Legal UK Calibres for Deer

[csl]

I simply cannot see, after it's been explained so many times, how people can still read ambiguity in this part of the law. Its so obvious to anyone with an understanding of logical operators OR and AND.

In computer speak the law says: Prohibited IF (calibre<.240 OR energy<1700)

If you put the above into a computer then you'd get the following results... If you don't believe me I will put the above statement into Excel... (please don't make do that! )

[TABLE="class: grid"]
[TR]
[TD]Calibre
[/TD]
[TD]Energy
[/TD]
[TD]Result
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]<.240[/TD]
[TD]<1700[/TD]
[TD]Prohibited[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]>.240[/TD]
[TD]<1700[/TD]
[TD]Prohibited[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]<.240[/TD]
[TD]>1700[/TD]
[TD]Prohibited[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]>.240[/TD]
[TD]>1700[/TD]
[TD]NOT Prohibited[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]




The operator OR cannot remain if you wish to invert the above statement. The inverse of the above logical statement is:

NOT prohibited, i.e. allowed IF (calibre>.240 AND energy>1700)

I appreciate the friendly manner in which the thread has been conducted but I really don't want our site to be responsible for misinterpretations of the law.

Alex

p.s. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone either, amazingly this confusion has even been perpetuated in the book Deer: Law and Liabilities. I have just checked it and even they have incorrectly reversed what the law states.

 

[JeffreyL]

Thank God for computers, next time I have a problem I am going to get one to represent me.!!!

 

[csl]

Flippancy doesn't change the fact that the language used is unambiguous and so simple that even a spreadsheet can understand it.

 

[JeffreyL]

Repeat thread 82!

 

[Orion]

p.s. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone either, amazingly this confusion has even been perpetuated in the book Deer: Law and Liabilities. I have just checked it and even they have incorrectly reversed what the law states.

Alex,

I strongly suspect that the OP BunnyDoom may have misunderstood the point being made by the BASC lecturer Peter Pursglove - apologies to him if not.

Perhaps Mr Pursglove was raising the issue that the incorrect reversal is now so commonly mis-stated and repeated without question, that it has almost passed into common usage - giving rise to the fallacious idea that firearms satisfying only one of the parameters of .240 or 1700ft/lb are permitted.

Another example in addition to yours above is the National Trust Mangement of Deer document, where they make the same mistake at page 16 http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-deer01.pdf. No doubt there are many more out there.

 

[csl]

Orion I think we have done all we can. There are simply no other ways left to explain it.

To people finding this thread looking for UK Deer Legal Calibres and thinking WTF?! the information under 'Firearms and Ammunition' on this page is correct:

BASC - Deer Stalking Code of Practice

My advice would be to ignore it only at your peril.

Alex

 

[j0e_bl0ggs]

Joe can you run the math of this by me as I get a different answer

Cheers

I said ~ (approx) 3800 fps

No need to be exact as it was unimportant!

If you were being pedantic v=3731.

 

[Tamus]

OK so I was on a BASC course recently and was told that UK law says I can use a sub .240 calibre for roe etc provided it achieves 1700 ft/lbs as the law states "a projectile of no less than .240 diameter OR achieving 1700 ft/lbs" (according to the lecturer anyway).

Has anyone heard of this or had any experience?

For those still interested in this thread. It started with the above.

The problematic issue is not contained within the law it was the extension of logic from the law's references to the calibre of rifle, ie. the hole up't middle o'the barrel, to a discussion about PROJECTILES. These are two quite different, though obviously "normally" closely related propositions... but there are exceptions.

The projectile can actually be any size so long as it'll go up a barrel of no less than the minimum size and so long as it will achieve no less than the mandated muzzle energy level.

In other words we are drawn almost immediately to the apparent paradox created by the .22 accelerator round which fires a sub calibre PROJECTILE from a barrel of greater than the .240" minimum ... and... exceeds the muzzle energy 1700lb/ft minimum. This is an absolute bombshell in terms of law because if one .22 PROJECTILE achieving the necessary qualifier of ME is legal.... How can any of the others that might do it "possibly" considered unlawful, irrespective of how the law is worded? Fascinating stuff. In motoring terms it would be like saying you can exceed the speed limit in a Ferrari but not in a race tuned Mini...

 

[BunnyDoom]

For those still interested in this thread. It started with the above.

The problematic issue is not contained within the law it was the extension of logic from the law's references to the calibre of rifle, ie. the hole up't middle o'the barrel, to a discussion about PROJECTILES. These are two quite different, though obviously "normally" closely related propositions... but there are exceptions.

The projectile can actually be any size so long as it'll go up a barrel of no less than the minimum size and so long as it will achieve no less than the mandated muzzle energy level.

In other words we are drawn almost immediately to the apparent paradox created by the .22 accelerator round which fires a sub calibre PROJECTILE from a barrel of greater than the .240" minimum ... and... exceeds the muzzle energy 1700lb/ft minimum. This is an absolute bombshell in terms of law because if one .22 PROJECTILE achieving the necessary qualifier of ME is legal.... How can any of the others that might do it "possibly" considered unlawful, irrespective of how the law is worded? Fascinating stuff. In motoring terms it would be like saying you can exceed the speed limit in a Ferrari but not in a race tuned Mini...

Tamus nailed it!

p.s. Orion - Mr Pursglove's point is irrelevant of this topic; my point was as Tamus has more eloquently developed and refined above following the discover of the actual wording on the ACT.

 

[Orion]

This is an absolute bombshell in terms of law because if one .22 PROJECTILE achieving the necessary qualifier of ME is legal.... How can any of the others that might do it "possibly" considered unlawful, irrespective of how the law is worded?

Bombshell? Really? Have you ever tried firing any other .224 projectile through a barrel that is .240 or greater? The 'Accelerator' scenario is seperate from the the issue under discussion and hinges around how those sub-calibre sabot rounds are classified. And I don't have a problem with them either way.

It's a smokescreen/red herring/call-it-what-you-will, that deviates from the fact that rifles/rounds available on the market today will be prohibited if they fail the test as laid down by the 1993 Act.

 

[Tamus]

Bombshell? Really? Have you ever tried firing any other .224 projectile through a barrel that is .240 or greater? The 'Accelerator' scenario is seperate from the the issue under discussion and hinges around how those sub-calibre sabot rounds are classified. And I don't have a problem with them either way.

It's a smokescreen/red herring/call-it-what-you-will, that deviates from the fact that rifles/rounds available on the market today will be prohibited if they fail the test as laid down by the 1993 Act.

I would have thought so. Rules which can make one .22 projectile lawful and an another one (identical in all material respects, other than the gun it was fired from) = "unlawful" That is an absurd paradox, is it not?

I realise there would be other considerations, such as the conditions on the shooter's FAC... but... taking my own taking ticket as an example. I have permission to possess .224 expanding bullets and a .30-06 rifle (both for use on Deer)... So I could come down to England and shoot e.g. a Red deer with a .224 bullet (provided I could actually hit the damned thing with an accelerator loaded round). I also have a .223 remington chambered rifle with an unusually long barrel (27.5"). Now, I have not yet made the effort to exceed 1700lb/ft of muzzle energy with it but I have managed 1600lb/ft with a 75 grain A-max, of all things, and a 3100fps muzzle velocity.

I now see it as a personal challenge to have both my -06 and my .223 fire the same bullet to meet the 1700lb/ft rule.

But... then again, I know so little about the fundaments of English law, doubtless you can show me the error of my way.

 

[Brigadoon]

Deer Act 1991

Your BASC lecturer needs to read the Act again - Schedule 2 lists prohibited weapons and clearly prohibits any weapon having a bore of less than 0.240 inches or a muzzle energy of less than 1700 foot pounds, the effect of this provision is that only a weapon compliant on both criteria can be used

Cheers
mac

 

[Whitebeard]

The projectile can actually be any size so long as it'll go up a barrel of no less than the minimum size and so long as it will achieve no less than the mandated muzzle energy level.

Er..no it cant, the deer act clearly states "calibre" of no less then .240", the defintion of calibre can mean the diametre of a projectile OR the internal diametre of a firearm barrel.

Ian.

 

[Tamus]

Er..no it cant, the deer act clearly states "calibre" of no less then .240", the defintion of calibre can mean the diametre of a projectile OR the internal diametre of a firearm barrel.

Ian.

Sorry Ian, you are incorrect and... even at the risk of boring mr claret-dabbler further, may I point out that discussions like this can become quite illuminating when they highlight such mistaken beliefs.

English law on the matter references the calibre of the rifle . However, on the subject of ammunition the prohibitions are mute regarding the calibre, or more correctly the diameter, of any bullet.

Read below or check the act yourself if you doubt me.

I have to say that this thread has fairly shaken my previously, generally, very high regard for the standard of contribution to this forum. Reader beware of your responsibilities and please bear in mind that old verisimilitude, "ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law."

Please note where it says what is prohibited, i.e. :

[h=2]SCHEDULE 2 Prohibited firearms and ammunition[/h][h=3]Firearms[/h]1Any smooth-bore gun.
2Any rifle having a calibre of less than .240 inches or a muzzle energy of less than 2,305 joules (1,700 foot pounds).
Prospective
3Any air gun, air rifle or air pistol.
[h=3]Ammunition[/h]4Any cartridge for use in a smooth-bore gun.
5Any bullet for use in a rifle other than a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet.

 

[stag1933]

I had this same stupid `or/and` argument in the early 1970s with a now deceased senior BDS member.
At that time I was shooting Sika, Reds and Hybrids in Southern Ireland where due to perverse legislation only .22 centre-fires were permitted to kill deer.
I owned, arguably, the most potent .22cf calibre in the world which could be purchased as a standard item.
This was my Mauser Model 66 in 5.6X61 Vom Hofe Super Express calibre.
Bullet diameter was .228 unlike most other .22cfs which are .224 and with the factory cartridge using the 77gr projectile driven at 3708 fps it generated 2350 foot/pounds of energy at the muzzle.
Many in the Republic used the RWS 5.6X57 at that time, 74 grain Kegel Spitz bullet, M.E. about 1900 foot/pounds.
Both of these German cartridges had been designed for shooting Roe and Chamois.

Arguments about `or/and` are stupid when 90% of shooters are incapable of placing 3 consecutive shots into a one-inch bullseye from a good rest at 100 yards and when some individuals boast of head/neck shooting deer at ranges in excess of 300 yards.

HWH.

 

[Tamus]

I had this same stupid `or/and` argument in the early 1970s with a now deceased senior BDS member.
At that time I was shooting Sika, Reds and Hybrids in Southern Ireland where due to perverse legislation only .22 centre-fires were permitted to kill deer.
I owned, arguably, the most potent .22cf calibre in the world which could be purchased as a standard item.
This was my Mauser Model 66 in 5.6X61 Vom Hofe Super Express calibre.
Bullet diameter was .228 unlike most other .22cfs which are .224 and with the factory cartridge using the 77gr projectile driven at 3708 fps it generated 2350 foot/pounds of energy at the muzzle.
Many in the Republic used the RWS 5.6X57 at that time, 74 grain Kegel Spitz bullet, M.E. about 1900 foot/pounds.
Both of these German cartridges had been designed for shooting Roe and Chamois.

Arguments about `or/and` are stupid when 90% of shooters are incapable of placing 3 consecutive shots into a one-inch bullseye from a good rest at 100 yards and when some individuals boast of head/neck shooting deer at ranges in excess of 300 yards.

HWH.

Such an argument, that is to say an "or/and" argument, might well be stupid, though frankly it is just irrelevant. I really do NOT offer any "or/and" argument simply an observation on the exact wording of the law.

The "Deer Act 1991" does not state that a projectile used to kill deer must exceed .240" in diameter. Said law merely prohibits the use of a RIFLE whose calibre is less than .240". If the paradox which this wording creates is beyond the comprehension of those reading and contributing to this thread I can only refer back to my original post on page 1. For anyone else, including any students of law, you know as well as me (or better) what the ramifications might actually be.

It's a bit damp here tonight but (as it's lit) I'm aff t'the Bonfire anway... Cheers m'dears and a Guid New-Year tae ane an a'~Tom

http://www.biggarbonfire.org.uk/

 

[matt_hooks]

Well, today I had an English RFD, who is an experienced stalker, tell me that the minimum 100gr bullet weight applied in England! It's worrying that an RFD could get that wrong!

 

[Orion]

Well, today I had an English RFD, who is an experienced stalker, tell me that the minimum 100gr bullet weight applied in England!

Well done Matt, the first conundrum of 2012!

What if the shooter was positioned north of Hadrian's Wall and the quarry was on the other side? What if the positions were reversed?