Lead ban and .243?
- Thread starter Beagle boy
- Start date
wildfowler.250
Well-Known Member
I would have thought the lighter grain allocation in Scotland would help a lot?
And maybe factory will start bringing out slightly different twists in the future to allow copper? - purely speculating.
I’ve been tempted by one latterly. Less recoil the better sometimes
And maybe factory will start bringing out slightly different twists in the future to allow copper? - purely speculating.
I’ve been tempted by one latterly. Less recoil the better sometimes
Triggermortis
Well-Known Member
I suppose if the venerable .243 wasn’t able to comply with the minimum energy/bullet weight for all species of deer the police would need to be granting a larger calibre for first time applicants for a deer rifle ?
Wouldn’t be why they dropped the minimum bullet weight would it?
Triggermortis
Wouldn’t be why they dropped the minimum bullet weight would it?
Triggermortis
This table is a little dated, but interesting none-the-less. Chuck Hawks and the British army recon that 15lbs of recoil energy is the maximum that people can handle without developing a flinch and accuracy being affected. What interested me is the number of common calibre combinations listed that result in recoil higher than 15lbs. Plus in some calibres, he lists several rifle weights and weight makes a huge difference to recoil.
Yes this was before moderators and moderators reduce actual and perceived recoil. But arguably there is a trend for super light rifles? But then again we go and add back 2 or 3 lbs of additional crap like optics, moderators and bipods.
Here we bloody go again ... back in your cave TimOr you could wait until they drop off then look at a Creedmoor
Its a good suggestion though...Creed copes with copper with no issues and whats not to like? Brings abuse but improves your looks, manscaping and the appreciation of different clothing choices such as camo thongs and more
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
My recollection is the challenge with the 6mm Remington was that it used a slower twist rate than the 243. It was very good at shooting lighter varmint type bullets very fast and flat so ideal for varmints and predators, but struggled with the heavier weight deer bullets. This, combined with it being based on the longer 57mm case length meant that it never gained the universal popularity of the dual use 243, which right from the start was designed as a varmint and deer rifle.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
You mean like what the Scottish Government wrote into Deer Order Scotland Amendment in 2023, substituting the minimum bullet weight of 100grains for 80grains.
2023 was two years ago, so we have legally been able to use 80gn bullets on all deer in Scotland.
If a 243 cannot shoot an 80gn bullet well (regardless of its construction) the particular rifle has many more challenging problems. If it cannot meet the minimum 2450 fps and 1750 ftlbs then the barrel is too short, probably due to it being shortened well below the original length and that has been the choice of the owner.
The Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023
This Order amends articles 3 and 5 of the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985.
How short is too short, I l left my 1/10 at 23.5 when it was threaded?You mean like what the Scottish Government wrote into Deer Order Scotland Amendment in 2023, substituting the minimum bullet weight of 100grains for 80grains.
2023 was two years ago, so we have legally been able to use 80gn bullets on all deer in Scotland.
If a 243 cannot shoot an 80gn bullet well (regardless of its construction) the particular rifle has many more challenging problems. If it cannot meet the minimum 2450 fps and 1750 ftlbs then the barrel is too short, probably due to it being shortened well below the original length and that has been the choice of the owner.
The Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023
This Order amends articles 3 and 5 of the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985.www.legislation.gov.uk
Could that be because your 6mm Remington is not a .243 Winchester - the subject of the thread - and is possibly afflicted with the original 1:12 twist barrel that would not stabilize the preferred 100gr deer bullets of the day, which condemned the cartridge to irrelevance?
The later change to 1:9 did little to save it - by then the .243 had eaten its lunch - which was unfortunate because it is a great cartridge.
No. It being a P-Hale had the same twist rate as P-Hale used in all their barrels of that "bore" and that were then chambered by them for either 6mm Remington or .243 Winchester. They also did a Heavy Barrel rifle offered in 6mm Rem or .243 Win using the same twist rate (albeit in a 1" diameter "bull" barrel) for both. I understand that it was 1 in 10" used for these barrels of that "bore".
Last edited:
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
80gr Barnes TTSX work fine on anything up to Roe buck size, but I've now switched to .270 for the larger stuff. Both will kill fine, but the knock down power of the .243 copper doesn't seem to be quite there.
The ‘fear’ is historic now, and borne from the 100gr minimum that was required to all deer in Scotland.
It’s entirely true to say that a 1:10 barrel (most 243s) would struggle to stabilise 100gr copper - assuming you can even find a bullet of that weight to try (yes, fox did/do one).
However, that rule has now been changed to 80gr, of which there are plenty of offerings in 6mm and which will stabilise in a 1:10. As with lead bullets, your rifle may not shoot every available option well, but that’s not a problem specific to ‘243 with lead free’.
It was never a problem in England and Wales, as no minimum weight is mandated.
Muzzle energy can be a problem but that’s nothing new, look at any review in a shooting mag of a 20” barrel 243 and you’ll find the chrono results with factory ammo are marginal.
If it concerns you, it should have been a concern regardless. A lot of the people now raising it are looking for something to complain about, and made no comment when lead 243 was turning out 1,600ft/lbs.
It’s entirely true to say that a 1:10 barrel (most 243s) would struggle to stabilise 100gr copper - assuming you can even find a bullet of that weight to try (yes, fox did/do one).
However, that rule has now been changed to 80gr, of which there are plenty of offerings in 6mm and which will stabilise in a 1:10. As with lead bullets, your rifle may not shoot every available option well, but that’s not a problem specific to ‘243 with lead free’.
It was never a problem in England and Wales, as no minimum weight is mandated.
Muzzle energy can be a problem but that’s nothing new, look at any review in a shooting mag of a 20” barrel 243 and you’ll find the chrono results with factory ammo are marginal.
If it concerns you, it should have been a concern regardless. A lot of the people now raising it are looking for something to complain about, and made no comment when lead 243 was turning out 1,600ft/lbs.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Most ammunition velocities are quoted based on a 22 or 24” test barrel.
A rule of thumb is for inch of barrel you remove velocities will fall by 25 to 50 fps. So chopping 4” off the barrel could drop velocity by 100 to 200 fps.
But a lot does depend on the barrel, and then choice of powder. By using a faster burning powder you can accelerate the bullet quicker so it leaves with a higher velocity.
To meet Scotlands minimum of 1750 ft lbs of energy:
80 gn bullet needs a minimum of 3150fps
Stevie/P
Well-Known Member
So at 100 yards my ammunition doesn’t meet the requirements or are the above figures only relevant at the muzzle?
Attachments
And my stainless x-bolt .243 shoots Winchester Copper Xtreme very accurately.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Only relevant at the muzzle. The Deer acts in England and Scotland state minimum “muzzle energy” and “muzzle velocity” requirements.
The box energy and energy is well above - you could drop 150fps off that figure and still be well above.
In other countries the requirements will be different - in Germany fir example its a min of 6.5mm and 2,000 Joules of energy at 100m that’s required to shoot anything bigger than a Roe deer.
Not an issue in England and Wales
Muzzle, it complies
Obsolete already. I wouldn't bother.I’ll wait till my balls drop then look at a .270
wildfowler.250
Well-Known Member
That’s interesting. I certainly have never noticed recoil whilst hunting in the field and taking a single shot,(even up to a 300 win mag) but have me shoot several 4-5 shot groups load developing and I definitely start to notice it a little.
You mean like what the Scottish Government wrote into Deer Order Scotland Amendment in 2023, substituting the minimum bullet weight of 100grains for 80grains.
2023 was two years ago, so we have legally been able to use 80gn bullets on all deer in Scotland.
If a 243 cannot shoot an 80gn bullet well (regardless of its construction) the particular rifle has many more challenging problems. If it cannot meet the minimum 2450 fps and 1750 ftlbs then the barrel is too short, probably due to it being shortened well below the original length and that has been the choice of the owner.
The Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023
This Order amends articles 3 and 5 of the Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985.
2 years? Thats gone quick. To be honest I was aware there was a change but mainly use a .270 so it didn’t really register it too much. Made a lot of sense though
Similar threads
