Cast lead bullets

[Muir]

If you really want to try, then you need to shoot your (cast) bullets at at least 2400 fps and make 1750 fpe. Or 1000 fpe for Roe.

This means a bullet of at least 137 grains. Or 78 grains for Roe.

Perhaps you might manage to get your bullets up to 2400 fps with usable accuracy and consistency. I don't mean shooting a 3 shot group with discounted fliers, but real consistent first-cold-barrel, day-to-day, year-to-year consistency. Such as we expect from jacketed bullets.

But you must also "design" your bullets to "expand in a predictable manner". Whatever that means.

If you know how to combine these conflicting requirements, good luck.

Even then, in Scotland (unlike England/Wales) the Deer Act gives the Secretary of State:

"power to make such order as he thinks fit regarding the classes of firearms, ammunition, sights and other equipment which may lawfully be used in connection with killing or taking deer, and the circumstances in which any class of firearms, ammunition, sights or other equipment may be so used."

Deer (Scotland) Act 1996

So if he/she doesn't like the idea of you using unjacketed lead bullets, they can ban it as they see fit, after due consultation. I don't think anybody likely to be consulted would regard homemade lead bullets as being a desirable alternative.

Fortunately here in England/Wales we don't have such restrictive legislation.

Personally I don't see the price of deer bullets per-se as being of any significance in my hobby. For target shooting yes absolutely.

Gad. How much cast bullet shooting do you do?~Muir

 

[Sharpie]

The caveat to all this is that cast bullet shooting is a different kind of discipline. If you want high velocity small bore cast bullet success it takes patience, preparation, and an attention to detail. Loading 45-70 @ 1500 fps is child's play. Serious high velocity cast bullet shooting is far different.~Muir

Agreed, it is very possible to do, but does require skill and experience, and a bit of luck.

FWIW I cast my own bullets in .223 (2 moulds), .303, .308, 30-30 (3 moulds), .357 (2 moulds), and .45-70 (1 mould).

It is a fascinating hobby, but I only use them on targets.

 

[Sharpie]

Gad. How much cast bullet shooting do you do?~Muir

Lots. But the shooters in Scotland are screwed by the "expanding type designed to deform in a predictable manner" requirement, as well as their 2400 fps minimum velocity.

 

[Sharpie]

That only applies to deer rog

Not even to deer, in England/Wales

 

[Muir]

Lots. But the shooters in Scotland are screwed by the "designed to expand in a predictable manner" requirement, as well as their 2400 fps minimum velocity.

I was curious because many US cast bullet shooters routinely toss Pb bullets faster than 2400 fps. I have hit 2700 fps with consistent 1.5 MOA accuracy from a 300 Winchester Mag and a 165 grain bullet. Likewise, I shoot 57 grain cast bullets from my .222 at 2750 fps. I don't know how the "designed to expand in a predictable manner" applies, but the velocity requirement isn't hard to hit. ~Muir

 

[Tamus]

Lots. But the shooters in Scotland are screwed by the "expanding type designed to deform in a predictable manner" requirement, as well as their 2400 fps minimum velocity.

The minimum muzzle velocity rule, for ammo used on deer in Scotland, is actually 2450 fps (may as well get that right while we're at it)

And... why do you consider that the shooter in Scotland is screwed by the "expanding type designed to deform in a predictable manner"clause? This clause has no identifiable or damning meaning that I can see. So, please explain your POV.

E.g. I could, categorically, "predict" that my cast lead bullets are going to "deform" in a range of likely ways from minor deformation to total fragmentation and this "prediciton" would be both a perfectly supportable statement and undeniably a "predicition".

There seems to be a deep seated and constantly recurring misconception that the words used in framing our laws somehow mean more than they actually say... why is that?

 

[Sharpie]

I was curious because many US cast bullet shooters routinely toss Pb bullets faster than 2400 fps. I have hit 2700 fps with consistent 1.5 MOA accuracy from a 300 Winchester Mag and a 165 grain bullet. Likewise, I shoot 57 grain cast bullets from my .222 at 2750 fps. I don't know how the "designed to expand in a predictable manner" applies, but the velocity requirement isn't hard to hit. ~Muir

Must confess that I haven't tried to push above 2000 fps. in any calibre.

I don't try to match jacketed bullet velocity, its just a way to shoot downloads on indoor range (within range limits), or shoot .303 to say 300 yards outdoors, cheaply and with minimum stress to the old girl. Ditto .308.

In the .223 its an exercise to try to get e.g. a Hornet load for pennies. So far not accurate enough.

I am romantically drawn to the idea of shooting quarry with my own cast bullets, but when spending good money for an outing on deer I'll stick to known-good albeit machine-made designs.

 

[Sharpie]

The minimum muzzle velocity rule, for ammo used on deer in Scotland, is actually 2450 fps (may as well get that right while we're at it)

You got me. But I realised it too, and corrected it (mostly) earlier today.

why do you consider that the shooter in Scotland is screwed by the "expanding type designed to deform in a predictable manner"clause? This clause has no identifiable or damning meaning that I can see. So, please explain your POV.

E.g. I could, categorically, "predict" that my cast lead bullets are going to "deform" in a range of likely ways from minor deformation to total fragmentation and this "prediciton" would be both a perfectly supportable statement and undeniably a "predicition".

I'd rather not try to argue the point with such a consummate barrack-room lawyer.

I have "reasonable doubt" that your argument, unless you designed the mould yourself, specified the lead alloy, predicted the range of expansive properties at various impact velocities into deer flesh, ideally backed up by test data, and documented it in design notes, would stand.

You might as well argue that using A-max is allowed by such argument.

There seems to be a deep seated and constantly recurring misconception that the words used in framing our laws somehow mean more than they actually say... why is that?

Dunno ? Doesn't seem that way to me.

PS: Why did you start this thread, since you seem to know the answers already ?

PPS: Has there ever been any prosecution of anybody in the UK for using an illegal bullet and/or muzzle energy or velocity to shoot a deer ? Other than the poachers with their .22s.

 

[Muir]

Must confess that I haven't tried to push above 2000 fps. in any calibre.

I don't try to match jacketed bullet velocity, its just a way to shoot downloads on indoor range (within range limits), or shoot .303 to say 300 yards outdoors, cheaply and with minimum stress to the old girl. Ditto .308.

In the .223 its an exercise to try to get e.g. a Hornet load for pennies. So far not accurate enough.

I am romantically drawn to the idea of shooting quarry with my own cast bullets, but when spending good money for an outing on deer I'll stick to known-good albeit machine-made designs.

What is accurate enough? I am about as skilled in shooting cast bullets from small bores as I am at anything in the shooting sports. I have done years and years of experimentation in the field with notable successes. If I can help, drop me a PM.~Muir

 

[Tamus]

I have "reasonable doubt" that your argument, unless you designed the mould yourself, specified the lead alloy, predicted the range of expansive properties at various impact velocities into deer flesh, ideally backed up by test data, and documented it in design notes, would stand.

1) Well, you would not only specify the alloy you'd probably have to create it yourself too, wouldn't you?

2) As for your list of proofs NO bullet I've ever encountered reacts the same way every time on game, far from it.

You might as well argue that using A-max is allowed by such argument.

3) Shhhh! We're not allowed to suggest such heresy... Acccording to csl "they" don't expand... He can't quite, it seems, get his head round the fact that target shooters must only use ammo not designed or intended to expand, which criteria "they" satisfy... but that stalkers in England and wales are merely required to use soft or hollow points on deer, which condition "they" also appear to satisfy. in much the same manner as any other protected point projectile of otherwise conventional construction.

PS: Why did you start this thread, since you seem to know the answers already ?

4) So someone like you could make the point for me, which I acknowledged at 3) above.

PPS: Has there ever been any prosecution of anybody in the UK for using an illegal bullet and/or muzzle energy or velocity to shoot a deer ? Other than the poachers with their .22s.

Never heard of the likes. In fact, illegal possession of section five ammo doesn't seem to trouble the "law" in England so much these days, or so it seems. March 13th, coming, will perhaps confirm this. I wait with baited breath.

 

[8x57]

3) Shhhh! We're not allowed to suggest such heresy... Acccording to csl "they" don't expand... He can't quite, it seems, get his head round the fact that target shooters must only use ammo not designed or intended to expand, which criteria "they" satisfy... but that stalkers in England and wales are merely required to use soft or hollow points on deer, which condition "they" also appear to satisfy. in much the same manner as any other protected point projectile of otherwise conventional construction."

I think that's unfair Tamus, nobody is saying that A-Max don't expand because they do just the same as all bullets expand to a certain extent. What has been said is that A-Max have been officially recognised as not being specifically designed to expand, so don't cock it up for other shooters who use this bullet for target shooting and don't have the expanding ammo condition on their tickets.​

 

[Tamus]

"


3) Shhhh! We're not allowed to suggest such heresy... Acccording to csl "they" don't expand... He can't quite, it seems, get his head round the fact that target shooters must only use ammo not designed or intended to expand, which criteria "they" satisfy... but that stalkers in England and wales are merely required to use soft or hollow points on deer, which condition "they" also appear to satisfy. in much the same manner as any other protected point projectile of otherwise conventional construction."

I think that's unfair Tamus, nobody is saying that A-Max don't expand because they do just the same as all bullets epand to a certain extent. What has been said is that A-Max have been officially recognised as not being specifically designed to expand, so don't cock it up for other shooters who use this bullet for target shooting and don't have the expanding ammo condition on their tickets.​

With respect, I can't "cock it up" Hornady were asked to advise on whether or not they designed the particular bullet in question to expand or not. They confirmed that they did not design them to do so and the fact that they do expand is merely "incidental". I was even party to the emails, while the matter was live, and before D&C police had received their rebuttal. As it happens a good friend of mine was the chap communicating with Hornady about this, at the time. At any rate, the matter is beyond debate now.

 

[8x57]

I also communicated with Hornady regarding the design of A-Max bullets some 2 years ago now and I shared my replies with certain people. No disrespect intended but the way some people insist on upsetting the apple cart with regard to A-Max bullets annoys me. A good many shooters use these bullets which because of their accepted classification can legally be sent through the post. As far as I'm concerned the correct decision was made regarding thier classification as non expanding but for some unknown reason certain selfish people insist on not leaving well alone. I can see that if they continue to do so certain authorities will re-visit the issue and the result will be the loss of a useful bullet to all but those with expanding ammunition on ticket and the inability to post such bullets.

 

[6pt-sika]

Must confess that I haven't tried to push above 2000 fps. in any calibre.

I don't try to match jacketed bullet velocity, its just a way to shoot downloads on indoor range (within range limits), or shoot .303 to say 300 yards outdoors, cheaply and with minimum stress to the old girl. Ditto .308.

In the .223 its an exercise to try to get e.g. a Hornet load for pennies. So far not accurate enough.

I am romantically drawn to the idea of shooting quarry with my own cast bullets, but when spending good money for an outing on deer I'll stick to known-good albeit machine-made designs.

I've cast and loaded for everything from the 218 Bee/219 Zipper up to and including the 45-70 .

Now I've kicked all but the 444 to the curb and I suppose at the moment I have about 40 molds for se in the 44 MAG and 444 .

You may be surprised to hear this but my cast loads from my lever action untuned rifles with usually a 2.5 to 4x scope better then a good many 3 shot groups from most folks bolt action jacketed bullet deer rifles .

The only loads I have in the 1500-1700 FPS range are 375-400 grain bullets . In the 444 most of my loads are top velocity loads with charges one would use with a jacketed bullet .

Typically with the slow twist Micro Grooved barrels on the majority of the Marlin's I own like the heavier bullets to be pushed hard/fast . Hence my preference for gas checked bullets .

Again I realize the laws are a problem for you guys .