act clearly states "calibre" of no less then .240", the defintion of calibre can mean the diametre of a projectile OR the internal diametre of a firearm barrel.

Ian.

Tamus
31-12-2011, 20:52
Er..no it cant, the deer act clearly states "calibre" of no less then .240", the defintion of calibre can mean the diametre of a projectile OR the internal diametre of a firearm barrel.

Ian.

Sorry Ian, you are incorrect and... even at the risk of boring mr claret-dabbler further, may I point out that discussions like this can become quite illuminating when they highlight such mistaken beliefs.

English law on the matter references the calibre of the rifle . However, on the subject of ammunition the prohibitions are mute regarding the calibre, or more correctly the diameter, of any bullet.

Read below or check the act yourself if you doubt me.

I have to say that this thread has fairly shaken my previously, generally, very high regard for the standard of contribution to this forum. Reader beware of your responsibilities and please bear in mind that old verisimilitude, "ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law."

Please note where it says what is prohibited, i.e. :

SCHEDULE 2 Prohibited firearms and ammunitionFirearms1Any smooth-bore gun.
2Any rifle having a calibre of less than .240 inches or a muzzle energy of less than 2,305 joules (1,700 foot pounds).
Prospective
3Any air gun, air rifle or air pistol.
Ammunition4Any cartridge for use in a smooth-bore gun.
5Any bullet for use in a rifle other than a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet.

stag1933
31-12-2011, 22:09
I had this same stupid `or/and` argument in the early 1970s with a now deceased senior BDS member.
At that time I was shooting Sika, Reds and Hybrids in Southern Ireland where due to perverse legislation only .22 centre-fires were permitted to kill deer.
I owned, arguably, the most potent .22cf calibre in the world which could be purchased as a standard item.
This was my Mauser Model 66 in 5.6X61 Vom Hofe Super Express calibre.
Bullet diameter was .228 unlike most other .22cfs which are .224 and with the factory cartridge using the 77gr projectile driven at 3708 fps it generated 2350 foot/pounds of energy at the muzzle.
Many in the Republic used the RWS 5.6X57 at that time, 74 grain Kegel Spitz bullet, M.E. about 1900 foot/pounds.
Both of these German cartridges had been designed for shooting Roe and Chamois.

Arguments about `or/and` are stupid when 90% of shooters are incapable of placing 3 consecutive shots into a one-inch bullseye from a good rest at 100 yards and when some individuals boast of head/neck shooting deer at ranges in excess of 300 yards.

HWH.

Tamus
31-12-2011, 22:34
I had this same stupid `or/and` argument in the early 1970s with a now deceased senior BDS member.
At that time I was shooting Sika, Reds and Hybrids in Southern Ireland where due to perverse legislation only .22 centre-fires were permitted to kill deer.
I owned, arguably, the most potent .22cf calibre in the world which could be purchased as a standard item.
This was my Mauser Model 66 in 5.6X61 Vom Hofe Super Express calibre.
Bullet diameter was .228 unlike most other .22cfs which are .224 and with the factory cartridge using the 77gr projectile driven at 3708 fps it generated 2350 foot/pounds of energy at the muzzle.
Many in the Republic used the RWS 5.6X57 at that time, 74 grain Kegel Spitz bullet, M.E. about 1900 foot/pounds.
Both of these German cartridges had been designed for shooting Roe and Chamois.

Arguments about `or/and` are stupid when 90% of shooters are incapable of placing 3 consecutive shots into a one-inch bullseye from a good rest at 100 yards and when some individuals boast of head/neck shooting deer at ranges in excess of 300 yards.

HWH.

Such an argument, that is to say an "or/and" argument, might well be stupid, though frankly it is just irrelevant. I really do NOT offer any "or/and" argument simply an observation on the exact wording of the law.

The "Deer Act 1991" does not state that a projectile used to kill deer must exceed .240" in diameter. Said law merely prohibits the use of a RIFLE whose calibre is less than .240". If the paradox which this wording creates is beyond the comprehension of those reading and contributing to this thread I can only refer back to my original post on page 1. For anyone else, including any students of law, you know as well as me (or better) what the ramifications might actually be.

It's a bit damp here tonight but (as it's lit) I'm aff t'the Bonfire anway... Cheers m'dears and a Guid New-Year tae ane an a'~Tom

http://www.biggarbonfire.org.uk/

matt_hooks
01-01-2012, 02:31
Well, today I had an English RFD, who is an experienced stalker, tell me that the minimum 100gr bullet weight applied in England! It's worrying that an RFD could get that wrong!

Orion
01-01-2012, 15:42
Well, today I had an English RFD, who is an experienced stalker, tell me that the minimum 100gr bullet weight applied in England!

Well done Matt, the first conundrum of 2012!

What if the shooter was positioned north of Hadrian's Wall and the quarry was on the other side? What if the positions were reversed? :???: