Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Good luck to them finding the funds to ballistic test a round found in a fox to match it to all potential firearms owners in the area.
Cheap .243’s
- Thread starter Beagle boy
- Start date
Totally agree and whilst I find it utter nonsense ... I will comply
I agree. I wont be getting rid of my three. One of BACS's criteria for the ban seems to be availability of non-lead ammo (I wont use the term non-toxic). I just cant see the ban excluding 243 unfortunately.
Without reigniting the debate on non lead (very much see your point ref non toxic) ... its a total **** take that Europe have taken a different ...and more sensible stance ... alas sweet FA that we can do. I homeload for the 6.5 creed so will be doing the same for the .243 once I have used up the 58 grain Varmint X rounds. I shot 3 foex with the last of my S&B Blue 120 grain 6.5 Creeds ...foxes didnt seem to care
It's another badly thought out law. Why 6.17mm not 5.9mm it would save all doubt.
243 is absolutely fine for lead free. There are plenty of non-lead 243 bullets in the 80-85gr range designed to work in a 1:10 barrel. The only country with a minimum weight is Scotland, and that’s now 80gr.
I’ve been using non-lead 243 for most of the deer I’ve shot in the last year or so with my 243 and it seems to work as well as any other non-lead (I don’t think non-lead flattens things as well, but does tend to give a good blood trail).
It’ll be more of an embuggerance for fox, but there are some interesting new 22 CFs coming out.
At least some of this comes down to paranoia being deliberately spread or spread by those who still think you need 100gr. I also wonder if some is just that lots of beginners have wanted to have something bigger than 243 and can now try the lead free argument as an excuse to their FEO to have a 6.5.
I’ve been using non-lead 243 for most of the deer I’ve shot in the last year or so with my 243 and it seems to work as well as any other non-lead (I don’t think non-lead flattens things as well, but does tend to give a good blood trail).
It’ll be more of an embuggerance for fox, but there are some interesting new 22 CFs coming out.
At least some of this comes down to paranoia being deliberately spread or spread by those who still think you need 100gr. I also wonder if some is just that lots of beginners have wanted to have something bigger than 243 and can now try the lead free argument as an excuse to their FEO to have a 6.5.
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
Did they ever find the guy who shot the hot tub in East Lothian?
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
Those who have .243’s that shoot well will likely keep them until shot out. I doubt any will be rebarrelled in .243 or any new rifles will be sold in .243. They are fine, but commercially dead
243 is still one of the best cartridges for uk deerstalking IMO.
I don’t really understand what’s wrong with an 80gr copper bullet? It’ll kill everything you’re allowed to kill in the whole country. Why would anyone get rid of a .243 because of a lead ban?
Also, where are all these mega cheap .243s? I’ll take one. Preferably a Sako 75 or 85. PM me!
Also, where are all these mega cheap .243s? I’ll take one. Preferably a Sako 75 or 85. PM me!
80g copper is fine in Scotland, but I think some people find some factory brands don't quite achieve English deer legal 1700 ft lbs, even though that's what they say on the box. Its best not to own a chronograph.
I don’t think they are banning possession, just use.
I’ll be in possession for target use, so how would that work?
If it doesn’t meet 1700ft/lbs with an 80gr bullet, then surely it didn’t with a 100gr? I know it’s heavier but it’s also slower. How were these rifles legal before?
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
I don’t think it’s entirely the lead ban, it’s part of the equation, but there isn’t much choice in copper factory ammo, and it’s a bit of a guess if it will stabilise, so an expensive trial and error. Moreover, new FAC grants seem to have moved to automatic approval of 6.5cm as opposed to the old .243, which will drive most new shooter sales to the 6.5cm
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
If you’re not a member of a range or can prove visits to an approved range, it will be hard to argue possession of banned ammunition. If one is, I suppose in theory possession of target ammo is allowed
This is true however there was a lot more options when it came to lead, with copper being longer bullets to get the weight to make them deer legal very few if any slow twist .243 will stabilise them. Therefore making them completely unethical if you want to make a guarantee clean shot.
Similar threads
