Muntjac with 22cf`s....What bullet ?

[Mr_Logic]

FACs do not state the ammunition you may or may not use for a given activity. The only place any piece of legislation does this is the Deer Act 1991, which I have already quoted.

 

Ackley your argument is so stupid I must assume you are clearly just trying to inflame this thread.

 

Ian, agree that as a rule section 5 ammo is best practice on deer, and as a rule I would never use anything else.

 

The 52 grain A-max is a little different though - it expands less violently than the 50 vmax, making it ideal for muntjac. It's highly accurate and expands nicely but not explosively, delivering clean kills without excessive damage. As such I must recommend it!

 

Phaedra, your FAC doesn't say you can buy expanding ammo because you can't; it is section 5 and thus prohibited unless you have an exemption, which is the clause Ackley quoted and then didn't understand.

[phaedra1106]

So, (if I've got this right) it's the absence of the condition on my certificate for using my rifle/ammo on fox/vermin/deer etc. that means I'm not able to buy or possess expanding ammunition?.

 

I would of thought a simple "The holder of this certificate may (or may not) acquire or hold expanding ammunition" written on it would have been clearer for shooters like me who have never shot animals so have never read the Deer act etc. Thank you for clearing it up

[Ackley]

FACs do not state the ammunition you may or may not use for a given activity. The only place any piece of legislation does this is the Deer Act 1991, which I have already quoted.

 

Ackley your argument is so stupid I must assume you are clearly just trying to inflame this thread.

 

Ian, agree that as a rule section 5 ammo is best practice on deer, and as a rule I would never use anything else.

 

The 52 grain A-max is a little different though - it expands less violently than the 50 vmax, making it ideal for muntjac. It's highly accurate and expands nicely but not explosively, delivering clean kills without excessive damage. As such I must recommend it!

 

Phaedra, your FAC doesn't say you can buy expanding ammo because you can't; it is section 5 and thus prohibited unless you have an exemption, which is the clause Ackley quoted and then didn't understand.

excuse me,it clearly states the use of expanding ammo for deer amd vermin,there is no other wording on any fac which states you can use any other ammo bar expanding,show me where iot state you can use what ever your like,as if it isnt on your conditions you cant do it

and as for recomending match bullets jesus christ man are you for real,you state section 5 ammo is best practice then on the other hand you say 52 amax is ok as its different NO IT ISNT its match ammo non section 5 and non expanding and for the record a 52gr v max dosnet give excessive damage I have used them for year ago in a 22.250,at least there an expanding bullet so legal to use

Edited December 28, 2011 by Ackley

[njc110381]

the holder of this certificate may possess,purchase or a aquire expanding ammuntion or the missiles of such ammunition,authorised by this certificate and may use such ammunition ONLY in the connection with the lawful shooting of deer,the shooting of vermin or in the course of carrying out activities in conection with the managment of any estate,other wildlife,the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans

 

Well Ackley, that is quite simple. But you still haven't convinced me I'm afraid! Please define the meaning of "may" because it certainly doesn't mean "must" or "have to". It means may - if you wish to.

 

The meaning of the above quote is that you may (if you want to) be in posession of expanding missiles/ammunition - but only for the lawful shooting of quarry. You may not use it for any other use apart from to zero it as target shooting is no longer a good reason to acquire it. This condition isn't telling you what to do, it is telling others that you may hold it and the reason for that.

 

Look, at the end of the day I can see that this is an area which many feel unhappy with. Perhaps the wording of the legislation needs to be changed to stop people from shooting Deer with any hollow nosed or soft point ammunition as this could easily include other forms of match bullet that may not do the job. But in it's current format it is not illegal to use them and as they are very humane people will continue to do so until the law tells them they can't.

 

I actually use 55gr Berger Varminters now and only shoot Deer with them if I am close enough to make an accurate neck shot. I may or may not use the A-Max again at some point but in the past I can certainly vouch that they kill, and kill cleanly.

 

EDIT... Just to add this...

 

Definition of may modal verb (POSSIBILITY) from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus

Edited December 28, 2011 by njc110381

[Mr_Logic]

excuse me,it clearly states the use of expanding ammo for deer amd vermin,there is no other wording on any fac which states you can use any other ammo bar expanding,show me where iot state you can use what ever your like,as if it isnt on your conditions you cant do it

and as for recomending match bullets jesus christ man are you for real,you state section 5 ammo is best practice then on the other hand you say 52 amax is ok as its different NO IT ISNT its match ammo non section 5 and non expanding and for the record a 52gr v max dosnet give excessive damage I have used them for year ago in a 22.250,at least there an expanding bullet so legal to use

In a point by point dissection of your latest guff:

 

1. The conditions on your FAC do not cover what you may or may not do regarding bullet choice - it is blatantly, flagrantly wrong to suggest otherwise. The absence of a condition about bullet choice is because you are free to use the bullet you wish, subject to relevant other legislation (Deer Act 1991, hollow or soft-nose bullet). As I have stated at least twice already, the condition you quote PERMITS you to BUY OR POSSESS expanding ammunition. As NJC points out, this condition gives the reason WHY you may possess or acquire such ammunition; it does not set out the bullet choice for any given quarry. It's quite easy, it's primary school English. The fact you are still arguing suggests that either (a) you are arguing for argument's sake, in which case find something else to do because it's Christmas, or (B) you are incredibly stupid.

 

2. recommending match bullets - all A-max are not created equal. They follow the same basic construction technique - softer point, hollow cavity and plastic tip - but they have differing jacket thicknesses and thus expand differently. I do not recommend their use on larger deer (the 'general rule' part of my post) because I have tried it and it was messy. I do recommend the use of the 52 A-max specifically on muntjac because I have tested it on rabbit, fox and munties and it WORKS BLOODY WELL.

 

3. Match ammo on deer - please see previous post, where I quote the LAW, which is quite clear. In the absence of any other law or FAC condition, it is very clear that non-section 5 bullets may be perfectly legal depending on their construction. The law in England does not reference their design type.

 

If this does not make sense to you, please keep reading it until it does.

[Ackley]

Well Ackley, that is quite simple. But you still haven't convinced me I'm afraid! Please define the meaning of "may" because it certainly doesn't mean "must" or "have to". It means may - if you wish to.

 

The meaning of the above quote is that you may (if you want to) be in posession of expanding missiles/ammunition - but only for the lawful shooting of quarry. You may not use it for any other use apart from to zero it as target shooting is no longer a good reason to acquire it. This condition isn't telling you what to do, it is telling others that you may hold it and the reason for that.

 

Look, at the end of the day I can see that this is an area which many feel unhappy with. Perhaps the wording of the legislation needs to be changed to stop people from shooting Deer with any hollow nosed or soft point ammunition as this could easily include other forms of match bullet that may not do the job. But in it's current format it is not illegal to use them and as they are very humane people will continue to do so until the law tells them they can't.

 

I actually use 55gr Berger Varminters now and only shoot Deer with them if I am close enough to make an accurate neck shot. I may or may not use the A-Max again at some point but in the past I can certainly vouch that they kill, and kill cleanly.

 

EDIT... Just to add this...

 

Definition of may modal verb (POSSIBILITY) from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus

so your splitting hairs over the definition of "may" you forgot to mention the word "only in connection" but whats the point I feel Iam loosing the will to live as people like your good self amd Mr Logic will never stand by what id the correct thing to do,you pair just keep telling yourself your right,but dont tell others that,any responsable hunter will use the correct and proper ammo

[Ackley]

In a point by point dissection of your latest guff:

 

1. The conditions on your FAC do not cover what you may or may not do regarding bullet choice - it is blatantly, flagrantly wrong to suggest otherwise. The absence of a condition about bullet choice is because you are free to use the bullet you wish, subject to relevant other legislation (Deer Act 1991, hollow or soft-nose bullet). As I have stated at least twice already, the condition you quote PERMITS you to BUY OR POSSESS expanding ammunition. As NJC points out, this condition gives the reason WHY you may possess or acquire such ammunition; it does not set out the bullet choice for any given quarry. It's quite easy, it's primary school English. The fact you are still arguing suggests that either (a) you are arguing for argument's sake, in which case find something else to do because it's Christmas, or (B) you are incredibly stupid.

 

2. recommending match bullets - all A-max are not created equal. They follow the same basic construction technique - softer point, hollow cavity and plastic tip - but they have differing jacket thicknesses and thus expand differently. I do not recommend their use on larger deer (the 'general rule' part of my post) because I have tried it and it was messy. I do recommend the use of the 52 A-max specifically on muntjac because I have tested it on rabbit, fox and munties and it WORKS BLOODY WELL.

 

3. Match ammo on deer - please see previous post, where I quote the LAW, which is quite clear. In the absence of any other law or FAC condition, it is very clear that non-section 5 bullets may be perfectly legal depending on their construction. The law in England does not reference their design type.

 

If this does not make sense to you, please keep reading it until it does.

 

what ever I really dont give a damm anymore,you do wjat ever you like if it makes you happy,just one thing matey less of the insults if you please unless you man enough to stand in front of me to do it,theres a good chap

and as for the 52 gr amax being different to all other amax what a load of rubbish that is,strange there listed here with all the other amax bullets

http://www.hornady.com/store/A-MAX

I suspose there made speical for speical people

Edited December 28, 2011 by Ackley

[njc110381]

I'm not going to throw insults as I firmly believe that everyone here is entitled to their opinion. No matter how daft I feel it is, my opinion is quite possibly equally daft to them!

 

The reference to "only in connection" I thought I had covered? You may only use this class of bullets in connection with the shooting of quarry. Ie you may not use them for target shooting. It's not telling you that you can only use these bullets to shoot quarry as the law gives no mention of this - even less so for wildlife other than Deer as they get no mention at all.

 

Edit... Sorry, that last line sounds wrong even to me! The law gives no specification to what you have to use for quarry other than Deer. For Deer it doesn't suggest that the A-Max isn't suitable.

Edited December 28, 2011 by njc110381

[Ackley]

I'm not going to throw insults as I firmly believe that everyone here is entitled to their opinion. No matter how daft I feel it is, my opinion is quite possibly equally daft to them!

 

The reference to "only in connection" I thought I had covered? You may only use this class of bullets in connection with the shooting of quarry. Ie you may not use them for target shooting. It's not telling you that you can only use these bullets to shoot quarry as the law gives no mention of this - even less so for wildlife other than Deer as they get no mention at all.

 

look mate Iam glad you havnt dropped low to give out insults,you do and use what ever you feel fit as no reasoniong wjat so ever ius going to ever change your opinion

I will be conatcting BASC and the BDS to lobby to get this stupid wording changed so its quite simple to undstand what can and cant be used,just like the wording for Scotland

happy to year to you all and stay safe and use the correct ammo

[fruitloop]

my ticket came back this morning and it says basically i can only use expanding ammo for dear fox and vermin and zeroing at rangers

[CharlieT]

NJC 110381

 

Neil,

 

It was good to receive your PM mentioning your thoughts and observations regarding A Max. I hope you don't mind me replying on open forum.

 

I take your comments on board and yes, perhaps I was a little harsh with some of my comments. I have no doubt that A Max will kill a deer, after all a .22rf will so I presume a .223 A Max will do the job a whole lot better.

 

I suppose, what I am really trying to get across is the fact that the deer act requires that one uses an expanding bullet to shoot deer. The Home Office in their wisdom have decreed that all soft nosed, hollow points and bullets designed to expand are classed as section 5. Therefore, it is reasonable, logical and prudent to believe that any deer legal bullet has to be section 5 to stay within the law, thus ruling out A Max which is not section 5.

 

It would seem obvious to me that should the police, or anyone else for that matter, bring forward a prosecution against a stalker for using an incorrect bullet the whole case would hinge on whether or not the bullet was section 5, which A Max is not.

 

Just my observations for what they are worth.

 

I certainly do not wish to fall out with you of all people, I count you as one of the good guy's.

 

Charlie

[Mr_Logic]

NJC 110381

 

Neil,

 

It was good to receive your PM mentioning your thoughts and observations regarding A Max. I hope you don't mind me replying on open forum.

 

I take your comments on board and yes, perhaps I was a little harsh with some of my comments. I have no doubt that A Max will kill a deer, after all a .22rf will so I presume a .223 A Max will do the job a whole lot better.

 

I suppose, what I am really trying to get across is the fact that the deer act requires that one uses an expanding bullet to shoot deer. The Home Office in their wisdom have decreed that all soft nosed, hollow points and bullets designed to expand are classed as section 5. Therefore, it is reasonable, logical and prudent to believe that any deer legal bullet has to be section 5 to stay within the law, thus ruling out A Max which is not section 5.

 

It would seem obvious to me that should the police, or anyone else for that matter, bring forward a prosecution against a stalker for using an incorrect bullet the whole case would hinge on whether or not the bullet was section 5, which A Max is not.

 

Just my observations for what they are worth.

 

I certainly do not wish to fall out with you of all people, I count you as one of the good guy's.

 

Charlie

Charlie, unfortunately, while this is logical, it is not correct.

 

The case would be brought because the accused would have been alleged to have contravened the Deer Act 1991, which is the only piece of legislation which governs the bullet type you may use on deer.

 

In that Act, no mention is made or implied with reference to Section 5 'expanding' ammunition. The clause is worded soft-nosed or hollow nosed bullet. The classification of the bullet is irrelevant for this law. I agree it makes sense to use that classification, but this is not what is done.

 

Therefore, without a suitable Amendment Act for the Deer Act, the A-max, having both a soft plastic tip and a cavity in the nose section, qualifies as a legal bullet under both classifications of the Deer Act. Therefore, it is perfectly legal at this time to use an A-max bullet to shoot a deer.

 

As previously stated, it may or may not be a good idea so to do.

 

Ackley BTW - I give in with you. You clearly do not understand your FAC wording, I have tried to clear it up and as is likely obvious have got very frustrated with you, so I give in. Believe what you like, even if it is BS. I will always make sure I counter your incorrect ramblings on any public forum though, simply so other people don't believe it as fact.

[Luckyshot]

Luckyshot - I have no intention of purchasing expanding ammunition as I have no use for it and could not legally shoot any live quarry. BUT, neither your certificate or mine say you can or cannot purchase expanding ammunition anywhere on them, only the maximum quantities for holding/acquiring "Ammunition including expanding ammunition and expanding missiles" for each calibre.

 

Again (unless there's something I can't see in no.5 on yours) neither yours nor mine make any reference to the ability to be able to purchase or not purchase expanding ammunition in the additional conditions.

 

It may just be that Durham have worded it badly and should have specifically said expanding could/could not be held/acquired, maybe other forces word their certificates differently?.

 

 

Sorry left the most important one off condition 8.

 

[willy1]

I've been following this lively debate with interest,and i'm NOT going to get involved in it,just to say that on Hornady's website the description of the A-Max has the wording,

"match bullets are not recommended for hunting"

 

Alan

[phaedra1106]

Thanks Luckyshot, that clears it up nicely

[Ackley]

I've been following this lively debate with interest,and i'm NOT going to get involved in it,just to say that on Hornady's website the description of the A-Max has the wording,

"match bullets are not recommended for hunting"

 

Alan

 

amazing isnt it thats these clever people insist on using such ammo when they know its not designed for the job

[njc110381]

I read that comment on the site myself. I find it very strange as it used to list the A-Max as a good bullet for thin skinned game.

 

The reason I used them was that before I found that I could import from the states it was a huge effort to get reloading components locally. Reloading solutions was nearest - a 100 odd mile round trip. So getting A-Max in the post was easy - I only had to struggle with my Deer bullets which I use far less of than I did .223 rounds.

[phaedra1106]

Can I ask how much the A-Max end up costing you shipped from the US?, I've always got mine while we are on hols in Florida, I get them shipped to our friends there, usual cost is around £16 x100, hopefully I'll manage to get back over early next year and pick up more or I can get Nosler Custom Competition for around £14 x 100

[Ackley]

I read that comment on the site myself. I find it very strange as it used to list the A-Max as a good bullet for thin skinned game.

 

The reason I used them was that before I found that I could import from the states it was a huge effort to get reloading components locally. Reloading solutions was nearest - a 100 odd mile round trip. So getting A-Max in the post was easy - I only had to struggle with my Deer bullets which I use far less of than I did .223 rounds.

for what it worth my opinion of thin skinned game is rabbits,foxes hares which in the States would equate to ground hogs and coyotes,I too bring back my deer ammo from Florida but there always the correct bullet "expanding"

a 100 odd mile round trip isnt an excsue for using the wrong type of bullet in my opinion,just have 1 trip and buy more than 1 box.

[njc110381]

I've never brought in A-Max - I'd buy them here. Expanding stuff generally ends up costing about the same as it would here with the postage - I just save the diesel money and find it on the doorstep when I get home.

 

I think this arguement has got out of hand though. We've established that they are within the specifications of the law in England and we have established that they work. What more is there to worry about?

[Ackley]

I've never brought in A-Max - I'd buy them here. Expanding stuff generally ends up costing about the same as it would here with the postage - I just save the diesel money and find it on the doorstep when I get home.

 

I think this arguement has got out of hand though. We've established that they are within the specifications of the law in England and we have established that they work. What more is there to worry about?

 

no mate we have established you and a another choose to use a match bullet on deer,and you both have no regard for what is ethical.

just because a certain few twist the wording of the law and conditions on your tickets does not make it right.I just hope people can see the implications of using the wrong type of bullet

anyway do what ever you like but dont shout about it in public please

[njc110381]

Chat on all you like about what is legal because there is the very faint chance that you may have a point - it is a grey area. That's fine with me but don't start bringing what is ethical into this because you're the wrong bloke to do it!

 

You and me both know there's more chance of you screwing up the windage of one of your long range shots on live quarry than there ever will be of me losing a Deer due to bad bullet choice. Especially when plenty of Deer have been shot and the bullet in question has never failed me or others I know who use it yet.

 

There you go - I've taken the bait. Happy now?

[silpig5]

so glad another simple question about a centre fire ends in a shouting match with the usual suspects .

[njc110381]

I'm sad that I'm considered "one of the usual suspects"? That's a bad name to have.

[Underdog]

So to recap then; there is some folk that would stick their head down the bog if the Home Office told them to and there are those that realise the Home Office's GUIDANCE is not actuall law.

 

I'll just keep using a bullet as per the legal conditions on my licence and make sure it expands as per the only legal requirement placed upon me.

 

I will not act on what may be recomended or not recomended, especially by a Home Office and politicians that **** the system in the first place after Dunblane!

 

One thing is clear after following this, this country is really ****!

 

U.