New Home Office Guidance of Firearms Use 2021 - rimfires and Fox, Law on shooting Birds and Animals.
- Thread starter Heym SR20
- Start date
The Scottish requirements for bullets used to shoot roe deer are entirely logical.
Each of the 3 factors is a SEPARATE MINIMUM requirement, with any combination of bullet weight and muzzle velocity required to make the minimum muzzle energy
A 50 grain bullet does need an MV of more than 2450fps to make 1000ft lb but, for example an 80 grain bullet with an MV of 2450fps will have a muzzle energy of more than 1000ftlbs grain bullet and be perfectly legal.
Essentially, placing the limits on the projectile rather than the calibre gives shooters many more potential options as to the calibre of the rifle they can use to shoot roe deer
The debate in the House of Lords back in 1985 that lead directly to the Scottish legislation is worth reading
The bullet weight/ MV/muzzle energy numbers were not picked out of thin air by politicians - they came directly from the Red Deer Commission - a body that knew quite a bit about shooting deer.
Deer (Firearms Etc) (Scotland) Order 1985 - Hansard - UK Parliament
Hansard record of the item : 'Deer (Firearms Etc) (Scotland) Order 1985' on Wednesday 10 July 1985.hansard.parliament.uk
That bit of legislation has put Scotland in a far better situation regarding the shooting of roe deer by removing calibre from the legislation and concentrating on the projectile and it's ability to kill the animal humanely.
I think it's fair to say that in Scotland more roe deer are shot with .222, 223 and 22-250 than anything else.
They all do the job very well, but would be illegal to use on roe deer outwith Scotland
Cheers
Bruce
Am sorry but the word “logic” has no place in the same sentence as “Deer Act (Scotland)”!
To constrain cartridge/calibre option by specifying three components which are already physically and directly linked to each other defies logic.
Energy = 0.5 Mass x Velocity squared
You don’t need to specify all three components unless you are trying to be overly restrictive.
They “The Red Deer Commission” and the various Lords and Earls who laid the “Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985" out in Parliament were very clear that this order and amendment to The Deer Act (Scotland) 1959 was done mostly to “punish poachers effectively ” and indicated very little reference to the back up the efficacy of a bullet on the target species.
The main body of the order is to restrict the use of shotguns and rimfire rifles (the most commonly owned firearms) and those former service rifles that were unlikely to make the velocity but were also fairly common.
The discussion includes ridiculous unrelated references to poachers stealing propellors from Lord’s boat and references to examples of poachers that were caught with four stags and “quite rightly jailed for 4m”.
It screams of landed gentry using position to enact laws that serve to protect their interests.
It does not scream of scientific justification of firearms law to ensure the welfare of deer.
Far too many variables exist to impact terminal effect, from bullet construction, range and shot placement.
During the presentation of the draft Order Lord Swansea questioned the verification of such a “tripartite” formula.
Its almost entirely unenforceable.
To my knowledge I can’t find a single reference to any convictions solely on the basis of using the wrong bullet/calibre/cartridge combination on UK deer.
This is usually a very good indicator of a badly written piece of legislation.
I have literally just had a 20 minute conversation today with a guy trying to work out a load for his .45-90 shooting 250-300gr bullets that are according to “Deer Act (Scotland)” logic ….incapable of killing red deer.
But they will knock bear and buffalo over all day long.
Same conversation last year with Firearms licensing who granted a 9.3x74r for use on large game overseas but wouldn’t allow the owner to use it on red deer in the UK unless i/he could demonstrate a factory load that made 2450fps.
Don’t get me started on the horse’s ass they made of the 100gr limit on .243
Written by people with no knowledge of basic physics or the fundamentals of the cartridge they were constraining.
A .243 shooting 80gr projectiles almost always makes more energy from 0-300m than a .243 shooting 100gr.
Stated muzzle velocities of 100gr ammo are higher than recorded in the field and two out of seven brands i tested in a factory 20” tikka in winter didn’t make the velocity to achieve 1750ftlbs
The only thing they got right is the use of 50gr .22cf on Roe!
It allows me to use God’s own cartridge (.222 for the uneducated heathens) on roe deer.
Those Northumberland deer must eat kevlar in Kielder to need a 6mm bullet….
And if i hear another person tell me Nicola is going to reduce the 100gr limit in Scotland I think I may have an aneurism!!
If that happens in my lifetime I will sell my .222!! (Never happen)
The SNP can’t even fix roads and teach kids to count at the moment.
Do you really think they give a toss about what landowners use in their .243s?
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Agree entirely on all counts sir. The nonsense that is prescribed is confusing, misguided and irrelevant.
“You don’t need to specify all three components unless you are trying to be overly restrictive.” As per my earlier post:-
“a minimum bullet weight of 50gns and velocity of 3000 fps or 50gns and energy of 1000 ft lbs would have been perfectly clear” to all and incidentally very capable for Roe - be they scottish, english or Timbucktooish.
It's rather more straightforward and sensible in England, except that for some obscure reason our roe deer need a large deer rifle. In my limited experience I've found some muntjac to be a lot harder than roe, even when technically dead immediately they can run, even with a 30-06 through the vitals and one shoulder.
I've heard a bit about how that might have come about. Entrenched attitudes by some establishment people who didn't want the precious roe being culled by people with "fox rifles", whereas the non-native muntjac, CWD etc needed topping, and the foxers could do that. That worked out well ?
I do know one chap who likes to use his 45-70 in woodland, and even another who has a .50 blackpowder muzzleloader conditioned for deer, but he's a bit of an outlier and I'm not sure has ever taken one with it. But I'm sure it could perform very well.
I've heard a bit about how that might have come about. Entrenched attitudes by some establishment people who didn't want the precious roe being culled by people with "fox rifles", whereas the non-native muntjac, CWD etc needed topping, and the foxers could do that. That worked out well ?
I do know one chap who likes to use his 45-70 in woodland, and even another who has a .50 blackpowder muzzleloader conditioned for deer, but he's a bit of an outlier and I'm not sure has ever taken one with it. But I'm sure it could perform very well.
Would have been a lot different if it was a non-lead cannonball.
