.204
- Thread starter cowsmart
- Start date
- Status
I see your point but one can't say that 204 has more muzzle energy than a 223 and use that as justification for its suitability if that isn't the case.
For me, it could have 4000ft-lbs and I still wouldn't use a 204 on deer.
straightpull6547
Well-Known Member
but its outside of guidance and wont be granted fir deer
straightpull6547
Well-Known Member
Consider "girth". Bigger bullet, bigger hole, more blood.
exmarksman9870
Well-Known Member
Good point
TOMMO.B
Well-Known Member
Well how did your call go with Police Scotland. We are holding our breath ( between swigging buckie and shooting deer) No all fun aside relay how did it go,
But if you look elsewhere
Nosler's manual gives
.222 50grn MV 3247fps
.223 50grn MV 3540fps
Whereas Berger's own manual give no more than MV 3381fps for their .204 50 grn
Nobody found anyone in Scotland with a .204 conditioned solely for deer yet, then?
no takers? please note just answer ..yes I am still against .204 on roe or No it sounds reasonable.
don't pull it up on the figures as I made them up, but with the same bullet weight (50gr) the .204 sends more energy than .222/.223 which are also deer legal...the main points are/ its a varmint calibre, well so are all the .22 CF's and 6mm CF's .243 included/ its barely legal on roe, well so is .243 on larger deer/ you cant get a soft point 50gr bullet, taken care of that with my hypothetical scenario...so please just answer.. yes against/ or no it could work.
TOMMO.B
Well-Known Member
Try using a inkie then.
I have already answered but again, it's a resounding yes still against from me
The firearms officer who approves 204 for deer is not allowed anything sharper than crayons.
that would be the Firearms licensing Administrator, Scottish Police Authority, French Street, Glasgow
I suggest you look up the dictionary definition of "Guidance" and the dictionary definition of "law"
Guidance does not have the power of law - law trumps guidance every time - and in this case the law does not say that a .204 is not legal for roe deer in Scotland.
Also, it doesn't have to be granted for deer - it can be granted for fox and AOLQ - that is sufficient, since it meets the requirements of the legislation.
The best example I can give of the difference between guidance and law is that of Police Scotland ignoring the guidance on the new medical rules for FAC/SGC grants/renewals
See this thread BASC says don’t pay medical fee
The Guidance clearly states that if the police do not receive a response to the GP letter, they should assume that the applicant has no relevant medical issues and continue to process the application.
In Scotland, the police have a policy of no medical information = no certificate and this policy is based on their interpretation of the 1968 Firearms Act which states that the Chief Constable must be "satisfied" that the applicant is suitable.
Their policy is clearly the direct opposite of the guidance, but it is within their interpretation of the law and the argument they use when their policy is questioned is always - well it's only guidance - the law is what we go by
PS - How did your telephone call to the firearms office go?
We're all on tenterhooks to find out what they said
Oh, I presume it was a firearms office in Scotland you called since the law here is different from the rest of GB
Cheers
Bruce
you would have thought by now all the against, one of them would have contacted their feo or basc or sacs for conformation that it is illegal?? Not one of you?? come on guys it should have been plastered all over here with 'I told you so' by now??
Anyway only one answer and thats a 'yes I am still against.....'
no more?
Anyway only one answer and thats a 'yes I am still against.....'
no more?
straightpull6547
Well-Known Member
tried earlier but the person i need to speak to is busy. Awaiting a call back.
simonl
Well-Known Member
BeRightBack.... We're not used to hypothetical scenarios and it's sent us into a bit of a spin, so we've convened a meeting at the north end of the fish tank for midday.
My personal thoughts are that your hypothetical example would be reasonable, and it would seem legal in Scotland , except.... (sliding from hypothetical to reality)
1. You'd need a tight twist in rifle, possibly rendering it useless for smaller bullets, which is where the 204 shines imo, as a varmint cartridge.
2. I don't believe Hornady figures for 204 speeds. I can't get close with my 204. I'm not alone here. There's no talk of barrel length either. I doubt you'd fall under the law due to this, but thought I'd point it out.
3. At some point as you decrease in calibre I guess you'd get to the point where you're firing needles with not enough diameter to create a wound channel wide enough. I think you're at that point and that there are many people with far more knowledge and experiece than you or me who have already concluded it's not appropriate. That'll be why you can't seem to find the bullets, except in lalaland.
4. You seem determined to do this at the expense of possible suffering, just to scratch that itch. At least this isn't a public forum where anyone with an alternative agenda can just..oh hang on...
If you want to pioneer something then at least do research, accept feedback, publish results & allow scrutiny, rather than "screw you all I'm doing it now, even more so because you don't like it"
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
