Underdog Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 My first 243 was a Rem 700 synthetic stainless. I developed a load with Hornady 100grn spire points boat tails, a true designated hunting bullet. That rifle use to turn those bullets into an explosive little grenade! I remember exploding fox's and roe with them, I am talking real violent here so much so I tried a different bullet but got exactly the same result. I shot a squirrel that had a huge tree behind it, I knew it might show on the tree what was going on. The bullet broke into several pieces with bits of jacket stuck in the bark and a few pieces of lead penetrating the bark. For a game bullet to pop on a squirrel something was wrong, not with the bullet as it turned out as from studying other fired jacket pieces the rifling was cutting so deep into the jacket it was weakening the jackets integrity.That rifle turned that bullet into a frangible varmint bullet. I sold that rifle and bought a Vanguard, it shot that same load perfect. It's rifling was not so deep with less lands and the same bullet performed perfect. Recovered bullets were always in one piece now and looked like little mushrooms. I took a few red deer with it, would of I before with that particular Rem, no! (Nothing wrong with Remington Rifles, I use one now!) So from this it would be good to remember no two rifles are the same, one may use a particular bullet with stella performance and another with dire results. The above is not an isolated case, I have seen it with a Nosler bullet for 30wcf, a steady 170grn poorly expanding and falling apart on small quarry let alone a deer. A friend bought a batch of Speer 150grn Hotcores for his 308 and they were flying apart and failing on deer. He had used them for years and had perfect performance as I have also, just a bad batch, it happens. The point is; nothing is granted, nothing in this field is a constant. We have to satisfy ourselves that our choice of equipment is working and not to assume that what it say's "on the tin" it will do. Little Muntjac are tiny deer, a composed rifle man who waits for a good broadside shot will dispatch the little deer with pretty much any bullet other than pointed hard cast and full metal jackets. Forget head shots, neck shots, shoot for the heart and lungs and he is dead, if you can't find him you know he is dead! Not suffering, dead. U. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 because the simple "fact" is if youn havnt got the condition on your FAC to auqire expanding ammo you wont have the condition to shoot deer or vermin,the two conditions go hand in hand thus prooving we have to shoot expaning at live animals The two conditions do go hand-in-hand, because the shooting of deer provides the good reason for the section 5 ammunition. It doesn't mean you have to use it though, no such wording is expressed or implied. it's not provided anywhere else either. Your point is simply wrong; it is not a 'point of view' or 'opinion' or anything else. It's WRONG. Whether you agree with the law as it stands is another matter. Personally, I think the firearms law and that section of the Deer Act should be harmonised by an amendment to the Deer Act which expressly states that deer must be shot with Section 5 bullets designed to expand in a controlled manner. I.e. HUNTING bullets, not varmint-types. I think this because it's neater from a legislation point of view, and hopefully is utterly clear even to people determined to misread things. While the A-max works well on muntjac, there are other bullets which work just as well; I have said all along that Yes, they work, not that people MUST use them. Also, I have told you on numerous occasions, I don't use A-max on larger deer, so why would I want to make myself use them?! On Muntjac is one thing, roe and bigger quite another. ive e-mailed basc. il post the reply when it comes What was the text of your email please? Quite happy to receive it as a PM. I ask simply because your question will affect their answer - see every survey ever done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) The two conditions do go hand-in-hand, because the shooting of deer provides the good reason for the section 5 ammunition. It doesn't mean you have to use it though, no such wording is expressed or implied. it's not provided anywhere else either. Your point is simply wrong; it is not a 'point of view' or 'opinion' or anything else. It's WRONG. Whether you agree with the law as it stands is another matter. Personally, I think the firearms law and that section of the Deer Act should be harmonised by an amendment to the Deer Act which expressly states that deer must be shot with Section 5 bullets designed to expand in a controlled manner. I.e. HUNTING bullets, not varmint-types. I think this because it's neater from a legislation point of view, and hopefully is utterly clear even to people determined to misread things. While the A-max works well on muntjac, there are other bullets which work just as well; I have said all along that Yes, they work, not that people MUST use them. Also, I have told you on numerous occasions, I don't use A-max on larger deer, so why would I want to make myself use them?! On Muntjac is one thing, roe and bigger quite another. What was the text of your email please? Quite happy to receive it as a PM. I ask simply because your question will affect their answer - see every survey ever done. its ONLY your "opinion" its wrong as I said call your FEO or email them and post the reply,only then YOU can say Iam wrong untill you do this your talking rubbish by the way Amax work on big deer Ive used them,dosnt mean it right though Edited January 1, 2012 by Ackley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 I do love an "Ackley" thread. It's the rational argument being lost and washed out with the unecessarily rude posts. Mind you, they all end the same way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 They kill them sure, but in my experience meat damage was excessive. Let me just clarify something then; are you saying that you believe your FAC saying about expanding ammo means you must use Section 5 ammunition on all living targets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 A definitive answer to the question will only come from a test case. However,The Deer Initiative being the Governments preferred authority and advisory body on deer, funded by DEFRA and other stakeholders, are firmly of the opinion that deer legal bullets must be of the expanding classification. Should I or anyone else end up in court it would not be unreasonable to expect the CPS to use the DI best practise guide to add weight to their case. I know that as someone who uses their rifles for work I would not wish to twist "grey" legislative wording and put myself in a position where my face may be revoked whilst a lengthy investigation and test case were in the offing. Perhaps those posters who do not believe Ackleys side of the discussion should take the trouble to have a read of the DI Best Practice Guide. I quote from the DI........... Rifle bullets must be either hollow nosed or soft nosed. Note: this is generally interpreted to include “ballistic tip” and other bullets designed to deform in a predictable manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Charlie, please can you post a link to the full text of this? That one sentence does not show enough. Also, are we definitely talking about England? In Scotland, the Act is worded differently, and in Scotland, the A-max or any other match bullet, is not legal because of the 'designed to expand' wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) Ackley can you quote the piece of LAW which says you must use expanding ammo on vermin? I think you will struggle Good practice and humane? Legal requirement? The FAC condition just means the only reason you are allowed section 5 ammo is because you shoot live quarry, it doesn't mean you're obliged to use it. No law in the land that says you can't roll bunnies over all day long with .22 LR solids if you want to. Edited January 1, 2012 by Blunderbuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) They kill them sure, but in my experience meat damage was excessive. Let me just clarify something then; are you saying that you believe your FAC saying about expanding ammo means you must use Section 5 ammunition on all living targets? exactly "your" experience = meat damage,"my" experience = no meat damage who right how many deer did you actually shoot to clarify the damage ?? what was the damge a hugh hole,bruising,loss of a shoulder whjat I beleive matters not its what my FEO tells me what I can do and use,also morrals and ethics come into play as were not shooting paper were trying to kill as humanly as possable Edited January 1, 2012 by Ackley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Charlie, please can you post a link to the full text of this? That one sentence does not show enough. Also, are we definitely talking about England? In Scotland, the Act is worded differently, and in Scotland, the A-max or any other match bullet, is not legal because of the 'designed to expand' wording. Deer Initiative Best Practice Guide for firearms and ammunition, noting specific reference for England and Wales. http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/best_practice/firearms.php then download the firearms and ammunition guide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockercas Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 I'll post the question with the answer (if I get one). It went something like this. I'm e-mailing you to help settle an internet debate on the pigeon watch forums. Is A-max bullets suitable for deer. Their marketed as target ammo but some members think there suitable for small deer. The deer act makes no mention of target ammo in particular but specify a hp or soft nose bullet ( I think that's right). I think that suggesting to use target ammo on deer is potentially miss leading to anybody reading it. Or somthing along them lines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 I don't think that is the appropriate question; the answer will be they do not recommend the practice. The important question is, is it Legal? We will never agree about suitability, and this is a matter of personal choice. The legal standpoint is more concrete and worth worrying about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockercas Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Sorry logic I did put legal in my email to basc. Not the word suitable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Galore! Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 :o and Iam far far from a keyboard shooter having shot 7 different speices of deer in the Uk ( dont tell me there only 6) which was the seventh species? not an "old dear" on her way to collect her pension was it? you *******! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 which was the seventh species? not an "old dear" on her way to collect her pension was it? you *******! Oh sorry was it you wife,the old dear that is. grow up and if you want to play with the big boys bring something usefull to the party instead of calling people you have no idea about silly names Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Galore! Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 Oh sorry was it you wife,the old dear that is. grow up and if you want to play with the big boys bring something usefull to the party instead of calling people you have no idea about silly names now don't get your panties in a twist numbnuts, it was only a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) now don't get your panties in a twist numbnuts, it was only a joke Mmmmm now Iam "numbnuts" and also a *******,(what ever that is)within two posts of yours golly gosh Iam really hurt hard to fanthem out whos joking and whos not of late,seems its the ones that sit on the fence and have no input what so ever to a subject are the ones who start the silly name calling,I wonder why. as for panties in a twist I will mention it to your wife next time Iam wearing hers Edited January 1, 2012 by Ackley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 And so it comes to pass that we all learn and understand why Ackley has been banned off every other shooting forum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 And so it comes to pass that we all learn and understand why Ackley has been banned off every other shooting forum... Not them all.......................................well not yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Galore! Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 And so it comes to pass that we all learn and understand why Ackley has been banned off every other shooting forum... why? cos he wears womens underwear??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 why? cos he wears womens underwear??? is there something wrong with that now I just cant win can I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 is there something wrong with that now I just cant win can I Enter "numpty of the year" it's a sure fire win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackley Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) Enter "numpty of the year" it's a sure fire win indeed,but its a much better win than "troll of the year" which you are a sure fire winner of Edited January 1, 2012 by Ackley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardo Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 And on that sorry note i lay this thread to rest.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts