A-Max's now classed as 'expanding'?

[ejg223]

At least you'll all have an accurate cheap deer bullet now.

 

Maybe someone was just annoyed that 155 a-maxes could be bought for under 200 euro per 1000

on the continent.

At least you can still buy 155 nos competition from the continent, around the same price, not bad either and I bet they expand too.

edi

[achosenman]

At least you'll all have an accurate cheap deer bullet now.

 

Maybe someone was just annoyed that 155 a-maxes could be bought for under 200 euro per 1000

on the continent.

At least you can still buy 155 nos competition from the continent, around the same price, not bad either and I bet they expand too.

edi

 

Not really mate.

 

Too much expansion does too much damage. The idea is to harvest meat, not destroy half the beast. Controlled expansion is what makes a good deer bullet. I tried Berger VLD on deer when the name change occurred. They are very destructive or just zip through without doing anything. I went back to traditional expanding type bullets because you never knew whether you would blow the front off the deer, or have to track a shot deer with nothing but a pin hole both sides.

 

The cost will in all likelihood spiral since you can’t get them posted, they will go the way of all things without retail competition. The net effect is likely to be a savage drop in sales for Hornady.

 

D&C have no power to interpret the law, only a court can do that. I believe their committee have got it wrong and it needs challenging.

 

Perhaps BASC needs to get involved and this time read more than the first two lines of the act before coming to a decision.

[Predator7mm]

UK sales of Hornady bullets is insignificant compared to the main market being the domestic one.

 

So insignificant I doubt it would be noticed at all by Hornady.

[matchking]

Edgar bros the importers are still classing them as match bullets.It seems yet again local firearms department are making up the law to suit themselves.If they were classed as expanding ammo i am sure edgar bros would have been imformed by ACPO and they in turn would be imforming rfds.None of which as far as i know has happened.

Cheers sean

[garyw]

I used 52amaxs today out of my .22br shot 3 carrions-7magpies-1rabbit not a lot left of anything really, magpie feathers are quite pretty when they flutter on the breeze

match or expanding im still using them a fair few to go through

[ejg223]

Not really mate.

 

Too much expansion does too much damage. The idea is to harvest meat, not destroy half the beast. Controlled expansion is what makes a good deer bullet. I tried Berger VLD on deer when the name change occurred. They are very destructive or just zip through without doing anything. I went back to traditional expanding type bullets because you never knew whether you would blow the front off the deer, or have to track a shot deer with nothing but a pin hole both sides.

 

The cost will in all likelihood spiral since you can’t get them posted, they will go the way of all things without retail competition. The net effect is likely to be a savage drop in sales for Hornady.

 

D&C have no power to interpret the law, only a court can do that. I believe their committee have got it wrong and it needs challenging.

 

Perhaps BASC needs to get involved and this time read more than the first two lines of the act before coming to a decision.

 

You forgot one thing... A-max is not VLD

How many deer have you shot with A-max?

 

edi

[achosenman]

You forgot one thing... A-max is not VLD

How many deer have you shot with A-max?

 

edi

 

I take your point re A-Max and VLD’s mate. I know the shape is different but thin light jackets on a deer bullet make explosive meat destruction more likely than not. Nosler Ballistic Tip when they first arrived on scene gained a reputation for blowing up. So much so, that some estates in the UK banned their use. Nosler revisited the jacket design after pressure from the US hunters and the new “Hunting” versions are not supposed to suffer the same flaw.

 

I have never shot any deer with A-Max.

However I have cleared up the mess from three that were shot with 6.5 120grn (IIRC) Amax’s

 

I was guiding a guest who used a 6.5x55 Swede. When I mentioned blowing the front off a beast it was courtesy of A-Max.

Hornady say that A-Max is not suitable for medium or large game. I whole heartedly agree. The remains of all three beasts I saw taken would barley equal one normal carcass. The damage made Nosler’s original Ballistic Tip look tame.

 

ATB

[ejg223]

I take your point re A-Max and VLD’s mate. I know the shape is different but thin light jackets on a deer bullet make explosive meat destruction more likely than not. Nosler Ballistic Tip when they first arrived on scene gained a reputation for blowing up. So much so, that some estates in the UK banned their use. Nosler revisited the jacket design after pressure from the US hunters and the new “Hunting” versions are not supposed to suffer the same flaw.

 

I have never shot any deer with A-Max.

However I have cleared up the mess from three that were shot with 6.5 120grn (IIRC) Amax’s

 

I was guiding a guest who used a 6.5x55 Swede. When I mentioned blowing the front off a beast it was courtesy of A-Max.

Hornady say that A-Max is not suitable for medium or large game. I whole heartedly agree. The remains of all three beasts I saw taken would barley equal one normal carcass. The damage made Nosler’s original Ballistic Tip look tame.

 

ATB

 

Firstly I kind of laugh when experts talk about controlled expansion...and they mean that it is just as controlled at

mach3 as at mach2....even more work is put into controlled expansion of cars upon impact ...and they often can't get it right

at 30mph. Sorry I call bull. One can maybe make a bullet somewhat harder or softer that's about it. as mentioned earlier we

managed to completely fragment armour piercing tungsten carbide rounds out of a 308, how much harder would one want to go.

 

I think one must match the bullet to the speed of impact, the game and maybe even the shot placement. In certain cases A-max is ideal.

Maybe in your case the 120gr a-max at possibly 2800fps out of a 6.5 seemed to overexpand, on the other hand a lowly loaded 140a-max out of a swede at extended range could be just right on smallisch deer. Biggest problems we had was not expanding lapua mega 156gr out of a swede on smallish sika. A bullet that claims Elk capabilities @ 2400fps will not transfer much energy into a narrow sika calf through the chest. In that case one would be better off using a 223, possibly even a hornet.

 

edi

[baldie]

Shooters make half of these problems for themselves by advertising the fact that some use target bullets on deer. This argument has been aired so many times on various sites, that i dont intend to go back over it. What i have never been able to understand is why people want to use inferior peforming bullets on live animals. If the chosen bullet doesn,t work correctly and causes suffering, then you simply should not be using it, and it doesn,t matter whether is a deer bullet or a target bullet.

 

The section 5 categorisation is reputedly going to be removed in the next firearms legislation anyway. The police know its a complete waste of time, and resources, and has no bearing on public safety whatsoever.

[ejg223]

Shooters make half of these problems for themselves by advertising the fact that some use target bullets on deer. This argument has been aired so many times on various sites, that i dont intend to go back over it. What i have never been able to understand is why people want to use inferior peforming bullets on live animals. If the chosen bullet doesn,t work correctly and causes suffering, then you simply should not be using it, and it doesn,t matter whether is a deer bullet or a target bullet.

 

The section 5 categorisation is reputedly going to be removed in the next firearms legislation anyway. The police know its a complete waste of time, and resources, and has no bearing on public safety whatsoever.

 

Maybe two reasons Dave, firstly not all on this site live in the UK, secondly I have for example learned on forums that it is all down to shot placement! So... target bullets are more accurate = better shot placement.

That aside, one has to research very well if one uses a target bullet for deer (lets say outside UK) as there are very few occasions where a particullar target bullet works well for deer, most dont work well at all. If in doubt, a known hunting bullet would be the better choice.

edi

[achosenman]

Firstly I kind of laugh when experts talk about controlled expansion...and they mean that it is just as controlled at

mach3 as at mach2....even more work is put into controlled expansion of cars upon impact ...and they often can't get it right

at 30mph. Sorry I call bull. One can maybe make a bullet somewhat harder or softer that's about it. as mentioned earlier we

managed to completely fragment armour piercing tungsten carbide rounds out of a 308, how much harder would one want to go.

 

I think one must match the bullet to the speed of impact, the game and maybe even the shot placement. In certain cases A-max is ideal.

Maybe in your case the 120gr a-max at possibly 2800fps out of a 6.5 seemed to overexpand, on the other hand a lowly loaded 140a-max out of a swede at extended range could be just right on smallisch deer. Biggest problems we had was not expanding lapua mega 156gr out of a swede on smallish sika. A bullet that claims Elk capabilities @ 2400fps will not transfer much energy into a narrow sika calf through the chest. In that case one would be better off using a 223, possibly even a hornet.

 

edi

 

I don’t want to hijack this thread and I’m not sure what the thrust of your argument is. I will therefore endeavour to make this my last post on this thread regarding terminal ballistics.

 

FWIW I don’t believe anyone who has fired a firearm at live animals seriously believes controlled expansion means the same terminal ballistics at any and all impact velocity. Swift, Hornady and Nosler all publish velocity envelopes for their products. If you stay within that you are more likely (not guaranteed) to see intended design performance. Matching bullet design for the game hunted and the range shots are likely to be taken (impact velocity) is a given I would have thought.

 

Accuracy is important no argument here, but more so is shot placement. That in itself requires accuracy. I would argue a hunting bullet only has to be accurate enough at the range you typically use it to achieve correct placement, not millimetre accurate at all ranges out to beyond 1000m.

 

Nosler Partition’s expand the front section quickly and then drive through with a hard rear and give excellent results for most hunters. That’s why they are still going strong. FWIW I can’t get them to shoot straight in any rifle and use Accubond instead.

All bullets do a fair bit of damage if you drive it through a large bone, but for me all things being equal, AB’s shoot well and expand enough to deliver humane kills without destroying the carcass at the ranges I typically shoot at.

 

The VLD experiment was only tried when Berger renamed the Match VLD as "Hunting VLD" It was after I experienced less than stellar performance on deer that I discovered that it was just a name change and nothing more.

 

IMHO A-Max will not make a good cheap deer bullet for stalkers for the reasons I have already mentioned. I do agree there will be the odd situation that requires something like an A-max, but I don’t believe most stalkers encounter that scenario enough to warrant using a match bullet for everyday stalking.

 

ATB.

[Redfox]

Have to say I agree with Baldie and achosenman on this. To go on any public website and boast about using match bullets on live animals and say how well match bullets expand etc is just plain stupid and before long will bring about even more swingeing legislation and tighter regulation by Chief Constables, which will be inflicted on all of us.

For christs sake keep your opinions to yourself and/or discuss it in private, along with how to try and get round the rules as applied by individual firearms departments, go to one of the various bodies and ask for help, dont do it on a public forum.

rant over.

Redfox

[potter]

I just recently bought 200 more Amax and i havent got expanding on my ticket.

 

When you look at hornady website it is clearly labelled match (are not recommended for hunting medium & large game) and expanding (Explosive expansion, even at low velocities). I use 224 52 grains.See links.

 

first a max http://www.hornady.c...24-52-gr-A-MAX/

second v max which are expanding http://www.hornady.c...24-53-GR-V-MAX/

 

I have taken a copy of the pages for my records for if i get questioned. I also beleive its the responsibility of the rfd not to sell your products your not licienced for.

 

However saying that i can see the point about how amax and vmax look, but this is a question of competence and ensuring you manage and label your home loads. Maybe i am anal about it but each time i load i write a log which includes bullet, weight, brass etc, how many i have loaded, and i sign and date the log. This is definative proof that i am using the calibre and makes me think what i am reloading.

 

With regards the local authority, you must be able to submit evidence from hornady's website and edgar brothers to the comittee meetings. Its clearly a mistake and any sensible person should acknoledge that. http://shootingsport...AX-Bullets.aspx

 

if all else fails You could put yourself forward for the committee.

[Redfox]

The ultimate responsibility is yours no one elses to not buy/use bullets your not licensed for, not the dealer. But again after what I said above, you have gone on a public website ( that means world wide ) and admitted breaking the law!!!!, what bit of keep it to yourself do you not understand? I despair.

Redfox

[Chris-NZ]

.... It is almost beyond belief that so much time is expended, by police and by Her Majesty's subjects, having to deal with this sort of pointless moronic crap, and that someone, somewhere (Westminster anyone?) ever thought that it might improve public safety one iota to attempt to control the types of bullet we can buy freely. ...

Tony

 

 

 

I look from afar with complete incredulity.

Uninformed police deciding if you "need" a particular calibre and irrational restrictions on bullet type - shows what can happen when politicians over-react.

 

We had a mini Dunblane here but thank god, they didn't go overboard with this sort of crap

 

Chris-NZ

[Laurie]

The VLD experiment was only tried when Berger renamed the Match VLD as "Hunting VLD" It was after I experienced less than stellar performance on deer that I discovered that it was just a name change and nothing more. [achosenman]

 

That's a gross simplification of what actually happened. Berger Bullets regarded themselves as solely match and varmint bullet producers until maybe four or five years ago. Then they were aproached at the annual US SHOT Show by representatives frrom a TV 'Hunting Channel' seeking sponsorship to which Eric Stecker of Berger retorted that he didn't make 'big game hunting bullets', so why would the company sponsor deerhunting features? The answer was .... "Well actually you do. Lots of hunters are getting great results with your VLD bullets."

 

Berger made enquiries and found out this was so, it being a spin-off of the development of beanfield rifles and shooting using high velocity long-range rifles and cartridges to shoot at deer from hides across massive open beanfields - another contentious issue of course! However, they didn't just take people's word for it and repackage their bullets as suitable for 'hunting'. Eric Stecker and Michelle Gallagher approached all the top US big game shooting writers and asked what they knew, also would they be willing to try VLDs on deer and similar in all types of shooting and at all ranges. Around half said they wouldn't on the usual grounds of match bullets being unsuitable, the others agreed to give them a try but all saying they would dump them and report publicly on their being unethical if that's how things turned out. As the first winter's deer season progressed, the feedback was such that both Berger and the testers were really surprised - invariable 100% near instant kill was the response from most testers. Experince also showed it was only the VLD secant ogive type that worked - it's not just an issue of jacket thickness.

 

If you read Rifle Bullets for The Hunter ... a Definitive Study and the chapter entitled Deer Bullets by Richard Mann, he describes the Berger Hunting VLD as a fragmenting design, ie one that should normally be restricted to small game and varmints. But it works on larger game because unlike fragmenting and even normal controlled expansion bullets nothing at all happens in the first inch of travel in tissue, then it expands massively but usually retains its integrity and penetrates deeply. Extensive testing in the gelatin medium filled 'bullet tube' confirmed what Mann found in field use on wild hogs mostly in the 200lb and upwards bracket which he regards as notoriously tough quarry.

 

He says .... With the exception of a .224 caliber specialty bullet that Barnes developed for the military, the VLDs perfromed like no other bullet tested to date in The Bullet Test Tube. Every VLD penetrated a full inch before expansion was initiated. This is extremely unusual because with other bullets expansion is near instantaneous after impact. Two things possibly work together to contribute to this: the very small hollow point opening in the VLDs and the secant, as opposed to the more common tangent, ogive found in mosty expanding bullets. ...... At any rate, this 'delayed' expansion allows the VLD to put the wound cavity deep inside the animal, amd I see no reason they could not be used with success on deer. (Despite saying they obviously work, Mann still says he's unhappy at the idea of using a thin-jacketed frangible match design on animals especially when there are so many proven traditional types to choose from, so I reckon he's not a user in his own shooting.)

 

 

Around the same time, Berger started to receive complaints about in-flight break-ups of 6.5 and 7mm VLDs from cartridges like 6.5-284 and the short magnums in long-range target shooting and the decision was taken to adopt thicker jackets. Rather than replace the original designs, the company felt confident enough after two or more years of field research to split these bullets into match grade (thin jacket) Hunting and (thick jacket) Target products, the latter with a warning they shouldn't be used for 'hunting' on the box. So far as I know, only we have these idiot laws about bullet use, so if people in the USA or almost anywhere else prefer to continue with the original thin jacket form for target shooting, then there's no legal or regulatory bar to their use.

 

My heart sank when I first heard of this development as I reckoned it was only a matter of time before somebody picked the issue up and as Baldie says correctly, this was definitely a subject to avoid publicising or otherwise people with a malicious agenda will learn of it and start lobbying for ALL bullets to be banned other than FMJs and hard lead-alloy types.

 

All this is of course a nonsense anyway and there is a lot of history of people who know next to nothing about the subject pontificating out of their backsides. Remember the Vietnam war era row about the US M193 5.56x45mm 55gn FMJBT round, the killer bullet that was "designed" to tumble and cause massive cavities in flesh? The Swedish government which led the protests wanted the cartridge and bullet banned and the USA prosecuted in an international tribunal for war crimes. Have a look at

 

International Institute for Wound Ballistics

 

which says a little bit about the subject using the work of Dr M L Fackler, a retired US Army medical colonel who knows as much about gunshot and other wartime wounds as any man living having patched up thousands of injured servicemen in the Vietnam war. After leaving the army Fackler set up an institute to study wound ballistics - a large and lucrative subject in US law enforcement circles. According to the doctor, all FMJBT bullet types tumble after an inch or two of penetration and such is the stresses this places on the jacket that it fails along the cannelure, its weakest spot, causing explosive disintegration into usually three major parts and some smaller bits flying off causing multiple wound tracks and massive tissue damage. Yes the 5.56mm M193 does it but only out to 300 yards and the shorter the distance, the greater the damage, this being directly related to the terminal velocity. It is so pronounced and there is so much case data now available that US forensic pathologists routinely estimate the range involved in their reports on .223 Rem FMJ shooting victims.

 

The old Soviet M43 123gn FMJBT used in the AK47 and current Nato / Russian 5.56x45 / 5.45x39mm milspec rounds are actually worse in this respect according to Fackler. (Note - nothing to do with rifling twist rates - another red herring from know-nothing 'experts' who said the US had adopted the M16A1 rifle with a slow twist rate so its bullets would be unstable on impact!) But .... What was the worst 'offender'? Why it's our good old good-guys 7.62x51mm Nato bullet as used in its German light mild steel jacket form, and what did the human rights conscious Swedes use back in those days? ... that same 'lethal' German design!

 

Any bullet will expand, more accurately fragment, in flesh if travelling fast enough on impact - I reckon you could machine a 25 or 30gn solid tungsten alloy .204 calibre bullet and it will still 'expand' at .204 Ruger velocities on short-range hits. As several posters have pointed out, the law says that the restricted use bullets should be those designed to expand in a controlled manner - whether they do what it says on the advertising blurb or not is immaterial - it's the manufacturer's product designer's intentions and work that matter here. I still haven't seen anything that says that A-Maxes are meant to behave in this way. Also as noted, we've issued our service personnel with bullets that tumble then shatter in flesh, (which is what Hornady says the A-Max does, but on hard surfaces) but they are not designed to expand in a controlled mannner otherweise we'd have yet another reason for certain members of the legal profession to put our soldiers into the dock, and these bullets are therefore 'legal'. If they are, so is the A-Max! In fact, all modern military style FMJBTs could even be 'worse' in this respect than A-Maxes thanks to the ubiquitous use of a cannelure or crimping groove that severely weakens the jacket and encourages post-penetration break-up once tumbling is initiated!

 

Returning to Berger VLDs and this relates to fears about those holding thousands of A-Maxes that could retrospectively see their legal status changed, anybody with VLDs in .243 and larger calibres made four / five years ago own what are now sold as 'Hunting' models and put into dark red-orange boxes. At the time they were purchased, the manufacturer had not designed them to expand in a controlled manner as stated in the post-Dunblane Firearms Amendments Acts and had not tested them either. Finding they do so subsequently doesn't change the status of such bullets one iota. They were not designed, tested, marked or sold back then as expanding bullets so legally they were not then, and still are not now. Those manufactured and packaged since Berger did the work ARE legally expanding and the appropriate rules apply to them. The same tests must apply to A-Maxes, even if the Home Office / ACPO now reclassify them (unlikely anyway given the distaste for the regulations in these bodies and their openly stated desire to see the law changed at the first opportunity - the real problem here is going to be 'selling' the decriminalisation of 'Dum Dums' to that high minded guardian of the public morals and good taste, the Red-Top press as exemplified by the Murdoch family!) The reverse also applies - if a manufacturer designs and sells a bullet as 'expanding' but it is completely useless in the field and invariably exits the animal in undamaged, unexpanded form, it's still designed to exapnd and is treated as such legally.

[LONG RANGE CAPT]

Laurie,

 

Again a most excellent response to the current thread.

 

If I may add my humble view for what it's worth, - having been a regular hunter of domestic and foreign quarry for the last 20 years and having served on operational tours. In Iraq and Afghanistan, I have seen on many occasion the effect first hand of the differing types of munitions and ballistic trauma on humans and animals.

 

I feel I am able to speak with a little experience as at present my current posting involves looking after the army's injured and have been doing so since my own return from Afghanistan this year.

 

My current role means I am down at Queen Elizabeth Hospital - Birmingham and Headley Court at least twice a week and speaking to medical staff and the injured service personnel on a daily basis. I have gained a further understanding of, not only the complications with ballistic injuries, but the medium to long term effects of such wounds.

 

A lot of rubbish is spoken with regard to FMJ's being compliant with the "rules of war" and "Dum Dums" being well, the morally incorrect ammunition. And much of these opinions are ill-informed and lack credibility. As Laurie talked about.

 

If your hit with either your in a hole lot of trouble.

 

Setting aside the many variables of bullet flight path, weight of round, type of munition, if the round has ricocheted, smashed into bone, created secondary ballistic fragments, or any other variable.

 

If a human is hit in the chest or upper torso with a FMJ or expanding round. The only thing thats going to have a chance, of saving that individual, is if that shot has been lucky not to hit a major organ, or a trained team medic that can keep them alive till a very experienced group of Dr's and nurses in a specialist trauma bay, such as the one in Camp Bastion.

 

While I accept that the human biology is different from that of the many types of legal quarry. And there are many a story's of animals being wounded by hunters and dying at a later stage or being left to suffer, from misplaced shots.

 

The question of "A-Max's being re-classed" is ultimately about our comical and politically driven firearms laws and little or nothing to do with common sense of scientific/medical findings or of what is of benefit to hunting and animal management.

 

For those with an further interest in ballistic injury some further reading may be of interest, however don't view if you have a weak constitution.

 

The article does cover on wounds with FMJ's and shows separation from bullet and core.

 

http://www.nighttiger.net/gunshot-wounds/centerfire-rifle-wounds.html

 

 

Kind Regards

 

Rob

[achosenman]

Lauri I am aware of the testing Berger did, including the hunt in NZ.

 

FWIW I have an e-mail from Eric Stecker on my computer.

That e-mail clearly states that the only design change to the Berger Match 270 VLD was a name change and their reasons for doing so.

He was kind enough to send me a few “yellow boxes” of VLD’s through the post. I found from personal experience that sometimes they did something unacceptable on deer (Fallow and Red) and this made their continued use as a deer bullet unacceptable for me in most situations. I now use them only for practice, which is a shame since they shoot so well.

 

I am also aware of the design characteristics of modern military ball ammunition and how they get the results they do and why they do it. E.G, a wounded man ties up much more precious resource than policing a dead body, then pushing on with the objective. However none of that really matters since most medium and large game animals are very much tougher to kill/incapacitate than humans.

 

So to sum up, it was a name change and nothing more. I found the results to be unpredictable and so stopped using them. I’m not sure how that is a gross oversimplification?

Having a bullet disintegrate in the chest cavity sounds wonderful, but that's only as long as the inch of none expanded penetration gets you into the chest cavity. Stalking hardly ever offers a classic broadside angle and therefore a controlled expansion projectile performs more consistently than a high velocity grenade. Not withstanding that, the damage to the carcass can condemn the beast once you get it back to the larder and look inside…not funny and expensive.

 

ATB.

[kent]

Laurie,

An incerdible amount of reading and research went into that post. The only flaw might just be how diligent the producers of that data you relied on were. I have had a complete obsesion on the terminal effects of the ammuntion types i use on quarry. Only two things can be said for sure. Interesting non the less, i have the book you speak of it has a lot of very interesting stuff in it but seems awfully like a sales pitch in sections you can almost hear the catchy yet mildly annoying theame tune in the background

 

1. Many things effect how a bullet behaves. Impact speed and what it encouters on its path being critical

 

2. the best blets are the ones that have the most predictable resultsul. i have found non that will always do anything

[Chris-NZ]

Just searched and here is the article!

 

http://www.bergerbullets.com/Information/Barsness%20Article.pdf

 

I have to disagree about how tough feral goats are. I harvest them regularly for catfood with just a std .223 and 50 grainers. Any decent shot through the boiler room will do the trick but I limit myself to roughly 200yds.

 

Chris-NZ

[Gunsgobang88]

Gents,

 

Just had a club member on the phone. He went to order some some more 155g A-Max;s from his usual gun shop to be told they cannot supply them as they are now classed as expanding. He called Devon and Cornwall firearms dept to be told that this is the case and they cannot be used for range use as per his license. He went back to them with details of the difference between 'A' and 'V' Max but to no avail.

 

Before I go calling them on Tuesday has anyone else come across this?

 

Cheers

 

Terry

 

Hi,

 

Spoke to the new manager of Surrey Firearms Licensing and his deputy over the weekend, much more approachable and reasonable than the old regime. There opinion was that if a bullet is sold for target shooting purposes and not designed to expand in a CONTROLLED fashion than the issue of expanding bullets or ammunition does not arise. The only problem would be if Hornady recommended the A-Max as suitable for game shooting,

 

Regards to all,

 

Alan

[shotgun sam]

A Max can be sent by post as they are not classed as section 5

[shotgun sam]

I contacted BASC this morning Amax is still classed as target ammo.

[brown dog]

I contacted BASC this morning Amax is still classed as target ammo.

 

 

Consolidating this into 1 thread. Locking this one. Please continue here: http://ukvarminting.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12681&pid=106861&st=20entry106861