Legal UK Calibres for Deer

[Tamus]

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]

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]

The deer act 1963 ( repealed and re enacted 1991 ) states .240 OR 1700ft.lbs.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]

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]

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]

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]

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! 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]

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]

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 ).

 

[devonoak]

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]

So, what's the answer?

 

[Orion]

So, what's the answer?

Come on Si - everyone knows it's 42!

Now, what was the question again?

 

[Tamus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Orion]

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.

 

[Orion]

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]

Crikey I'm gonna get such a bollocking, if I don't hang up my gloves on this very soon.

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