.223 and Deer

[CharlieT]

Kent

 

But he does have deer on his land and written permission to shoot them. See post 17.

[mark@mbb]

What a load of bull!!! Completely legal and more than enough for muntjac and cwd!! On my fac it sais:

(a)the lawful shooting of deer

(b)fox and protection of wildlife and management of any estate

©humane killing of any other lawful animal

(d) the shooting of animals for protection of other animals or humans

 

In Cheshire it wouldnt say that

[magman]

In Cheshire it wouldnt say that

 

Home of BASC lol

[kent]

Kent

 

But he does have deer on his land and written permission to shoot them. See post 17.

 

 

 

I am getting confused- what happened to the thread on the .243 application?. are there munties in Cheshire? if they smell a rat they will be difficult.

 

so if you have munjac on the land, they are genuine and can bee seen, have permision for them and what is now a legal calibre gun to shoot them and they see you as a competant person there should be no issue and it will not cross the court steps

[pboro shot]

im no expert but the way i understand it is .240 + is the legal deer calibre in england but a .220+ can be used for cwd and muntys but if you are looking for only paid stalks .240+ iis the only rifle they seem to allow!

i dont agree with this myself as i feel.243 is to big a calibre for close quarter woodland stalking for small deer ,i believe in scotland roe can be shot with .222+ i think a 223 would be ideal for muntys /cwd pity all police forces dont

im currently studying for my dsc and it clearly states in the training manual muntys and cwd can be taken with 220+ in england wales

Edited August 26, 2012 by pboro shot

[CharlieT]

I am getting confused- what happened to the thread on the .243 application?. are there munties in Cheshire? if they smell a rat they will be difficult.

 

so if you have munjac on the land, they are genuine and can bee seen, have permision for them and what is now a legal calibre gun to shoot them and they see you as a competant person there should be no issue and it will not cross the court steps

 

You are not the only one getting confused, the more I read this topic the more confused I become.

I have a sneaky feeling, on reading it all again, that Kes has not applied for a .223 and has not been told this by his licensing manager but has heard it on the "grape vine".

 

I would like to know if he has actually made an application for a .223 for small deer in the correct manner and had a formal refusal stating that they do not, as a matter of poilcy, condition .22c/f's for small deer.

[Bing-Bong]

I still think that some of you are not understanding the conditions written on your FAC's.

 

I'm sure you are confusing the expanding ammo conditions with the rifle conditions. The wording you quote above is usually contained within the standard expanding ammo conditions that everyone, who has a fac for shooting live quarry, has.

This condition relates only to what expanding ammo may be used for IF your rifles are also so conditioned.

 

No, no misunderstanding. I have always had expanding ammunition on my FAC, but it was only when requesting the condition for the small species of deer that the other conditions appeared. hence the wording of my post. I do not see the correlation between controling small species of deer and the addition of for public protection and humane dispatch. Not that I am complaining, just raising a point.

[MiLisCer]

Home of BASC lol

 

BASC are at Rossett - which is Wrexham - North Wales! with an LL12 post code.

 

Mike

[Kes]

You are not the only one getting confused, the more I read this topic the more confused I become.

I have a sneaky feeling, on reading it all again, that Kes has not applied for a .223 and has not been told this by his licensing manager but has heard it on the "grape vine".

 

I would like to know if he has actually made an application for a .223 for small deer in the correct manner and had a formal refusal stating that they do not, as a matter of poilcy, condition .22c/f's for small deer.

 

No confusion - I applied on renewal for a .243 for deer on the land I shoot and have the permission of the shooting leaseholder and the landlord. I offered evidence of roe and deer on the shoot - photographic and witnessed (if this was required). I confirmed these were possibly local escapees or a limited, transient population. I also confirmed a fallow (from a local farmed herd) had escaped and been shot on the shoot. I confirmed I wanted the .243 for deer and fox so I could deal with the deer if they became a problem - I also confirmed I would provide evidence of a booked stalk if he required it. There is a question of whether the land is cleared for a .243 but the Firearms handbook from Cheshire police confirms you can request a clearance and also accompany the officer and ask questions. My FEO, despite all this considers there are no deer on the shoot, says the land isnt cleared for .243 and did not offer to review that despite it being cleared last some 10 years ago. On his confirmation I would not get a .243, I said I had offered to provide a booked stalk and that would be sent to him and, since some of the prints could have been muntjac, would he change the condition on my current (open) .223 to deer and fox (currently fox only) - he then replied as stated in my previous posts - so perhaps now you understand?

Cheers

[kent]

Yes i understand, they wont give you a .243 for fallow or Roe coz they say they dont exist on the land and by your own admision do not presently need culling. They get off the hook by saying you cannot have one on an open and the land aint suitable. So you apply for an existing .223 you already have on open for some Munties which you claim have miraculously apeared, i hate to say it but i think i am with Cheshire constabulary on this one. IF you think you can play them at thier own game in this way you are definatly traveling down the wrong road

[kent]

im no expert but the way i understand it is .240 + is the legal deer calibre in england but a .220+ can be used for cwd and muntys but if you are looking for only paid stalks .240+ iis the only rifle they seem to allow!

i dont agree with this myself as i feel.243 is to big a calibre for close quarter woodland stalking for small deer ,i believe in scotland roe can be shot with .222+ i think a 223 would be ideal for muntys /cwd pity all police forces dont

im currently studying for my dsc and it clearly states in the training manual muntys and cwd can be taken with 220+ in england wales

 

There are many who opposed this including the BDS that is why no Roe in england was allowed. In the right hands i agree the .22 cf is just fine, indeed Richard Prior used to use the .22 Hornet prior to the first act without complaint. Issue is "the right hands" pay for the day amature stalkers who cannot be bothered to get a .243 upwards do not generally fit into this class of shooter.

.243 too much gun or close shooting of deer in woodland? well thats an opinion but having shot hundreds of Roe with such a gun i have to disagree, its about perfect with the correct bullet it will do all British deer large and small long or short range

[CharlieT]

Kes

Thanks for that, I now understand the situation.

 

I agree with your best way forward solution, which is to book and do some stalks using an estate rifle. This will show a commitment to stalking. I would also suggest you complete the DSC1 course, again this will demonstrate an ongoing commitment to stalking. Following achieved your DSC1 and having completed a couple of "paid" stalks with another couple booked no licensing manager can refuse your application. The secret though is demonstrating ongoing commitment. Either that or find yourself some indisputable stalking ground.

 

As Kent has said, going at it the way you have, with all the ifs and maybes has just muddied the water.

[CharlieT]

No, no misunderstanding. I have always had expanding ammunition on my FAC, but it was only when requesting the condition for the small species of deer that the other conditions appeared. hence the wording of my post. I do not see the correlation between controling small species of deer and the addition of for public protection and humane dispatch. Not that I am complaining, just raising a point.

 

Those additional bits are part of the standard expanding ammo condition which is always applied when expanding ammo for deer is attached and only apply to the ammo. The wording was introduced when expanding ammo became S5.

[Kes]

Kes

Thanks for that, I now understand the situation.

 

I agree with your best way forward solution, which is to book and do some stalks using an estate rifle. This will show a commitment to stalking. I would also suggest you complete the DSC1 course, again this will demonstrate an ongoing commitment to stalking. Following achieved your DSC1 and having completed a couple of "paid" stalks with another couple booked no licensing manager can refuse your application. The secret though is demonstrating ongoing commitment. Either that or find yourself some indisputable stalking ground.

 

As Kent has said, going at it the way you have, with all the ifs and maybes has just muddied the water.

Charlie, I initially only asked for a .243 for the deer - roe and muntjac do appear to be on the shoot even though I suggested in very limited numbers at the moment. The.243 was applied for in order to give up the .223 as it would be illogical to keep it if fox was a condition on the .243. I only asked for the .223 to use on deer, when I had been told I could not have a .243 and then I only asked for the addition of deer to my existing condition. That would have allowed me to control Muntjac without any further guns - if they aren't there, the condition would be entirely passive until I used the gun somewhere specifically MuntJac stalking, or their numbers increased on the shoot - seems intelligent and not at all 'muddy to me.

 

Perhaps Kent can enlighten me why this request is so problematic?

[CharlieT]

Kes

My last post was just trying to be helpful by suggesting a way forward to get you a deer rifle conditioned for deer.

 

To sum it up.

• Your land is not passed for .243. Therefore you can't get one.
  
• Muntjac are not present on your land.
  
• Your licensing manager will therefore not condition your .223 for deer.
  

All of the above is normal and understandable. Firearms licensing managers don't issue passive deer conditions, you either have deer shooting or you don't.

 

To get round your problem you seem to think that booking a stalk will "open the door" to the condition you fancy. Your licensing manager has obviously seen through your ploy.

 

If you really wish to get into stalking then follow the advice I gave you in post #37. Hundreds of deer rifles are granted to those who demonstrate by deed the fact that they stalk by invitation or payment but and it's a big but you will need show bookings of completed stalks and perhaps in your case holding the DSC1.

[kent]

Charlie, I initially only asked for a .243 for the deer - roe and muntjac do appear to be on the shoot even though I suggested in very limited numbers at the moment. The.243 was applied for in order to give up the .223 as it would be illogical to keep it if fox was a condition on the .243. I only asked for the .223 to use on deer, when I had been told I could not have a .243 and then I only asked for the addition of deer to my existing condition. That would have allowed me to control Muntjac without any further guns - if they aren't there, the condition would be entirely passive until I used the gun somewhere specifically MuntJac stalking, or their numbers increased on the shoot - seems intelligent and not at all 'muddy to me.

 

Perhaps Kent can enlighten me why this request is so problematic?

 

purely because you file must make interesting reading, at first it appears you want a more powerfull foxing gun on the back of "deerstalking" and now want to justify you claim for the .243 by asking for a .223 conditioned. I am not aware of Munties in any number in Cheshire, though i dont live there i visit regular and know quite a few who do. you even state in this thread the deer dont currently need controling (so no good reason). talk of Roe is meaningless as you are in England.

i think your going to now find it harder than most to get a rifle granted for deer due to your own actions. without a level 1 pass and a few paid stalks under your belt with an estate rifle i should leave it be now personally.

[Kes]

purely because you file must make interesting reading, at first it appears you want a more powerfull foxing gun on the back of "deerstalking" and now want to justify you claim for the .243 by asking for a .223 conditioned. I am not aware of Munties in any number in Cheshire, though i dont live there i visit regular and know quite a few who do. you even state in this thread the deer dont currently need controling (so no good reason). talk of Roe is meaningless as you are in England.

i think your going to now find it harder than most to get a rifle granted for deer due to your own actions. without a level 1 pass and a few paid stalks under your belt with an estate rifle i should leave it be now personally.

 

Thanks for the advice - i'll keep you posted

[pboro shot]

There are many who opposed this including the BDS that is why no Roe in england was allowed. In the right hands i agree the .22 cf is just fine, indeed Richard Prior used to use the .22 Hornet prior to the first act without complaint. Issue is "the right hands" pay for the day amature stalkers who cannot be bothered to get a .243 upwards do not generally fit into this class of shooter.

.243 too much gun or close shooting of deer in woodland? well thats an opinion but having shot hundreds of Roe with such a gun i have to disagree, its about perfect with the correct bullet it will do all British deer large and small long or short range

i just prefer to use a slightly smaller caliber at close range,under 100meter but a 243 would do the same job if a lighter round was used i agree

i suppose there are some without as much interest/skill as others who could abuse the 22cf but certainly does the job going on wot ive seen

[CharlieT]

Perhaps thats what has caused your dislike of the .243. People using light frangible varmint bullets rather than a heavier bullet with a proper jacket designed for the job.

Edited August 27, 2012 by CharlieT

[kent]

i just prefer to use a slightly smaller caliber at close range,under 100meter but a 243 would do the same job if a lighter round was used i agree

i suppose there are some without as much interest/skill as others who could abuse the 22cf but certainly does the job going on wot ive seen

 

No, no,no. Light more frangible 6mm bullets at short range with high impact speeds created by the .243 win is totally wrong. At long range and low impact speeds were the high frangibility will become far less violent perhaps.

the ideal bullet would be a 95 grn bullet like the Nosler Balistic tip solid base hunting bullet or the 100 grn gameking / prohunter from seirra. pushed at the slowest deer legal speeds

This is exactly why the .243 win isn't the best novice stalkers gun, it needs comprehensive knoledge of the terminal balistics to get the very best out of it. Assumption being the mother of all..............!

[kent]

Perhaps thats what has caused your dislike of the .243. People using light frangible varmint bullets rather than a heavier bullet with a proper jacket designed for the job.

 

Yes, its why some estates still wont allow the .243. with good bullet selection it will do everything in the UK short of Large boar. without undue meat damage when required, yet with great fast fragmenting vermin destruction with others- getting it the wrong way around leads to disapointment

[pboro shot]

Perhaps thats what has caused your dislike of the .243. People using light frangible varmint bullets rather than a heavier bullet with a proper jacket designed for the job.

i dont dislike .243 at all infact i only own a .243 but having used a 223 just felt it ideal for smaller deer thts all im saying they all get the job done but personnal preference,hands up i know got it the wrong way round , cant be right all the time i suppose all a learning curve end of the day thats why we come on these forums hopfully to learn better ways,

[kent]

i dont dislike .243 at all infact i only own a .243 but having used a 223 just felt it ideal for smaller deer thts all im saying they all get the job done but personnal preference,hands up i know got it the wrong way round , cant be right all the time i suppose all a learning curve end of the day thats why we come on these forums hopfully to learn better ways,

 

hey theres no shame in it, we can all learn. I certainly havent stopped evolving in many years - I once hated the .243 for its creation of blood shot oposite shoulders and occasional long runs from heart shot deer. Then after a few years of using bigger stuff i worked out that sometimes deer run a fair way heart shot with anything, the meat damage could be controled with better bullets and i could get better placement on standing shots, kneelers etc the smaller the calibre was. Correct bullet selection on .223 is again a critical factor, the sako gamehead was very popular in factory with many and the Nosler Partition in homeloads (i suspect they are both one and the same actually)

[al4x]

the one thing with the little deer is they can be pretty hardy creatures, I've found next to no difference meat damage between my .223 and .243 on muntjac, thats with 85grn soft points and 55's in the .223 From butchering a roe shot at 8 yards last week the damage was perfectly acceptable, the second was even better small entry small exit and a heart that was unrecogniseable. They still can run slightly but aren't going anywhere.

[David BASC]

Of course you can have a 22 centre fire for the smaller species of deer, provided you have access to stalking for these smaller species you can get them added to your ticket.

 

There are plenty of opportunities for stalking the small deer through contact on here, the BASC stalking scheme in Kings Forest, or a raft of other suppliers.

 

We would love to come and see these Muntys and indeed the other deer including roe you say, could understand the possibility of Fallow but Roe in N Cheshire - wow! It can only be a short trip from Marford Mill. Please let me know if you want our help.

 

David

Edited August 29, 2012 by David BASC