Legal UK Calibres for Deer

[Tamus]

And again... for the hard of tabbing and just to put the matter out of contention (fat hope)

Scroll down this link to Schedule 2 para 2

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

 

[Orion]

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



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Keep it coming, chaps - this thread is an absolutly ripping snort!

 

[LJT40]

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]

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.

 

[LJT40]

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]

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]

Wow look what I started!

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'm with Devonoak and CSL - the calibre must meet both criteria to be considered legal.

 

[Si]

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?

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]

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.