TOMMO.B
Well-Known Member
Thanks Bud. They are not the easiest to deal with. i tend to do a 50000 piece jigsaw while i wait
for a call back..204
- Thread starter cowsmart
- Start date
- Status
for a call back.Berger's figures in their manual, were from using a 26" barrel.
so is that for a yes still against or a no its reasonable
simonl
Well-Known Member
I've got a migraine so I can't get to vote right now
SussexFallow
Well-Known Member
Best thread on here for a while cant stop laughing at the silliness of FAC holders
TOMMO.B
Well-Known Member
I fear that many dont even have (be allowed) a dog licence let alone a FAC. But the OP did ask a plausible question and was shot down in flames by some who like to jump on the band wagon. After all this the guy still has no answer.Best thread on here for a while cant stop laughing at the silliness of FAC holders
simonl
Well-Known Member
Nope, it was a joke from Englandshire.ah..waiting to see what other people say.......got ya...
I'm never going to find myself vehemently opposing some abstract/hypothetical suggestion.
I oppose it, outright, on the grounds of sectional density, even if your example became reality. I wouldn't (edit: bother to) argue against the legality of it though.
Last edited:
simonl
Well-Known Member
A plausible question, until he said it's for shooting roe. As soon as that gets mentioned the thread inevitably changes to having respect for the deer & the responsibility of killing humanely. Count me as one of that band wagon if you like, because I don't like anything that unnecessarily brings disrepute to shooting. And all so he can scratch that itch?
you keep forgetting it sits well above the legal criteria set by the Scottish Government and Police Scotland.
bobjs
Well-Known Member
straightpull6547
Well-Known Member
just got the answer, which is....
The legislative requirements for the shooting of deer in Scotland are based on the performance of the ammunition, not the calibre of the rifle. Ammunition must be "designed
to deform in a predictable manner". Article 3 of the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985 makes different provisions for the shooting of Roe deer in Scotland. A calibre is not stipulated but the bullet weight must be not less than 50 grains, the muzzle velocity not less than 2,450 feet per second and the muzzle energy of more than 1,000 foot pounds. In practical terms, this means a calibre of .222 or greater.
that is the stock answer from Dumfries Firearms and explosives licensing, they will not step outside of HOG.
have fun with your application, you are now on their radar, lee from Castle Douglas.
The legislative requirements for the shooting of deer in Scotland are based on the performance of the ammunition, not the calibre of the rifle. Ammunition must be "designed
to deform in a predictable manner". Article 3 of the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985 makes different provisions for the shooting of Roe deer in Scotland. A calibre is not stipulated but the bullet weight must be not less than 50 grains, the muzzle velocity not less than 2,450 feet per second and the muzzle energy of more than 1,000 foot pounds. In practical terms, this means a calibre of .222 or greater.
that is the stock answer from Dumfries Firearms and explosives licensing, they will not step outside of HOG.
have fun with your application, you are now on their radar, lee from Castle Douglas.
TOMMO.B
Well-Known Member
Try the Viz or Razzle i hear they are quite popular to borrow from the local library.
yawn...utter tripe.....
simonl
Well-Known Member
It's a bit pantomine already, so .......Oh no I don't
I'm aware of that criteria & believe I have only questioned expected vs actual velocity, which may or may not drop you below legal limits. I neither know nor care frankly.
My gripe is all around diameter - using too small a bullet. How about a 50gr needle in a 17 Rem? That'd be equally legal. But daft, pointless and probably inhumane - an exaggerated example of how I feel about your quest.
if I was the OP, I would point out that the they are confusing calibre with cartridge in the above statement, the .222 referred to is quite clearly the cartridge as the most commonly used .222 bore / projectile IIRC is a .22 air rifle! If it was still an issue and they argued the .222 was the minimum cartridge then I'd point out the .204 is based on the bigger magnum version of said cartridge.
Then again if I was The OP I'd be using my fast twist custom 22-250 for roe anyway.
next up shall we discuss .357 underlever as a woodland muntjac rifle on england???
Cowsmart, as you know I never doubted the legality of it even if I don't approve simply due to my own biases, however I called BASC as nobody else seems to be doing so. Came back with what you and I think "there is no minimum calibre, just so long as you adhear to the weight/velocity/energy criteria", the gentleman also agreed that HO Guidelines are just that and aren't law, the deer act is the only relevant legislation.
As I said, I don't think it's a smart way forward but plan for the worst (your cocker may need working), get a 50gr bullet, crack on and let us know how it goes whether good or bad.
Would be a great muntjac rifle. If I can get my 14" 357 over 1000 ft-lbs I'll use it on muntjac.
As I said, I don't think it's a smart way forward but plan for the worst (your cocker may need working), get a 50gr bullet, crack on and let us know how it goes whether good or bad.
Would be a great muntjac rifle. If I can get my 14" 357 over 1000 ft-lbs I'll use it on muntjac.
With 75gr Amax lol....
- Status
Similar threads
