Jump to content

Variation for Roe...which calibre?


Savhmr
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've had a chat with the FEO and have been told that they'll probably allow a variation for the addition of centrefire for my land. We have a problem with increasing numbers of Roe causing a lot of crop damage (up to 1% of current arable lost at one location) plus the fox population on the increase. I'd normally deal with Charlie using the WMR so less concerned about a variation for that but the deer need controlling so open to suggestions for the most economical way forward RE centrefire ammo initially without reloading gear. The obvious choice would be .243 but even that looks like £25 to £35 per 20! Is 6.5 x 55 worth considering? Views welcomed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

wow - be prepared for dozens of different opinions on this one ha ha!

 

In a nutshell - provided the calibre complies with the law in the parts of the UK you wish to shoot then the answer is almost any calibre. It really is a personal choice balanced with the conditions on your FAC if (is the land cleared for calibre) - so what do you fancy? I would put in a comment thought that there is a tendency to over gun these days. Certainly ammunition availability in your area is important so perhaps the more common calibres may suit. However I'm finding that gunshops are slow to restock anyway these days so an element of travel creeps in. There is of course the reloading route but that's another can of worms. Additionally can you get the rifle you'd like in the calibre you want, and in anything like a sensible time frame? It seems more and more that our choices are being restricted by supply rather than suitability.

 

Having a quick think about the folk who I know stalk there are more .243's than you can shake a stick at, 1 x .308, 1x .25-06, 3x .30-06, 1 x 270, 2 x 6.5swede, 1 x .260, plus a few exotics. Mainly Sako's, quite a few Steyr's, plenty of Blasers and a Cooper Arms.

Edited by LeadWasp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reservation I have with 243 is the potential for meat damage depending on round used (wasn't this originally developed in the uSA for long range varmint hunting, especially for coyote etc?) , and being a flatter trajectory and faster bullet than 308 or 6.5 x 55, increased risk of ricochet? It does seem to have the advantage of plentiful supply and loads of ammo choice with some boxes coming in at £20 for 20 or so (or less). The 6.5 Swede appeals as it has the heavier bullet but is more streamlined than the 308 and would make an excellent target rifle out to long ranges too but with more supply chain issues for ammo and guns. Availability and cost will have to count high as will police attitudes to which they might find more suitable to grant. The land is already cleared for 243 and I believe 308.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 243 (and 6 mm Rem) were design to be all around rifles for everything from groundhogs to deer for that 1-rifle hunter. Chose a good deer bullet and you won't have issues with meat damage on roe.

 

If cost is your problem, then 243 with PPU or 308 with similar are going to be your options. About anything else is going to be the full price (£1.50 per shot)

 

rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

243 is a cracking fox round and use the correct bullets you don't get excessive carcass damage. Roe aren't that big almost the perfect size, big enough to get plenty of meat from but you won't do your back in trying to get them in the back of a pickup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why cost of a bullet should be a factor, the end result is a freezer stacked with meat well past the value of a bullet.

 

. 243 works very well, I find my foxing v-max loads are about an inch higher than my nosler deer loads at 100 yards which works well. Meat damage is more than acceptable using a deer bullet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends where your from. Plenty up in Scotland and New Zealand swear by 222/223 for Roe (and bigger in NZ) and it does the job!

.223 is used in the UK - Scotland for roe, England & Wales for CWD & Munty only

 

Mate in NZ used a fully moderated AR15 with Laser range finder scope for all deer species there. Never had any issues with it. Nice rifle too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find it mildly amusing that whilst the MOD consider .223 (or 5.56mm...near enough) suitable for killing human beings at anything up to 300 yds that the Home office shake their heads when it comes to Roe Deer. It has more than sufficient KE in the right load. Still, we are where we are so I'll push ahead with 243. I like some of the other suggestions but 243 does appear to be the do-it-all round. Worth considering a Mod for one of these or just as nature intended? I shoot with ear protectors so the mod would be more to prevent muzzle blast nuisance to a few houses about a mile away.

Edited by Savhmr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PPU is about 12/13 quid a box in .243 ,its a marmite round but does a job of work .and as stated .243 covers foxes ,Roe and will comfortably deal with Fallow and other large deer.i use a mod ,saves your hearing and without earplugs in you here whats going on around you atb

Edited by clakk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice is to stick to the easy to source ammo for calibre ie .243, RFDs never have much stock of anything these day but with .243 you are in with a chance. We seem to live in a permanent ammo shortage these days. PPU .243 is £62 /100 and PPU is cracking good ammo, both my rifles love it. Nothing wrong with PPU and S&B is about the same price and good too.

 

These overpriced brands are no better but every rifle has its preference

Edited by Vince Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would still get it screw cut for a moderator. It does make for less grief with neighbours. If you subsequently sell the rifle will be more desirable in my view if it can be fitted with a moderator. There is also the time and expense for a variation if you dont get it now and subsequently change your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find it mildly amusing that whilst the MOD consider .223 (or 5.56mm...near enough) suitable for killing human beings at anything up to 300 yds .

Aim of 5.56mm is not to kill a dead man is 1 out of the battle an injuried one lowers moral and takes 2 men minimum to evacuate therefore 3 men out of the fight.

 

243 would be a good choice for foxing and roe with ammo normally easily available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aim of 5.56mm is not to kill a dead man is 1 out of the battle an injuried one lowers moral and takes 2 men minimum to evacuate therefore 3 men out of the fight.

 

.

Yes, but that wouldn't be the case if you got a burst from an SA80 with expanding ammunition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aim of 5.56mm is not to kill a dead man is 1 out of the battle an injuried one lowers moral and takes 2 men minimum to evacuate therefore 3 men out of the fight.

 

243 would be a good choice for foxing and roe with ammo normally easily available.

Absolutely correct :yes: And correct with calibre choice. Probably the best all round calibre (if there is such a thing) for most sporting situations within the limits of the UK,

ATB,

Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can find factory ammo loaded with the 95 grain nosler ballistic tip it's the best for both purposes in one bullet

Not too slow expanding on fox and not too fast on roe

Ideally two different rounds but that's not so practical as a none reloader looking at ammo costs

Like others have said a bullet only represents a tiny fraction of the carcass price. Just don't get carried away practicimg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aim of 5.56mm is not to kill a dead man is 1 out of the battle an injuried one lowers moral and takes 2 men minimum to evacuate therefore 3 men out of the fight.

 

243 would be a good choice for foxing and roe with ammo normally easily available.

 

I know...I'm ex-infantry ;)

 

I can tell you that 5.56 is lethal out to 300m though. Not as lethal perhaps as the 7.62 it replaced but it is still a punishing round. Point is, it would kill Roe at 200yds with ease. It has sufficient KE retained at that distance for most animals between 75 to 100Kg.

 

There's no such thing as "overkill" when applied to hunting though so would be happy with 243 and having checked reloading kits you can get these used for around £100 and at 38p/round that looks very affordable. Mind you pPU at £13/20 isn;t too bad and as said, should do the job. More interested in accuracy but most of these rounds in that calibre should be moa to 150 yds beyond which I doubt I'd be shooting much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know...I'm ex-infantry ;)

 

I can tell you that 5.56 is lethal out to 300m though. Not as lethal perhaps as the 7.62 it replaced but it is still a punishing round. Point is, it would kill Roe at 200yds with ease. It has sufficient KE retained at that distance for most animals between 75 to 100Kg.

 

There's no such thing as "overkill" when applied to hunting though so would be happy with 243 and having checked reloading kits you can get these used for around £100 and at 38p/round that looks very affordable. Mind you pPU at £13/20 isn;t too bad and as said, should do the job. More interested in accuracy but most of these rounds in that calibre should be moa to 150 yds beyond which I doubt I'd be shooting much.

Join the club but preferred my l96, I'd happily use a 22 cf on roe but the law of the land etc.

Yes, but that wouldn't be the case if you got a burst from an SA80 with expanding ammunition.

But then that's a war crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...