Mike2 Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Please see http://psa.bizhosting.com/whats_new.html It looks like this has been resolved - but further news will be posted as it comes in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Nice. Even though the only thing which separates the two is a boat tail :yp: Edited October 20, 2011 by Billy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 er, no... 50 Vmax are boat tail as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Never had any problem with Durham over using A-Max (listed on my reloading records when I applied for ammo increase), brought about 1000 back from the US over the last year or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 So presumably this makes using them on deer rather iffy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 No, different criteria! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Could do I suppose. I have been told by more than one reliable source that they work though and that's what really matters isn't it. I don't suppose the average copper would have a clue whether your bullets were classed as expanding or not? Given the red tip I should think it would be accepted fairly easily? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Re: deer and A max Well BASc don't seem to be too keen on it http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm/docid/376EDB0A-5B1F-48F6-9D61E5E7EF6C7911 they put forward 3 concerns about the A max being considered expanding ammunition. reason 3) 3. That the A-Max bullet could be adopted by shooters for shooting quarry and pest species inthe UK thus causing concern over animal welfare, especially on larger animals. BASC supports the use of properly designed expanding missiles to ensure a rapid and humane death of quarry species. One mans gain is another mans loss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 The legality of amax for targets is based on the intended purpose for the bullet and the marketing of that round - is it DESIGNED as expanding or match. The difference is pointless anyway but that's not the issue. The legality of amax for deer in England is different - bullet must be of soft or hollow nosed design. Amax has a softer plastic tip and a cavity so it qualifies. In Scotland the wording iirc is 'designed to.expand in a predictable manner'. Amax likely does not qualify here because it is a match bullet, and it expands seriously, very pdq. In terms of suitability - 52amax works well on muntjac, 178 308 amax explodes deer and is a bad plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike2 Posted October 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 We must remember that the police firearms licensing departments monitor these boards. (Don't you, Bob?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 We must remember that the police firearms licensing departments monitor these boards. (Don't you, Bob?) And? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Garyb found this floating around the Long Range forums. Gents,For those who may be interested I have cut longitudinal sections through AMax and VMax bullets. The top section is of a 224 AMax 52gr and the bottom a 224 VMax 55 gr. The bullets were embedded in Epoxy resin in a piece of PVC and machined on a vertical mill with a endmill cutter. There appears to be very little difference between the two and the performance may well be the same. I have no experience, as yet, of comparing these two bullets in field conditions, so I leave it to the experts on this Forum. I hope that this is of some interest. Peter Edited October 21, 2011 by Billy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Mike, not sure of your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 We must remember that the police firearms licensing departments monitor these boards. (Don't you, Bob?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike2 Posted October 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Mike, not sure of your point? Sorry, I could have - should have been clearer. Some of the posts (here or on other boards) imply that some posters have been using ammunition which is either not legal or unsuitable, or have been acting outside the law in other ways. This has then been raised at meetings with the Police/ACPO to "demonstrate" that shooters act illegally. Really, it's just a reminder that we are not alone...... :yp: Edited October 21, 2011 by Mike2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardo Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 on that same thread Billy - i emailed Hornady and they told me there was no physical difference between the two - it's all a matter of wording on the packet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Some of the posts (here or on other boards) imply that some posters have been using ammunition which is either not legal or unsuitable, or have been acting outside the law in other ways. This has then been raised at meetings with the Police/ACPO to "demonstrate" that shooters act illegally. Really, it's just a reminder that we are not alone...... :yp: The police, Home Office, BASC, gun trade and shooters have been confused by this for years. The confusion is caused by bad law. It's not a case of shooters saying they are breaking the law, it's the fact that nobody could say with authority exactly what the law is, because it was drafted by muppets who know as much about shooting as I do about quantum physics. In that environment I don't think its unreasonable for shooters to debate it on here to try and safely navigate the murky legal waters. Until this clarification, the powers that be haven't been much help and the jury still seems to be out on deer use. If any police or HO firearms people read this, then good. It should help to highlight one of the many flaws, inconsistencies and failures in our firearms law. The whole expanding ammunition thing is a nonsense which has done nothing to enhance public safety and everything to increase the admin burden on us and the police. It also has the potential to unwittingly turn the law abiding into criminals. It should be scrapped as part of the ongoing review Edited October 21, 2011 by Blunderbuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 I bet a lot of money, if you went out with a seasoned stalker with homeloads containing A-Max bullets (bullet weight, calibre etc are all above board) The professional wouldn't spot the difference. Pull the round to bits and I bet they would still think you're using the right bullets. I bet there would be more explaining to do if you were a target shooter without expanding on your ticket and you got collared by the police, RO or FEO. Especially if you threw the box away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Sorry, I could have - should have been clearer. Some of the posts (here or on other boards) imply that some posters have been using ammunition which is either not legal or unsuitable, or have been acting outside the law in other ways. This has then been raised at meetings with the Police/ACPO to "demonstrate" that shooters act illegally. Really, it's just a reminder that we are not alone...... :yp: Amax is completely legal for use on deer so I am confused as to how we can have been breaking any laws? Unsuitable is a matter for debate - I shot a deer with a 178gr A-max. Humanest kill I ever made - deer had a massive exit wound. I vowed never to use it again, but that is because I want to eat the deer. To put them down quick, it would be at the top of my list. Roe, anyway. I think we should worry less tbh - it's about time people lived in the real world and stopped making stupid regulations which are unworkable, unenforceable and end in farce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike2 Posted October 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Amax is completely legal for use on deer That depends on the country. It is NOT in England & Wales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 yes it is. Please show me the legislation which says it isn't. I already posted the law so am struggling here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 In terms of suitability - 52amax works well on muntjac, 178 308 amax explodes deer and is a bad plan. this actually pretty much in nutshell explains my issues with this press release. BASC experts have gone out and told everyone its not an expanding bullet, everyone and their dog who actually shoots knows it is. Makes you wonder what the point was in trying to lead the police up the garden path so to speak, are they so good for trget shooting that people want to be able to use them that much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 I will repeat myself again. Amax is not a section 5 bullet because the classification is based on DESIGN and intended purpose, not the actual construction of the bullet. Amax is legal for deer because the Deer Act says bullets must be of hollow or soft nosed construction; no mention is made of their intended purpose. The Amax has both a soft point (softer than the rest of the jacket) and a hollow nose (cavity under the plastic tip) and so is legal. Everybody's Hollow Point Boat Tail match bullets are legal too; they are just a bad idea. The two considerations are not mutually exclusive, so I struggle to see why the discussion of the use of amax on deer and vermin is a bad thing when relating to the Section 5 discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phaedra1106 Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 are they so good for trget shooting that people want to be able to use them that much? Short answer is yes, they are an excellent target bullet, same quality (if not better) as Nosler Custom Competition and Sierra Match Kings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildfowler.250 Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 In Scotland the wording iirc is 'designed to.expand in a predictable manner'. Amax likely does not qualify here because it is a match bullet, and it expands seriously, very pdq. In terms of suitability - 52amax works well on muntjac, 178 308 amax explodes deer and is a bad plan. I think you could argue that the rapid expansion is more than predictable although I don't use them myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.