Thar said:
Some of you have got the wrong end of the stick here
Of course! That
must be the explanation.
Thar said:
I have no issue with anybody using a different calibre, in fact I use a odd ball one myself, in addition if some of you may remember in a previous post I was with a friend of mine only the other week that uses a 45-70.
A 45-70 loaded to what velocity, I wonder? I hope you made the relevant enquiries.
Thar said:
I would have not thought any debate would be necessary if Mark had said that he had slightly down loaded his 375HH to shoot large deer in the UK because this would allow him to get familiar with the weapon for use on dangerous game in field conditions and it is unnecessary to use full power loads for deer. Absolutely fine in my mind but Mark made no such claim.
I didn't get the impression that that is what he was doing, so perhaps that's why he didn't make that claim.
Thar said:
The reason I think that Marks post is worthy of debate is because he has deliberately down loaded the cartridge to be just deer legal
'Deliberately'?? At least it wasn't accidentally! And 'just deer legal'? A rifle is either 'deer legal' or it isn't, and this one is, being about 300ftlb (17%) above the minimum.
Thar said:
by his own admission the drop on this cartridge when so loaded is horrendous.
Compared to the flat-shooting .45-70? Perhaps the drop is fine over the ranges it is intended to be used?
Thar said:
I generally would have concerns of how a bullet would perform (although not in this specific case)
Perhaps we should be spared further irrelevant speculation on this one, then.
Thar said:
Remember “English law says that a bullet must expand in a predictable manner.”
It actually says 'no bullets may be used other than soft-nosed or hollow-pointed.' It says nothing about what happens to the bullet in practice.
Thar said:
If you are going to make your dangerous game rifle perform like a 243 does it not make far more sense to just use a 243?
Or he could borrow your friend's .45-70, perhaps?
Thar said:
so there is a chance I will agree as I have not made my own mind up 100% yet.
Hmm.
Thar said:
This then leads to if this is OK when is it not, if ever? Is it OK the use a 500gn bullet doing 1300fps that is still deer legal?
Like a shotgun slug?
I suppose there's a point where the trajectory becomes impractical. English law allows us, like Mark, to make up our own minds about that.
Thar said:
I see some people berate the law surrounding firearms and deer, do you wish to turn back the clock and be able to use whatever you or just importantly other s like?
There has been no sugestion of this sort. Another red herring, perhaps.
I'm not sure many would argue the law makes sense in every aspect, though. Why no .22CF in England and Wales for roe, for example?
Thar said:
Of course for those living north of the border it is immaterial as we have a minimum velocity limit, in general, is this a bad thing?
Insomuch as it allows you to offer dire warnings about 156gr bullets in 6.5x55 it certainly a little irritating
Those who effectively use low-velocity heavy-bullet rifles for woodland stalking might find the laws restrictive.
Do you think that deer welfare is better in Scotland because of the rather arbitrary MV limits? My view on legislation in general is that less is better.
Thar said:
I also see that with some individuals you can’t have a debate even if it is months/year ago without it getting personal and them holding a grudge, get over it
Nothing personal with me. I just have a marked dislike of school-playground taunts, 'straw man' arguments, hyperbolic extrapolations and other dubious devices which neither dignify the forum nor encourage proper, non-emotive and hence constructive discussion.
Thar said:
just because we debated once and disagreed don’t mean the next time I won’t agree with you.
Hope springs eternal: I'm sure we can all carry on with a light heart, knowing that this rich blessing might await us should we ever state an opinion with which you agree