Im probably in agreement with Norfolk Deer Search on this. Personally I would consider myself fairly competent but I’m more Elmer Fudd than Chris Kyle or Craig Harrison. I do shoot steel targets out to silly ranges, 1300m plus and feel competent hitting 2moa gongs from improvised positions with the first shot out to about 400m. However I recognise the massive effect that the wind has on the path of the bullet and feel that I cannot predict that with sufficient certainty. As such I will walk away from a shot on anything live over 300-350m (in fairly still conditions) unless there is a compelling reason why the shot must be taken (ie wounded animal). I can generally stalk closer in most instances.
Game dealer not accepting lead shot carcasses
- Thread starter imnotrucknut
- Start date
Because as my post above, they are likely to know what they are doing and put the bullet in the right place. Copper is going to work when it is out in the right place by a very experienced hunter.
It is the new nervous or over enthusiastic hunter that doesn't know the limit of their kit that is far more likely to hit a deer in a sub optimal place where the better energy transfer of a cup and core bullet that sheds weight in the carcass will help bring about a quicker death.
Do you agree new stalkers are far more likely to put a bullet in the wrong place than yourself then?
...And it’s a £270 cack handed ruger that shoots better than most blaser’s I’ve seen
I’ll take myself off for a good beating
That depends entirely on the abilities of the new stalker. I have been mentoring one young chap who has been exceptionally reliable in this respect at ranges out to just under 300m. I have seen more poorly placed bullets from the “old timers” I have stalked with than from this “young buck”
where did I mention age?
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
T
The way it’s laying, that was shot early rut and was full of fat, I saved him from getting a beating from the monster on the other side of the hedge.
devon deer stalker
Well-Known Member
None, but you’re missing the context of my post (as Lee is) someone posted that copper were better as they offer higher penetration. That is a moot point when there are cup and core bullets, such as the partition, that are designed to fully penetrate an Elk - why would a UK stalker need ‘better’ penetration on a 150 kg red or 25 kg roe??
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
You don’t need to proclaim anything, I’ve just spent the last decade or more shooting an almighty heap of deer with non lead bullets and nothing else and I suppose my finding over the years are completely going against the grain of others.
the nay sayers in my opinion are still looking for excuses not to use it, as soon as that myth is proven wrong it’s onto the next and the next and the next.
well the time of the lead ban will soon be upon us, I’ll just plod on and carry on regardless!
bull elk or red deer, muntjac or roe they all die the same if you put the bullet in the right place
any how that’s enough now, got more deer to kill this afternoon.
At any point have I claimed that they will not kill deer (particularly if the bullet is put in the right place) or that I really have an issue with them being used for deer? - go back about 15 pages to my original posts.
My issue is being told I can’t use lead to shoot deer for my own consumption or for foxes and vermin!
Last edited:
Depends on the experience of what you deem a " new stalker " I shot a good 200 + foxes off sticks before getting into deer so just switched quarry as the field craft is no different also they are not very big at distance....
The once or twice a year stalkers will struggle as they book a stalk like a holiday.....
We all pull shots and anyone who says they don't is telling lies.
devon deer stalker
Well-Known Member
I have shot 2 Bull Elk, my bullet of choice was the 180 NP, however the first was with a Sierra Gameking, dead elk, the 2nd with the NP, dead elk, hunting bullets are designed to kill, whether that be lead or copper.
Plenty of my friends over the pond are switching to copper as their preferred choice, there are reports that birds of prey are dying through eating lead in the gralloch/carcass left by hunters in the US.
I get it you don't like being 'told' one day to use copper, but are you sure it's not because you have 1000's of bullets that you will never use/be able to sell before a ban comes in?
So why wait to be 'told' to use copper, be proactive and start to use them, they work, and lets face it, you shoot a deer in the guts it makes no difference whether it's lead or copper.
Very similar to me Tim, I used a .22 for quite a while before I shot my first deer, field craft can't be bought, just gained.
And I agree, we all cock things up on occasion, we are human after all.
Cheers
Richard
Also we wont go into the lending of rifles when the stalker has left his bolt at home....under the estate rifle rules lol
Know that is a can of worms....
Know that is a can of worms....
Lead is going to work when it is in the right place. When either are in the wrong place there are too many variables to claim superiority by simple definition of "wrong place". If lead is in the "wrong place" it is not going to kill quickly, otherwise it would not be the wrong place?
They both work in the right place. Why should only one work less effectively in the wrong place? Is the liver more or less susceptible to being shredded by either, any more than the heart is?
Your claim that a deer gut shot by lead will die quicker is not a given. It seems to ignore any variable in which organs were hit, which would have a much greater affect on the length of the sorry process than whether the liver was shredded by copper or lead.
You have reverted to the belief fostered by Nathan (
) that the lead particle model of energy transfer is invariably more effective and thus provides a safety net for a poor hit. It is conjecture. It is where you and I started in this thread, the difference in lethality between shedding weight or shedding energy. I disagree with the belief that it is only possible by particle dispersion, and so does the ballistic soap. Let alone that the experience of the actual users on here bears this out.If it were true that gut shot deer always dropped on the spot with lead core bullets there would be a logic for the argument, but they don't.
If every chest shot deer dropped on the spot with lead core bullets with no flight, but they don't.
If there was evidence rather than conjecture that there will be more runners with copper then there would be a reason for this belief. The actual experience of those posting on here (and my own) using lead-free is that it does not produce more runners.
Alan
Last edited:
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
I’ve just bought a scope this morning where I can dial in, once I’ve got some Barnes loaded and Chrono’ed I’m going to do some playing out to as far as I can go here, which I think is around 450-500m so hopefully 
o can myth bust the range expansion issue and then that’s that excuse kicked into touch.
o can myth bust the range expansion issue and then that’s that excuse kicked into touch.
That is an entirely different issue to the efficacy of lead free bullets which was the sidetrack we were discussing here...nobody on SD is in a position to impose a restriction on your bullet choice or anybody else's choice for that matter.
The thread is regarding Dealers specifying lead free shot carcasses, and they do have the right to make that demand...and you have the right to take them elsewhere...or do you think you should be able to tell them to take lead shot carcasses?
If your issue is with SD posters using lead free bullets out of personal choice and sharing the results on here...even refuting falsehoods and conjecture about them....it carries no power to impose a bullet choice on others...how can it?
We can simply share reasons we have found why it may be to your advantage to use lead free, but there is no mechanism available to insist...even should anyone wish to.
By not only reducing the risk, but also removing the hazard of lead toxicity in the food chain of both humans and carrion eaters, they confer benefits in use directly. As and added plus, I have suggested that using lead free bullets (where they are appropriate and advantageous) is one way to reduce the ammunition of those opposed to shooting. And am documented on here as receiving "angry" messages for suggesting that possibility before BASC got in on the act...hey ho.
Alan
Last edited:
Similar threads
