Bullets for shooting deer - A brief guide to relevant legislation

[snc_2010]

In the UK there are two main statutes that govern the use of what is known as expanding ammunition for the shooting of deer.



The Deer Act 1991, schedule 2, section 5 requires deer be shot with "a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/schedule/2



The Firearms Act 1968, section 5(1A)(f) prohibits "any ammunition which incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/5





What this all means is that you must use a "soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet" to stay within the Deer Act but that bullet does not have to be "designed or adapted to expand on impact" (falling under the Firearms Act). For example, Sierra Match King bullets could be described as being hollow-nosed so they are legal under the Deer Act but they are not "designed or adapted to expand on impact" so are not controlled under the Firearms Act. Likewise, a bullet "designed or adapted to expand on impact" that is not "soft-nosed or hollow-nosed" would not be legal to shoot deer with because it does not conform to the Deer Act. It just so happens that many bullets that conform to the Deer Act are also governed by the Firearms Act (and vice versa), which is where confusion arises because people think they've read the rulebook but have actually only read one of the two rulebooks (or just had a mix of the two rulebooks confusedly explained to them).
NB Typically, an exemption to the Firearms Act is made to allow those who shoot deer to have ammunition "designed or adapted to expand on impact.".




Hope this helps folk understand the laws that govern our sport.

 

Please note the Deer Act mentioned above covers England and Wales only.

[whoowhoop]

Interesting post, but the green does make a difficult read!

 

What is more relevant is the legislation regarding calibre/bullet weight/energy. I think this is the one that may trip most people up. I have heard some appalling tosh spoken by those who should have known better ( and probably did a few years back)

 

ie

in England for Muntjac and Chinese Water deer only- a rifle with a minimum calibre of not less than .220 inches and muzzle energy of not less than 1000 foot pounds and a bullet weight of not less than 50 grains may be used.

 

For all deer of any species - a minimum calibre of .240 and minimum muzzle energy of 1,700 foot pounds is the legal requirement.

 

So, now convert fps into foot pounds...

where does the burden of proof lie? Would be interesting to see how the use of a particular load might be challenged.

[baldie]

I look at it this way.

 

Any ammunition available mail order, or generally classified as section 1, such as sierra matchkings, A-max etc, do not require section 5 exemption on an FAC. This therefore, in the eyes of the law, makes them non -expanding. Different bullets, behave differently, often expanding, but that is not the point.

The law deals with black and white, and categorisation. These bullets are section 1 and you would have a hard time in a court of law, banging on about how great they were on deer etc.

 

The other side of the coin.

 

Due to people constantly banging on about A-max etc on deer on all the shooting forums, certain firearms licensing depts, such as Devon and Cornall, on ill advice from a local RFD, decided [ illegally ] to restrict their sale as section 5. Something they cannot legally do, but unless challenged in law, will continue no doubt.

This has several effects.

It does the deer stalking fraternity no favours whatsoever, when other shooters and public know that they are using inneficiently expanding, and could be argued , inhumane bullets on a live animal.

It will stop people who use them for their intended purpose, ie target shooting in areas like devon and cornwall, because target shooters dont have section 5 exemption.

Lastly, it adds another burden on rfd,s logging yet more section 5 sales, and also means you cant get them via the post.

 

Ladies and gents. This topic is currently a hot potato, and is being watched very carefully by the powers that be.

 

The section 5 law on ammo is one that is apparently going to be discontinued in the next raft of firearms legislation. Lets not jepoardise that.

 

Think before you post please.

[brown dog]

snc, outstanding post; very clear -thank you.

 

 

But I think though, the real-world application of these legal nuances is outlined by Dave.

 

Plod, be that firearms licensing departments or coppers themselves, tend not in my limited experience to debate legal nuance. They hold life in black and white (ie Devon and Cornwall A-Max decision).

That may not be strictly 'legal', but the place it'll be resolved is in court (or by the CPS pre-trial) and not in some 'reasoned debate' with the FEO or copper.

 

 

So..unless one wants repeat the legal fine points out loud, and see how each sentence sounds followed by "your Honour"

 

I think the sageful advice is to steer oneself down an obviously legal shipping lane - and not explore the edges.

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget that a clever prosecution lawyer (so, a discussion taking place in court!) could take you to task over your interpretation of the SMK as a hollowpoint; makes it difficult that the US Government has taken advice in international law that states in terms of the Hague convention, it emphatically is not

 

I think in these muddy waters, for the purposes of this site, Dave's final point is 100% the way we should play it:

 

Ladies and gents. This topic is currently a hot potato, and is being watched very carefully by the powers that be.

 

The section 5 law on ammo is one that is apparently going to be discontinued in the next raft of firearms legislation. Lets not jepoardise that.

 

Think before you post please.

[20ppc]

snc, outstanding post; very clear -thank you.

 

 

But I think though, the real-world application of these legal nuances is outlined by Dave.

 

Plod, be that firearms licensing departments or coppers themselves, tend not in my limited experience to debate legal nuance. They hold life in black and white (ie Devon and Cornwall A-Max decision).

That may not be strictly 'legal', but the place it'll be resolved is in court (or by the CPS pre-trial) and not in some 'reasoned debate' with the FEO or copper.

 

 

So..unless one wants repeat the legal fine points out loud, and see how each sentence sounds followed by "your Honour"

 

I think the sageful advice is to steer oneself down an obviously legal shipping lane - and not explore the edges.

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget that a clever prosecution lawyer (so, a discussion taking place in court!) could take you to task over your interpretation of the SMK as a hollowpoint; makes it difficult that the US Government has taken advice in international law that states in terms of the Hague convention, it emphatically is not

 

I think in these muddy waters, for the purposes of this site, Dave's final point is 100% the way we should play it:

 

 

 

 

This topic was debated a couple of years ago, both here and on AirgunBBS, Any prosecution for shooting deer with the wrong bullet would come under the auspices of the Deer Act 1991, not the Firearms Act.

 

At the time I took legal advice from the CPS, who confirmed that in reality unless there was a better than 95% chance of securing a conviction they would not put such a prosecution before the Courts. In todays climate of cost cutting this is even more relevant. They were of the opinion that the deer act is so widely open to interpretation that the chance of securing a successful prosecution is too remote and would not be in the public interest to try and obtain a legal precedent. Basically they said that unless you are caught using FMJ Military Ammunition they would not be prepared to support any action against

an individual in the courts.

 

The question of section 5 ammunition is another matter which unfortunately has more to do with very badly written legislation than anything else.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Regards,

 

Nick.

[Simon J]

In the UK there are two main statutes that govern the use of what is known as expanding ammunition for the shooting of deer.

 

 

 

The Deer Act 1991, schedule 2, section 5 requires deer be shot with "a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54/schedule/2

 

 

 

The Firearms Act 1968, section 5(1A)(f) prohibits "any ammunition which incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/5

 

 

 

 

 

What this all means is that you must use a "soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet" to stay within the Deer Act but that bullet does not have to be "designed or adapted to expand on impact" (falling under the Firearms Act). For example, Sierra Match King bullets could be described as being hollow-nosed so they are legal under the Deer Act but they are not "designed or adapted to expand on impact" so are not controlled under the Firearms Act. Likewise, a bullet "designed or adapted to expand on impact" that is not "soft-nosed or hollow-nosed" would not be legal to shoot deer with because it does not conform to the Deer Act. It just so happens that many bullets that conform to the Deer Act are also governed by the Firearms Act (and vice versa), which is where confusion arises because people think they've read the rulebook but have actually only read one of the two rulebooks (or just had a mix of the two rulebooks confusedly explained to them).

NB Typically, an exemption to the Firearms Act is made to allow those who shoot deer to have ammunition "designed or adapted to expand on impact.".

 

 

 

 

Hope this helps folk understand the laws that govern our sport.

Some nitpicky points of elaboration on this - forgive me but I am a solicitor:-

 

1 Firearms Act does not cover Northern Ireland - they have their own law.

 

2 What is legal for shooting deer varies between 1 England & Wales, 2 Scotland and 3 Northern Ireland, at least as regards the terminology about the type of bullet. The Deer Act mentioned is England & Wales only. The equivalent in Scotland is the Deer ( Firearms etc) ( Scotland) Order 1985.

 

Simon

[patjack]

 

 

This topic was debated a couple of years ago, both here and on AirgunBBS, Any prosecution for shooting deer with the wrong bullet would come under the auspices of the Deer Act 1991, not the Firearms Act.

 

At the time I took legal advice from the CPS, who confirmed that in reality unless there was a better than 95% chance of securing a conviction they would not put such a prosecution before the Courts. In todays climate of cost cutting this is even more relevant. They were of the opinion that the deer act is so widely open to interpretation that the chance of securing a successful prosecution is too remote and would not be in the public interest to try and obtain a legal precedent. Basically they said that unless you are caught using FMJ Military Ammunition they would not be prepared to support any action against

an individual in the courts.

 

The question of section 5 ammunition is another matter which unfortunately has more to do with very badly written legislation than anything else.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Regards,

 

Nick.

I don't disagree with what the CPS have quoted you but what about private prosecution especially in light on the RSPCA case against the heythorpe hunt where they used over 300k of the charities money to make sure they got a guilty verdict now this is not about the ins and outs of that case it just comes to mind in that be aware of the lenghts that the anti lobby will go to, yes a very hard case to prove maybe impossible but don't think they would not try and with over 130million of puplic donations every year they sure have an open cheque book as they did with the heythorpe case even though they have been shutting centres and laying of staff the RSPCA are moving the goal posts to suit them and have publically stated they will spend any amounts of monies to get a guilty case and would make bad publicity for Uk deer stalking.

 

It seems there is so much confusion and problems with the whole matter but Baldies is right and there seems alot of forum posts where posters are still saying I use A.max's etc to great affect on deer, read what you want into the deer act, My question would be are they or are they not legal my FSEL dept say that they are illegal under the deer act so thats good enough for me and use them for target only.

 

Lets becarefull we are all being watched and monitored or am I being paranoid probably

[tackb]

just another case of the law complicating something until it's virtually null and void !

 

FWIW i doubt anything would know any difference if they shot with an amax or a NBT ?

 

my take on all this is just to keep quiet now.

 

does anybody know why expanding ammo was made section 5 ?

[snc_2010]

Some nitpicky points of elaboration on this - forgive me but I am a solicitor:-

 

1 Firearms Act does not cover Northern Ireland - they have their own law.

 

2 What is legal for shooting deer varies between 1 England & Wales, 2 Scotland and 3 Northern Ireland, at least as regards the terminology about the type of bullet. The Deer Act mentioned is England & Wales only. The equivalent in Scotland is the Deer ( Firearms etc) ( Scotland) Order 1985.

 

Simon

 

Not at all. Thanks for pointing it out. Could you cover Scotland and NI in the same style I did England and Wales in the first post please.

[gbal]

just another case of the law complicating something until it's virtually null and void !

 

FWIW i doubt anything would know any difference if they shot with an amax or a NBT ?

 

my take on all this is just to keep quiet now.

 

does anybody know why expanding ammo was made section 5 ?

1) "Unintended consequences" probably,in the Law's defence,and there clearly has to be some guidlines.

2) There are enough bullets about which there is no doubt as to their legality,and evidence of effectiveness,so they could be used.

3) Any potential testimony from a wounded quarry about whether it noticed the bullet type would not be admissible,and indeed it's very presence in court would seem prima facie evidence of incompetence and cruelty,which may not help the defendent.

 

george

[Chris-NZ]

1) "Unintended consequences" probably,in the Law's defence,and there clearly has to be some guidlines...

george

 

Not so sure about that George. There's none such in the US, Australia and here in NZ far as I'm aware.

 

It soon becomes apparent to users of FMJ or frangible varmint bullets that the on-game performance isn't that flash, and hopefully they'll change their choice of projectile.

 

A-Max is used widely here to good effect apparently but not by myself. The users are generally those with big capacity 7mm cases shooting at -long- range. I won't debate the ethics of that

 

Chris-NZ

[gbal]

Not so sure about that George. There's none such in the US, Australia and here in NZ far as I'm aware.

 

It soon becomes apparent to users of FMJ or frangible varmint bullets that the on-game performance isn't that flash, and hopefully they'll change their choice of projectile.

 

A-Max is used widely here to good effect apparently but not by myself. The users are generally those with big capacity 7mm cases shooting at -long- range. I won't debate the ethics of that

 

Chris-NZ

"Unintended consequences"-I meant the law makers did not foresee a future problem-eg in UK limiting semi autos to 22 rf only has meant that eg the 17 rim fires are not legal as semi autos-not because their merits or not were considered-how could they have been,they had not been marketed,but they fall foul of the simple '22 only' ruling- an "unintended consequence".

Yes,but the law can't work on the basis of "the Americans always do the right thing",as Winston Churchill-a great American,by maternal birthright-put it,"It's just that they try everything else first." Clearly the law has is to prevent needless suffering caused by trial and error and reinventing the punctured tyre by every ignorant tom.dick,and harry.

If there is doubt about the legality of a particular bullet,then the prudent shooter should not use it,until the issue is resolved;this is no great hardship as plenty of other humane and legal bullets are available.Effective deer shooting did not begin with the advent of the (whatever current commercial ) bullet some shooters use or like. To do otherwise simply risks the whole legal future of the shooting of deer,and perhaps other species.Some influential citizens might well favour that."Not by me" seems to be the right decision,Chris.

george

[Simon J]

Not at all. Thanks for pointing it out. Could you cover Scotland and NI in the same style I did England and Wales in the first post please.

Scotland

 

A bullet of an expanding type designed to deform in a predictable manner:-

 

Roe Deer only - of at least 50 grains (3.24 grams) with a m.v of at least 2450 fps (747 ms) and a m.e of at least 1000ft.lbs (1,356 joules)

 

All other deer - of at least 100 grains ( 6.48 grams) with a m.v of at least 2,450 fps (747 ms) and a m.e of at least 1750 ft.lbs (2,373 joules)

[Simon J]

Scotland

 

A bullet of an expanding type designed to deform in a predictable manner:-

 

Roe Deer only - of at least 50 grains (3.24 grams) with a m.v of at least 2450 fps (747 ms) and a m.e of at least 1000ft.lbs (1,356 joules)

 

All other deer - of at least 100 grains ( 6.48 grams) with a m.v of at least 2,450 fps (747 ms) and a m.e of at least 1750 ft.lbs (2,373 joules)

Northern Ireland

 

same as England except the min calibre for muntjac and CWD is .22" and for other deer .236"

 

Scotland is the only country which does not have a minimum calibre requirement. Question whether in practice its definition of the bullets requirements is different in practical terms to that for England & Wales.

 

Simon

[snc_2010]

Apologies for not thanking you at the time, Simon J!

Three and a bit years ago...

[VarmLR]

Actually, many FAC's will be conditioned to remove the ambiguity, ie my own conditions are explicit that:

 

"The holder of this certificate may possess, purchase or acquire expanding ammunition or the missiles of such ammunition in the calibres authorised by this certificate and may use such ammunition only in connection with the lawful shooting of deer, vermin or in carrying on activities in the connection of estate management, other wildlife"

 

That sort of implies that for deer, I am conditioned to use expanding ammunition.

 

The Deer Act calls for hollow or softpoint ammo, we all know that it is a badly worded piece of legislation. The prosecution may not be under the Deer Act but the W&C Act for causing unecessary harm and suffering to an animal. It can be argued that applies to all types of ammunition but it is incumbent on us to use the best and mosty appropriate tools for the job. That's I how I read it anyway.

[264wm]

Hornady initially designated the A.max for medium size game.Unlikely that it would result in a prosecution when their own literature recommended

A-Max for use on game.

[FGYT]

Actually, many FAC's will be conditioned to remove the ambiguity, ie my own conditions are explicit that:

 

"The holder of this certificate may possess, purchase or acquire expanding ammunition or the missiles of such ammunition in the calibres authorised by this certificate and may use such ammunition only in connection with the lawful shooting of deer, vermin or in carrying on activities in the connection of estate management, other wildlife"

 

That sort of implies that for deer, I am conditioned to use expanding ammunition.

 

The Deer Act calls for hollow or softpoint ammo, we all know that it is a badly worded piece of legislation. The prosecution may not be under the Deer Act but the W&C Act for causing unecessary harm and suffering to an animal. It can be argued that applies to all types of ammunition but it is incumbent on us to use the best and mosty appropriate tools for the job. That's I how I read it anyway.

 

 

No it says you can purchase Expanding ie Section 5 ammunition Only to be used for shooting Deer vermin Etc

 

basically means you cannot use S5 ammunition for Target shooting

 

It does Not say you can only use S5 ammunition to Shoot Deer vermin etc

 

 

To remove the Deer act and focus on the S5 status and FAC condition

 

is A max legal to use on FOX many do and if considered legal and the S5 condition for Ammunition has no authority to prevent its use

 

swing back to Deer then the only thing To stop Amax is does it comply with the Deer act

 

the argument is whether Amax ....or any Ballistic tip hunting or other wise i.e. V max etc is a Soft point or a Hollow point

 

so ALL ballistic tips are Either Deer legal Or All Not legal

[gbal]

There is an issue-the Law was drafted before recent developments in bullet design.

 

"Designed to expand...appropriately" is probably closer to what was intended than "Soft point" (which does) and "Hollow point" (which does usually-but can fragment far too soon for deer,being designed for small varmints.Additionally,some hollow point bullets are described by the manufacturer as 'target/match' bullets.

 

Only case law can establish acceptibility in individual cases,and there is genuine difficulty in assessing a bullet,strict compliance with two somewhat different Acts,and a pragmatic and entirely reasonable desire for 'effective,humane' bullets to be used.

 

"appropriate" expansion comes in because some very slow,deep penetration big game bullets are "through and through" on many UK deer,and violently disintegrating hollow point small varmint bullets are unsuitable giving excessive inhumane wounding.

 

There are enough legal and effective bullets,of course,so as not to disrupt the conscientious and legal shooter;there may well be discretion shown about some well tested and deemed effective others-one might ask the FLO for an interpretation,maybe giving the BASC view etc.

 

Perhaps the replacement Hornady ELD-X bullets explicitly designed for hunting will prove successful and unequivocal,(Nathan Foster,eg, it's "like a high BC SST"- though he has not tested in typical UK stalking.....).

 

gbal

[Ronin]

For DEER you muct use bullets that conform the the requirements of the deer act.

 

A -Max, SMK, Berger VLD / Hybrid do not conform

 

 

There is no such requirement for vermin - though a humane kill would be preferable.

 

I fail to see why anyone would want to use target designated bullets on deer.

 

 

Whilst all animals react badly to bullets, if you dont use what you are supposed to in the UK and get caught, i'll bet a pound to a pinch of dog xxit that you'll end up in coiurt and have your firearms revoked to boot.

 

Is it really worth it....?

 

 

 

If you want to shoot deer at long distances, then I'd suggest using a bullet that gives you accurate performance downrange and if you cant put that said bullet within a 4' ring at the distance your shooting the animal in question to guarantee shot placement then id give up and try stalking a little closer,,,,,,,

 

 

Rant over...,

[tackb]

ok , here's an issue for you , I stalk and shoot comps with the same setup I cant use amax on deer but I can't use expanding on targets and I don't want to re-zero all the time with the potential for errors etc by using different heads ( ) the obvious solution is to get rid of the expanding bullet nonsense but that's not going to happen in case the sky falls in , so what do I do?

[Leeman]

Hornady initially designated the A.max for medium size game.Unlikely that it would result in a prosecution when their own literature recommended

A-Max for use on game.

 

My recollection is the AMAX was designed for and still is for target shooting, hence the range of calibres and bullet weights offered and the designation Advanced Match Accuracy. The fact that it seems to be an excellent choice for vermin and game (I don't shoot game so have to take on board the opinions of others here) seems to be coincidental.

[snc_2010]

For DEER you muct use bullets that conform the the requirements of the deer act.

 

A -Max, SMK, Berger VLD / Hybrid do not conform

Humour me.

 

You say A -Max, SMK, Berger VLD / Hybrid are not soft-nosed or hollow-nosed. What's your authority?

Legal authority? https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf at 3.21? Because that, noteworthily, doesn't deal with the issue.

Engineering authority? Re A-MAX, is the plastic nose as hard as the lead/copper core/jacket then?

How much softer must it be? Is it a 'nose' or is it a 'tip'? Sounds like a legal/engineering question now...

[Ronin]

ok , here's an issue for you , I stalk and shoot comps with the same setup I cant use amax on deer but I can't use expanding on targets and I don't want to re-zero all the time with the potential for errors etc by using different heads ( ) the obvious solution is to get rid of the expanding bullet nonsense but that's not going to happen in case the sky falls in , so what do I do?

 

 

 

Re zero or remember your scope settings - its what everyone else does

[Ronin]

ok , here's an issue for you , I stalk and shoot comps with the same setup I cant use amax on deer but I can't use expanding on targets and I don't want to re-zero all the time with the potential for errors etc by using different heads ( ) the obvious solution is to get rid of the expanding bullet nonsense but that's not going to happen in case the sky falls in , so what do I do?

 

 

 

Re zero or remember your scope settings - its what everyone else does

 

Humour me.

 

You say A -Max, SMK, Berger VLD / Hybrid are not soft-nosed or hollow-nosed. What's your authority?

Legal authority? https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf at 3.21? Because that, noteworthily, doesn't deal with the issue.

Engineering authority? Re A-MAX, is the plastic nose as hard as the lead/copper core/jacket then?

How much softer must it be? Is it a 'nose' or is it a 'tip'? Sounds like a legal/engineering question now...

 

 

No its sounds like someone is tyrying to confuse a manufacturing process - which creates a small hole formed when the bullet jacket is closed over the lead core to form the target orientated projectile to one that has a hollow point which is designed by the manufacturer to expand on impact.

 

Bullets with plastic tips - A max for one are perhaps soft nosed yes, but again, they are not deignated by the manufacturer to be used on large game - deer.