geese

[MM]

I'm a little confused, I can take far more Canada Geese, far more efficiently at far longer ranges with a rifle than anyone can with a shotgun.

 

The carcase is cleaner and no shot either!

 

And taking them on the ground where they cause the grief rather than in the air seems a better option anyway on the whole round here.

 

If people are on the foreshore shooting that "may" be a different story, but it certainly isn't round here, shotguns are a poor second to rifles in this part of the country, even a 17g HMR will remove a Canadas head pretty effectively and easily at 100yards as witnessed by the one I just gave my neighbour today, and the Greylag as well (TOTALLY LEGAL so don't shout), try that with a shotgun!! The centrefires are easy to 200 yards or more if required on such a big bird, usually body shots, and use FMJ if you want to minimise damage, but I get more than enough so tend to use the SP.

 

ATB!!

 

 

I suggest you go back and read, the FMJ was in centrefire context, not HMR!

 

All should be clear if you take your time and read it slowly, if not just let me know what is confusing you and I'll put it in big letters for you as you seem to like them.

 

ATB!

 

 

Then why say it? Im not confused, you just dont come across as a full shilling.

[Dekers]

Then why say it? Im not confused, you just dont come across as a full shilling.

 

 

 

 

I suggest you go back and read, the FMJ was in centrefire context, not HMR!

 

17g HMR will make a mess of a Canada head at 100 yards, but if you are not up to the shot then don't take it!

 

Certrefires will easily deal with them in the body up to and past 200 yards, even FMJ, what is your concern?

 

HMR was a part of the response, and then I was criticised for suggesting using a FMJ centrefire on a Canada, which had no mention of a calibre. Ill informed twaddle about FMJ being designed for wounding, tell that to all the dead! Lets get this one straight whilst we are at it, if you get hit anywhere a bit important by a FMJ centrefire you are dead, hit you in the arm and it may well take your whole arm off, so please lets stop any talk of a centrefire FMJ not being up to stopping a Canada and only being designed to wound!

 

The HMR is NOT a centrefire and to the best of my knowledge FMJ rounds are ONLY available for it in 20g and not 17g!

 

Is it getting any clearer for you?

 

You also need to read all my responses very carefully, If someone prefers, or only has the choice of a shotgun on a Canada, then it's up to them. I have not made any suggestion of the suitability of that tool in relation to a rifle or their ability, only in my defence from ill informed contributors. So best for others to reel their necks in a bit and stop preaching.

 

I know how to deal with Canadas my way, and I am a reasonably capable shot, apparently some here have read too much ill informed ****, haven't the experience and like to set themselves up on a pedestal.

 

Deal with them however you like, it is no concern to me, but don't try and give me a lecture about what I am capable of or what tools do the job.

 

Any questions feel free to ask, more than happy to help.

 

ATB!!

[MC]

OK so I have a lot to learn, Who is going to teach me? YOU? Don't make me laugh.

 

A FMJ bullet is designed to wound as it takes more men off a battlefield to deal with a wounded soldier. Under the Geneva (or it may be the Hague) convention forces are not allowed to use ammunition DESIGNED to KILL. Otherwise don't you think it would be better to shoot an enemy soldier with a soft point round?

 

Suggesting to use an FMJ bullet on anything living is just ******* ridiculous and only goes to show you know jack schit about **** all.

 

This bit is even funny

 

HMR was a part of the response, and then I was criticised for suggesting using a FMJ centrefire on a Canada, which had no mention of a calibre. Ill informed twaddle about FMJ being designed for wounding, tell that to all the dead! Lets get this one straight whilst we are at it, if you get hit anywhere a bit important by a FMJ centrefire you are dead, hit you in the arm and it may well take your whole arm off, so please lets stop any talk of a centrefire FMJ not being up to stopping a Canada and only being designed to wound!

 

 

You obviously do not have the slightest clue about rifle ammunition. Yet you spout on like a real armchair expert.

 

Why is it do you think that they make expanding ammunition? Do you think it might be because FMJ's are not up to the job? Ask your FEO next time you see him if you can have your expanding ammo allowance taken away as FMJ's are all you need as they are designed to kill. If he knows anything at all he will remove your guns and ticket.

 

Ask any Deer stlker if they use FMJ's? They will laugh in your face just as I am doing.

[MM]

I suggest you go back and read, the FMJ was in centrefire context, not HMR!

 

17g HMR will make a mess of a Canada head at 100 yards, but if you are not up to the shot then don't take it!

 

Certrefires will easily deal with them in the body up to and past 200 yards, even FMJ, what is your concern?

 

HMR was a part of the response, and then I was criticised for suggesting using a FMJ centrefire on a Canada, which had no mention of a calibre. Ill informed twaddle about FMJ being designed for wounding, tell that to all the dead! Lets get this one straight whilst we are at it, if you get hit anywhere a bit important by a FMJ centrefire you are dead, hit you in the arm and it may well take your whole arm off, so please lets stop any talk of a centrefire FMJ not being up to stopping a Canada and only being designed to wound!

 

The HMR is NOT a centrefire and to the best of my knowledge FMJ rounds are ONLY available for it in 20g and not 17g!

 

Is it getting any clearer for you?

 

You also need to read all my responses very carefully, If someone prefers, or only has the choice of a shotgun on a Canada, then it's up to them. I have not made any suggestion of the suitability of that tool in relation to a rifle or their ability, only in my defence from ill informed contributors. So best for others to reel their necks in a bit and stop preaching.

 

I know how to deal with Canadas my way, and I am a reasonably capable shot, apparently some here have read too much ill informed ****, haven't the experience and like to set themselves up on a pedestal.

 

Deal with them however you like, it is no concern to me, but don't try and give me a lecture about what I am capable of or what tools do the job.

 

Any questions feel free to ask, more than happy to help.

 

ATB!!

 

 

ive read your post, and im not bothered about centrefires, but you have said "17g HMR will make a mess of a Canada head at 100 yards"

 

NOW, what if you injure the bird, and it flies off? you ballsed then. You dont seem to understand your own rantings.

[Dekers]

ive read your post, and im not bothered about centrefires, but you have said "17g HMR will make a mess of a Canada head at 100 yards"

 

NOW, what if you injure the bird, and it flies off? you ballsed then. You dont seem to understand your own rantings.

 

OK, we are all happy with a FMJ centrefire now are we.

 

Just what is your issue, I can shoot a HMR and so can most of those I know, If you can't then I don't care, but don't lecture me on your shortcomings!!

 

HMR 17g V-Max in a Canada's head at 100 yards is easy on this site, but I agree I'm not perfect and there is always a chance something could happen, just like there is when some of the so called shooters let go at a Canada with a shotgun or any other quarry with any rifle. I don't know of anyone with a 100% record!!

 

You do not know the this site or the circumstances of this shooting but as I have said it is frankly easy, I'm not interested in your rantings, if you can't make the shot then don't take it, I can and most that I care to shoot with can as well!

[markbivvy]

best gun for wounding i have ever seen is a shotgun.

[Dekers]

OK so I have a lot to learn, Who is going to teach me? YOU? Don't make me laugh.

 

A FMJ bullet is designed to wound as it takes more men off a battlefield to deal with a wounded soldier. Under the Geneva (or it may be the Hague) convention forces are not allowed to use ammunition DESIGNED to KILL. Otherwise don't you think it would be better to shoot an enemy soldier with a soft point round?

 

Suggesting to use an FMJ bullet on anything living is just ******* ridiculous and only goes to show you know jack schit about **** all.

 

This bit is even funny

 

HMR was a part of the response, and then I was criticised for suggesting using a FMJ centrefire on a Canada, which had no mention of a calibre. Ill informed twaddle about FMJ being designed for wounding, tell that to all the dead! Lets get this one straight whilst we are at it, if you get hit anywhere a bit important by a FMJ centrefire you are dead, hit you in the arm and it may well take your whole arm off, so please lets stop any talk of a centrefire FMJ not being up to stopping a Canada and only being designed to wound!

 

 

You obviously do not have the slightest clue about rifle ammunition. Yet you spout on like a real armchair expert.

 

Why is it do you think that they make expanding ammunition? Do you think it might be because FMJ's are not up to the job? Ask your FEO next time you see him if you can have your expanding ammo allowance taken away as FMJ's are all you need as they are designed to kill. If he knows anything at all he will remove your guns and ticket.

 

Ask any Deer stlker if they use FMJ's? They will laugh in your face just as I am doing.

 

 

You clearly have an awful lot to learn.

 

FMJ is designed to Kill, an assortment of other expanding ammunition is designed to kill more effectively.

 

You have read the wrong comics.

 

So, you want to test your theory???

 

Try asking the MILLIONS of dead servicemen and civilians about this ammo that was only meant to wound them!

 

As a matter of interest several manufacturers suggest using FMJ to reduce meat damage, as it happens CCI is one with their 20g HMR FMJ which they also quote at 1" at 100 yards, far tighter than a Canadas head, but I use V-Max 17g which patterns even tighter!

 

As for deer stalkers laughing, yes I suspect they would, and probably get upset to, its Illegal On Deer.

 

Go away and read another comic!

 

Do not try and lecture me on things you know nothing of and are not capable of!

 

ATB!!

[Dekers]

hi chaps ive got a permission that is now over run with around 50 or so canadian geese.and i was wondering wot size shot i shud use to shoot them and wot to do with the dead birds once shot.any ideas

 

 

As said, it needs to be a heavy lead free shot and pretty close, these are not small birds. And you will be lucky to have a second target any time soon after!!!

 

I'm not a fan of shotgun on Canada Geese, much prefer a rifle, but situations and needs differ!!

 

 

Guys

 

Can I just remind you how this started, the bits above.

 

I have made no suggestion of what any of you should do, I have not critisised any of your methods, I am not looking for an arguement, I have simply said what you can read above.

 

All else that has flowed has been in defence of my comments as other ill informed contributors decide to have a go.

 

You will find my comments and reasons have remained constant throughout as I have to fight off attack after attack.

 

Now, I have no issue and you can keep making as much fuss as you like, nothing is going to change, a 17g HMR at 100 yards in a Canadas head is a shot that many can make, a centrefire FMJ will kill a Canada with ease but an expanding CF round may kill it with more damage, however, some of the ballistic tip centrefires are likely to splash on the surface depending just where you hit the Canada!

 

Shout and create as much as you like, that's the way it is.....but if you want to use a shotgun on them, well go and get on with it!!

 

ATB!!

Edited March 19, 2010 by Dekers

[chrispti]

OK so I have a lot to learn, Who is going to teach me? YOU? Don't make me laugh.

 

A FMJ bullet is designed to wound as it takes more men off a battlefield to deal with a wounded soldier.

 

Under the Geneva (or it may be the Hague) convention forces are not allowed to use ammunition DESIGNED to KILL.

 

Its not actually.

 

Whats 7.62 and .50 designed to do then

[MC]

You ought to ask Dekers after all he is the "EX SPURT"

 

The 7.62 and .50cal are both designed to do as much damage as possible, killing happens in war however as I have already said under the geneva convention countries that are signed up to it are not allowed to use weapons that are designed to kill.

 

It may sound daft however it is a FACT. Although Dekers will not accept it as it will show how wrong he is.

 

Here is a quote from the Hague convention

 

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions. "

 

 

Have a read

Edited March 19, 2010 by MC

[starlight32]

You ought to ask Dekers after all he is the "EX SPURT"

 

The 7.62 and .50cal are both designed to do as much damage as possible, killing happens in war however as I have already said under the geneva convention countries that are signed up to it are not allowed to use weapons that are designed to kill.

 

It may sound daft however it is a FACT. Although Dekers will not accept it as it will show how wrong he is.

 

Here is a quote from the Hague convention

 

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions. "

 

 

Have a read

 

Very interesting facts there MC, I was aware of such conditions but never seen them directly.

 

More to the point, and to end the story.......The sooner canada geese are removed from the general licence the better. There is far too much abiquity and I feel that the majority of canada's shot outside the season is done outside the terms of the general licence.

[MC]

Couldn't agree more Starlight,

 

Maybe the "EX SPURT" can answer why The Deer Act 1991 prohibits the use of any bullet other than soft nosed or hollow point?

 

 

Have another read

[Dekers]

You ought to ask Dekers after all he is the "EX SPURT"

 

The 7.62 and .50cal are both designed to do as much damage as possible, killing happens in war however as I have already said under the geneva convention countries that are signed up to it are not allowed to use weapons that are designed to kill.

 

It may sound daft however it is a FACT. Although Dekers will not accept it as it will show how wrong he is.

 

Here is a quote from the Hague convention

 

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions. "

 

 

Have a read

 

 

 

Chap, just what am I wrong about, I have shown you that CCI quote FMJ for hunting to do less meat damage, there are War Memorials all over this country for the dead who have been killed with a FMJ that was only designed to wound according to you, and I notice you haven't volunteered to stand in front of one to test your theory that a FMJ is not up to hunting with.

 

It is a well known fact that "Expanding ammo" is not allowed under Hague, You need you head looking at if you interpret that as are not allowed to use weapons that are designed to kill

 

FMJ ammo will kill you VERY easily, it just tends to make a little less mess of you than Expanding!!

 

Grow up!

[brian28]

Starlight32 what does abiquity mean :o?

[Dekers]

Couldn't agree more Starlight,

 

Maybe the "EX SPURT" can answer why The Deer Act 1991 prohibits the use of any bullet other than soft nosed or hollow point?

 

 

Have another read

 

Its very simple, because the law says so! Perhaps, you could explain why .22 centrefires are allowed on Roe North of the Border and not South!!

 

Perhaps you would like to answer why it is the ONLY animal/species in this entire country that has a legal requirement for expanding, Squirrel, rabbit, fox, Boar, Canada Gees, EVERYTHING else you can shoot with FMJ... and on Wild BOAR it is favourite :o :o :o

 

So the Government is actively promoting/condoning the injuring of wildlife by allowing the legal use of ammunition on them that is only designed to wound!! That makes a lot of sense, explain that one seeing as I apparently know nothing!!

 

You simply don't know what you are talking about! You obviously have no experience to talk of using rifles and assorted calibres/ammo on Canada Geese so I suggest you refrain from any more daft comments until you know what you are talking about!

 

......next question!!

Edited March 19, 2010 by Dekers

[starlight32]

Starlight32 what does abiquity mean :o?

 

The abiquity lies in the disposal of canada geese within the terms of the general licence. Put it like this and I have said it time and time again Canada's are not in abundance to the level of woodpigeons in the uk are they??? In fact they are few in number in Norfolk and Suffolk.

 

So when some refer to 'Farmer wants me to sort out 50 geese on his wheat and cull them whats the best way to do it'

 

So off you go after reading your informed information from PW and knock out fifty geese. Would 50 readily replace them such as pigeons would?

No they would'nt.

 

And after this marathon shooting session shooting some problem canada's on a field and you are stopped and challenged, do you think you could hold your own in front of the beak? No you would'nt because there ist'nt a court in the land that would find you innocent of demonstrating you had attempted other methods of a non lethal nature prior to doing your business.

 

So tell me this, plenty of people are ready to mention how they rifle them at 200 yards so they can get more of them, but not many on here put up pictures of such culls when they do it out of season do they? No they don't because underneath they know that if challenged they would be up for a talking to.

 

The only time you see pictures on here of big numbers of canadas shot under the guise of 'crop control' is inside the season, so they know to some degree they have a little protection within the rules.

Edited March 19, 2010 by starlight32

[fortune82]

Im with MC on this one. An FMJ is not designed to be the most effective projectile in terms of killing. One of the criteria for adopting 5.56mm was that it was more likely to wound badly therefore tying up more men and resources than a 7.62 etc.

 

I have seen first hand how inefective FMJ is in terms of stopping power. Shots which would have been instantly fatal with expanding ammo. It is a fact that the majority of people killed in war are killed by crew served weapons ie artillery, air support, armour etc.

[starlight32]

Its very simple, because the law says so! Perhaps, you could explain why .22 centrefires are allowed on Roe North of the Border and not South!!

 

Perhaps you would like to answer why it is the ONLY animal/species in this entire country that has a legal requirement for expanding, Squirrel, rabbit, fox, Boar, Canada Gees, EVERYTHING else you can shoot with FMJ... and on Wild BOAR it is favourite :o :o :o

 

So the Government is actively promoting/condoning the injuring of wildlife by allowing the legal use of ammunition on them that is only designed to wound!! That makes a lot of sense, explain that one seeing as I apparently know nothing!!

 

You simply don't know what you are talking about! You obviously have no experience to talk of using rifles and assorted calibres/ammo on Canada Geese so I suggest you refrain from any more daft comments until you know what you are talking about!

 

......next question!!

 

Dekers,

 

I don't know you so can't or would'nt comment on your knowledge from behind a keyboard. What I will say is that MC is no mug when it comes to riflecraft either from knowing and shooting with him.

 

I shoot all calibers, but speaking plainly have never put a rifle round into a goose ever. What I can't fathom out is why there is the need to do it in this manner.

 

While Canada geese may be classed as vermin in essence on the general licence, in my book they will always be a wildfowlers sporting bird.

[Dekers]

Dekers,

 

I don't know you so can't or would'nt comment on your knowledge from behind a keyboard. What I will say is that MC is no mug when it comes to riflecraft either from knowing and shooting with him.

 

I shoot all calibers, but speaking plainly have never put a rifle round into a goose ever. What I can't fathom out is why there is the need to do it in this manner.

 

While Canada geese may be classed as vermin in essence on the general licence, in my book they will always be a wildfowlers sporting bird.

 

 

I have made the point throughout that I favour the rifle for the majority of Canada round this area and pointed out long back in this thread maybe wildfowling was different.

 

Fact is round here most are taken on the ground and the rifle is the tool of choice for that in the vast majority of cases! Farms, stables, Golf Courses etc etc where collateral damage is an issue or range is a problem.

 

I have One Golf Course in particular that has a big issue with Canada, Greylag and Egyptian, you can't get close to them, they all take off, circle around and come back when you go, this place has 6 lakes and over 50 acres of water in total! Every method has been tried to remove them and they make a terrible mess all over the tees, etc. Natural England accept the situation with other Geese there as well, which is primarily why I was asked to get involved, after the approvals were obtained I had to train/mentor one of the main fishery guys there, he is now putting HMR in Canadas heads consistently at 100 yards!! The Geese have their favourite spots and I have only been involved here in the last few months, job is getting done, shotgun is very rarely an option in the sky and next to never on the ground.

 

Also got a sheep farm with more Canada **** in the field than sheeps, the farmer is not to happy with all the Canadas and wants them gone!

 

This is life in this part of the country and rifles work. Circumstances and situations, HMR in the head up to 100 yards and centrefires with SP or FMJ out to 200++ yards work too.

 

And like I also said I tend to use SP with the centrefire anyway, but if you want to do less meat damage use a FMJ.

 

Go back to the beginning and read it all, that is all I have ever said, just seems that some want to make an issue of it for some reason, I know what these tools can do to a Canada, as you honestly suggested you do not, I suspect someone else round here doesn't either!

 

ATB!!

[chrispti]

It is a well known fact that "Expanding ammo" is not allowed under Hague, You need you head looking at if you interpret that as are not allowed to use weapons that are designed to kill

 

:o

 

The Armed forces would be using paintball guns otherwise :o

[MC]

OK Smartarse,

 

Is an Eley Tenex .22 match round designed to kill? No it isn't, it is designed to be as accurate a round as possible for target shooting. It will kill you if you get shot in the right place but it isn't designed to kill.

 

The deer act does not allow FMJ ammunition as it is not designed to kill, it is designed to wound. Of course it CAN kill but it is not DESIGNED to. There is a huge difference. But then I wouldn't expect someone of limited intelligence to understand that.

[Dekers]

OK Smartarse,

 

Is an Eley Tenex .22 match round designed to kill? No it isn't, it is designed to be as accurate a round as possible for target shooting. It will kill you if you get shot in the right place but it isn't designed to kill.

 

The deer act does not allow FMJ ammunition as it is not designed to kill, it is designed to wound. Of course it CAN kill but it is not DESIGNED to. There is a huge difference. But then I wouldn't expect someone of limited intelligence to understand that.

 

 

You are the one being abusive, you are the one criticizing me, and you are the one that keeps falling on your face, you have no idea what you are talking about and you have also failed to answer many of my responses where I have answered all of yours.

 

You seem to forget that bullets are designed to KILL. Variations of them have been made for all sorts of specialist targets/quarry but that does not change the fact that a bullet is designed to kill. A FMJ is designed to kill, there is no conceivable way it is designed to wound, it simply means if you are hit with one somewhere not too important then you have a slightly better chance of surviving than with an expanding round, but if you were hit in that same place with an expanding round you would probably survive anyway. Perhaps you would be kind enough to give us your definition of designed to wound!? I'm sure we are all fascinated to hear why a FMJ in the head will only wound you?? Perhaps you will also tell us where it is allowed to hit you where it will only wound, when an expanding round will kill you?

 

Your Quote The deer act does not allow FMJ ammunition as it is not designed to kill, it is designed to wound. Of course it CAN kill but it is not DESIGNED to. You really do not understand do you, the FMJ was designed to kill more effectively that its predecessor, thats exactly why it was developed, to get over certain inherent problems of wounding and not killing! To increase stability speed and terminal energy! It was the greatest killing round about when it was first introduced!

 

If a FMJ Centrefire hits you in the head, heart or any vital organ/areas/blood vessel then you are going to be dead, so how is that designed to wound?

 

Numerous expanding rounds have been developed over the years and continue to be developed, which can, without doubt kill very effectively, I'm struggling to understand why you think this means a FMJ is designed to wound, it simply does less meat damage, which is all I have said from the start!!

 

...and perhaps we can re-visit this ...and your response was?

 

Perhaps you would like to answer why it is the ONLY animal/species in this entire country that has a legal requirement for expanding, Squirrel, rabbit, fox, Boar, Canada Gees, EVERYTHING else you can shoot with FMJ... and on Wild BOAR it is favourite! :o :o

 

So the Government is actively promoting/condoning the injuring of wildlife by allowing the legal use of ammunition on them that is only designed to wound!! That makes a lot of sense, explain that one seeing as I apparently know nothing!! :o

 

Perhaps in particular you would like to tell me why shooting Wild Boar and many other large international quarry is commonly recommended with large NON EXPANDING ammunition, doesn't seem very sensible to aim at a Rhino, or Elephant etc with something that is specifically designed to wound it and not kill it. Hows that work then???

 

I am not a smartarse, but my knowledge of firearms, bullets and terminal ballistics is apparently much greater than yours.

 

You are the one trying to be clever and I am simply defending myself, if you keep insulting me I will continue to do so.

 

Phrases like this and many others you have used are uncalled for and simply show your desperation..

OK Smartarse,....

But then I wouldn't expect someone of limited intelligence to understand that.

 

Next question....

[harrycatcat1]

Starlight32 what does abiquity mean :o?

 

 

abiquity- no dictionary results

 

am·bi·gu·i·ty   /ˌæmbɪˈgyuɪti/ Show Spelled[am-bi-gyoo-i-tee] Show IPA

–noun,plural-ties.

1.doubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or intention: to speak with ambiguity; an ambiguity of manner.

2.an unclear, indefinite, or equivocal word, expression, meaning, etc.: a contract free of ambiguities; the ambiguities of modern poetry.

 

:o

[CharlieT]

As much as I have enjoyed the dialogue between Dekers and MC, we must stick to the facts.

 

If memory serves me it was the British who invented "expanding" bullet heads about 100 years ago. The reason for their "banning" was not because they were designed to kill when FMJ's were designed to wound it was actually because someone wounded by an "Expanding" round was less likley to survive his wounds and that was at the time thought ungentlemanly.

 

At that time, 100 years ago, bullet design was in it's infancy and FMJ's as opposed to lead bullets which had been used to date were designed to withstand greater velocities and as velocities increased FMJ's of the time became less effective. Hence the need for a bullet with greater stopping ability. Modern bullet manufacture has improved the stopping power of todays FMJ's.

 

Nothing to do with FMJ's not designed to kill but with the design flaw that they did not have the stopping atributes of the old lump of lead.

 

An interesting note is that the Hague Convention does not apply to Police or Security forces who use ""expanding" ammo.

[gsm1968]

As far as I was aware the boers modified ammunition during the boer war, to produce the same results. As per the link below, it seems the british were first to manufacture expanding ammo in bulk.

 

The survival of the wounded is what motivated the banning of bullets that caused huge trauma, even when not placed in the vitals.

 

It wasn't long ago that the American surgeons tried to get some types of commercial ammo banned for the same reason.

I used Federal hydro shok (met), and it was on the list of undesirable ammo. This was again due to the ability to save the wounded.

 

Have a look at this link

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet

 

 

As for shooting geese with them, if it is done with the authority as stated, well cary on.

 

I have attended many week end waterfowl shoots where I have doubled my bag by walking the dog through the wetlands afterwards and picking up wounded birds. All shot with shot guns.