.303 on land passed for .270

[reiver]

Had my 303 for target shoot and they included it for deer and alq with out asking . Shot a few with my 1913 smile sporter all went bang flop

 

[25 Sharps]

Thanks to everyone for the replies, much appreciated. I will see if I can change it to a .270 or 6.5x55, there's just something about old service rifles and I like the idea of deer stalking with even if it’s not the most practical option.

Depends entirely on how you stalk, I have 2 service rifles conditioned for target with deer as their secondary use, a K31 and a No. 4, plus 3 lever actions the same, .357 (vermin and AOLQ) 30-30 and 45-70. I enjoy stalking with them, particularly when I want to make it a bit more of a challenge because it means getting closer.

Would I have any as them as my main or sole stalking rifle? No way. They are generally not precision tools, having a rifle that isn’t a precision tool will limit your opportunities for a shot. If you’re fine with that and just want the experience then fine, of you want to make the most of opportunities a modern bolt action and modern optic (not necessarily excluding glass) is the way forward.

 

[25 Sharps]

Was a put to say the same - an HBSA member has, I believe, been refused use of a .303 for quarry shooting due to lack of suitable ammunition now & going forward (non lead ammo).

If you reload there are options for both.

 

[Dieseljack]

Fox Bullets make .311 non toxic bullets as do Peregrine in hunting as well as practice / target type bullets.

@Edinburgh Rifles import, stock as well as manufacture ammunition, and am sure that if you said please nicely they would do a 303 load if you didn’t want to roll your own.

The 303 did become obsolete as the traditional 174gn bullet was launched at about 2400 fps in standard loads.

Many lee enfields were converted to 308 - significantly higher pressure that 303 ammo, so meeting legal velocity thresholds with a lighter faster bullet should not be beyond capability. 1 in 10” twist stabilises most 308 lead free bullets, so same twist in the slightly bigger bore, hence short bullets of same weight should work just fine.

I home load and was planning on 150gr soft point or Sierra Pro Hunter for the higher velocity to push it over the minimum 2450fps in Scotland plus a flatter trajectory, so far only loaded 174gr FMJ for target shooting but will experiment with 150gr loads soon.

 

[Dieseljack]

And maybe the OP has obtained one of the limited run of Ruger Falling Block or...which will help his case...one of the many, many, many various "grades" of P-Hale and Alfred Parker retailed conversions of both the SMLE and the No4?

It's a 1918 P14 in a modern stock with a scope, I wouldn't be to confident with my No4 and aperture sights shooting past 100m.

 

[enfieldspares]

It's a 1918 P14 in a modern stock with a scope, I wouldn't be to confident with my No4 and aperture sights shooting past 100m.

If your bore is OK with them you can also load and shoot the various expanding bullets made for the 7.62x39 at 123 grains or so, or the bullets made for the 7.62x54R.

 

[finnbear270]

And .303 is bigger than .308, in bullet diameter, that really does confuse some FLO’s.

And it doesn't take much info or energy to achieve that status.

 

[Zetter]

There's a gentleman in a club I am in who is having difficulty with his FEO granting a .303 for deer stalking due to the lack of suitable ammunition available.

That bizarre I got my .303 Ruger no 1 changed to deer with no issue the other month. I am reloading with Sierra 180 grain pro hunters which are grouping nicely. There is less stuff about if you dont reload but it is out there and before I put in for the variation I checked that non toxic is available and it is.

 

[Twodogs]

As well as the other suggestionS HPS Target Rifles will load .303 for you in your chosen configuration. Sounds like the FLO in question requires a bit of CPD.

 

[BenBhoy]

Just be aware even with open ticket, you'll need at least one permission cleared to your .303 or above.

 

[wytonpjs]

Had my 303 for target shoot and they included it for deer and alq with out asking . Shot a few with my 1913 smile sporter all went bang flop

 

[VSS]

Just be aware even with open ticket, you'll need at least one permission cleared to your .303 or above.

Why?
It could be for paid stalks, for example.
A FAC holder might not have any ground of their own.

 

[HonestJohn]

Why?
It could be for paid stalks, for example.
A FAC holder might not have any ground of their own.

You’ve just identified the increasing death knell for many FAC holders there

 

[VSS]

You’ve just identified the increasing death knell for many FAC holders there

Lack of access to suitable land, you mean?

 

[BenBhoy]

Why?
It could be for paid stalks, for example.
A FAC holder might not have any ground of their own.

Just going off my own experience mate - on my grant I had 17hmr & fac air. Land cleared to 22lr. year later I varied for 204. Told couldn't as Land not cleared BUT can open ticket then you can have 204. Happy days.

2 Year later I variation for 17 hornet - that's when they first mentioned that couldn't have it as Land only cleared to 22lr. I explained I've had 204 for a for 2 years with this permission. Grumbled. Back & forth going over & over then one day licence turns up with variation done!!

Renewal this year & i did variation at same time - variation fine but told i shouldn't have my 204 (5 years now!!) as Land not cleared. They really wouldn't let it go this time until i got some permission that was 204 >

 

[VSS]

Just going off my own experience mate - on my grant I had 17hmr & fac air. Land cleared to 22lr. year later I varied for 204. Told couldn't as Land not cleared BUT can open ticket then you can have 204. Happy days.

2 Year later I variation for 17 hornet - that's when they first mentioned that couldn't have it as Land only cleared to 22lr. I explained I've had 204 for a for 2 years with this permission. Grumbled. Back & forth going over & over then one day licence turns up with variation done!!

Renewal this year & i did variation at same time - variation fine but told i shouldn't have my 204 (5 years now!!) as Land not cleared. They really wouldn't let it go this time until i got some permission that was 204 >

Seems they don't understand the meaning of "open ticket".
Had a similar instance myself when a couple of us with open tickets, who had been stalking the same bit of ground for years, were told we had to stop because it was only cleared for .22lr. After a bit of correspondence to and fro, educating the FEO, we got the ok to carry on.
Turns out they'd told the landowner that because he only had a .22lr on a closed ticket that was the only calibre that could be used on the land!
But we were right and the FEO was wrong.

 

[BenBhoy]

Seems they don't understand the meaning of "open ticket".
Had a similar instance myself when a couple of us with open tickets, who had been stalking the same bit of ground for years, were told we had to stop because it was only cleared for .22lr. After a bit of correspondence to and fro, educating the FEO, we got the ok to carry on.
Turns out they'd told the landowner that because he only had a .22lr on a closed ticket that was the only calibre that could be used on the land!
But we were right and the FEO was wrong.

Tim, I could share 20 odd emails back & forth trying to explain/clear it up. In the end it eas easier to get a mate go give me ok on his land.

 

[muddy42]

Another approach is to have permission to shoot on land in Scotland. The Scottish police don't clear land for calibres, which becomes a reason for an open certificate.

 

[TringSaint]

I had this debate with an FEO recently when he was signing off a piece of land for someone who shoots with me but has a closed ticket.
I asked him about the logic of restricting by calibre alone as it’s not a good gauge of the potential risk.
The example I gave was 6.5 cs .30 cal where the 6.5 allowed is a creedy but the .30 which he didn’t want could be a 30-30.

Those two are very different rounds and the calibre is not the defining factor. The same could go for a 45-70 - big calibre but inherently low power compared to a modern centrefire of a smaller calibre.

I also countered that in real terms a 243, 6.5 and 308 are all broadly as powerful as each other and their effective range and lethality were also very similar (I wouldn’t want to get hit by any of them!)

He tried to argue that they need to use a metric and calibre was the best to which I suggested that a combination of ME and velocity would probably be better.

Despite all of this, he said he would sign off the land at 6.5 (despite the lack of dangers and abundant backstops), only to then actually sign it off for .30 cal!!

Makes you wonder if the police have any real understanding of guns, calibres and the levels of risk that they really pose.

 

[Swedish]

Seems they don't understand the meaning of "open ticket".
Had a similar instance myself when a couple of us with open tickets, who had been stalking the same bit of ground for years, were told we had to stop because it was only cleared for .22lr. After a bit of correspondence to and fro, educating the FEO, we got the ok to carry on.
Turns out they'd told the landowner that because he only had a .22lr on a closed ticket that was the only calibre that could be used on the land!
But we were right and the FEO was wrong.

Is the right answer! On an open ticket the FAC holder has the responsibilty for their own safety assesment, police so called 'clearance' is irrelevant.