.22 for Roe?!

[cockercas]

A poor shot with a .243 is worse than a well placed .223 Its a law that needs amending imo.

why if you give someone a .223 instead of a .243 dose it make them a better shot?

[CharlieT]

really, well it hasn't stopped poachers etc using small calibres/crossbows on them has it? A poor shot with a .243 is worse than a well placed .223 Its a law that needs amending imo.

 

 

We can only do our best to legislate and police such acts, fools have always and will always exist but it's far better now then before the act.

 

Nothing wrong with the law, all you need to do is buy a suitable caliber.............simple, not make inane, daft remarks.

[njc110381]

What I don't understand is why a .223 is not good enough for a Roe yet a .243 is good enough for Reds and Sika. Lets face it - get the wrong .243 bullet on a Red and you're in trouble so what's the difference?

 

Having .243 as the minimum calibre for such a lightly built and delicate Deer just doesn't make sense. Generally I find that it's harder to knock over a munty than it is a Roe. Roe just fall over and die most of the time? :unsure:

[CharlieT]

What I don't understand is why a .223 is not good enough for a Roe yet a .243 is good enough for Reds and Sika. Lets face it - get the wrong .243 bullet on a Red and you're in trouble so what's the difference?

 

Having .243 as the minimum calibre for such a lightly built and delicate Deer just doesn't make sense. Generally I find that it's harder to knock over a munty than it is a Roe. Roe just fall over and die most of the time? :unsure:

 

Quite simply because the BDS and the "St.Herberts" Club lobbied against it and the powers that be were minded to be swayed by their arguments.

[Dekers]

Who cares if she is it makes no difference. Yes it is the key word and it aint that easy to get suitable .22 ammo specifically for Deer without producing your own, this has an important bearing factor on why we have this act. I know a few guys in Scotland who are very competant and effective with thier .22 c/fires but they all know were and most importantly when to take the shot or let it pass. Without being rude to any individual i have also seen some awfull shooting from the less experianced shooter, far better to give them something thats harder to mess things up with IMO. The worst ever was a personal friend who has a fair few shooting comps

 

Yes it is, there is plenty of suitable expanding ammo and Roes fall down easy with the correct .223 in the correct place, I have never held with the attitude we need to legislate for incompetance,......we can't be sure the guy is a good enough shot with the smaller calibres so lets give him a cannon....seems a pretty daft argument to me!

Edited February 18, 2012 by Dekers

[Dekers]

Quite simply because the BDS and the "St.Herberts" Club lobbied against it and the powers that be were minded to be swayed by their arguments.

 

 

Ha Ha, don't forget the RSPCA, God knows why but the Government sought there advise during the final reading of the Deer Act Amendment, and it was in no small part due to them that Roe was taken OFF the .22CF list; it was on the draft at that point.

 

Without doubt the The Regulatory Reform (Deer) (England and Wales) Order 2007 together with the The Regulatory Reform (Game) Order 2007 has moved things along quite reasonably, but there are still issues!

 

[vito]

One has to go back to the reasons behind the original Deer Act.

 

In the years before the act, particularly as far as roe were concerned, there was much concern amongst the stalking fraternity, mainly in England, that the welfare of deer was compromised by indiscriminate shooting, poaching and deer drives in forestry blocks.

 

After much lobbying by stalking enthusiasts and following consultation the Deer Act was enacted in a bid to safeguard, formalise and further the welfare of all deer species in England. As part of this process it was decided that the minimum caliber to achieve these welfare standards would be .240. It must also be remembered that at this time the small species were far less widespread then they have become in the past 20 years and that most stalkers already possessed a larger caliber rifle.

 

Having witnessed deer drives in the 60's and rough shooters taking pot shots at roe whilst walking up the odd pheasant, finding roe on three legs having been shot with a .22rf and skinning out Red's with 4/5 .22rf bullets in them I can honestly say that the Deer Act was one of the finest bits of legislation ever enacted.

 

Thank you for this background - that more or less tells me exactly what I wanted to know

[vito]

Does anyone think there's likely to be a review of legal calibres now that smaller deer species are becoming more widespread?

 

Or would that be too logical...

[kent]

Yes it is, there is plenty of suitable expanding ammo and Roes fall down easy with the correct .223 in the correct place, I have never held with the attitude we need to legislate for incompetance,......we can't be sure the guy is a good enough shot with the smaller calibres so lets give him a cannon....seems a pretty daft argument to me!

 

No, its just decent logic. Put it another way Bell droped Elephant with 6.5 and 7mm rifles of modest power through good marksmanship and great knoledge of the beasts anatomy. Are you suggesting anyone was capable of that and walking away alive? I have acompanied many stalking who might be great shots on paper but get very erratic faced with the real thing.

Further evidence of bigger cals stopping wounded deer better can be obtained by study of tracking statistics. No body can legislate for a shooters ability on live quarry so we legislate on calibre.

[kent]

Quite simply because the BDS and the "St.Herberts" Club lobbied against it and the powers that be were minded to be swayed by their arguments.

 

And rightly so, the two best organisations to consult with by far on the matter

[Dekers]

Does anyone think there's likely to be a review of legal calibres now that smaller deer species are becoming more widespread?

 

Or would that be too logical...

 

There was a major review in 2007 on Deer and Game laws, don't expect another to soon!

[Dekers]

No, its just decent logic. Put it another way Bell droped Elephant with 6.5 and 7mm rifles of modest power through good marksmanship and great knoledge of the beasts anatomy. Are you suggesting anyone was capable of that and walking away alive? I have acompanied many stalking who might be great shots on paper but get very erratic faced with the real thing.

Further evidence of bigger cals stopping wounded deer better can be obtained by study of tracking statistics. No body can legislate for a shooters ability on live quarry so we legislate on calibre.

 

Giving an incompetant shot a bigger calibre to compensate has never appeared very logical to me!

 

I am very familiar with that syndrome and seen it myself, that will obviously also bring into question the effectiveness of the DSC1, you can do that, and pass it, without EVER have shot ANYTHING live!

 

I have not seen this study of tracking statistics, that would make interesting reading, can you post a link please!

 

Plenty of poachers use .22lr with subs and are generally quite effective! perhaps they can just shoot well!

 

ATB!

[Dunkield]

Does anyone think there's likely to be a review of legal calibres now that smaller deer species are becoming more widespread?

 

Or would that be too logical...

Depends on the definition of small deer.

Smaller deer normally refers to CWD and Muntjac and Roe, so in some respects that has already happened as we can now shoot CWD and Muntjac with .22 centrefires, whereas we couldn't before.

[Dekers]

And rightly so, the two best organisations to consult with by far on the matter

 

Pity they didn't ask your Scottish mates who apparently take Roe quite easilly with smaller calibres!

 

I have never had anyone explain to me why Roe fall down in Scotland but are not likely to in England/Wales, do we have to assume the Scotts are just better shots!

 

[henry d]

I think a lot of statements are out of context. If you can just scrape though the DC1 shooting test and remember some need to come back another day it isn't enough i feel. In the hands of a very experianced stalker and cometant shot, who knows his real world limitations far smaller than .223 is enough gun- But should we allow any and all? hence the legislation

 

I cannot comment on other people, however I had the triple from a good few years ago and hence no need for any DSC or mentor and from then on I have not had any lost animals with it although I have had to search for 2 animals which were both found within 100 yds. On the other side of the coin I fluffed a shot at a buck at 150yds with the 6.5 and 140gn and it ran 1/4+ mile and it took all morning to find.

[vito]

Depends on the definition of small deer.

Smaller deer normally refers to CWD and Muntjac and Roe, so in some respects that has already happened as we can now shoot CWD and Muntjac with .22 centrefires, whereas we couldn't before.

 

Dare I ask why .22 centrefires and not .22 rimfires? Is it because the layout of the centrefire cartridge makes it able to withstand higher pressure and therefore centrefires can be higher velocity, aka better killing power? NB: I am aware this may have been yet another stupid question :o

[Dunkield]

In simple terms rimfires don't generate the energy to ensure a clean kill.

 

That is a bit of a sweeping statement, as has been stated poachers have been using them for years, so they can kill a roe sized animal under the 'right' conditions.

[njc110381]

Indeed. I think animals as large as farm cattle can be put down with a .22 rimfire but it's not the calibre for field conditions.

 

When you consider that the most powerful .22 rimfire (the .22WMR) runs a muzzle energy of about 350ft-lbs and the smalles available .22 centrefire (the .22 Hornet) is more like 700ft-lbs, things become more clear. A Hornet requires steady and careful shot placement to work and is at best marginal. A rimfire just wouldn't have the energy to do the job with anything but a perfect neck or brain shot so when you consider a Deer's brain is about the size of a golf ball you can see that it just wouldn't be a good plan when you factor in bullet drop and wind etc. You'd have to be 100% spot on. If I spotted an injured but mobile Deer and only had a .22lr it would take some serious thought for me to shoot it. There's such a huge chance of failure it would hardly be worth trying unless it was really (within touching distance) close.

 

Having said that, as Dunkield pointed out, poachers use rimfires all the time. But then they don't care one bit about their quarry or the law and if they fluff a shot they just leave it to run off and (maybe) die later.

Edited February 18, 2012 by njc110381

[vito]

Thanks guys The more I learn, the more I want to learn!

[Dunkield]

Having said that, as Dunkield pointed out, poachers use rimfires all the time. But then they don't care one bit about their quarry or the law and if they fluff a shot they just leave it to run off and (maybe) die later.

Intentionally sometimes, they wound deer on purpose on the hills, so they make their way down hill, it saves some of the effort dragging them downhill

[Guest topshot_2k]

We can only do our best to legislate and police such acts, fools have always and will always exist but it's far better now then before the act.

 

Nothing wrong with the law, all you need to do is buy a suitable caliber.............simple, not make inane, daft remarks.

 

so my .223 is not a suitable calibre?? seems fine north of the border its another poorly thought idea, the law should be based on a minimum bullet type/weight/velocity

[kent]

I cannot comment on other people, however I had the triple from a good few years ago and hence no need for any DSC or mentor and from then on I have not had any lost animals with it although I have had to search for 2 animals which were both found within 100 yds. On the other side of the coin I fluffed a shot at a buck at 150yds with the 6.5 and 140gn and it ran 1/4+ mile and it took all morning to find.

 

A bad hit is a bad hit, one can draw little conclusions from small volume stats. If the law said i could shoot Roe with my Hornet i would being honest and would relish it- i dont think it should be though as some don't understand thier limitations, personally i would enjoy working within them

[kent]

Pity they didn't ask your Scottish mates who apparently take Roe quite easilly with smaller calibres!

 

I have never had anyone explain to me why Roe fall down in Scotland but are not likely to in England/Wales, do we have to assume the Scotts are just better shots!

 

 

This goes back to grandfather rights and the sheer numbers of lowground keepers etc who kicked up a fuss about having to buy a sepparate deer rifle.

[kent]

Giving an incompetant shot a bigger calibre to compensate has never appeared very logical to me!

 

I am very familiar with that syndrome and seen it myself, that will obviously also bring into question the effectiveness of the DSC1, you can do that, and pass it, without EVER have shot ANYTHING live!

 

I have not seen this study of tracking statistics, that would make interesting reading, can you post a link please!

 

Plenty of poachers use .22lr with subs and are generally quite effective! perhaps they can just shoot well!

 

ATB!

 

Then find a PH who will let you stand infront of a Buff or elephant with a 6.5MM

 

DSC1 proves you can shoot 4" with plenty of goes on targets and you have achieved a fairly low std pass on a multiple guess exam also having the capability to tell the speices of deer from a photos.

 

The DCS had links from the dog tracking tab to recovery rates compiled in scandinavia, Chris Grey also had links i think on his site (he wrote the DCS good practice) it only mentions area stuck not calibre. I have such data in written form from the USA, Bows are very prominant as are the .243's though you have to be carefull to remember most experianced Deer guys in the states tend to use larger cals generally- the less so what they have for woodchucks etc. so things will tend to through up the question " is it the gun or the user" Sort of brings me back to my point IN THE RIGHT HANDS THERE IS NO ISSUE- IN THE WRONG THE ODDS ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE BIGGER GUN

 

Bigger guns do make a difference, if you take a smaller quarry such as a fox and look at the smallest cal on HO guidelines .22 Hornet and the biggest .243 or 6.5mm. there is a marked difference in shots that can be humanely taken with the two extreames without undue risk of wounding in practice, thats on quarry about 1/3 the size of a roe remember

 

Yes i also have first hand evidence of woundings with .22LR by poachers

[Dekers]

Then find a PH who will let you stand infront of a Buff or elephant with a 6.5MM

 

DSC1 proves you can shoot 4" with plenty of goes on targets and you have achieved a fairly low std pass on a multiple guess exam also having the capability to tell the speices of deer from a photos.

 

The DCS had links from the dog tracking tab to recovery rates compiled in scandinavia, Chris Grey also had links i think on his site (he wrote the DCS good practice) it only mentions area stuck not calibre. I have such data in written form from the USA, Bows are very prominant as are the .243's though you have to be carefull to remember most experianced Deer guys in the states tend to use larger cals generally- the less so what they have for woodchucks etc. so things will tend to through up the question " is it the gun or the user" Sort of brings me back to my point IN THE RIGHT HANDS THERE IS NO ISSUE- IN THE WRONG THE ODDS ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE BIGGER GUN

 

Bigger guns do make a difference, if you take a smaller quarry such as a fox and look at the smallest cal on HO guidelines .22 Hornet and the biggest .243 or 6.5mm. there is a marked difference in shots that can be humanely taken with the two extreames without undue risk of wounding in practice, thats on quarry about 1/3 the size of a roe remember

 

Yes i also have first hand evidence of woundings with .22LR by poachers

 

Thought it took you a long time to respond, a DSC shows you can shoot 4", which, by your own admission/knowledge (and mine) proves NOTHING, I know excellent shooters on the range at vast distances, that shot after shot miss bunnies at 50 yards!

 

I am not disputing the fact that generally bigger calibres (the right ammo) has more stopping power, what I can't get my head round is the fact that we apparently legislate for incompetence by insisting on larger calibres that necessary!

 

And there are PLENTY of instances of wounding deer with BIGGER calibres as well!