Legal UK Calibres for Deer

[Tamus]

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?

Well, Yes.... but No (ish) It's another of those badly defined things.

It really depends on how you define the bore of a rifle. For example with a conventional cut rifled barrrel you would bore a hole up the middle of a bar of steel and for a rifle to be chambered to a .243" or 6mm cartridge that hole will be reamed close to .236". Thus convention says it's a .236" bore diameter. Then the rifling grooves would be cut. The precise depth of those varies according to many considerations but would typically be of the order of 3.5 thou deep, or so I believe. This allows that the diameter measured across the gooves would indeed exceed .240" as required by the law. Many would say this is a fudge and others will point to the fact that with hammer-formed barrels, the commonest sort around, you actually start with a larger hole up the middle of your piece of steel and hammer the metal back down tight against a mandrel.

This problematic definition is why in Scotland we just go with a totally arbitrary set of requirements based on minimum bullet weight, muzzle energy and muzzle velocity (all of which must be satisfied) The corollary of of our rules is that you have to remember to keep the muzzle velocity up with light bullets in order to meet the muzzle energy rule. Lots of people even in the trade fail to think about this though. Hence my own penchant for messing with people who saw off their .243's down to silly short 16" type lengths .... so it looks right with a sound moderator attached .... they still need to push a 100 grain bullet out of the pipe at 2,807.5 feet per second in order to get our required 1,750 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. I've had "experienced" "experts" tell me that's rubbish ... They say you only need 2,450 fps muzzle velocity. But they're wrong because at 2,450 fps a 100grain bullet only develops 1332.7 ft/lbs of energy.

It's all a blast, what?

 

[csl]

I think the important thing is that 'nominally' the barrel is .243", as are the bullets. And, as the police like to put so much emphasis on numbers.... it is stamped .243 Winchester on the side of the barrel

 

[Eric the Red]

~3800 fps

Joe can you run the math of this by me as I get a different answer

Cheers

 

[Tamus]

Joe can you run the math of this by me as I get a different answer

Cheers

He only rounded it up a little.

My programme says the exact number is actually 3731.1 feet per second.

So, 3800 is close enough isn't it?

 

[Sinistral]

He only rounded it up a little.

My programme says the exact number is actually 3731.1 feet per second.

So, 3800 is close enough isn't it?

The maths is simple. Square the velocity in FPS, divide by the constant 450400, and multiply the result by the bullet weight in grains. If it's the Scottish law - all deer 100-grain minimum - it's even easier.

.243 100gr has to reach 2760 fps. The standard SAAMI velocity of 2860 for .243 100gr is reduced by a nominal 100 FPS to account for variations in commercial ammo .... to ensure compliance.

 

[Tamus]

The maths is simple. Square the velocity in FPS, divide by the constant 450400, and multiply the result by the bullet weight in grains. If it's the Scottish law - all deer 100-grain minimum - it's even easier.

.243 100gr has to reach 2760 fps. The standard SAAMI velocity of 2860 for .243 100gr is reduced by a nominal 100 FPS to account for variations in commercial ammo .... to ensure compliance.

So we square the 2760? and that gives 7617600 yes?

And then we divide the 7617600 by 450400... and get .... 16.912966... etc.

and multiply that by 100 , which gives 1691.2966... etc

Does not equal England and Wales 1700ft/lbs and certainly doesn't equal Scottish 1750ft/lbs .... Not a good start

And the point of that number is what exactly?

ps. We were actually discussing the velocity needed to get a 55 grain .22 accelerator over the England and Wales 1700ft/lbs figure and dicovered that both the .308win and .30-06 spr versions are supposed to manage it.

 

[JAYB]

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...

Stop looking for problems where none exist, everyone is quite clear on what constitutes a deer legal calibre for different species in different parts of the UK. I think you will find that the FEO is applying his own interpretation of what is considered to be correct, there is no national agreement, every Police force is different. The only thing they seem to agree on is what does or does not constitute a deer legal calibre, so why not accept that and get on with your life. In the absence of any case law all these opinions are just that opinions, can we please move on and bury this horse or do you really want to flog it some more.

John

 

[Tamus]

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...

See, now I understand why JAYB and csl are having an attack of the itchy "closed thread" button fingers.

It's a shame though, it really was quite an interesting subject to mull over and it would maybe have served those who are not fully conversant with it all very well indeed to read through this thread and then go off and do their own homework properly, and that does not mean picking up the phone to some guy in one region who is almost certainly not fully aware of all the facts we were discussing and then putting him and his dept on the spot.
Big! mistake... So, I'm done now, thanks.

 

[Sinistral]

Oh dear,

Not wanting to get into umpteen places of decimals, I just put forward a quick way to help most reloaders do the necessary sum. Some might be able to do it without a calculator or a computer by long division. The constant is fairly easy to remember, and works for all deer calibres.

My subsequent point was that the legal requirements are based on the expected performance of off-the-shelf ammunition. As there is so much variation in what some of this musters in different rifles (PPU comes to mind?) some of the .243 100gr offerings won't achieve the 'absolute minimum' either side of the border. Hence the nominal adjustment of a whole 100 fps below advertised specs allowed in the law. In that context being a mere few ft./lbs shy of the magical sum doesn't matter very much.

 

[JeffreyL]

Stop looking for problems where none exist, everyone is quite clear on what constitutes a deer legal calibre for different species in different parts of the UK. I think you will find that the FEO is applying his own interpretation of what is considered to be correct, there is no national agreement, every Police force is different. The only thing they seem to agree on is what does or does not constitute a deer legal calibre, so why not accept that and get on with your life. In the absence of any case law all these opinions are just that opinions, can we please move on and bury this horse or do you really want to flog it some more.



John

It's all right for you north of Inverness where everything is black and white, down here we have to worry about this on a daily basis.

 

[caorach]

I thought this was simple, but actually it's not, and on top of that it is most entertaining. It looks to me like the law says the rifle must meet the 240 minimum but makes no mention of the bullet. To me that says that a sabot projectile launching a bullet smaller than 240 but meeting the energy requirements would be legal assuming the hole in the rifle met the 240 minimum.

 

[bogtrotter]

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?

No only in England.

 

[JAYB]

It's all right for you north of Inverness where everything is black and white, down here we have to worry about this on a daily basis.

So you do not sleep at night worrying if your 243 s in fact a legal calibre, if or not your ammunition meets the ft/lbs requirements, come on get real. As for FEO's and their DIY legislation this where a united front from shooting organisations and robust lobbying by them should ensure a national and sensible application of the HO Guidelines, especially in view of the proposed increase in FAC's.

John

 

[BunnyDoom]

See, now I understand why JAYB and csl are having an attack of the itchy "closed thread" button fingers.

It's a shame though, it really was quite an interesting subject to mull over and it would maybe have served those who are not fully conversant with it all very well indeed to read through this thread and then go off and do their own homework properly, and that does not mean picking up the phone to some guy in one region who is almost certainly not fully aware of all the facts we were discussing and then putting him and his dept on the spot.
Big! mistake... So, I'm done now, thanks.

Like you say it's an interesting subject, and it concerns all of us who shoot in England & Wales - I don't think I'm putting someone on the spot when it's his job to know!

Having said this, as the law stands much of the firearms legislations is pretty open to interpretation... when I was first given .17HMR for fox it wasn't considered a fox legal calibre, but it was down to my issuing force as to whether they felt it was appropriate for purpose. A friend of mine is licenced with .22 for fox as he is a professional vermin controller, yet I can't get that on my ticket as it's considered inapropriate use.

So my point is the deer legal calibre is a good example of "interpretation" being an issue due to the poorly worded legislation. Furthermore if someone should use say a .22 accelerator for killing a Roe and were caught doing so would they have an adequate defense (rehtorical question!!!).

Anyway - like someone posted, it is all just our opinions, which surely is the whole point of forums I've learnt a lot from all of yours and everyone's posts but I clearly no-one is going to agree so I too am done. Cheers everyone, and Merry Xmas!

 

[JeffreyL]

So you do not sleep at night worrying if your 243 s in fact a legal calibre, if or not your ammunition meets the ft/lbs requirements, come on get real. As for FEO's and their DIY legislation this where a united front from shooting organisations and robust lobbying by them should ensure a national and sensible application of the HO Guidelines, especially in view of the proposed increase in FAC's.

John

JAYB My tongue is very firmly in my cheek!!!!!!!!! I promise not to worry about this again until 2020.

 

[Tamus]

Like you say it's an interesting subject, and it concerns all of us who shoot in England & Wales - I don't think I'm putting someone on the spot when it's his job to know!

I think you should go right back to my first post on this thread. I was right in all I said there.

First mistake.. is your idea of what an FEO is and why they exist. They are there to administer bureaucracy. One might hope they were there to serve you but really they are there to do a job whithin an organisation which would rather no members of the public owned firearms. They are not lawyers. They are not usually even that well informed on all aspects of gun and ammo manufacture and sporting use. They often do pick up a lot as they go along, but you cannot assume that they think you are as entitled as you know you are. Indeed, they have to come at matters from the entirely opposite stand point, so try and keep your relations with them on the formal level. Anything else is a recipe for trouble. I will not enter into further discussion on these remarks either. Take them as fact or suffer the consequences, your choice.

Having said this, as the law stands much of the firearms legislations is pretty open to interpretation...

Please don't play that game with the authorities, unless you are a fully informed lawyer yourself. State your case (and only ever deal in writing, if you know what's good for you) and if you don't know your case may I humbly suggest you either get one of the shooting organisations to help in that respect or don't bother with shooting. Further, do not negotiate and do not have "discussions", you will only be led in ever smaller circles. If your case is right you will win if it is wrong you will lose. There is no in between. Again, if you do not know... go to the shooting organisations, it is not their job to put up the barriers it is their job to help you.

However, for the purposes of entertaining discussion, you have a very valid point here. In any other situation, use the guides I directed you to they set the standard.

Merry Christmas and a Guid New-year to one an' all ~ Tom

 

[Orion]

Like you say it's an interesting subject, and it concerns all of us who shoot in England & Wales - I don't think I'm putting someone on the spot when it's his job to know!

As Tamus says - don't invest FEOs with knowing so much about the subject. Many have very limited knowledge about the legislation, including my own local one who freely admitted to knowing very little about firearms and their sporting use!

Having said this, as the law stands much of the firearms legislations is pretty open to interpretation... when I was first given .17HMR for fox it wasn't considered a fox legal calibre

You give an excellent example there. There is nothing in firearms legislation that makes one calibre/cartridge 'legal' for fox but another not. It's not their 'interpretation' of legislation but what they decide they do or do not want you to do. Don't confuse the two.

So my point is the deer legal calibre is a good example of "interpretation" being an issue due to the poorly worded legislation.

I disagree. The current legislation is very well worded. It's just that it defines what is prohibited, whereas some people prefer or feel more comfortable with being told what is actually permitted. It's when they or others try and convert it to read what is allowed that errors have crept in - and they risk keep getting repeated thereafter.

Furthermore if someone should use say a .22 accelerator for killing a Roe and were caught doing so would they have an adequate defense (rehtorical question!!!).

Dare I say it, this is a different arguement and comes down the definition/classification of a sub-calibre sabot round. It's been around the block a few times on here before and might come up if you use the search facility. To my mind it's a bit academic anyway as there was a reason Remington dropped them from their product range a while back - they group like a shotgun.

Anyway - like someone posted, it is all just our opinions, which surely is the whole point of forums I've learnt a lot from all of yours and everyone's posts but I clearly no-one is going to agree so I too am done. Cheers everyone, and Merry Xmas!

Actually I think there is quite a bit of agreement between those of us who are correct. Merry Xmas & happy New Year to everyone from me as well.

 

[JeffreyL]

I know I said 2020,but I can;t resist one more post!

The Deer act is stand lone legislation and does not need reading in conjunction with any other document, I think we are all agreed on that.(Phew)

The deer Act is an Act of Parliament, ie. is is the Law. The law is interpreted as it is written, not as we think it should have been. Hence the term 'The Letter Of The Law'.

In spite of Orions' insistence that section 2 defines what is prohibited, what it actually does is define the measurements between what is legal or not. 1701ft.lbs is 1699ft.lbs is not.

Now the dreaded word, OR. This implies choice as in 'either or'and as such introduces the anomaly which was mentioned in the first post. Such anomalies are usually decided in court ( Case Law). As far as I know this has never been tested.

Good thread, lots of sport! Happy Christmas to All, Especially BunnyDoom for starting it and Orion and Tamus for disagreeing so well.

 

[Orion]

In spite of Orions' insistence that section 2 defines what is prohibited, what it actually does is define the measurements between what is legal or not. 1701ft.lbs is 1699ft.lbs is not.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one then:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/pdfs/ukpga_19910054_en.pdf?timeline=true

P.13 at the bottom, or shall we continue the thread with the meaning of Prohibited instead of OR?

BTW the meaning of OR will be different if one is using it from a positive viewpoint as per - allowable if XXX or XXX is satisfied - compared to prohibited if XXX or XXX applies.

That is the reason why IMHO the legislation works and leaves no room for arguement.

Agree, good sport on this thread with no-one throwing a wobbler. Have a good one.

 

[Dalua]

Now the dreaded word, OR. This implies choice...

Choice indeed - a very consumerist reading.

A rifle is prohibited because its calibre is below .240", or its muzzle energy is below 1700ftlb.
Either one (or both, of course) and it is prohibited.

The choice is yours!