.303 on land passed for .270
- Thread starter Dieseljack
- Start date
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.
If you reload there are options for both.
Dieseljack
Member
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
Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
And it doesn't take much info or energy to achieve that status.
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.
Why?
It could be for paid stalks, for example.
A FAC holder might not have any ground of their own.
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
Lack of access to suitable land, you mean?
BenBhoy
Well-Known Member
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".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 >
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.
TringSaint
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Similar threads
