straightpull6547
Well-Known Member
But now vmax are ok?
.204
- Thread starter cowsmart
- Start date
- Status
But now vmax are ok?
Shall we just park this [/QUOTE]
Yes as JayB did in 2014 which I believe the same subjectThread started back in 2010.
Perhaps more actual Deer Stalking as opposed to Virtual Deer Stalking
Yes as JayB did in 2014 which I believe the same subjectThread started back in 2010.
Perhaps more actual Deer Stalking as opposed to Virtual Deer Stalking
Yes as JayB did in 2014 which I believe the same subjectThread started back in 2010.
Perhaps more actual Deer Stalking as opposed to Virtual Deer Stalking
[/QUOTE]Why park it . Nobody has been picked on . No defermation of character . Cowmart asked a question and everyone started to warm up there keyboards and get the Brasso out
Last edited:
exmarksman9870
Well-Known Member
Wtf?!
Toys out the pram eh.. ?
Alienate or insult 100% of the membership
50% of us only own air rifles ?.....ok
The other 50%. Go on 2 or 3 paid stalks a year & sit in a high seat for four hours ....
.
Aye ok ..........
Wise up
Lol well said m8
i said ideally...but yes vmax will suffice as like using a .204, ITS LEGAL...
the prowler
Well-Known Member
My fac says 204, 223 and 22ppc for shooting vermin, foxes, deer. Does that mean any rifle for all quarry? When the 204 came out, some of the more knowledge shooters in the gun magazines ( pete moore ) said the 204 was marginal for fox shooting! The 204 is a very powerful rifle. Mine has a custom barrel 1-10 and 50grain bullets are deadly accurate. As for roe deer, am certain its more than enough to humanly kill one. Yes i could go up to a 308 if i want one, but for roe in scotland. My rifles are more than enough.
straightpull6547
Well-Known Member
You seem to be quite selective in which law you choose to follow, vmax ok in england but not in scotland.
- Rifle bullets should be of an expanding type designed to deform in a predictable manner.
ok...just so I can understand the collectives mind set, I have a hypothetical scenario...
Today Hornady have unveiled their new .204 50gr SST producing rapid but controlled expansion, due to the bullet design this can be used in a 1:10 twist barrel and produces 3,300fps and 1350ft/lbs of energy.
Baring in mind this is more energy than a .222/.223 at sensible stalking ranges, how many of you would still be vehemently against the .204 for use on roe?
Today Hornady have unveiled their new .204 50gr SST producing rapid but controlled expansion, due to the bullet design this can be used in a 1:10 twist barrel and produces 3,300fps and 1350ft/lbs of energy.
Baring in mind this is more energy than a .222/.223 at sensible stalking ranges, how many of you would still be vehemently against the .204 for use on roe?
50gr@3300fps gives 1209 ft-lbs
Hornady offer their 223 50gr GMX load which does 335fps and their 53gr v-max superformance does 3465fps.
So both of those loads exceed your hypothetical 204 load
Hornady offer their 223 50gr GMX load which does 335fps and their 53gr v-max superformance does 3465fps.
So both of those loads exceed your hypothetical 204 load
its just hypothetical and doesnt need dissecting ...i could alter the figures to be more than a .308....just really needs a ...yes I am still against or no it sounds reasonable
Until you can find someone who has been granted a FAC for a .204 solely for use on Roe, people will doubt that it would ever be granted, I'm afraid.
straightpull6547
Well-Known Member
Because it is outside of home office guidance, which tells them that .222 is minimum. They are risk aversed and will not step outside of the rules, and quite rightly so.
so 17hmr is never granted for fox then
By just saying "NO".
I've heard of 'barrack-room lawyers' but never 'milking parlour lawyers' before.
straightpull6547
Well-Known Member
As has been said previously in this thread - The Guidance is NOT law - the relevant legislation does NOT say that 204 is illegal.
If the legislation does not say that 204 is illegal, then it's legal - end of story
BTW a .204 with a 50g Berger bullet and 26.5gn of RS52 powder will have an MV of 3420fps and muzzle energy of 1299ftlbs - and even allowing for a 10% error in Quickload, all of those numbers exceed the legal requirements for roe deer in Scotland (50gn bullet, MV 2450fps, ME 1000ftlb)
For comparison, from the Norma website
.222 50g soft point MV 3199fps, muzzle energy 1136ftlbs
.223 53g soft point MV3215fps, muzzle energy 1217ftlbs
Nobody's saying that .222 and.223 are illegal or inadequate for roe deer in Scotland, so clearly, not only is 204 legal. it's more than capable of doing the job
Cheers
Bruce
- Status
Similar threads
